Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-25 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: January 25, 2018 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. Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair City Official Reports 1.Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments for 2018 Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 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 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 526 Waverley Street [17PLN-00454]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of Façade Restoration and Associated Historic Designation Reclassification From a Local Historic Resource Category III to a Category II Historic Resource. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 (Historical Resource Rehabilitation). For More Information Contact the Historic Planner Emily Vance at emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Discussion and Recommendation of the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the City Council Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 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. 4.Historic Resources Board Draft Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2017 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 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 # 8868) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/25/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2018 HRB Meeting Schedule and Assignments Title: Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments for 2018 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: 2018 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (PDF) 2018 Schedule  Historic Resources Board  Meeting Schedule & Assignments  Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned  1/11/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled   1/25/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   2/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Retreat/Fieldtrip   2/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   3/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   3/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   4/12/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers        Regular 4/26/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   5/10/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   5/24/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   6/14/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/28/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   7/12/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/26/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   8/9/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   8/23/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   9/13/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   9/27/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   10/11/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   10/25/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   11/9/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   11/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled   12/13/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular   12/27/2018 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 # 8841) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/25/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 526 Waverley: Facade Restoration and Proposed Historic Reclassification Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 526 Waverley Street [17PLN-00454]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of Façade Restoration and Associated Historic Designation Reclassification From a Local Historic Resource Category III to a Category II Historic Resource. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 (Historical Resource Rehabilitation). For More Information Contact the Historic Planner Emily Vance at emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and review the proposed façade restoration for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Restoration (SISR) and applicable Architectural Review (AR) finding; 2. Assess whether the proposed changes would merit elevation of the building’s local inventory historic category from 3 to 2; and 3. Provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (PCE) on whether the proposed façade renovation and/or the requested reclassification should be approved. Report Summary This report is to support the HRB’s discussion of the façade restoration of 526 Waverly and the requested reclassification of the building from a Category 3 to Category 2 historic resource on the local inventory. The reclassification is contingent upon the proposed façade restoration’s City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Restoration, retention of the building’s integrity, and the building’s consistency with the definition of a Category 2 building in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.49.020(b). The HRB’s duties, set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.27.040, include:  informing staff (acting on behalf of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for minor projects) of the historical and/or architectural significance of buildings designated as significant outside of Downtown, and  providing recommendations regarding proposed exterior alterations of significant historic structures. Staff has summarized the project’s compliance with SISR and requests the HRB’s careful attention to tilework and storefronts. This minor project will be reviewed by staff for compliance with the Architectural Review findings (Attachment F) and action following HRB review. Background According to the description on the inventory form (Attachment A), 526 Waverley was added to the local inventory on September 18, 1989 as a Category 3 historic resource. The property owner and the project architect met with staff on August 4, 2017, to explore the possibility of reclassifying the building from Category 3 to Category 2 related to a proposal for rehabilitation and preliminary concepts for adding three or more upper-floor residential units to the building. A Category 2 resource is eligible to participate in the CD-zone bonus floor area program. The owner provided staff with a Preliminary Historic Assessment (Attachment B), existing building drawings (Attachment C), and information regarding assessments for 34 parking spaces not provided for the existing floor area. HRB Study Session The staff report for the August 24, 2017 HRB Study Session regarding the façade improvements and historic designation elevation of 526 Waverley is attached to this report (Attachment D) and minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment H. The HRB’s discussion resulted in a determination that the overall goals of the project include:  Restore the façade and the previously lost character-defining features,  Add new housing units in a sensitive and reasonable way,  Determine a period of significance for the restoration,  Approval of restoration plans and the reclassification can be accomplished at the same HRB meeting, and  Reclassification would be contingent on completed work. On December 15, 2017, an Architectural Review application was submitted for a commercial remodel and façade restoration of 526 Waverley Street (Attachment E). Exterior work includes City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 the removal of modern brick finish and the restoration of various original architectural features including, but not limited to, ironwork, entry arches, wood lintel and tilework. Due to its listing on the local inventory and located within the Downtown Area, the property would be considered a “Group A” resource and would be subject to historic review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB). The current application does not include a proposal for changes to the floor plan, other than the restoration of historic recessed entryways, or an increase in the size of the building. If the façade restoration is approved and the building can be elevated to a Category 2 historic resource, then the site may be eligible for a floor area bonus (contingent upon discretionary review and approval) pursuant to Section 18.18.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Discussion Façade Restoration The building at 526-534 Waverley Street was built in 1927 and was the home of the Hoffacker family, who operated Palo Alto Sport Shop for almost 90 years. The building was designed by Birge Clark, generally considered Palo Alto’s most important historic architect and the city’s master of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. 526 Waverley was built by Wells Goodenough, the contractor on most of Clark’s early projects who was known for the highly skilled carpenters on his team. Many Spanish Revival elements remain, including the red tile roof trim, arched cornice detailing and the natural, earthy tones. A Preliminary Historic Assessment (Attachment B), performed by Sarah Hahn of Architectural Resource Group, describes the timeline of alterations to the building, the most disruptive changes having occurred in the late 1940s. Many of Clark’s original decorative details have been lost over time including ironwork, balconies, arched entryways, wood lintels and decorative tilework. The property owner intends to restore these elements and the façade based on historic photographs (Attachment F) and Birge Clark’s original 1927 elevations (Attachment E), which were located in the Birge Clark Archive at the Hoover Institute. The National Park Service identifies four distinct approaches to the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction. For this project, the most appropriate treatment would be restoration which is the process of depicting “a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods.” In this case, this means the removal of modern brick façade, likely added in the late 1940s or 1950s, and the restoration of original architectural elements using other intact commercial buildings designed by Clark as a guide to bring the building back to its 1927 appearance. This is an appropriate treatment when just considering the façade restoration and no other potential building projects. Staff supports the restoration of the façade as indicated in the submitted plans: removal of applied siding and non-original trim, removal of brick finish, restoration of window grille to the northernmost window on second story, restoration of iron balconies, restoration of plaster trim, brackets and wood lintel and restoration of entryways to original storefront. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Additionally, two sets of French doors were located on the second floor with iron balconies. Both sets of doors have since been removed and multiplane windows inserted in their place. The restoration of the two sets of doors may not be necessary in order to achieve Category 2 status (see below for further discussion). Public Works Engineering has submitted comments relating to the encroachment of the balcony and decorative feature over the public right of way (Attachment G). Additional information and study is needed to ensure the balcony and architectural feature projection is compliant with the California Building Code. Historic Designation Elevation According to its inventory form, 526 Waverley was added to the local inventory on September 18, 1989 as a Category 3 resource. A Category 3 resource is defined as a “contributing building,” which means “any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco” (PAMC 16.49.020). Due to the heavy modifications of the storefront and the loss of original material and designs, 526 Waverley in its current state has lost a significant amount of integrity. A Category 2 resource is defined as a “Major building” which means “any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained” (PAMC 16.49.020). Birge Clark has already been established as one of Palo Alto’s premier architects and many of his buildings have been designated Categories 1 and 2, including his work within the Ramona Street Architectural District. With the proposed restoration, it is staff’s opinion that the building would once again possess its original character and rise to the level of Category 2 designation. This would be possible even if the French doors on the second floor were not restored due to the fact that the windows would be mostly concealed behind restored iron balconies and that a Category 2 designation allows for “some exterior modifications.” Any future signage or development at the subject site would be subject to future Architectural Review and Historic Review applications. The site is also subject to the Citywide Retail Preservation Ordinance and is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Analysis Staff supports the restoration of 526 Waverley’s façade to its original 1927 appearance and finds that the proposed changes would meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Restoration but would require HRB approval and guidance (see below). The restoration would also allow for the building’s historic status to be raised to a Category 2, based on definitions City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 found in PAMC 16.49.020. Staff would support a change to the historic category designation after the completion and inspection of approved work, to be done at a staff-level. The SOI Standards for Restoration Analysis 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that interprets the property and its restoration period. ☒CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: Building will continue to be used as commercial space. 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The remaining materials and features from the original 1927 building include the red roof tile, decorative stucco cornice and three-bay façade, all of which will be retained and preserved. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The elements being restored, including plaster trim, decorative iron balconies and grilles and tilework, are all being drawn from nearby commercial buildings designed by Birge Clark around the same time. 4. Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: Submittals include existing elevations and photo-documentation of current conditions as well as a preliminary historic assessment which provided additional historic context. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The remaining character-defining materials and features from the original 1927 building include the red roof tile, decorative stucco cornice and three-bay façade, all of which will be retained and preserved. 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The SOI Standards for Restoration Analysis than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Explanation: The project does not propose to repair or replace any features due to deterioration. The red tile roof and stucco appears to be in good condition and will not require replacement. 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: Restoration of the façade will be based on historic photographs and original elevations that were prepared by Birge Clark. 8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The project does not include chemical or intrusive physical treatments. 9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: No subsurface work is proposed. However, if archaeological resources are encountered, the project shall be required to comply with applicable federal and State regulations regarding the discovery and disposition of archeological resources, which may include protection, preservation, and/or other mitigation measures as appropriate 10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: No conjectural features will be added as all features and designs are based on historic photographs or original architectural elevations. Architectural Review Findings The Architectural Review Findings in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 are provided as Attachment F. The HRB may wish to provide comments with respect to Architectural Review Finding 2b, which has a focus on historic resources: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 “The project has a unified and coherent design…that preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant.” Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 19, 2018, which is 7 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 16, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the HRB meeting. Environmental Review A reclassification and rehabilitation project is subject to assessment in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. A reclassification and rehabilitation project is Exempt from CEQA Section 15331, Historical Resource Rehabilitation. A minor alteration, if proposed, may be exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Table the discussion to a later date. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Vance, Historic Preservation Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2336 emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: 526 Waverley Inventory Form (PDF)  Attachment B: 526 Waverley Preliminary Assessment (2017) (PDF)  Attachment C: 526 Waverley Existing Elevations (PDF)  Attachment D: HRB Report from August 24, 2017 without attachments (PDF)  Attachment E: Historic Photos 526 Waverley Street (PDF)  Attachment F: Architecture Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment G: Public Works Engineering Comments (PDF)  Attachment H: HRB August 24 2017 Minutes Excerpt 526 Waverley (DOCX)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Memorandum To: John R. Shenk Thoits Bros., Inc. 629 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project: 526-534 Waverley Street – Preliminary Assessment Project No.: 17124 Date: 5 July 2017 Via: Email From: Sarah Hahn, Senior Architectural Historian INTRODUCTION ARG has prepared this Preliminary Assessment memorandum at the request of Thoits Bros., Inc. (Client) for the property at 526-534 Waverley Street in Palo Alto, California. Designed by Birge Clark and completed in 1927, the building was the home of the locally owned and family operated Palo Alto Sport Shop for almost 90 years. The property is currently listed as a Category 3 building on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory. The Client has requested this preliminary evaluation to determine whether the property could qualify as a Category 2 resource, which would allow for certain development benefits. This memo provides a preliminary evaluation of potential historical significance for the subject property under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Designation and Category definitions. This memo does not present a full Historic Resource Evaluation for the building and is not intended for submittal to City agencies as such. METHODOLOGY To complete this memorandum, ARG performed limited historical background research on the subject property and completed a site visit to examine existing conditions in June 2017. ARG visited the Palo Alto Development Services Department to collect available building permit records, and the Palo Alto Historical Association to obtain historical background materials. A summary of the research and site visit findings is provided in this memo to support the preliminary analysis of historical significance. 526-534 WAVERLEY STREET HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Palo Alto Although the land was once occupied by the Ohlone and later part of vast Spanish land grants, modern- day Palo Alto was formed in the late 1800s by Leland and Jane Stanford, the founders of Stanford University. The Stanfords “decided that the new university should have an accompanying college town to 2 provide a clean-living place for student housing and other services.”1 After both the neighboring towns of Menlo Park and Mayfield refused to stop serving alcohol, Stanford decided to create his own dry town and called it University Park. In contemporary advertisements, the area was described as “a tract of beautiful oak-park land, immediately opposite and adjoining the grounds of the Leland Stanford Junior University.”2 The land was “subdivided into villa blocks, comprising about five acres each… in the most artistic manner, with broad avenues intersecting each other at picturesque angles.”3 University Park officially became Palo Alto in 1892. By the turn of the twentieth century, Palo Alto was a developing town that “had solved many of the basic problems of survival by installing an efficient water system, paving the roads, establishing schools, developing sewage management, and other municipal functions.”4 Sanborn Maps dating to 1901 indicate the area directly surrounding the future site of the subject property consisted of lots developed primarily with one- to two-story dwellings and a few churches. A one-story dwelling occupied the subject lot. By 1924, University Avenue – just northeast of the subject property – had become the city’s primary commercial corridor, and the one-story residence still occupied the subject lot. This residence was demolished or otherwise removed from the site to allow for construction of the subject property in 1927. The 1949 Sanborn shows the Palo Alto Sport Shop at 526-534 Waverley Street as a two-story commercial building with a one-story bicycle repair area at the rear of the building. The remainder of the block contained commercial and retail properties along University Avenue, Bryant, and Waverley Streets. Two churches, a social hall, a commercial building and several dwellings lined Hamilton Avenue. 526-534 Waverley Street The subject property at 526-534 Waverley Street was constructed in 1927. Bernard J. Hoffacker commissioned the design from architect Birge Clark, and W.P Goodenough was in charge of construction. (Bernard Hoffacker was the father of Edward Hoffacker Sr., who established business enterprises in the building.) The property originally contained three separate commercial spaces, occupied in the first two decades by the Palo Alto Sport Shop and the Palo Alto Realty Company – both owned by Edward Hoffacker, at 526 and 534 Waverley, respectively. The 530 Waverley space housed a bakery (Home Food Shoppe) through the late 1930s, and was later occupied by Stanford Electric Works. In 1948-49, the building was remodeled, and the Palo Alto Sport Shop expanded into all areas of the building. Prior to moving to Palo Alto, Edward Hoffacker Sr. had worked in the insurance business in San Francisco. After arriving in the area, Hoffacker established the Palo Alto Realty Company, which he ran through the late 1940s. With a desire to establish a business his sons could grow, Hoffacker also established the Palo Alto Sport Shop in the late 1920s.5 In 1946, Edward Hoffacker Sr. retired and passed management of the business to his sons, Bernhard (Bern) and Edward (Ed) Hoffacker Jr.6 1 Pamela Gullard and Nancy Lund, History of Palo Alto: The Early Years, (San Francisco: Scottwall Associates, 1989), 83. 2 Ibid., 85. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., 137. 5 “Enlarged P.A. Sport Shop to hold Open House Tonight,” Palo Alto Times, 17 May 1949. 6 “Hoffacker Sons Succeed Father in Sports Shop,” Palo Alto Times, 18 January 1946. 3 In 1948, the Hoffacker family announced an expansion plan for the business. Since opening, the Palo Alto Sport Shop had occupied the retail space at 526 Waverley Street and 534 Waverley had housed the Palo Alto Realty Company; the Hoffackers owned both businesses. The family planned to take over the neighboring retail space at 530 Waverley Street - previously occupied by the Stanford Electric Works – and double the size of the store. According to the Palo Alto Times: When stocked with wheel goods and toys, the concern will be the largest of its kind in Palo Alto. The present repair shop – for servicing bicycles, motor scooters and other wheel goods – also will be enlarged.7 To celebrate completion of the $30,000 expansion, the family hosted an open house on the evening of May 17, 1949. At the time, the store was the largest of its kind on the Peninsula. Merchandise included firearms, fishing and tackle, toys, motor scooters, bicycles, sports clothing, athletic goods, and archery supplies. The store also operated a repair shop for bicycles, motor scooters, and lawn mowers.8 In 1956, Ed and Bern Hoffacker opened a new store called Midtown Toy World in Palo Alto, which carried both toys and sporting goods.9 Figure 1. Newspaper advertisements for the post-expansion grand opening event (Palo Alto Times, May 1949). 7 “Sport Shop Expansion Announced,” Palo Alto Times, 5 October 1948. 8 “Enlarged P.A. Sport Shop to hold Open House Tonight,” Palo Alto Times, 17 May 1949. 9 “New Stores are Opening in P.A., MP,” Palo Alto Times, 15 August 1956. 4 The Palo Alto Sport Shop was one of a small number of family-run businesses to survive into the 21st century. The business, and the Hoffacker family themselves, played a notable role in the local community by supporting, and sometimes funding, local youth sports programs and competitions. They assisted several local non-profits and provided a first-time work experience to hundreds of local teenagers.10 The Palo Alto Sport Shop was in continuous operation at 526 Waverley Street from 1930 to 2017, when it went out of business after 87 years. Alterations The subject property was constructed in 1927 and is currently vacant. Below is a brief overview of major alterations over time: • 1927 – Original construction • 1948 – Expansion of Sport Shop to include 530 and 534 Waverley retail spaces • 1949 – Drive-in service area added to rear of store (painted red and green)11 • 1971 – Reroof • 1998 – Remodel existing mezzanine, restrooms, dressing rooms, and rear exit for accessibility; install elevator Figure 2. Original Birge Clark drawing, 526 Waverley, c.1925 (Stanford Atlas, online). 10 Bill Shilstone, “Just a Family Business, Serving the Community, Making a Difference,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, 6 June 1990. 11 Palo Alto Times, 28 October 1949. 5 In addition to the alterations noted above, visual observation indicates that each of the three entrances have been fully reconfigured, including the conversion of the central entrance to a storefront window. The pediment above the northeastern entrance has been removed, as have the decorative corner brackets at the entry opening. The decorative corner brackets and header beam originally at the central entrance have been covered or removed, and the rounded archway at the northeastern entrance has been squared off. The original tilework and storefront assemblies have also been removed and replaces. The wrought iron balconies at the second levels of both the central and northeastern bay are no longer intact, and the full-height French doors at each location modified into windows. Figure 3. Undated photo (Palo Alto Weekly, September 2005). Figure 4. Existing conditions photo (ARG, June 2017). Birge Clark The son of Arthur B. Clark – a noted architect in his own right – and Grace Clark, Birge was born on April 16, 1893 in San Francisco. His parents had moved to Palo Alto the year before when Arthur began a professorship at Stanford University teaching architecture and art. Birge himself studied architecture at Stanford University and later at Columbia University. He earned a Silver Star for gallantry in World War I, after which he returned home to Palo Alto, where he enjoyed a successful career as an architect. Clark resided in Palo Alto until his death on April 30, 1989. Over the course of his prolific career, Birge Clark was considered by many to be the “man who built Palo Alto.” When he opened his practice in 1922, Birge was only one of two licensed architects between San José and San Francisco.12 His early works include the Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover House (1920) at 12 Dave Weinstein, Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area (Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2006), 70. 6 Stanford University, for which his father Arthur was the head architect, and several cottages on the school’s campus. Clark also received the commission for the U.S. Post Office in Palo Alto, which was completed in 1933. Many of Clark’s designs are in the “Early California” style – his version of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Birge Clark’s architectural contributions to Palo Alto cannot be understated, having designed over four hundred residential and commercial buildings in Palo Alto and the surrounding area.13 Examples of Birge Clark buildings in Palo Alto include: • 323 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1925 (Category 2) • 544 Emerson Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 4) • 415-419 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 3) • 528-530 Ramona Street, Commercial building, 1926 (Category 2) • 532-536 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 2) • 668 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 2) • 628-630 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1927 (Category 2) • 436-440 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1927 (Category 2) • 460 - 476 University Avenue, Commercial/Office Building, 1927 (Category 3) • 261 Hamilton Avenue, Commercial/Office building, 1927 (Category 3) • Police and Fire Station, 450 Bryant Street, 1927 (Category 2) • The Misses Sterns House, 1950/1990 Cowper, 1930 (Category 1) • Palo Alto Post Office, 380 Hamilton, 1932 (Category 1, Listed on National Register) • Palo Alto Medical Clinic, 300 Homer Avenue, 1932 (Category 2) • Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road, 1935 (Category 1) CITY OF PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY Criteria for Designation The City of Palo Alto has identified the following criteria, along with the definitions of historic categories and districts in Section 16.49.020 (see below), to be used as criteria for designating additional historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory: 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; 2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; 3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; 4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; 5. The architect or building was important; 13 ARG, “Historic Resource Evaluation: 450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA” (23 June 2016). 7 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.14 Categories The City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The Inventory is organized under the following four Categories:  Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.  Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.  Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION The subject property may be eligible as a local historic resource under Criterion 1 and 4 of the Criteria for Designation shown above. The building at 526-534 Waverley Street was owned and operated by the Hoffacker family for almost 90 years. The Hoffackers played a publically active role in the community by supporting local sports organizations and non-profits. The family-owned small business, now a rarity in Palo Alto and elsewhere, was a much-loved destination for local residents. One newspaper article noted an octogenarian who had been a customer since she was one year old. Regarding the Categories listed above, the building would not qualify as a Category 2 building for architectural merits. Further, modifications over time have resulted in an appearance that does not fully represent the original design. However, with properties that are significant for association with events and people, physical and design integrity are less important that if the property were significant as an outstanding example of an architectural style. For this reason, it may be possible to achieve reclassification status as a Category 2 building, but it would depend on the current interpretation of how the Classification Categories are to be used. ARG recommends that the Client share this memo with the current historic preservation planner at the City of Palo Alto to attain guidance on next steps. 14 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 “Historic Preservation”. 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 1 | Appendix A Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs Front Elevation Front Elevation 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 2 | Appendix A Store entry/storefront window 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 3 | Appendix A Front view along Waverley Street 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 4 | Appendix A View of interior through front window View of interior through front window MEZZANINE Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 STREET LEVEL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 16 ' - 1 0 " SECTION THROUGH BUILDING Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"3 Waverley 526 WAVERLEY Randolph B. Popp 2 1 0 H i g h S t r e e t Palo Alto, CA 94301 6 5 0 . 4 2 7 . 0 0 2 6 info@rp -arch.com w w w.r p -arch.com A R C H I T E C T No t e : Ca l c u l a t e d a r e a s t a k e n f r o m s c a n n e d a r c h i v e d r a w i n g s . P r e c i s e m e a s u r e m e n t s m u s t b e v e r i f i e d . Existing Space Mezzanine to exterior face of exterior wall 3,143 sf Ground Level to exterior face of exterior wall 5,815 sf Historic Resources Board   Staff Report (ID # 8374)           Report Type:  Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017  City of Palo Alto     Planning & Community Environment      250 Hamilton Avenue       Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650) 329‐2442  Summary Title:  STUDY SESSION: Historic Designation for 526 Waverley  Title: STUDY SESSION: Historic Resources Board  Review of a  Proposed Reclassification of the Birge Clark Designed 1927  Building at 526 Waverley in Downtown Palo Alto, from  Category 3 on the City's Historic Inventory to Category 2, Prior  to Application for Preliminary Architectural Review for Historic  Rehabilitation and Potential Upper Floor Addition for  Residential Use.   Zone District: CD‐C(GF)(P).   Environmental  Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality  Act per Sections 15331 Historical Resource Rehabilitation  From: Hillary Gitelman    Recommendation   Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s):  1. Discuss the existing historic designation for 526 Waverley, known as the Palo Alto Sport   Shop, and discuss the potential reclassification, and   2. Recommend the applicant pursue the reclassification and submit a Preliminary   Architectural Review application to allow the HRB, ARB and City Council to appreciate   the scope of work to rehabilitate and add to the building.     Report Summary   This report is to support the HRB’s discussion of a potential reclassification of the Palo Alto  Sport Shop from Category 3 to Category 2 on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory  associated with a potential building rehabilitation and addition of residential housing units.  A  reclassification to Category 2 would be based on a building’s retention of the seven aspects of  historic integrity as defined by the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, and consistency  with the definition of a Category 2 building in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.49.020(b).    Background   City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 2      The property’s listing on the City’s Inventory dates back to the 1970’s (Attachment A). Historic  photos of the building are provided in Attachment B, and an Architectural Review Board staff  report from 1998 related to exterior and interior building modifications is provided as  Attachment C.    The property owner and his architect met with staff on August 4, 2017, to explore the  possibility of reclassifying the building from Category 3 to Category 2 related to a proposal for  rehabilitation and preliminary concepts for adding upper‐floor residential units to the building.   The owner provided staff with an Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment D), existing building  drawings (Attachment E), and information regarding assessments for 34 spaces parking not  provided for the existing floor area.  The parking information is from the 2001 Parking  Assessment District document, which noted existing floor area of 8,752 sf and one parking  space that appeared to be provided at rear.  The then‐owner paid for the remaining 34 stalls as  part of the 2001 assessment district.    Discussion   If the HRB is in support of reclassification, the applicant can submit a formal application for  reclassification, either separately or in conjunction with an application for Preliminary  Architectural Review, at which time the HRB can recommend that the City Council reclassify the  building based on retention of the seven aspects of historic integrity as defined by the National  Register Criteria for Evaluation, and consistency with the definition of a Category 2 building in  PAMC Section 16.49.020(b), “A 'Major Building’ of regional importance. These buildings are  meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or  illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region.”    Once the applicant submits a formal proposal for rehabilitation, the HRB can recommend that  the Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment find  that the proposed scope of rehabilitation meets the definition of "historic rehabilitation" set  forth in Municipal Code 18.18.030(b) (Attachment F) and that the historic rehabilitation plan  complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for  Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.  The HRB can recommend conditions of approval related to the  rehabilitation as part of the approval conditions for a formal Architectural Review application.    Analysis     The building at 526‐534 Waverley Street was built in 1927 and was the home of the Hoffacker  family, who operated Palo Alto Sport Shop for almost 90 years.  The building was designed by  Birge Clark, generally considered Palo Alto’s most important historic architect and the city’s  master of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The builder was Wells Goodenough, who was the  contractor on most of Clark’s early projects and was known for the highly skilled carpenters on  his team.  Many Spanish Revival elements remain, including the red tile roof trim, arched  cornice detailing and the natural, earthy tones.    The building is eligible for listing on Palo Alto’s local inventory under criteria 1, 5 and possibly 6:  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 3         1.  The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important  events in the city, state or nation;   5.   The architect or building was important; and  6.   The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to  architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.    Currently, 526‐534 Waverley would not meet the requirements for the Category 2 designation  as a significant amount of architectural integrity has been lost over the years.  However, the  proposed rehabilitation project and restoration of the primary façade to its period of  significance could change that.  The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Restoration states  “restoration is defined as the act of process of accurately depicting the form, features, and  character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of  features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the  restoration period.  The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing  systems and other code‐required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a  restoration project.”    The restoration of the storefront to its original configuration and the return of previously  removed architectural details (corner brackets, wrought iron window coverings, arched entries,  etc.) based on historic plans and photographs would possibly allow for the elevation of the  building to a Category 2 designation.      Environmental Review  A reclassification and rehabilitation project is subject to assessment in accordance with the  authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State  CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City.  A reclassification and  rehabilitation project is Exempt from CEQA Section 15331, Historical Resource Rehabilitation. A  minor alteration, if proposed, may be exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities.      Next Steps  The property owner may submit a formal request for reclassification of the building to Category  2.  Because the owner is interested in rehabilitation and a major addition to the existing  building, the owner is encouraged to submit a Preliminary Review application to indicate what  is proposed.  Staff would review the application against National Register Criteria and Municipal  Code Category 2 definition and return to the HRB.    Alternative Actions   In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may:   1. Postpone further discussion until the applicant submits a Preliminary Architectural  Review application for discussion by the HRB.  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 4          Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information  Emily Vance, Historic Preservation Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official  (650) 617‐3125 (650) 329‐2336  emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org    Attachments:   Attachment A: Inventory form (PDF)   Attachment B: Historic Photos 526 Waverley Street (DOCX)   Attachment C: HRB 1998 Staff_Report_BODS (PDF)   Attachment D: 526 Waverley_Prelim Assmt_5 July 2017 (1) (PDF)   Attachment E: Waverley_Existing (PDF)   Attachment F: PAMC Chapter 18‐18 Excerpt 18.18.030 (PDF)                                                          1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org   526 Waverley Street (1946) 526 Waverley Street (unknown date) Attachment F Architectural Review Findings 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district d. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Page 1 of 2 Development Review - Department Comments City Department: Public Works Engineering Staff Contact: Paige Safe, Engineer (650)329-2446 Paige.Safe@cityofpaloalto.org Date: 1/8/2018 Project Address/File #: 526 Waverley St/17PLN-00454 A. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to Planning entitlement approval: 1. Per the survey provided, the existing building roof appears to encroach 1.5 feet into the right-of- way. The sections provided on A3.1 show the proposed balconies extending further out than the roof. Please provide property line location and dimensions from the ground and from the property line to confirm proposed encroachments into the right-of-way are in compliance with California Building Code Chapter 32 Encroachments into the Public Right-Of-Way. As shown on plans, compliance with this code section cannot be confirmed. 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: 1. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 2. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650- Page 2 of 2 496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 3. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 4. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 5. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 6. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 7. LOGISTICS PLAN & ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. If use of the right-of-way is required to perform the proposed work, applicant will need to obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to do so. The sidewalk shall be kept open and accessible at all times. If sidewalk closure is needed to perform this work, the applicant must work with Public Works and Transportation to obtain approval for an ADA accessible alternate walkway to maintain pedestrian access during construction. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Martin Bernstein, Vice Chair Bower; Board Member Wimmer, Beth Bunnenberg, Roger Kohler, Brandon Corey, Michael Makinen 3. STUDY SESSION: Historic Resources Board Review of a Proposed Reclassification of the Birge Clark Designed 1927 Building at 526 Waverley in Downtown Palo Alto, from Category 3 on the City's Historic Inventory to Category 2, Prior to Application for Preliminary Architectural Review for Historic Rehabilitation and Potential Upper Floor Addition for Residential Use. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 Historical Resource Rehabilitation Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is a study session for a historic designation for 526 Waverley. Study session review of a proposed reclassification on a Birge Clark design building, 1927, from Category Three to Category Two. Any staff comments? Ms. French: Yes, I’ll just say that we do not have an application for designation or upgrade, I should say, from Category Three to Category Two. This came about with the conversation that we had with the owner and Randy Pop who is here in the room, regarding the possibilities for this building that the owner recently acquired. I’ll Emily answer questions or describe next steps as far as based on what the HRB’s comments are, thanks. Chair Bernstein: Emily, welcome. Oh, I thought the – ok, great. Alright, this is a study session and let me just ask, are there any members of the public who would like to speak to us on this? Seeing none. Board Member comments regarding this project – this study session. Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: I would like to see some really careful thinking in terms of being able to reclassify this from a – the Palo Alto Sports and Toy from a Category Three to a Category Two. Clearly over the years, particularly, there have been changes in the ground floor spaces as needs came along and this happens a great deal to many buildings. I would like to see the possibility of returning it to the – more of the original state and returning the iron work and seeing if we couldn’t make it possible to be a Category Two. Chair Bernstein: Alright. Historic Planner Vance. Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Good morning everyone. That’s a great point Board Member Bunnenberg about restoring it to an earlier state. So just a little background on the project before we dive into maybe some more questions. We all know that there are essentially, -- the National Parks Service has four treatments for historic resources; that would-be preservation which is kind of maintaining the building the way that it is. Rehabilitation which is what we mostly see which involves additions and adaptive reuse. Reconstruction, which is totally new construction and then this situation would be restoration. So, that the – essentially the project would be returning the building to a specific period in time and removing any appropriate addition or alterations so this would be considered a proper restoration project, which we don’t really see as many of those. I just want to clear up exactly what the project would be doing. They haven’t determined what time period of what features they want to remove or add. Currently, due to all of the alternations and the state of the building, it would more than likely not HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING EXCERPT MINUTES: August 24, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 meet the criteria for Category Two. However, with the project and all of the work that they are planning on doing and with the careful guidance of the HRB and staff, it very well could meet two. So, we’re here to discuss the feasibility of it meeting the criteria for Category Two. Ms. French: I might add on packet page 87, there are two images of this building. One with some kind of widened people at the bottom that look like there – it’s from an earlier age. It has some iron work on the window on the second floor and then the one above, which is also reflected on the screen here, that we had in the past – in the last item. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower -- Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: I was puzzled by this as a study session item because if – I don’t know where this building is going. I read on –sorry, on page 99 under criteria for designation that there are five different items. I think three, four and five actually might be – this building might be able to meet those and of – if the 70’s changes were reversed and if you read the ARB meeting notes that are a part of our packet, I think this is the poster child note for why the ARB should never ever make a decision about a historic building. The aluminum windows, the removal of all the iron work, changing the historic porticos that come into the building, where all deemed to be compatible. I can’t understand how an aluminum window is compatible with the steel windows. I can’t understand how a window on the second floor can become – can be compatible with the existing doors that were on that second floor. This is just dysfunctional, I think in part of our City process and I bring it up because we’re – we’ve just made – we’ve just had a discussion about the parking garage and it’s the last time we’re going to see it and it’s in the midst of a historic district that we have some jurisdiction over and this project happens to be right next to it. If the owner of the building where coming to the HRB to reverse those items that have been installed in place of an original item, this building is close enough, I think to its original state to come back to a significant maybe Category Two building. I don’t know how we – I don’t really understand what our input is supposed to be here today because we don’t really have a proposal. It’s just that they want the Category Two designation I presume for tax purposes because it helps them. I don’t really understand that. I guess the motivation and where the project is going would make it easier for me, as a Board Member, to determine whether it was going to be eligible. Chair Bernstein: Maybe if we would either hear from staff or – I see Mr. Pop sitting in the audience. Any response from staff yet for Mr. Bower’s comment? Ms. French: I’ll just say before they come to the mic, that we did have a brief meeting with the new owner and his architect regarding a possible addition of residential units on the upper floors. In our downtown, you are allowed to have a mixed-use project with FAR (floor area ratio) or gross floor area for residential and gross floor area for commercial that they combine and it makes the building larger; so one of the purposes is they are looking into putting some residential units above the existing building. So, they can describe that thinking that they are having. They are in exploration mode, they haven’t drawn up any drawings and shared those with us but if you’d like to hear more from them. Chair Bernstein: Mr. Popp, would you like to speak to the Board, thank you. Mr. Randy Popp: Good morning, Chair Bernstein and Members of the Board. Thank you very much for entraining us here today. Pardon me? Ms. French: (Inaudible) Mr. Popp: Closer to the mic, ok. Is that better? Ok, great. I think we’re excited to discuss enhancing the designation of this great little building with you today and I’ll just start by noting that the history of the new property owner, the Thoits brother’s pre-dates this building. It was actually one of the reasons that the Hoffacker family them to carry on the building for them. The goal of enhancing and maintaining the historic fabric of this City is something the Thoits brothers have been very involved in and the same is true for this building. It’s been modified as we know but we would seek to return and restore some of the City of Palo Alto Page 3 characteristic elements that are desirable and we’re not sure what those are yet. We really are just in an exploratory mode here and are trying to understand what might be possible for this building. Balancing the constraints of the zoning and other regulations with what might be possible if it’s designated as a Category Two and we’re able to achieve some additional square footage which would do a couple things for us with this building. First of all, the interior ceiling heights while probably appropriate at the time the building was built, are much less than desirable today and so our initial thoughts, and really this is very, very much in concept at this point, is that we would maintain the architecture at the front of the building, enhancing the characteristics, returning back some of the more historic elements, the iron work, some of the forms and shapes of the entries that have been removed over time. I couldn’t agree more with Vice Chair Bower in regards to his comments on the Architectural Review Board and I feel that I have a right to say this having been Chair for a couple years at the Architectural Review Board that you’re spot on about that and these kinds of decisions need to be made at the HRB. We want this to be more consistent with history. There was a really great retail use in this building for many years and it was a great value to the community and a commercial use that was in there initially with the real estate business that the family ran. The first two floors of the building would be maintained in that format and the idea here is that pushed backed -- recess back closer to this new parking garage that you’re looking at that will achieve almost a 50-foot height. We’d like to insert some residential use in the building. That there would be a few residential units that would be placed here that would allow for people to live downtown, less use of cars, and all the great benefits that provides. Also, give us the opportunity to maximize the use of this parcel in a sensitive and thoughtful way. Our goal here is to just really hear your thoughts about potentially returning the framework of this building and some of the detailing back to either the 1948 or potentially even back to some of the 1927 characteristics. At the same time, adding a really valuable and desired use of the downtown. Chair Bernstein: What difference would your – would it be for your project if this was a Category Two or Category Three? Mr. Popp: Under the current zoning regulations and Amy, I’m going to ask you to help me with this a little bit because I don’t have all the numbers in front of me today. I didn’t – we’re just studying but Category Two building comes with some bonus square footage that you gain for FAR which would allow us to add that residential to this space. If we don’t have that, it’s essentially restricted by what a lot of people call the shrink wrap rules and the square footage that’s in place, stays in place and this partial mezzanine that’s there could be reconfigured but it would not allow us to add any square footage to the building in any way. Honestly, doing a restoration like this and adding these elements back to the building comes at a cost and so we’re trying to balance what the possibilities are between restoring a building, adding these elements back, creating some development but not in any way talking about what the maximum might be. I think a lot of projects come forward and they go right to the limits and what we’re talking about here is a reasonable approach and something that would be sensitive to the context and the character. There’s the Victorian next door, the area in which it lives and certainly, the context of this new garage changes things a little bit but from Waverley Street, not very visible. Ms. French: Can I add to that just a little bit? So, with the findings for such a bonus of 2,500-square feet or something like that, for historic rehabilitation only and furthermore, the 2,500-square feet is not necessarily to be applied in full on the project site but that bonus could be transferred off to another site in the commercial downtown. These are sellable transferable development rates and I just thought I add that to the discussion. Vice Chair Bower: I – in thinking about this and looking at the materials in our packet again, I’m reminded of the building right across the street here that use to be – I guess it’s real estate but I can’t remember the name of it. Blue Chalk Café… Mr. Popp: (Inaudible) Cornish and Carry. Vice Chair Bower: Inside the Palo Alto Sports Shop most of those columns and the adornment of the columns still exist. They didn’t do much inside and the mezzanine is still there and it might not be very City of Palo Alto Page 4 useful but a proposal that came before this Board to undo the remodeling and to preserve those elements while you’re adding to it, I think I could be very supportive of because getting this building – this is an important building. The Hoffacker family have been here a very long time... Mr. Popp: Almost 90-years. Vice Chair Bower: …and I got my first bicycle from Palo Alto Sports Shop. It was -- and as criteria number four says, this is a structure connected with a business which was once common but is now rare. I mean we don’t have small buildings like this and that’s what makes Palo Alto downtown, I think unique and it’s important to preserve that character. With your statements here today, I think that makes it much easier for me to understand where you are going with it. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I think I’m sitting here looking at this and suddenly I remember my history. Way back when, when I first got into this world and architecture, I went to several AIA meetings and I ended up sitting next door to Birge Clark at two different meeting and sitting right next to (inaudible). I don’t know how much longer he lived, I don’t know but I talked to him a little on and off and he was a very nice gentleman. He had a huge impact on Palo Alto, of course, so I – anything that can bring back a building that he was involved in, to me is worth the effort. I appreciate the thoughts that are going on here. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Yes, would your proposed restoration project return the building to what I see on page 97, figure number two, original Birge Clark drawing? Is that your intent? Mr. Popp: Sorry, my agenda isn’t the same numbering as yours. So, yeah, that’s the original 1927 elevation drawing of the building when it was originally constructed. I would tell you that at this point, we’re early in the process. We are attracted to that and there’s a lot of value in that to us but there’s a – there are some slight modifications between that and the 1948-time period as well that might be a possible – we just don’t know. I’m sorry. I’ll just explain, we’re not sure what the right answer is today but what we’re looking for is feedback from you (crosstalk)(inaudible) what’s important. Board Member Makinen: The first thing that you need to do is to find the period of significances for the building and then you want to restore it back to that period of significances. If we don’t have an agreement on what the period of significance is. Mr. Popp: I would refer to the Historic Planner for some help with that. It’s apparent to us that the historic period for this building is both the 1927 original construction date and then there’s also a 1948 period where there were some modifications made as the businesses changed. It’s not clear which of those would be the one to reflect back to or would be reasonable to go back too with some of the changes that have already occurred but we’re open to discussion about this. Board Member Makinen: I think we’d have a clear understanding of what the period of significance that you want to restore it to before we could make a commitment. Chair Bernstein: I like Board Member Bunnenberg’s comment about – so the building looks like it is right now, then there’s the period of 1948 and 1927. We don’t have an application in front of us to see what direction that’s going to be going so it’s a good question that Board Member Bunnenberg asked about. Any other Board Members? Ok, this is a study session, let’s see, so Mr. Popp you’ve heard comments from the HRB about concern about the level of bringing it back to some of the other periods detailing. If the building is going back into some of the features from the period of significances, I’m hearing that there’d be probably support from the HRB on that. For you to move ahead though, you need to be able to apply for a Category Two, that’s really your next step right…. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Popp: That’s correct. Chair Bernstein: …to move ahead on the project? Mr. Popp: We would need to file a formal application and then come have a more formal hearing with you at that point but we wanted to really just get the feedback from the Board whether or not this idea of elevating the building to a Category Two and trying to return it back to a period of historic significance; whatever the right date for that would be, is desirable. Chair Bernstein: For an application to change from a Category Three to Two, the application is only to request the change. It’s not going to be presenting any design changes, right, so that’s a good puzzle. Can the Historic Planner offer any guidance on – we don’t – it’s not going – it’s going to be an application just to change without any application of what the changes will be or what material changes would be. Ms. Vance: Right, so again, this was just to kind of explore the options of or the feasibility of eventually evaluating it once there are – I think plans would need to be in place. That might a discussion that we have as staff as to whether we want to elevate it before it even – before it’s ready essentially. Before they have done any of the restoration work so I would not be in favor necessarily of elevating it before work or plans are in our hands. Chair Bernstein: I understand the challenge from the applicant of how you’d like to get those benefits in place, of course. The Board looks at what is the existing state of the resource and that’s the HRB’s point here. So, a study session means no action is taken, is that correct? Board – Council Member Holman or Historic Planner Vance, please. Ms. Vance: I just want to reiterate that I’m very much in support of this project. I think it’s a great restoration project, I think it would bring that building back to its former glory, getting rid of some of the inappropriate changes over the years. Then again, with the addition of housing downtown, this is a really wonderful project and so we will be working with the applicants to make good decisions regarding the period of significant, we will be kind of help guide them but not necessarily choose for them. So, I just want to reiterate again, it’s a very good project. Council Member Holman: So, as some of you know, I’m kind of a process nerd and it seems to me that for the applicants to benefit and appreciate their intention and I know your reputation, certainly of Mr. Shenk as well, and the Thoits family and their preservation efforts in the community; that’s much appreciated. Procedurally, it seems to me that the next step should be that the applicant should do an HRE, determine what the period of significance is and decided what level of restoration they want to go to. Then it seems to me that would be critical for the HRB to have as an action item what their – what the proposal is going to be then from the applicant before you can make any recommendation about elevating from a Three to a Two. Otherwise, it’s what Board Member Bower said earlier, it’s like you don’t know what you’re approving so your procedural conundrum here for everybody but there has to be something that makes a logical sequential sense too. Chair Bernstein: Would that include a study session of just proposed changes to the building? Council Member Holman: I’m never much of a fan of study sessions because there’s no written – there’s no motion, there’s not much of a record. This Board has talked about your comments being ignored by the ARB, for there to be comments (inaudible) decisions and conclusions, there need to be action items, not just study sessions. Study sessions are good for preliminary but – now the parking garage – this just – me speaking as a Council Member and wanting to know later down the road, for instance with the parking garage or this or whatever, I would want to know what the HRB’s opinion was. With study sessions, I have no idea so like I’m supposing that the parking garage is actually going to come back to the HRB as a project to review and not just the environmental document because otherwise, the ARB City of Palo Alto Page 6 doesn’t have any thought really of knowing what your real comments are, neither does the Council when it gets there. Chair Bernstein: Can another possibility be that at one HRB hearing, agenda item one is – let’s see, during the same HRB meeting, have an application for reclassification and an application for your proposed project. Mr. Popp. Mr. Popp: I’d welcome that, I think that’s a great idea. This is classic chicken and egg and we’re trying to figure this out and I'm just talking to John here and we’re both in agreement that we’d like to put together some proposal based on the discussion that we have staff about what the period of significant if for this building and get something in front of you so there’s at least something for you to evaluate in the right way. You can use that as information in that initial discussion and then if we could immediately roll into a discussion about what the proposal would be, that would be very helpful. It’s time and so we’re trying to move through the process in an efficient way and if we were able to essentially have a back to back discussion with on item clicked off and then the next, that would be very helpful. Chair Bernstein: That way in one meeting, the applicant knows – that also give the HRB and members of the public a view of what the thoughts are for possible changes to the existing building. So, we’re still in a study session so no motions. Alright staff, any other comments on this topic? Ms. French: No, comments from staff. Chair Bernstein: Ok, HRB Members, any other comments on this? Mr. Popp – hi, welcome. Mr. John Shenk: Hi, John Shenk with the Thoits brothers. I just wanted to thank you all and thank staff for getting us in front of you as quickly as they have. We are excited at this – at the prospect of this. Then as Randy was delicately saying, a part of our conundrum of the multi-leg stool here that we’re trying to play with is the fact that once we bought – because wonderfully it’s been owned and operated (inaudible) the building and restored by the Hoffacker family. When they sold it was because they wanted to be done with their business so we have a vacant building, which creates a financial conundrum of its own and we’re choosing to not lease it. To preserve this opportunity because once I lease it, I can’t start opening up the facades and tearing the front doors off it; it becomes the tenant’s property in a way while the lease is in effect. So, we’re going to do that, we’re going to continue to do that and we’ll work to figure out with staff and with you all what’s appropriate and what can we do. I won’t even say it because I don’t want anybody to think that I’m meaning there’s an if you don’t hurry, we won’t do it. We want to find a way to do it together, there are just some realities that if for whatever reason it takes forever, we’re just going to lease it. The Thoits have been here since the 1890s and if we have to put a tenant in for a while, we’ll still figure it out, we’ll just do it after that tenant sort of thing. We just – we really love the downtown, love retail and want to support it and do the right thing, which I think the Hoffackers understood in picking us to – even off the market, hey, Thoits, would you be interested in owning our building? So, we look at ourselves as being caretakers for the next century basically, which is a little unique but again, I want to thank you all for your consideration. Chair Bernstein: Your welcome and yeah, the Thoits have been a significant family in the City of Palo Alto so that’s why I suggested that we look at an application for change and then see the – some proposal thoughts on what the change – that way within 45-minutes, the applicant can have an answer from us. Alright, anything else on this topic? Mr. Popp: Thank you for your time. Chair Bernstein: Your welcome, thank you. Attachment I Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the HRB, staff, libraries and Development Services Center. 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 “526 Waverley” and open the record by clicking on the blue 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 “526 Waverley-Initial Plans-12.15.17” Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8857) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/25/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Discussion and Recommendation of the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the City Council From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a public hearing and consider comments submitted by the comment deadline (January 12, 2018), and provide comments on the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines (Guidelines) including Process Improvement Suggestions (Guidelines Chapter 8); and 2. Recommend Council approval of the Guidelines, subject to any modifications the HRB suggests. Background This report transmits information regarding the upcoming events related to the draft Guidelines that were published November 9, 2017. The Guidelines are viewable via the City’s Eichler page (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/special_projects/eichler_neighborhood_design_ guidelines_.asp) which 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. On December 14th, HRB provided initial comments on the Guidelines. HRB requested to defer its formal recommendation on these Guidelines until January 25, 2018, which is after conclusion of the public comment period (January 12, 2018) and the community workshop #3 (January 18, 2018) regarding Guidelines content and potential approaches for regulatory changes. The minutes from the December 14th, 2017 HRB meeting are attached (Attachment A). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Written Comments Received A total of 27 individuals submitted written comments via email on or before January 12, 2018, regarding these Guidelines. A number of comments that were received did not respond to specific sections or guidelines in the Public Review Draft, but rather, expressed values and concerns similar to the comments that the City received from the public before Page & Turnbull began drafting the document. For example, several comments appeared similar, stating that the authors valued keeping the Eichler or mid-century modern style, protecting privacy in the backyard, respecting scale and mass, and avoiding stucco mansions. At least five commenters felt that the recommendations in the document should be more flexible toward additions at the front of the house, provided the addition is compatible with the overall design of the house. Likewise, ADUs were recommended at the front of the property, possibly attached to the primary residence or developed out of a portion of the house or garage. Comments were divided regarding second story additions; at least three commenters supported second story additions with the rationale that it preserves backyard space, while others supported the current guidance dissuading second story additions. One comment suggested that the illustrations associated with appropriate locations of additions should be clarified. Though beyond the scope of the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines document itself, there were several questions about how the guidelines would be enforced and how they would affect the permitting process. There was divided opinion about enforcement of the guidelines. Two commenters specifically stated that they want the guidelines enforced, while one did not want to make the guidelines more than informational and voluntary. One resident recommended different levels of review or strictness depending, for example, on whether the properties are located in a National Register historic district or have an Architectural Control Committee. One resident recommended stricter zoning and permitting requirements specifically to limit gross size and height to combat “McMansions.” Another resident recommended prioritization of Eichler design elements: those that affect the surrounding neighborhood (e.g. height, mass, and privacy of neighbors) should be mandatory while those that only affect the house in question (e.g. types of doors and windows, paint color, landscaping, etc.) should be optional. A second resident provided a similar recommendation that would divide the document into “privacy guidelines” that could be enforceable via the IR process versus “style guidelines” that would be voluntary. These comments, while focused on enforcement strategy, could potentially affect the organization of information in the document. Articles KQED’s Rachael Myrow recently interviewed staff and several Eichler owners regarding Eichlers in Palo Alto, and has published an article and podcast at the following link: https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2018/01/03/how-joseph-eichler-introduced-stylish-housing-for-the- masses/ The Eichler Network’s David Weinstein has posted a blog at the following link: http://www.eichlernetwork.com/blog/dave-weinstein/eichler-design-rules-may-annoy-purists City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Community Workshops The Eichler Guidelines team (staff of the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department and City’s consultant Page & Turnbull) 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, was moved to January 18, 2018 at the Mitchell Park Community Center. The postponement of the November workshop date led to a rescheduling of the public hearings. The January 18, 2018 workshop was focused on obtaining comments on (1) the Draft Guidelines, and (2) the options envisioned to date for potential regulatory changes (Attachment B). Staff will provide a verbal update to the HRB regarding the January 18th workshop. Next Steps City Council Action Staff is preparing a draft Resolution for City Council to adopt these Guidelines. The Resolution will reflect relevant policies from the Comprehensive Plan Council adopted on November 13, 2017. The new Comprehensive Plan Council adopted (and recently shared with HRB members) is similar to the prior plan, with language referring to the importance of residential neighborhoods such as, ”maintain, prioritize and preserve residential neighborhoods.” Staff has targeted City Council review and adoption of the Guidelines in mid-March, and anticipates providing Council with potential regulatory options to consider. Council will be requested to direct staff as to which approach(es) to pursue with respect to code language prescribing staff use of the Eichler Guidelines and other potential modifications. Single Story Overlay Regulations Later in 2018, staff intends to propose draft modifications to Chapter 18.12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), in response to the Council’s direction for improvements to the Single Story Overlay (SSO) rezoning process. Any draft zoning ordinance changes must be presented in a public hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). References to the existence and intended purpose of residential guidelines (the Professorville Guidelines and the new Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines) would be included. Range of Regulatory Options The potential regulatory options under staff consideration at moment follow a tiered format. Staff intends to gather public and board comments to inform the potential options, and share these with the City Council, along with the Guidelines.  “Tier 0” approach would mean the Guidelines are voluntary, with no ordinance to enforce mandatory use of them or lack of compliance.  “Tier 1” approach could be to use the Guidelines as a tool for staff and consultants reviewing new two story homes and additions proceeding through discretionary City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 planning entitlements, such as Individual Review. Within the Individual Review Guidelines, additional privacy measures from the Eichler Guidelines could be cited to strengthen how well a new two-story home or new second floor addition respects an adjacent Eichler home’s existing privacy condition.  “Tier 2” approach is to create the opportunity for neighborhoods to self-select to become Eichler Overlay (EO) Districts, similar to Single Story Overlay (SSO) Districts. An Eichler Overlay District could have existing two story homes beyond the 20% maximum threshold for establishing an SSO. An Eichler Overlay could allow for new second floor additions or new two story homes, whereas existing SSOs could not have new two-story homes or new second floor additions. An SSO could still utilize the Eichler Guidelines specific to one-story homes, on a voluntary basis. Currently, the City does not have a one-story design review program; therefore, any desire by owners of a tract to have a review program for one-story homes and additions would have to be addressed with ordinance language, such as noted in the next Tier, Tier 3 (not Tier 2).  “Tier3” approach would be to modify Development Standards within the R-1 Zoning District (PAMC 18.12) specific to Eichler homes. Such regulations could be tailored for the National Historic Register tracts and non-National Register tracts with Single Story Overlays (SSOs). The standards could place additional restrictions or provide greater allowances for additions to existing Eichlers. Upcoming Schedule  In February, revisions directed by staff and the HRB to the draft Guidelines would be made, and staff would refine the potential regulatory options to share with Council for direction; and  In March, staff would bring to Council: o the Draft Guidelines, revised to address board input, and o tiered regulatory options for Council direction. Should Council direct staff to proceed with policy and or zoning code amendments, staff would hold public hearings to refine these approaches. 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 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: HRB Minutes December 14, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment B: Options for Potential Regulatory Changes (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Brandon Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen Absent: Beth Bunnenberg, Margaret Wimmer Chair Bernstein: Welcome everybody to the December 14th meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Would staff please call roll? Thank you. First, I’d like to thank all and welcome all the Board Members who have been reelected to the Historic Resources Board. Congratulations to all, good, great. Oral Communications Chair Bernstein: First on our meeting is oral communications. Members of the public may speak to any item, not on the agenda. I don’t have any cards from the members of the public, nor do I see any members of the public here. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bernstein: We’ll move onto if there are any agenda changes, additions, and deletions? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments Chair Bernstein: Next is City official reports, board meeting, schedule, and assignments. Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: I note that this our last meeting of the year and as a Member of the Board, I wanted to thank staff for all of their hard work for all of the weeks that you come and see us. I hope that we’ll see you much more often next year because we’ll have that much more work that we want to review so thank you very much for your dedication and thoroughness. Chair Bernstein: Great, nice sentiment and I agree with those comments too. Board Member Makinen: Thank you for the fine breakfast. Board Member Corey: Yeah, it was very nice. Board Member Kohler: I’ll be here next Wednesday as well. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: December 14, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Study Session 2. Discussion of Potential Retreat Topics for 2018 Chair Bernstein: Alright, next on our agenda is a study session for discussion of potential retreat topics for 2018. Shall staff have any comments to start us off? Ms. French: Yes, we have a PowerPoint to display the potential retreat topics here and we – when we say January 11th, that is a target date. We have not advertised it yet but obviously, advertising will happen soon because of the holidays so we kind of wanted to find out if there was capacity or in other words are people available on the 11thr for a retreat? We can start with that and that would be the first meeting of January. We do have a second meeting in January which would be a potential follow up on these Eichler Guidelines that you are discussing today. So, I’ll end with that and I’ll let Emily present the PowerPoint. Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Hi, good morning everyone. I just wanted to reiterate what Amy was saying about the potential date of January 11th. That would be – is that better? Can you hear me now? One of the reasons we picked that date is so that we could discuss the CLG Annual Report which is due on January 22nd. If we do it earlier, that way everyone can provide input on that document and you’ll notice that there was a sheet at each of your places. I’ve received the statements from some of you but it would be nice to get that sometime before the 22nd. So, here’s – again, here’s just some of the potential retreat topics, that picture that you saw earlier was from the interior of the ITT building. Did you want to – Ok, so I’m just going to run through these real quick. One that would be a good idea would be the Mills Act and discussing the continuing work that the subcommittee is doing. The Girl Scout House over at Rinconada Park and its potential National Register listing and California Landmarking. The ITT building and what should be happening with that building. Continuing the discussion of demolition issues, the Comp. Plan update, Eichler Guideline implementation, Native American Month which is November, Historic Preservation Month which is May, the CPF Conference, as well as additional training opportunities. I just wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that there’s a really good Standards of the – Secretary of the Interior Standards webinar in March. As well as continuing to discuss the Mid- Century Era Context Statement Grant Application which we had mentioned at a previous meeting. So, here are just some of the potential topics, we obviously can’t cover them all so it would be a good idea to pick a few for the retreat. Ms. French: I would just add to that, we have just a couple of updates today; one on the ITT and one on the Comp. Plan update but we’ll talk about that later. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any – this is a study session, any comments, suggestions from Board Members? I have one – oh, sorry, go ahead. Board Member Corey: Oh, sorry, I was going to say how do you suggest – we just pick a handful of these? Ms. Vance: Well, maybe we’ll just gage what you guys are more interested in, less interested in and we can kind of prepare a list from there. I guess we’re looking for feedback at this point and of course, you can always pick something that’s not on this list if there’s something that the Board would like to discuss as well. Ms. French: I should say, there’s always an opportunity at a retreat to discuss how we do a thing as a Board. That’s always what’s going well, what could be improved, that type of topic but we don’t have to call that out in particular. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chari Bower. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Vice Chair Bower: In looking at this list, it would be several retreats to cover this amount of information. I would suggest the Board think about concentrating on things that we’re not going to review and make recommendations to the City Council next year. So, I think the Mills Act discussion which is going to come before this Board I think early next year is one we wouldn’t necessarily need to cover in the retreat. I think the Eichler Guidelines implementation is maybe not something that we need to think about in the retreat because we’re going to hear about it and we’re going to have more opportunities to consider that. I’m not sure about the Comp. Plan update, I think that’s something that we ought to probably address during a Board meeting rather than at the treat. Then the one thing that I’d like to consider is a discussion of how this Board can encourage the City Council to list properties or historic districts on the City Register so that we can get some protection for those properties and some different treatment. Ms. French: So, that’s related to the Comp. Plan update. Vice Chair Bower: Oh, alright well that’s my suggestion. Chair Bernstein: During this year’s joint Historic Resources Board/City Council meeting there was expressed interest to have some training session for City Council Member so that could be tied in with the CPF Conference training opportunities date. I’ve heard from Council Member – some Council Members that they believe that the Members of the HRB are – have good expertise on Secretary of Interior Standards and they may – and they have not received that training. So, that’s why they suggested this would be a good – so however that gets arranged between HRB and City Council Members to have a detailed discussion about the Standards. That would be my suggestion for under – that could – if that happened concurrently during the CPF Conference, that could be a good time. Ok, other Board Members? Ideas? Alright, I think that’s where our comments are right now. Before we move on, any other – before we on to another agenda item? Board Members Kohler or – you have a comment or something? Ok, good. Board Member Corey: I agree with the other suggestion so just for what it’s worth. Chair Bernstein: Alright, well, we have a nice good list in here so any other questions or requests from Staff on this agenda item? Ms. French: Well, I guess we heard from one Member that of the ones that don’t seem to be a retreat, not worthy but you know the word I am looking for, just we can handle them at a different meeting. So, what we’re left with I guess if that’s a concurrence and then we’ve got the other ones left to discuss. I might say the Mid-Century Era has been talked about quite a bit. Right now, we’re in the Eichler moment which is about Mid-Century as well at least to housing. So, there might be things we want to just float at that meeting regarding that but not to take on the grant application because we’re full into what we’ve got going on now and the Mills Act. That would be the only comment I would have is maybe that’s gets put off. Board Member Corey: Just in case, I’m just going to throw out my opinion for this anyway so I think the Mills Act and the demolition issues and the historic preservation month would be the three topics that I would like to discuss if we had to pick three. Chair Bernstein: I was thinking about the same thing that Board Member Corey just mentioned about demolition issues. Oh, something that I think we’ve discussed at a previous retreat as a Board was the idea that of demolition, when does a district start losing its district character? So, that could be part of the demolition… Board Member Corey: There’s also this deconstruction business that’s going on to work around. Ms. French: We have an update today on that as well. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bernstein: Ok, excellent, good. Welcome Council Member Holman to our meeting, great. Council Member Holman we were just discussing potential topic retreats for HRB retreat and what we’ve focused so far is the idea of demolition and deconstruction issues, training for HRB and City Council – training for Council Members who would like to have more information about the Secretary of Interior Standards and just some of the technical aspects that the HRB is already familiar with. So, that could happen concurrently during the CPF Conference issue. Was there anything else Board Member – Vice Chair Bower? Vice Chair Bower: I would recommend that the Chair meets with Staff and kind of based on this discussion make a decision so that you will be able to prepare for the retreat. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Ms. French: Could be Chair and Vice Chair if you wanted to join in, we could… Chair Bernstein: Yeah, let’s do it. Ms. French: …but we’d have to pull it together next week basically as far as a meeting. Chair Bernstein: Alright, anything else on this agenda item? Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: As a Council Member who’s been on the Planning Commission and watched things over the years, I think the training on the Secretary of Interior Standards is really a great idea but it isn’t just for the Council. It’s for the ARB, it’s for the Planning Commission, it’s for the Building Department because all of those departments effect and impact historic resources. Chair Bernstein: Ok, that’s a fantastic idea. Let’s see so maybe we could add that to the minutes too. Great, good so that joint or however that training session works, yeah bring all Boards and Commissions involved. That’s an excellent idea, for sure. Ok, anything else on this agenda item before we move on? Ok, thank you. Action Items 3. PUBLIC HEARING: HRB Discussion and Comments on Eichler Design Guidelines Chair Bernstein: Next would be an action item and that is a public hearing, HRB discussion, and comments on Eichler Design Guidelines. Shall staff have an introductory report for us, please? Ms. French: As noted in the report, we did publish these back on November 9th and provided them to the Board. We asked that you bring your copy today with the assumption that you’d looked at it and had some comments, great or please do this or do that edits for us so we could take a look. If you wanted to go through those as a Board today and provide a recommendation, we welcome that. With the understanding that we – our next steps are to go to a public workshop, we’re holding and you’re invited on January 18th at Mitchell Park Community Center where we will have a full discussion of the guidelines with the public who can come. It’s in the evening and we will also discuss potential code changes that could be directed by Council and so we have kind of a matrix of potential options that the Council may direct us too come back with and go through the process on that. I think we have a couple slides here perhaps, this shows the flow chart that I prepared to keep my head straight on this. Basically, we’ve got today, again comments or if you choose, recommendation and then we have the end of the guidelines comment period January 12th which happens before the public workshop. Of course, comments are solicited then but we wanted to get written comments which we haven’t gotten any so far and then this workshop as I had mentioned. Then we can come back to the HRB and talk about that on the 25th and talk about the code change matrix. We’re looking to go to Council probably in March – early March to ask the Council to adopt the guidelines. We’re going to not go to the Planning Commission before Council, just on the guidelines but we will go to the Council following – if Council directs us to make code City of Palo Alto Page 5 changes. Then we will start kind of a process on that and that looks likes towards June where the Council could potentially adopt code changes that are related to Eichler’s. When I say code changes I mean the option for neighborhoods to elect to have Eichler overlay zone or conservation district or any of those and potential zoning code development standard modifications that could be discussed with this Board, Planning Commission, and Council. Chair Bernstein: Question, I was looking through our staff report and or our Board report, this little chart looks like a great chart for the path of action. I don’t – if there’s some way that we could get a copy of that? I don’t see it in the – in our packet here. Just it helps – I know it helped me organize my thoughts about the process. Ms. French: We’ll email it to the Board. Chair Bernstein: Excellent, thank you so much. With that, I know I have several comments to make on these guidelines but I’ll start by asking if any other Board Member have comments? Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: I think this is a good thing to have going here, this Eichler setup because I had a very unhappy situation with a client. Chair Bernstein: Excuse me for a second, what I would like to have this focus on is not an individual project that comes before… Board Member Kohler: Well, the point that I am making Martin is that from what I can tell in the booklet, it has opened up the possibility of some situations that previously were not even considered allowed in the Eichler neighborhood. What I’m talking about is two-story homes and there are neighborhoods that have limits on the second floor, is that correct? Chair Bernstein: Correct, yes. Board Member Kohler: There are whole lots of areas that don’t have so I just read here it says that this does not limit the use of two-story homes so I’m just… Ms. French: That is the situation today. I’ll just give a brief overview on this so again, we have some single-story overlay neighborhoods and they are restricted to one-story. All of the other neighborhoods in this City are not restricted to one-story. These guidelines provide the opportunity for architects, homeowners, and staff and the Board to – and the IR process to review modifications to existing Eichlers be they one-story in a single-story overlay neighborhood or two-story in a non-single-story or second- floor addition in a non-single-story overlay neighborhood. These are designed guidelines tools, they are not requirements, they are guidance for folks to know best practices on adding to an Eichler or either one or two stories. Board Member Kohler: I lost my spot here but I think it was saying that this does not – in this particular area, it doesn’t limit you to a certain style of the house. Is that correct or do you still have to do an Eichler type home? Ms. French: These are not proposing you have to do anything, these are – this is guidance. Only the Council can put a mandatory requirement so that is for later if the Council directs mandatory compliance with these guidelines. We’re not at that stage Roger, we’re just at the stage of looking at the guidelines and how they’re set up and the content of the guidelines; not the content of the zoning code. Board Member Kohler: I’m a little confused so in other words, right now at one point I read you said this does not limit the house to one-story. That two-stories will be permitted is what it says in here at some point. So, I guess you’re not saying that still may not happen or is that – I guess I’m a little confused. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. French: It would be up to the Council to direct staff to pursue modifications to the zoning code. If Council directs staff in March to pursue modifications to the zoning code, we would come back through a public hearing process with those options. Right now, what we’re looking at is options so the Council could direct us to say set up an Eichler overlay zone where neighborhoods could self-select to use these in more rigorous manner. In other words, they self-select just like the single-story overlay zones self- select to be one-story. So, you know you could have an Eichler overlay zone that wants to have two- stories, in fact, we do have a two-story Eichler tract in Palo Alto, Victoria Court. They could select to be an Eichler overlay zone and they have two-story homes. Board Member Kohler: So, they are meaning that particular neighborhood? Ok so are you – maybe I am getting this confused, are you saying that the neighborhood itself can decide whether or not they are limiting to one or two-story homes? Ms. French: Yeah and that’s a different conversation than today’s conversation because we’re at that point yet, where we’re talking about code changes. We’re only talking about guidelines which are different than code restrictions, these are not restrictive, it’s advice. Chair Bernstein: Any Board Member comments? Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: I have a couple of questions about some of the language in here. On page 19 there’s a discussion of the Individual Review process and guidelines. In the second paragraph, it says that the single-family Individual Review guidelines establish specific requirements. I don’t want to read the whole thing; however, the IR process is not a design review process. In the next paragraph it says that the single-family Individual Review guidelines are one, to reserve a unique character, promote construction, encourage respect for existing context and those four – and there’s another – there are two more. These things, I think do – are exactly about design review so I find the language in here confusing because, on one hand, it says no, this is not a design review process and then in the next paragraph it says these are the things that we’re going to do when we look at your design. So, I think that – I’m not sure how to make it clearer and maybe it can’t be clearer but if I’m confused by this, a homeowner I don’t think is going to have an easy time of it either. Ms. French: Often confusion is the result of politics and it’s no different from the Individual Review Guidelines. They were – there was – when these came through, there were very strong statements that these are not design guidelines, these are not design guidelines so they can never say that about themselves. It’s a conundrum but we are just reviewing privacy, mass, and streetscape. We are not telling people this style of house you need to do – you’ve chosen this style of house, now you must do it well. You must do – you can’t do a turret on this house because you’re not doing that tutor style house. You know it’s very confusing for people because we aren’t doing design review, we aren’t making well- resolved houses per say in the design chosen. We can give advice which we do but make or break the findings for approval of Individual Review are about those three topics, not about how well designed a house is. Chair Bernstein: I love those, those are great, I love your words; privacy, massing, and what – those are… Ms. French: The focus of the IR program is privacy, massing, streetscape. Chair Bernstein: Streetscape. Ms. French: So, we are looking to make sure that we are, to the best of our ability, not introducing direct views of – for privacy. Massing being we have a neighborhood with -- we’re just trying to work on those for compatibility. Chair Bernstein: Ok, yeah and that’s always been my interpretation of the IR process is – yes, exactly, streetscape, privacy, and massing. That’s what I tell everybody who asks me about that. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Vice Chair Bower: A couple of other questions. Chair Bernstein: Ok, sure. I also want to remind the Board that we’ve got two members of the public that want to speak on this topic also. Go ahead. Vice Chair Bower: At our study session I was encouraging Page and Turnbull to reorganize the two charts on page 21 and 23 which show the Eichler tracts in the City and have the IDs actually be age-adjusted, not alphabetical because I think it will be more helpful to the community to understand where each of these tracts was developed based on the beginning of the Eichler tracts. Then the end of that period so it’s the beginning is what, 51 and then 70 something; 74 I think. I think that’s just a reorganization of the chart. On the flood hazard map… Chair Bernstein: Page? Vice Chair Bower: …which is page 23, I think it would be helpful to have the tracts that are actually affected by flood zone issues in a different color than the ones that are not. So, on this map, all Eichler tracts are in orange, the National Register Districts are in dark green. There are only two of them but then there’s this light blue floodplain or flood zone area and so those tract, it’s not clear to me whether it’s -- for instance Tract 29, is in or out of that flood zone because it’s right on the edge of the blue; it could be included. This – obviously the purpose of this is to, again tell homeowners and anyone else who wants to know whether their house is in the flood zone. Then the next question or the next issue I’d like you to address as staff, is if an Eichler tract were included in a National Register District, it’s my understanding that then the flood zone issues are not – they are exempted from flood zone requirements or not? Ms. French: There’s a – there’s something called a variance, it’s not a variance – zoning variance, it’s a variance from the Public Works requirements to not build basements in a flood zone or what have you. If it’s a historic home, that’s one of the perks is that you can qualify for one of those variances. Can I – can we just go back for a moment to your earlier statement. I think that’s great to show the flood zone tract as a different color from the non-flood – for this map. I have a question, it appears that the flood zone maybe bisects a tract, would you prefer that the whole tract is colored or reflect the – because the flood zone is kind of shown – the blue is shown there. What do you think? Vice Chair Bower: Well, I think it’s – for the homeowners that are in say Tract 29 and maybe 25, I don’t know whether that one -- and 11 and 8, maybe 18 depending upon what that little space is; because the blue doesn’t actually blend into the orange color, I would assume from looking at this map that says 29 and 25 were exempted but then there’s 11 which is clearly partly in and maybe partly out and 8 which looks like it’s half in and half out. So, a color shading that puts those – the Planning Department has to have the actual parcel numbers on the floodplain but this is kind of a broad overview for homeowners and real estate agents and people looking to buy property. You ought to be able to tell fairly quickly by looking at this map whether you’re in or out. Also, it seems to me if – my next question, if in fact historic buildings or properties in a historic district are exempted from the FEMA requirements, that solves a problem that we have in this City where buildings – existing buildings that are renovated beyond fifty percent of value would have to be raised and that ruins the neighborhood context. Having one house up 3 ½-feet with a house next door being at current grade, that’s a complaint we had at our study session from a member of the public who came and said, people next door had to raise their house and they are looking in my windows. So, this is one way of encouraging these districts to become registered as historic and it also solves a zoning problem that is not easily solved any other way. Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Vice Chair Bower. I have a comment on the idea of I think it’s good for property owners to certainly know if their parcel is in a flood zone. I’m going to suggest that the Eichler Guideline Booklet would not be a good place to put that technical information because she says it was mentioned that one of these tracts, there may be one parcel that’s in the flood zone and one parcel that’s not in the flood zone. So, it should not say Tract 29 is in a flood zone because that’s not good City of Palo Alto Page 8 information. Also, flood zones can change so if it gets memorialized in a book like this and all of sudden then the National Flood Insurance Program says ok, this property is not – then this is out of date. I think the best source for a property owner to find out a technical issue on flood zone is just keep it where it is right now and that’s in the parcel maps because those can be updated very quickly. This will not get updated very quickly and this becomes out of date. So, I think flood information is really critical for homeowners so let’s just keep – I would say don’t put it in this book because this is not going to get revised. Whereas the parcel reports that are available online in like pretty quick – like instantly on a computer, I think that would be the best place to keep flood zone to address the issue of are you in a flood zone or not. Then as an applicant wants to make changes to the property that is in a flood zone or just make it real specific because this is not going to be revised. Vice Chair Bower: So, let me just respond to that very briefly. If in fact we – it’s better not to have flood zone information in here, then let’s take this map out. That’s the whole purpose of the map, this page is only here to show people whether they are in or out so I’m just – I’m trying to make it clearer. Chair Bernstein: Clearer, yeah. Vice Chair Bower: I take your point and you’re absolutely right, flood information is… Chair Bernstein: Changeable. Vice Chair Bower: … well, no not really. It will take 25 – I’m in a flood zone, I’ve been there since 1998 and there’s no hope in my lifetime that we’re going to be out of that flood zone because of how difficult it is to get the Army Core of Engineers to move that. I think this is going to be an unlined document, printing the way we know it today is not really going to be the way information is transmitted in the future. So, I take your point but I think if we’re going to have this here, it ought to be clearer or maybe we don’t have it, that’s all. Board Member Kohler: I just think the map is helpful because when people walking through this but certainly could have a little script below there that says this is a fluid document… Chair Bernstein: No pun intended. Board Member Kohler: That’s right, ok, yes, it’s water under the tree when the water gets… Vice Chair Bower: So, on page… Board Member Kohler: … but I’m just saying is that a little note there that says, by the way, this flood data gets changed on and off over the years, verify with the Building Department before. I think the map would be a helpful thing to at least get them understanding that they are in the flood zone if they don’t already know. Ms. French: I’ll just weigh in on that. I think if we – it might be helpful if we keep it – we can put the date, as of 2018 January or whatever so they know and then add the disclaimer subject to change. Then the possibility to do a dashed line through the tracts showing approximately where that flood zone might help… Board Member Kohler: Yeah, if you say approximate. Ms. French: Yeah. Vice Chair Bower: I would like to give credit to Page and Turnbull, this box here on page 22 says go – gives you exactly the internet log in – I mean direction to get to the flood zone information by parcel. So, it’s there, it would be better if you could put it on this – on the same page but that’s not really going to City of Palo Alto Page 9 be possible because of the way – so, they’ve done a good job of putting this information. I just think that it could be a little bit better. Chair Bernstein: Before the HRB continues on this, I’d like to – we’ve got members of the public who would like to speak. I’d like to hear their words of comments, please. First speaker would be Lee Lippert, welcome. Mr. Lee Lippert: Good morning distinguished Members of the Historic Resources Board. I’m Lee Lippert, I’m an architect in Palo Alto, I’m also the President of Past Heritage. I’m speaking tonight as an individual, not as speaking for the -- for Past Heritage. First of all, I want to thank you for your document, I think it’s really well done but the difficulty or challenge I see is implementation. What you really need is a path forward as to how individual house owners, as well as – homeowners, as well as each of the neighborhoods, will embrace this document. The problem is that unfortunately with sea level rise and climate change, moisture is not the friend of the Eichler. Eichlers are basically, I use this – this is an analogy, they are basically cardboard houses and so they are really subject to moisture, dry rot and those sorts of things and with sea level rise, I can just see the problems getting worse. The whole issue with the floodplain is one of interesting complexity. If a home is in the flood zone but is not deemed historic, there’s no way to sort of writing it out of the flood zone. The house basically, if it exceeds fifty percent of the replacement evaluation, needs to basically be lifted the construction value. However, if these homes were deemed historic and the only path to get there is by individual owners doing that, they are subject to a number of incentives that they can take. One is that Public Works would deem it out of the flood zone and therefore certain work can be performed on improving these buildings without parallel of that tax shall we say. In other ways, they could make use of the State Historic Building Code in renovating their building and there are other incentives, I’m sure as you know, coming down the pike. The failure of Eichlers is really in several different components, one is the beam overhangs. The beam overhangs are subject to dry rot and failure on the exterior and the solution for that is that homeowners wind up cutting them off thereby negating or losing some of the historic fabric right there. The second is in the siding, the siding is no longer available. You have to have it custom milled but most homeowners what they do is they simply rip off the siding and they sheath it with plywood or stand board and then they simply go in and cement plaster over it. Then the third area failure are the garage doors. As you know, many Eichlers have those wonderful sliding garage doors and again, those get bound up in the tracks, the tracks are very old, they cut the tracks off, they remove the garage doors and the next thing you know you have a sheet metal, roll up overhead garage door. They are not particularly attractive so if there’s some way to incentivize citizens to be about to find a path forward to embrace your guidelines here, I think you’ll begin to find that you’ll be able to preserve many more Eichlers in the neighborhoods. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Bernstein: Thank you so much for those excellent comments. Next member of the public is [Mira Eldamen], welcome. Ms. Mira Eldamen: Good morning, thank you to the Board and the Committee and thank you for all the work on the guidelines. They are really thorough and I also really appreciate the community involvement. I’m an Eichler owner in Royal Manor and before that I was an Eichler owner in Willow Glen in San Jose for 4-years. I have deep respect for architectural beauty and in my previous life I was in Washington DC where I had a historic residence where Harry Truman once lived. I really support the attempt to protect privacy and continue to have good architecture in the Eichler neighborhoods. I want to discuss today Section 5.1.1 on page 76. These are guidelines that talk about new additions to existing Eichlers, specifically with respect to first-story additions. I think this particular guideline would merit some more study. It reports to put some limits on how additions to front and rear elevations of Eichlers can be done and it includes three graphics. One with a green check mark which I understand is probably a correct way to add a rear addition and then two with red X’s which seem to imply poor additions. One to the front and one to the back, although there is a typo in the third graphic. As you know there are a variety of Eichler designs, some are flat fronts, some have certain off-sets on the front of the house where one portion of the house is further back from the other. This is often divided where a garage might be further back or further forward from the living area of the house. Eichlers are small and lots are small in Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Page 10 and so we really need to allow owners to have the ability to add additions that are consistent with zoning regulations and architectural integrity to the front and the rear of their houses as they need them. There are Eichlers in some communities, including mine, where additions where added both to the front and the back which are consistent with the original intent of the Eichler and with the graphics and the text of this guideline, might be in the future be considered inconsistent. I will provide written comments and provide some addresses. One of the Eichlers that added a very beautiful rear addition was actually on the San Mateo house tour, which I know is not within these guidelines control but it was on house tour and was done absolutely beautifully by an architectural firm. Read additions in particular, I think should have a very soft touch in these guidelines because most Eichlers are completely fenced off from the front and we’re interested in protecting the privacy of the backyard. Owners who want to add additions to the backyard which is almost always the only place where there is room to add an addition, are not even seen from the street. With the first-story addition, even if you’re putting up walls of glass in the back, you’re not going to be intruding on the privacy of any of your neighbors because of the way the fences are. In the front of the house, often when you have an offset front of the house, you can add an addition about 6-feet to the side of the house that is set back from the road, further than the other side, to bring the house flat to the front, which is also consistent with several Eichler designs. Both designs where there’s a flat front of the house where a courtyard has been added, where a fence goes to the front of the house, you have a flat front. Those are my two comments on the guidelines for the additions to the front and the back. I think there’s also a beautiful addition with a read addition in Green Meadow, I’ll find the address for that one, and again, there’s also one in my Royal Manor neighborhood that a front addition that is quite beautiful. Thank you for your time. I appreciate all the attention that has been given to this and hope that we have some really great outcomes for the owners that truly love our homes. Chair Bernstein: Thank you so much. Any other members of the public that would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Board, additional comments or suggestions from Board Members? Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I just had one thought here, you emphasize this as a guideline and not a prescriptive situation right here. It might be interesting if there was an incentive that was attached to this that if you follow these guidelines, you get some type of incentive. I don’t know what it would be, maybe additional size or square footage or something that you could do but make it more of a voluntary type of thing and not prescriptive. You might get more interested in it, incentivize it. Chair Bernstein: I agree with that. The Board Members have repeatedly commented about what can be put in any guideline, including any ordinance for incentives. Incentives can – and those can be based on a voluntary basis but if you follow the money, then you might choose to take care – do the incentive. So, I think those – and we’ve heard a member from the public speak to an idea of an incentive so if somehow that can be incorporated somehow in the guidelines and maybe if ordinances become in place regarding Eichler Guidelines, I think that’s an excellent idea. Board Member Makinen: I just – when I look at this I think anybody who is a person looking at this as guidance would eventually assume that it was going to be prescriptive at some point. You went through all the trouble to build this guideline but if you clear made it as an incentive program, it would sort of remove that possibility and put it more as an incentive type program. Chair Bernstein: I think that’s a common voice that this choir has sung about, just if – where ever opportunities are to provide incentives, whether it’s guidelines or ordinances that would be great. Alright, well I’ve got several things to look at, let’s start on page 24. On page 24, on the right-hand side, it talks about National Register of historic places and districts. My question is, is only the district historic and not individual homes? So, individual homes are not historical properties, is that correct to date -- as we are today? Ms. French: Yeah, the National Register forms for both of those National Register Districts are focused on the tract as a whole. The significance derives from the arrangement on the sites and kind of a holistic City of Palo Alto Page 11 look at it. There may be some homes out there that qualify individually but they have not been identified in either of those nomination forms. Chair Bernstein: I see your lights on here, welcome. Ms. Christina Dikas: Typically – Christina Dikas, Page, and Turnbull, typically contributors to the historic districts are considered historic resources for other purposes that you might have in the City. So, the next page has the maps that color them with contributors and non-contributors to help differentiate. Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok. Then the contributors – so I guess from an ordinance point of view, are they considered historic properties on the – from the Historic Preservation Ordinance? Ms. French: Our Preservation Ordinance does not address National Register District Eichler tracts so the ordinance has nothing to do with that at this point. Chair Bernstein: At this point. Ms. French: Yeah, that’s a discussion that could happen in the future as far as the relationship between contributors to a district and our ordinance. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. Again, I do see that – actually on page 27, on the right-hand side near the bottom, I’ll just read it. It says National Register Historic Districts are not currently listed in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. Thank you for that clarification. Next is on page 64, my comment is it talks about exterior colors so that’s 4.1.2 on page 64. I’ll read this then colors – that’s not an enforceable guideline -- it’s not enforceable, right? Color? This is page 64. My question is so it looks like colors – that’s not enforceable, anyone can paint any color they want. Ms. French: There is nothing in our code regarding colors of any -- prescriptive of any homes anywhere in the City. These are – the Architectural Control Committees that are in place in two of the three – two? Three of the districts – two of the districts are -- or sorry, of the Eichler tracts, they employ discussions or at least I think Green Meadow Architectural Control Committee has discussions with homeowners about the color – traditional Eichler colors. These are not intended to be prescriptive. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Board Member Corey: Actually, it says right here that the use of specific original colors is not required in Eichler neighborhoods, for whatever that’s worth. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thanks. Next on page 72 on mechanical systems, again it looks like – just it’s a guideline that if you’re going to put ductwork on the building, just to have it minimally visible from the street. I think it just says it so I support that idea as a guideline. Please, Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: I’d just like to put into the record something that I think a lot – occurs often and that is that the mechanical companies don’t – because they don’t have the aide of a mechanical engineer to design these HVAC systems, that they typically just put round ducts everywhere. In HVAC systems the primary consideration is the number of square inches or volume of air you move through a duct and it doesn’t matter whether it’s round or rectangular. There’s a little bit of drag in rectangular but rectangular ducting would diminish the impact of these systems hugely so I’m encouraging people to somehow to think about that and maybe even put something in this document that talks about that. Chair Bernstein: That’s actually a good point. I’m imagining this scenario, homeowner – their steel hydronic heating system fails and then they call directly a mechanical contractor. Says hi, can you give us a price, we need ductwork up in here? Then I guess my question is for Eichler Guidelines, is there – let’s see. What would encourage or let the mechanical contractor when they come to get a permit, is there anyone at the Development Center saying oh, you’re Eichler, please consider rectangular ducts versus – City of Palo Alto Page 12 what’s the mechanism between the contractor and the owner so that the contractor knows about this concern or is it just –says I’ll put round ducts, he gets a permit, it gets installed and that’s it? Without any interface with these guidelines at all. Is there any process of how that – to speak to Vice Chair Bower’s good comment. Ms. French: Well, once the Council adopts the guidelines in whatever form they do adopt them. There are opportunities for training of the Development Center Staff so they can at least have a conversation. The planning – certainly the planners that are over there will receive firm instructions and then – but people do walk in and do things at the counter – over the counter all the time. Chair Bernstein: This is probably just a straight – right now it’s probably just a straight building permit issues. I mean there’s not going to be – I don’t – so far there won’t be any planning issue. I mean so just a good comment about how to – before a permit is issued, how can it get addressed to what these guidelines are saying; a process question, good question. Next is on page – about three more items here. On page 77 and one of the speakers made reference to page 77. Take a look at the middle diagram where it says a no with the addition beyond the side view there. There’s another page, I think it’s on page 104, where it talks about the idea of any addition and it encourages to be subordinate to the main existing house. There can be an addition as on page 77, the middle diagram where is extents back there, but as long as it’s subordinate there can be fencing that’s not visible. So, I think that can be achievable to allow for that kind of an addition and still having it be subordinate without affecting the historical aspects. Again, and part of the flexibility that one of the last speaker mentioned, I think that would be good to incorporate. So as long as it’s subordinate, because that is one of the guidelines, is that whatever addition happens is that it’s subordinate to the existing house. The middle diagram on page 77 then that could be a yes. Ms. French: Thank you, I think we can certainly take that middle diagram and have it focused on how to be subordinate. Chair Bernstein: Perfect. Ms. French: What are the bullets that make it subordinate maybe so people can understand visually how that can (inaudible). Chair Bernstein: That sounds great. Then the last speaker also made a typographical error on page 77, on the right-hand diagram, it says inappropriate rear so it should just be inappropriate front. On the -- yeah, she’s got it, ok good. Then as the last speaker also mentioned, yeah, some kind of flexibility of if – again, these are all subject to a reviewing body I believe, right? Whenever anyone – I guess not, ok. It sounds like if a homeowner wants to make an addition, it’s – again, these aren’t registered historic properties so I guess none of the projects would come before the HRB. Ok, right, ok, alright. Vice – Board Member Kohler, yes. Board Member Kohler: Just in the comment about the no in the middle where it says X, no in the back. You know all these Eichlers have these 6-foot fences everywhere. Who’s going to see that in the back and what difference does it make? Chair Bernstein: That’s why I made that comment about – anyway, but the idea of subordinate and then – so there’s the note there. Good comment Board Member Kohler. Ms. French: I would just add to this conversation about the rear additions. I mean we do have that – I don’t think it’s called an incentive but we have that ability to encroach into the 20-foot rear setback width across half the width of the house or half the – that dimension at the rear for a distance of 6-feet. So, we could actually have several diagrams that could help people understand how to use the code to make the backyard, at least for one-story additions, a good place to start. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Vice Chair Bower: So, I think what we’re talking about as we review these diagrams is that effectively it’s only a front façade protection that we’re seeking. I mean, of course, we want to preserve as much of the building – original building as we can. That’s one of the Secretary of Interior’s primary standards in any addition or renovation but the reality is because of fencing, we can’t see the backyards unless we’re actually invited in by the homeowners. So, I think, again any series of sketches that would allow what you were just describing, which is the encroachment issue, is probably not an X as the center one but maybe a question mark. It’s nuanced and so I think that’s to be encouraged. I think obviously the right- hand diagram where there’s a front addition is completely problematic in preserving the design and also, I think it’s unlikely. A lot of -- well, it depends upon the era of the Eichler tract but most of them were built on the front setback so I don’t know that there’s any exemption for front setback intrusions. Chair Bernstein: Again, these are – and these are guidelines and so then someone can propose something and then as the neighborhood review. My last comment is on page 103 -- I’ll wait till you guys finish. Page 103 and the diagram about the knob handle. With an aging population, knobs are going to be pretty difficult, it can be a challenge for a lot of people so in the middle of the page on 71.3 it says retain original door hardware knob. I’m going to suggest that there be – don’t put that in a guideline that could perhaps become prescriptive. Knobs are pretty – can be challenging for people as we age so I’m concerned about putting that in a guideline and if certainly, a guideline becomes prescriptive. Ms. French: Can I just make a quick comment on the guidelines becoming prescriptive? Chair Bernstein: Sure. Ms. French: If the Council directs us to have prescriptive anything, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that everything that’s in print in here is prescriptive. You know I mean the – anyways, that’s a conversation for another time. Chair Bernstein: Alright, I just noticed that, about the ---is says retain original knob and so just as a comment for accessibility. Those are all the comments I had. Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Just one further comment on page 72, we did have some discussion about heating systems and if you put some of this ductwork on top of the roof, it’s pretty unsightly. That is addressed kind of in a soft manner right here where it – the third bullet – the second bullet down on the right-hand side. Explore ductless heating and cooling systems such as mini split air conditioning units. I think this should probably be emphasized more as being a really practical solution to this problem. I personally have used these things for the last 10-years on a couple projects we had and they really work quite effectively. They get rid of a lot of that unsightliness and it solves a very significant problem when you have heating tubs embedded in concrete floors. You can get around it with this newer system, newer technologies, and these mini-split systems, they have – you can do several rooms right now with one condenser so I think that should be kind of highlighted as a major improvement too. Vice Chair Bower: Can I ask you, are they reversible? I know that you can cool with split… Board Member Makinen: Yes, you can do… Vice Chair Bower: You can heat with them too. Board Member Makinen: You can do – they have a system I put in recently, a hyper system that’s good – not around here but it’s good to minus twenty degrees; it extracts heat. Chair Bernstein: Alright, any other comments on the guidelines? Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: I had one other comment that wasn’t covered. On page 67, on the improving the energy efficiency of the house by repairing or upgrading windows. In general, I like all this in here but City of Palo Alto Page 14 there was – I never saw anything about trying to match the materials so it would be nice to incorporate something about materials. There’s a lot about size and profile but nothing about materials so I would encourage people not to replace wood with vinyl, aluminum and those sorts of things, right? Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible) Board Member Corey: I couldn’t find it but maybe… Vice Chair Bower: It's in the middle of page… its that middle column on page 66. It says new vinyl windows are discouraged, as are aluminum. Odd enough, of course, aluminum was the original Eichler window style but it doesn’t meet any energy codes now so I don’t even know if you can still buy them. You can’t certainly buy them at Home Depot or Lowes. Anyway, good point, that’s an important point to make. Chair Bernstein: Any other comments from the Board or staff on this agenda item? Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Yeah, I have a question – I’ll save my comments on the guidelines for later and otherwise. Just one – oh, one comment though about the schedule, actually, it’s a question. I’m not understanding this schedule because it says that the public comment period ends on the 12th but the community workshop is – you said on the 18th now has been confirmed? Ms. French: Yes, the comment period is really the initial – kind of like a CEQA, initial comment period where we’re asking people to get us the comments so we can prepare for that workshop on the 18th. The comments continue on the 18th which is yes, the targeted date. We get a little worried about when is the State of the City going to be and so we were kind of looking at two possible dates but we landed on 18th and hope that the State of the City is on another date. That’s the point and then we will continue to get comments on the 18th and work that into a revised set of guidelines after that. Council Member Holman: So, on the 18th then you will have compiled the comments received by the 12th or – the reason I am asking is that we’re getting a lot of comments from the public about – Council Members are about schedules. There’s been an RPP meeting scheduled for December 20th for instance and we’re getting a lot of pushback on that and a lot of – I mean understandably but there’s a lot of comment these days about meeting schedules so I’m just wondering how that was going to work. You’ve sort of explained how that would so would the comments received by the 12th be compiled in for the meeting on the 18th for people to review so we’re not repeating everything. Ms. French: We’ll do our best, it depends on the extent of the comments received on the 12th. So far, we haven’t gotten anything so I don’t know what’s going to come into my email box or the – we have an Eichler inbox that people can send comments too that I look at – that we both will look at. Then we’ll have, yeah, some kind of list of what or description in that meeting of what we’ve heard to date from the HRB, from others. Council Member Holman: Based on history, I think you’re more likely to get comments on the 18th than you will the 12th, probably. Ms. French: I’m hoping that people do come to the event, yes. Council Member Holman: Then so the meeting is on the 18th and then those comments you’re going to compile and bring to the HRB – back to the HRB on the 25th? Do I read that right? Ms. French: Well, not necessarily, the ARB is making their comments today. They can recommend what they recommend today, that’s an option. The 25th we were going to start to talk about these code – potential code changes that we would – we’re exploring, discussion of that to get – to start that conversation. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Council Member Holman: Based on the comments received by the 18th? Ms. French: And other – and just looking at codes and how our codes function. For instance, we have our Chapter 1812 that doesn’t mention the Eichler Guidelines because – and they also don’t mention the Professorville Guidelines at all so that’s a code change for instance. That’s an easy code change I think, to talk about the existence of both sets of guidelines that the Council could then say yes, talk about the guidelines in the zoning code about residential. Then there will be other potential options such as mention the Eichler optional overlay if you want to call it that, combining district or conservation district or however the Council directs staff to explore that. Council Member Holman: Ok, that clarifies helpfully, thank you. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower, you had a suggestion? Vice Chair Bower: If we’re finished with this phase of discussing the guidelines, I would like to propose to Board Members that we continue this discussion until the 25th of January or at least until after the last public input which I think is on the – January 16th or 18th? It's in here. Ms. French: Well, yeah, January 18th is the – now, we’ve landed on that with our fingers crossed that nothing bumps it, yes. Vice Chair Bower: Well but that’s the next public meeting. Ms. French: That’s the public workshop, the other workshop. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, I think we can’t make, as a Board, we should not make the decision. We could but I think it would be unwise to make a decision about this and move this forward in the regulatory scheme until we actually hear that last meeting. I’ve been to one meeting, the very one, it was very strong opinions on both sides of whether or not there should be any guidelines. I think after this information is now widely available for the public, I’d like to hear what the public has to say. I’m recommending that we continue this until after that meeting. Ms. French: That’s great. If there are – if what has been said by the Board or the public today if there’s discussion about that as far as a straw poll or anything else. You know I haven’t heard anyone saying I don’t agree with that when other Members have spoken but we can certainly – because we’d like to get Board concurrence at some point on the changes that have been voiced today. Board Member Kohler: One sort of comment, have you noticed the choice of colors for houses lately by the way? White, white all outside, white all inside. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, we are seeing a lot of that. Board Member Kohler: It’s just – I just – but we even did a house in – and we never talked about… Chair Bernstein: Yeah, ok. Board Member Kohler: But I’m just saying is it mentioned in here color of… Chair Bernstein: Yeah, color is mentioned and there are guidelines for color. There are, yeah. Board Member Kohler: They are guidelines but can you do a white Eichler? Chair Bernstein: They are only guidelines, they are not in forceful. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Kohler: Ok. Chair Bernstein: Following up on Board Member – Vice Chair Bower’s comment, if it’s to have a continue again so I guess that could just show up on a subsequent agenda item after the public hearing. Ms. French: If you’d like to continue it to the 25th, that’s the – we wouldn’t talk about that on the 11th because that’s before so we can continue it to that date if you’d like. Chair Bernstein: Ok, good, does the Board agree? Vice Chair Bower: I also think it would be important to have all seven Board Members to move this forward. Chair Bernstein: That would be wonderful. Anything else on this agenda item? I’m going to suggest for the next – let’s take a 10-minute break so we can set up for the next agenda item so we’ll reconvene in 10-minutes and that’s at 9:52. Ok, great, thank you. [The Board took a 10-minute break] [The Board move to the approval of the minutes before hearing item four.] 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 Chair Bernstein: Next is agenda item number four, I will read the agenda item and then I’ll make an announcement. Agenda item number four, study session, 755 Hamilton Avenue requests for a study session of an Individual Review application for a second-story addition to a single-story home. The zone district R-1 single-family and the environmental assessment is pending. I’m the architect of record so I will be stepping down from this agenda item and Vice Chair Bower will convene the rest of the meeting, thank you. Vice Chair Bower: Thank you, Martin. Ms. French: Staff has a presentation. Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I’ll let Martin get settled. Oh, I guess we could go ahead and start with the staff presentation. Ms. Vance: Sure, ok, good morning everyone. I’m just going to provide a little bit of background information on what makes this home a historic resource, as well as providing some images of the existing and proposed elevations. The 755 Hamilton was built around 1920, it is considered an archetypal example of the California bungalow. It is a one-story wood frame home clad in stucco with a low-pitched roof and recessed front porch. Principle stylist features of the house are the tapered porch columns, moderately overhanging eaves, exposed rafter tails, multiple gables and the tapered brick chimney. Additionally, the home is significant for its association with Ralph Beal, a leader and early electronic industry in Palo Alto who made significant contributions to American military technology in World War I and World War II. You can see a picture of him in the upper right corner. Ralph Beal and his wife Merle where the first occupants and first owners of 755 Hamilton, which was built by Biel’s father in law George Burch. Beal worked for the Federal Telegraph Company from 1912 to 1926 and was an outstanding leader and authority on radio research and television. According to Ward Winslow, Beal and two others worked out the theory of the great arcs that Federal Telegraph built to become the backbone of the US Navy communications during World War I. 755 Hamilton has been deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria B and C, as the home of a leader in early electronics and as an City of Palo Alto Page 17 archetypal example of the California bungalow (inaudible). We’re going to run through just a few more pictures of the exterior and floor plan, as well as existing floor area sizes. Here are the existing elevations and w can always go back to these if you want to look at it further. Oh, existing and new, excuse me. This would rear of the home and this is the north side and here is the garage. Ms. French: So, the garage is currently a three-car garage? Ms. Vance: Right so the garage is going to be proposed for I guess demolition and then building a much smaller garage on the same footprint. So, that is kind of a brief background of this project and we have Hailey King here who was the project planner for this who can help answer questions and I think that’s if from staff. Thank you. Vice Chair Bower: Thank you, Emily. Typically, we would nowhere from the applicant’s architect and then where are no, at least to date, there is not yet any public – any members of the public who want to speak to this but that might change. So, Martin if you are ready, then please review the project. Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you, Vice Chair Bower and Members of the HRB and staff, Martin Bernstein, architect. I’ll just say that for a member of the public to know, I received notice from the California Fair Political Practice Commission that as I am the architect of record and without employees, I am permitted that Commission to present this project to the Historic Resources Board. I want to start by making a simple statement about the goals for the homeowners and the owners are here to answer any other question also, Fan Yang and Hui Tan and owners are represented by Nick French. As far as the goal is it to create for contemporary use a three-generation family home, there will be three generations living in this home. That important family goal is the reason for the proposed design you’re seeing today. Two other goals, we want to maintain eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and consequently the – subsequently the California Register of Historic Places and keep the existing basement. This project and application also include requesting a variance and that variance is to keep the existing basement. The National Flood Insurance Program allows for -- that’s in the Palo Alto code and also the federal guidelines is that if the structure is specifically eligible for the National Register for Historic Places and if it’s deemed to continue with that eligibility, that the existing basement can remain. That requires then a variance procedure for that so that is specifically the exact words in the National Flood Insurance Program. That if it’s eligible for National, then the basement can stay in the flood program. We are also asking for a Home Improvement Exception and that is to – the ceiling is low and the main rooms inside the existing house, they are very expansive. I’ve been in the house several times as you can imagine and it feels very compressive at 8-foot 6. The Home Improvement Exception we’re looking for is to raise that ceiling 6-inches to get to a 9-foot ceiling and 6-inches will make a difference on how that feels. The reason that we would need a Home Improvement Exception is you can see on one of the documents that you have, the – on the Fulton Street, that building is 15-feet 10-inches from the property line and the side setback is 16-feet. We are 2-inches into that setback and then so to raise that up 6-inches, that’s one of the reasons why we have to go through the formal Home Improvement Exception is to raise it 6- inches or 2-inches away from the sideline there. Aspects that are certainly important to the Historic Resources Board would be the… Board Member Kohler: Martin? Chair Bernstein: I’m sorry. Board Member Kohler: I need to ask you a question before you get too far. The raising, what is being raised? Chair Bernstein: The first-floor ceiling height, we want to raise that 6… Board Member Kohler: So, does this mean the rafters stay and (inaudible)… City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Bernstein: We’re looking at -- so the rafters are 2 by 8 so we would raise those rafters up 6-inches. We – yeah. Board Member Kohler: So, the height of the roof and everything from the exterior is raising up? Chair Bernstein: 6-inches, correct, yes. Board Member Kohler: Ok. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Other aspects that are certainly important to the Historic Resources Board would be conformance with – substantial conformance with the Secretary of Interior Standards and so those are – I’ll speak briefly about compatibility, differentiation, and massing. I will say and compliment the process of the Individual Review Process and then also Historic Review. We -- I personally feel this, is that I think based on the comments we received from Historic Planner Vance and IR consultant Manuela. Then also with the guidance of Planner King and then you’ll see I’ll mention some of the improvements we’ve made based on that -- is how do we get – maintaining the historic quality? As far as compatibility and you’ll see in the perspective renderings that are in front of you, the second-floor addition certainly has the same characteristics as the historic first-floor. The differentiation and this is where I took some good Council from Historic Planner Vance, is you’ll see in the packet there, there are some other photographs in the back of the existing brackets of the roof and it shows a certain little profile on there. For the second-floor brackets, those will just be kind of square and cut off and won’t have all the finesse that the historic ones do so that would be an example of the differentiation. As far as the massing, we took good Council again from IR consultant Manuela and that has we reduced the Fulton Street length of the second floor. We also moved it farther away from Fulton Avenue and then we put a couple of cut outs on the back and the front and then lowering the plate height so that – you’ll see those perspective drawings from the street point of view on how it minimizes the impact of that mass. Again, we just took good Council – I took good Council from those great comments. You’ll also see in the packet from the – you’ve got these pictures in front of you of examples of craftsmen style and two-story homes with a lot of different setbacks. You can see the first two pages just shows examples of two-stories in through there and then little-shed dormers. The next three and four pages that you have in front of you are showing the renderings of the proposed addition, you’ll see the bracket details of existing, and then on this rendering here, you have shown the different dormer options. One of the comments that came out during the Individual Review with Historic Planner Vance was one idea to help break the mass of the second-floor and again, this is subject to HRB comment of course. You see Option A and Option B of the two different ways, my renderings are showing Option A because my thinking is that that’s the least of adding mass to it but looking forward for your comments on all that. Other aspects that I think are important for the Historic Resources Board would be as far as keeping historic character and content and that is the first-floor windows that are facing Fulton and the first-floor windows facing Hamilton are unchanged. The first-floor, any of those character-defining aspects are completely remaining in place. We’re not raising the floor of the building above – any higher because the general guidelines for the Historic Preservation point of view is don’t lift the building. Then we want to keep that basement because again, the variance allows us to apply for that. There will be comments of – then we can go over the Standards for Rehabilitation, you see that in the staff report about some items that are consistent and some items that are not consistent. Those comments were based on previous plans, the current plans you have now are – will be addressing some of these items since you are here. The – I also want to make a point is that when we talk about massing, certainly the exterior elevations are not how a building is viewed because those are drawn at infinity so the heights are there. So, the idea of perception is what does it look like from the street point of view and that’s why I provided those renderings. If at the Board’s leisure, we can just go through the – on page – packet page 32, if it pleases the Board I can just go over briefly a comment and response to the comments that are on the standards. Is that acceptable to the Board? Yeah, ok, thank you. We’ll start on packet page 31, a property shall be used for its historic purpose and that is – so this project is considered consistent. Number two, the historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historical materials or alternations shall be avoided. This is saying not consistent, that was a previous plan and you’ll see the explanation talks about the windows. The current plans have no change to the existing windows on the street facing facades. It City of Palo Alto Page 19 was discussed during our historic review preliminary meeting with Historic Planner Vance that there wasn’t much concern expressed regarding the inboard side property windows changing because those are never visible from the public street and then from the rear, that was minimal impact from the street point of view. The windows again on Fulton and Hamilton are completely unchanged and so that would be the response to the making it consistent with the Standard number two. Number three, each property should be recognized physical place and time, changes that create a false sense of historical development. Again, earlier plans talked about the scale and mass of the second floor, again through the good Council from Manuela, we reduced the length of the wall on Fulton Street and also on Hamilton by setting back. The floor plans show where those things are setback or cutback to reduce that mass so that addressed the consistency issue for number three. Number four, properties change over time, that’s consistent. Number five, distinctive features, it says explanation floor modifications to include change the number location size of glazing on windows. The current plans you have now show no change those existing windows for that issue. Standard number six, not applicable and number seven not applicable. Number eight, significant architectural resources is affected, that’s consistent. Number nine, new additions and alterations shall be different from the old. Explanation of this -- on this – on page now 34, packet page, it says the addition appear to duplicate the exact form. Then the current plans, based on the good advice and Council from Manuela, is that we’ve made changes to the form and the shape of the building here. Then also with the brackets being a simplified version so that they are not confused with the historic issue. Then number ten, new additions related to new construction be undertaken in the matter of removed in the future. The proposed project could have permanent impact because adding a second floor or actually, it talks about the proposed increase in wall height. The increase of height is 6- inches and that 6-inches is going to be within the shadow lines of these – we’ve got like 30-inches overhangs in through here so if I went up 6-inches, my suggestion is that by the time you get to the second-floor addition that will not be a perceived change in the historical quality but it will affect and improve the interior view here. I did want to also include on the very last page, this is a project one block away on 811 Hamilton Avenue. The reason I’m bringing up this is this building has been remodeled, it was a one-story building, it was designed by Willis Polk a significant architect, and that no existing historic fabric was retained-- there was – or removed. I know this house quite well, I’m – I’ve lived in the neighborhood. The front entry columns use to be these appropriately scaled, because Willis Polk was a genius at this, of 14-inch door columns in through there and now we’ve got 10-inch columns so those were demolished; thrown away. I don’t -- I talked to the development team, they weren’t even salvaged. The – all of the existing windows were removed and then you’ve got the second-floor massing on there so Willis Polk’s genius of a design was abandoned. So, just for factual information and that’s – so I took Council from that before this project got started on how do we keep the historic integrity of that first- floor and then having a compatible second-floor. Again, addressing all the IR issues and certainly the eligibility issue which is important. The eligibility issue is important because that allows then for us to apply for the variance for keeping the basement. So, summarizing, it’s the idea of perception of what will this look like from the street point of view and that’s why I provided those renderings and that’s our suggestion as the applicant that this does meet all the criteria for the variance. Then the Home Improvement Exception, we’re looking for your comments on that and then any other comments you have. Available to speak to us would be – to speak to you would also be the owners or the owner’s representative as questions come up. So, I’m here to answer any of your technical issues as architect of record and any life quality issues then homeowners can address your questions. Thank you. Vice Chair Bower: Thank you, Martin. That’s a lot of material to cover and I’d just like to remind my fellow Board Members, excuse me, this is a study session so we’re not going to come to any conclusions today. We want to give the owners and their architect feedback on the design so questions anybody has or comments? Brandon. Board Member Corey: Can you explain the – I’m a little confused on the height, on the 6-inches versus a foot versus a foot and a half. There’s a lot of -- just – it says the wall plates are going to raise a foot and then the second-floor framing is on top but it’s 6-inches to the – for the eaves. Can you just explain that? Chair Bernstein: There is an original suggestion that the interior ceiling goes from 8-foot 6 to 10-feet high and from a spatial point of view, that would be a good point from a spatial point of view but that’s City of Palo Alto Page 20 changing the historical aspect. So, again, there was an earlier set of plans, not the current set of plans, and the earlier set of plans was 1-foot high. So now – so we’re only proposing now to go 6-inches higher. Board Member Corey: So, everything would move up, the ceiling and the eaves would move up 6-inches? Chair Bernstein: Correct, yes. Vice Chair Bower: So, following – can I make a comment about this or it’s really asking a question? By raising the first-floor ceiling height by 6-inches, you’re going to be encroaching on the daylight plan on the right side of the building as you face it from the street, is that right? Chair Bernstein: I believe not, let me look at the diagram here. No, if you look on page A4.1, there would be no daylight plane intrusion. Vice Chair Bower: Oh, so 6-inches and you’re still under the daylight plane? Chair Bernstein: Correct. Vice Chair Bower: So, I thought earlier in your – early in your presentation you said you were applying for a variance? Chair Bernstein: Homeowner Improvement – that’s the improvement exception because that wall is 15- foot 10 from the Fulton Street side setback, not 16-feet. So, we want to make – so that’s 2-inches intrusion so it’s a 2-inch non-conformance. We want to make that wall 2-inch – 6-inches higher so that’s technically making a non-conforming wall even taller. Vice Chair Bower: I see so you’re not encroaching on the daylight plane, you’re still inside that. Chair Bernstein: Correct, there’s no intrusion into the daylight plans on this project. Vice Chair Bower: Brandon, was that all the comments you had? Board Member Corey: Let me collect my thoughts. I just wanted to clarify that. Vice Chair Bower: Michael, you have any comments? Board Member Makinen: You’re taking comments in general? Vice Chair Bower: Sure, or questions. Board Member Makinen: I have a couple of additional examples that I collected here and I’ll pass them around to the Board Members of projects that involve adding a second-story onto an additional original structure. My general feeling is that this can be done successfully, although this particular project looks like it’s a little excessive in height on the second-story. The massing seems to be making it more dominant than I would like to see. These are examples of less dominate second-floor additions and I think was more successful in integrating a second-floor into an existing first-floor and still preserving the historic character. Vice Chair Bower: Roger? Board Member Kohler: Did – so in your discussion with Martin – no, with Arnold, you’ve met with him several times I guess. The –what I’ve been hearing from staff quite a bit is that the daylight plan you’ve shown would be not acceptable on most of the homes we’ve done. That the actual – the daylight plan can actually go right up close to the wall but the staff I’ve been working with has discouraged us from doing daylight plans quite that close because… City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Bernstein: Are you looking on page A-4.1? Board Member Kohler: A-4.1 on the upper right-hand corner, you have the daylight plan hitting the overhang. Chair Bernstein: Correct. Board Member Kohler: Which I know is ok… Chair Bernstein: Correct. Board Member Kohler: …but in Arnold’s world, no. Chair Bernstein: We didn’t hear any objection to that from Arnold. Board Member Kohler: Well, it may have been because – I’m just saying I see Arnold almost every week so this has become a big deal with staff (inaudible). Now, I can understand it’s a historic home and everything like that so maybe you’re getting a little bit eased on that. I have to admit, I mean I like the look of the house. It looks really good and everything. As I – along with the previous comment, I have to wonder whether or not it’s – it does change the overall look of the size of the house, especially on the new south. You can – it’s almost a two-story wall except for a little bit of roof across at the – in the middle so I – but I like the way it looks and everything. I’m just curious about the – what was the house and now what it’s going to be. If it’s – somehow – I don’t know how you would do it actually but the up (inaudible) and it says new south which I guess is facing the street, correct or not? Chair Bernstein: Correct, that’s facing Fulton. Board Member Kohler: So, there’s one little strip of roof line there, otherwise that’s a full two-story wall and again, Individual Review comments that would not be acceptable so – but it’s a historic home and should get some acceptations. I’m not – I don’t know, I think it’s a well-done house. I’m just – when I look at the requirements that I’m receiving, this would not be acceptable this large two-story wall facing a street. I’m not sure what to say about that. Other than that, I mean it’s a nice looking everything. Board Member Corey: I’m trying to understand I think a combination here. I mean maybe it’s the actual width of the second-story but the way I’m seeing it here, other than raising the first-floor to 9-feet which the second-floor is 8-feet, and the roof pitch is very – is sloped pretty low. I don’t know how you could really get tighter than 8-feet. I actually think – I’m surprised that 8-foot 6 isn’t an acceptable height because I’m a tall guy and 8-foot 6 ceilings are very roomy to me but I mean 8-foot is kind of at the limit. I don’t know if there are any thoughts on if it’s just the width or but again, I don’t see a real way – other than not extending the first floor up 6-inches, I don’t see another way you could avoid making – you could make it any shorter. Board Member Kohler: Well, the 8-foot ceiling is the wall height but the ceiling inside -- I assume in his room as well that all the bedrooms slope up? Board Member Corey: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: On the second floor. Board Member Corey: On the second-floor, yes. Board Member Kohler: On the second floor so you – even there’s this 8-foot wall, you come in and the rooms feel quite large depending on – this is low pitched so you don’t gain a lot but the room would not just be 8-feet. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Corey: Yeah, I’m just wondering how you would be able to make that shorter. Board Member Kohler: Make what shorter? Board Member Corey: Make the actual – the ceiling height shorter. You’re saying actually you would – how would you make it…. Board Member Kohler: It starts out at 8-feet and then the inside slops up or it pops up or I guess all – I imagine Martin has done that as well but all the bedrooms have a higher ceiling than 8-feet. Vice Chair Bower: But you’re talking about the first-floor, aren’t you? Board Member Corey: Well I was talking about the first-floor before as far as the need about raising it up 6-inches but even on the second-floor, unless you start encroaching at the outside wall to go below 8- feet with a low slope roof like that. I don’t know how you can really – the only way you can make it lower is to actually encroach in the footprint to bring those corners – to bring the edges down below 8-feet right? Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, you can drop – but…. Board Member Corey: Sorry. Vice Chair Bower: … that’s not really an issue in this project because as long as he’s under the daylight plane, it doesn’t have to but you could drop the – on a second-floor, you could drop the plate 2-inches so it would be 7-feet 10 and because it’s a vaulted ceiling, you wouldn’t notice that at all. Board Member Corey: I think my only point was that it was within the daylight plan and my only point was that doesn’t seem unreasonably tall given the constraints is what I think I was trying to comment on. Board Member Kohler: Well, I think one of the issues is as I’m looking here when you look at the side which – the south side and you look how far back the second-floor is from – at least from the porch, that’s pretty good. Then in the house, it’s another 5 or 6-feet back from the front wall so you are kind of – the emphasis is on the existing roof line in the front which is acceptable. It’s – again in my world with Arnold is that second floor, I’d have to go back. Typically, second floors have to go back 9, 10, 11-feet instead of the 4 or 5 we have here. This is an older home and all that and you’re trying to work so I don’t really have any issues. Vice Chair Bower: I’d like to sort of move the discussion on since what Arnold has reviewed here is in front of us. I have the same concern about raising the first-floor to 9-feet that I think Brandon does. I have a house that has an 8-foot 4 ceiling and I have a very large two – the living room and dining room is essentially one space of about 40-feet long and that’s very comfortable. My concern about raising that 6-inches is it seems to me that you then effectively have to take everything apart so that not only, I would imagine – I know will significantly increase costs but I’m not sure where – how that really costs – where the benefit is. I’m assuming you could – well, describe to me how – what you’re going to do with all the character-defining features like the knee braces for instance. They are all going to be removed? Chair Bernstein: I’ve don’t this on another project in Palo Alto where it was in a historic district and it’s all – yeah, we just salvage and then we reattach. Now of the fabric is going to be thrown away. Vice Chair Bower: I assume that but I just wanted to hear it. Chair Bernstein: For the record, that will happen. Vice Chair Bower: Could we focus for a moment on your picture that you provided of the knee braces? City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Bernstein: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: As I’m looking at these, we’re looking at a corner where – I guess this must be in the back of the building? Chair Bernstein: No, this is facing Fulton Avenue. Vice Chair Bower: Facing Fulton. Chair Bernstein: Looking at this picture? Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, that’s right. Chair Bernstein: So, Fulton Street is to the right of that photo. Vice Chair Bower: I see, ok and so it’s a rear – it’s the rear of the house on the left-hand side of this photo and the rest of the house is on the Fulton Street side? Chair Bernstein: Yeah, correct. Vice Chair Bower: As I’m looking at these two prominent knee braces, they are different and one of them is newer. I can’t quite figure out which one, I think it’s the one on the right. Chair Bernstein: These are all existing. Vice Chair Bower: Well, ok so there’s a variation there. I’m just looking at the way the bevels are cut and that might just be a function of the… Chair Bernstein: That could be, yeah. Vice Chair Bower: … photographic view. Chair Bernstein: Could be. Vice Chair Bower: How would you differentiate the new knee braces from these? Chair Bernstein: We discussed that with Historic Planner Vance and instead of having the little camphor or the taper. Vice Chair Bower: The 45-degree cut at the end? Chair Bernstein: Yeah, we would just do square and then same with the little bottom brackets here. Instead of having that little camphor, we’d just block them off straight so that’d be our differentiation. Vice Chair Bower: I’m not sure that I think that’s a very attractive differentiation but I would encourage you to work on a different plan that doesn’t reproduce this but it still is differentiated. I think that angle – those angle cuts are the (inaudible) of what these knee braces look like. Chair Bernstein: I agree. This other project that I made reference to where we salvaged the existing brackets and then we – that was also adding a second-floor to a historic structure. We actually replicated the ones but using – so these are 4-inches by 4-inches and for the second floor we did 3 ½ and 3 – we’ll find out – we’ll find some way to differentiate. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Vice Chair Bower: That, by itself, because the material that’s available now is 3 ½-inches net dimension rather than the full 4, it seems to me that would be adequate differentiation by itself. I just can’t see those being square. Chair Bernstein: I totally agree with you. We’re looking for differentiation but however, we get there. Vice Chair Bower: The other Board Members can weigh in on that but that would be my suggestion and the knee braces on the garage will match the second-floor? Chair Bernstein: Yeah, correct. Vice Chair Bower: Go ahead, Michael. Board Member Kohler: Could I just – just a quick question on these brackets? Are these brackets in these pictures the existing ones? Chair Bernstein: These are all existing, yes. Board Member Kohler: Ok. Vice Chair Bower: Alright, Michael? Board Member Makinen: I have one additional comment. If you look on your drawing A-4.1 and we look at the elevation new south… Chair Bernstein: Yes. Board Member Makinen: …in the upper left. You have on top of the roof, it looks like a little (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Bernstein: Shed dormer. Board Member Makinen: Little shed roof right there? Chair Bernstein: Correct, yeah. Board Member Makinen: I think if that was eliminated, it would serve to diminish the appearance of excessive mass being added to the structure. Just purely eliminate it. Chair Bernstein: Sure. Board Member Makinen: You would have less stuff sticking up in the air right there over the existing structure. Chair Bernstein: Ok, that will work for us. Vice Chair Bower: I actually had that on my list of things. I don’t see that motif a place on the building… Board Member Makinen: Doesn’t add anything to it, it really detracts from the whole. Vice Chair Bower: That’s exactly how I felt, I think it that it would be much simpler without that. Chair Bernstein: I mean that – I mean the common words I’ve heard about the perceived mass of it. We can remove that item. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Vice Chair Bower: If I can continue, in the – let’s see if I can find this. There is a bedroom number one on the first floor on the new – I think the new first-floor. If you go to page A-3.4… Chair Bernstein: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: … which is the second-floor floor plan. Chair Bernstein: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: It looks to me like you’ve got a fan shape roof design there. Chair Bernstein: That’s existing. Vice Chair Bower: Yeah but when I look on the elevation of 4.1, I don’t see that anywhere. Chair Bernstein: Let me take a look. There is right there, the new north. It’s a bay window, first floor – new north first-floor, there’s a bay window there. Vice Chair Bower: Right but there’s no – those hips aren’t in there. Chair Bernstein: Ok, sure. Vice Chair Bower: So, those are two different things and I’m picking this apart but you could frame it without doing that raised hip. Chair Bernstein: Got it, of course, I’m drawing the hips – the ridges. Got it, sure. Vice Chair Bower: Sorry, I’m asking not – I’m not criticizing, I’m asking as a clarification. Chair Bernstein: Got it. I’m adding it right now. Vice Chair Bower: There was a comment about a variance for the basement… Chair Bernstein: Correct. Vice Chair Bower: … and I guess this is a question for staff. Should the Board weigh in on that or not? I don’t see that as being a historic resources issue. Ms. French: The variance is not a zoning code variance, it’s a variance from the Flood Zone Regulations that require a historic – I mean the exception, if you will, is from the Flood Zone Requirements is hinging upon the preservation of a historic resource. That – the findings for that Flood Zone Exception if you will, are based on a historic resource so retaining the integrity of the historic resource is important. (Inaudible) say it that way. Vice Chair Bower: What we need to do as a Board when we make our final determination is to decide whether or not this – the historic fabric of this building is retained to a great enough extent for that to qualify for this variance from the flood zone. That just – so I’m unclear about that, is that right? Ok. Ms. French: Correct. Vice Chair Bower: Alright, thank you. I don’t see any streetscape elevations. Usually, we would see adjoining properties. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, we have that. I have that. It was in the initial submittal. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Vice Chair Bower: Ok so obviously you’ll have that when it comes back to us. Chair Bernstein: Oh, yeah, of course. Vice Chair Bower: Let’s see, I wanted to reference a comment in our Board packet from a neighbor that wants us to not to allow this project to move forward because of construction impacts in the neighborhood. I’d like to say that I am totally sympathetic with that but that’s totally irrelevant to what our – to what we consider as a Board. So, respectfully, we will not be able to address that but I did want to make reference to it because it’s part of the public record. Michael? Board Member Makinen: Just another comment, right down the street from this other project that you mentioned in here, the Willis Polk house. There’s a house at 857 Hamilton that as a similar upper story that appears to be (inaudible) renovation right now and it does look pretty good. The job they’ve done to it but I think the second-floor add-on is definitely subordinate to the primary structure which makes it, in my eyes, successful. Chair Bernstein: That was 857 Hamilton? Board Member Makinen: 857. Chair Bernstein: Ok, we’ll take a look. Vice Chair Bower: I think my final comment would be I like the design. I think that this works pretty well with the existing building and the reality of it is larger houses are driving all real estate development in City and this one is sensitive to the original designs. I am uncomfortable about raising the first-floor because I think that triggers a huge amount of demolition that just doesn’t need to be there. That’s just my personal feeling and I would feel more comfortable about the whole project if that were not here. Board Member Corey: I echo that feeling. Vice Chair Bower: In a new house I don’t think it matters but in an existing house, that’s really taken – that’s a significant demolition problem. Other than that, I look forward to this coming back. Nice job, even if you are a Board Member. Board Member Makinen: I had one more question, the survey indicates that it is – was surveyed and determined to be eligible for the National Register. Was it ever taken one step further and actually nominated to the register? Chair Bernstein: The – it’s… Board Member Makinen: Accepted? Chair Bernstein: To date, I think it has been but I will redo the – that’s a good question and that could be a separate conversation if the thing goes on but right now, the ordinance – it’s not – that’s as far as it is right now; eligible. Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I just wondered what the status of the process was. It looks like it was determined to be eligible by the DPR Form right here; 532 Form. Ms. Vance: I can answer a couple of those questions. Board Member Makinen: Ok. Ms. Vance: It was deemed eligible for the National Register and by deeming something eligible for the National Register, it’s automatically eligible for the California Register. So, this one has been sent to the City of Palo Alto Page 27 state and is listed with the state as a historic resource – as California historic resource. It is not listed individually on the National Register. That next step has not been taken. In additionally, to speak to Vice Chair Bower’s comment about when this project will come back, that’s if this project needs to come back. If these updated plans meet the Standards and are in alignment with what we’re hearing today, then I don’t believe it would be necessary to send it back to the Board. Vice Chair Bower: Oh, ok. Ms. Vance: Just to clarify. Vice Chair Bower: Right because this was… Ms. French: (Inaudible) ordinance. Vice Chair Bower: …billed as a study session so I assumed that it would – that’s the preliminary step in a Formal Application. Ms. French: I’d like to speak to that so we have a situation here where this is governed by our City ordinance for historic preservation. It’s only governed by California Environmental Quality Act and these steps that they are taking to – you know for this flood zone. We’re trying to approach it with input from the HRB and get it to a point where it is compliant with the standards so that it can be determined that it qualifies for this variance from the flood zone and we’re following through with CEQA. It is not subject to the City’s ordinance for historic preservation. Vice Chair Bower: So, if we were – so, then I don’t understand how you – the staff can reach the FEMA – the bar that allows the basement to remain. If the Historic Resources Board doesn’t make a decision about the integrity of the existing design features and historic fabric, who’s going to do that? Staff? Ms. French: Well, the National Guidelines for all of this for these exceptions don’t have – it doesn’t say that it needs to be on the City’s local inventory. It – by virtue of it being listed with the State of California as a resource, that’s enough for us to do this work as far as determine compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards. Board Member Kohler: This has to go through the Individual Review program, right? Ms. French: It’s currently in that program as a Formal Application. Board Member Kohler: Is there a formal site plan? Ms. French: Yes. Board Member Kohler: This is all – all I have here is Ed Woo’s drawing. Is there a site plan? Ms. Hailey King: The site plan should be sheet A-1.0 in the plan set. Board Member Kohler: Nope, I have no 1.0. I have three – oh, I see. It’s on the front page, ok. It’s awfully small, ok. So, in other words, this is not coming back to the Board? Vice Chair Bower: Actually, that – if I can interrupt? The answer to that is it's probably not coming back to the Board, is that a fair assessment? Ms. French: The assumption is the owners will allow their architect to modify the plans so that it does retain the existing plate height on the first-floor given your comments and give the staff comments about that issue; to retain the first floor more intact than what is proposed in the plans. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Vice Chair Bower: I thought it was coming back so I was making more general comments about this but if it’s not coming back, then I have at least one other question. Martin, how will you differentiate the second-floor exterior finish from the first-floor? Chair Bernstein: The existing first-floor has a subtle texture cement plaster. If you look at the building – the drawing with the brackets, you’ll see on the middle right side of the drawing there’s a little bit a texture of the stucco. So, the second floor, if we use a – if we went to a smooth plaster, same color, we’ll probably do an integral color. If we go with smooth plaster, that could actually help address some of the perceived mass of (inaudible). So, if there’s more texture on the first-floor and less texture on the second-floor, that could be a differentiation but keep the color the same, same material but just a little different texture there. Then taking your comments on the brackets, we can look at that so there’s some differentiation and not just an exact replica. Vice Chair Bower: I’m looking at this picture that we’re talking about, there’s a – it looks like there’s a downspout. Chair Bernstein: There are – that’s a downspout. Vice Chair Bower: Is that what’s that is in the middle? The downspout has texture and what that tells me is…. Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Bower: … that this texture was – there’s a product that use to be applied generously on houses because they said you could – we’ll just spray your house with this and you get color and you get a new texture. That wouldn’t be the original texture and as Roger was just pointing out, there’s another picture where the – and I think it’s the next page where the texture is actually much less significant. I’m just bringing this up, that’s the way that the Board asked the Peninsula Art League which is just across the street here… Chair Bernstein: I remember that. Vice Chair Bower: …to differentiate their new building from their old; same material, just different finish. I guess I would reiterate if it’s not – this is not coming back, that I don’t see how you can reach a decision that the historic fabric is being retained if you raise the first floor. That’s just going to take everything away or what – it doesn’t take it away, it removes it temporarily, then you have to bring it back and then you have to patch and that’s --- I mean that’s a huge difference than just adding the second-floor. Those are my comments, anybody else have any comments? Board Member Makinen: I concur with your comments. Vice Chair Bower: Brandon, you’re ok? Board Member Corey: As do I, we’ve covered it. Vice Chair Bower: Roger, anything further? Board Member Kohler: No, I think – I mean I can understand the art of trying to raise the first floor 8- feet. In a bigger home like that, the 8-feet feels kind of low but that’s what historic homes feel like, the ceilings are generally lower than they are now. Board Member Corey: To clarify, the original ceiling is 8-foot 6. Board Member Kohler: Oh. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Vice Chair Bower: It’s not 8-feet. Board Member Kohler: Oh, ok. I not sure how to say – finalize, I guess I’ll leave it up to whatever you guys decide. I mean if it can be done and look appropriate, I would accept it but if looks… Vice Chair Bower: I’m just reminded that at 11 o’clock our parking stickers expire so if there – oh, Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I have a global question, it’s more really for staff and it's about the role of the HRB. I appreciate the staff report and I’m not without some experience in historic preservation and I guess it’s easy, we all fall into this, getting into the details of a project. It’s easy to do that and projects are defined by their details but isn’t the role of the HRB with a global, big picture, is if this was built the way that it’s being proposed, even with the changes that the HRB is recommending, would the building still be eligible for the National Register? I think that’s the big global question that the HRB is not addressing and maybe that’s a question for staff about the role of the HRB. Vice Chair Bower: It’s a very valid consideration but I think – how to address this? I think the process that we’ve just been involved in where we’re doing a study session for a project that doesn’t come back to us, is a flawed process and I’ve said that with other projects like this. I’m happy to weigh in on and I think all of the Board Members are on design issues but I just feel that the Board doesn’t have the kind of tools it needs to the kind of evaluation that Council Member Holman is talking about. We could do it but at this point its way beyond relevant. Ms. French: It’s not spelled out in the City’s old historic ordinance that your job is to ensure that eligible National Resources are – kept their eligibility. There’s nothing in there, there are no teeth. We do have, I’ll just say, a couple things that are going on here but I know you have to leave but if we want to finish this one, I can talk to you about some things. Board Member Kohler: It’s also possible when you add a second floor, you have the existing ceiling and then when you put the second-floor up above that, you can pop up in the middle of those rooms to get a raised ceiling and still have the original 8 ½-feet on the outside. You end up getting 6 to 8-inch rise so you’re going to be up close to 9-feet. That saves the issue of reducing – ok, never mind. Vice Chair Bower: Maybe that’s a topic for a retreat discussion, is how we could get the – encourage the Council to actually give us better tools. Board Member Kohler: I have one… Ms. French: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Bower: Sure, so thank you, Martin, for the presentation and I guess we’ll move forward with updates and Board Member comments. Amy. Chair Bernstein: Actually, if the Board please I think the owner – Nick French, the owner’s representative, has a few comments. Vice Chair Bower: Certainly, I’m sorry. Mr. Nick French: Thank you and thanks again for your time. I just want to make – on behalf of Hui and Fan, I just want to make it clear the intention of the family. So, as we went through this process and engaged with Martin on trying to preserve the historic significance of Palo Alto in general and this property being included. We obviously want to make sure also that it’s practical for the family. I mean obviously, there’s a reasonability that we should be looking at. These structures are expensive, construction, of course, is there any part of what we’re hearing – I understand that there’s a lot of subjectivity included and I’m hearing that amongst you today as well; talking about how tall you are and City of Palo Alto Page 30 how ceiling of 8’ 6’’ is good enough. You also – I think we just need to be reasonable and think that what we think is reasonable may not be the same to other people. So, for the family looking at doing this project, I’ve encouraged them from the beginning that we really want to maintain that character of Palo Alt but also being sympathetic to people’s goals. One thing that’s very important to this family is that 9- foot ceiling, not coffered ceilings, not vaulted ceilings but having a 9-foot ceiling so we’ve really been trying to work with the historical pieces of this process to kind of make that work. We started with 10- feet and we’ve kept dropping it down. We’ve talked about the cost involved and of course, yes it would be a significant cost to do it but that 6-inches in an important piece to the family doing this project. I want you to understand that because when we’re going through and seeing if we’re going to pursue it, that could be a make or break situation so it is important. We talked about the shadow that’s going to kind of cover that extra 6-inches so obviously if we go to the 10-foot, that’s significant, we get it, which is why we kind of pulled that back. So, I just want to make sure that’s clear that that’s really there. I think that’s pretty much the one big continuous item we’re talking about. Vice Chair Bower: I would add to that, that you’re not the first – this is not the first project that’s come to use with that concern and that interest. Our perspective is in applying the Secretary of Interior Standards to these projects. I think a pure application would say you can’t have a second-story because of it – there is an argument to be made that the second store totally destroys the character of the building and that’s what you’re trying to preserve. I think when we make comments about specific items, it’s with the understanding of course that the owner of the property wants to have the best house they possibly can to fit their needs. I don’t think we’re every – I know I don’t make comments ever about those needs. My comments are always or at least I try to make them about how we apply the Secretary of Interior Standards, which are our tools, to a project. You know I grew up in Palo Alto, I can remember when the first house that I built as a builder had any ceiling higher than 8-feet because that was the standard. Even though my house is built in 1923, is 8’ 6” like this one, that was the standard then. It went to 8-feet and now we have standards 9’, 10’, 12’. Those aren’t standards really, those are just changes in design and appeal. They are not any less legitimate but they don’t really apply to what we’re doing here. That’s - - just so you understand, we’re not trying to make it difficult for your clients. Mr. French: Of course, yeah. Vice Chair Bower: We’re just trying to apply the tools we have to this project. Mr. French: I appreciate that but just respectfully, I heard earlier when you’re talking about the raising of 6-inches, you talked about one of the negative things being the additional costs but quite frankly, additional cost is really not your concern. Board Member Corey: I don’t think we talking about the additional cost financially. We were referring to the additional cost to the change of the existing structure; pulling things off and would that cause damage to the… Mr. French: That is fair. Board Member Corey: … it was not at all financial. It’s the historic integrity we were referring too. Vice Chair Bower: That was a peripheral comment of mine. Board Member Gooyer: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: My part is that these projects are costly enough but to have to add that cost and at the same time lose the fabric as we described it, that’s really the issue that I was trying to point out. Mr. French: I appreciate that and so, just to give you an idea as well, really the goal here is to maintain Palo Alto because obviously, we’re all seeing it change so that’s sort of the elephant in the room. This is just one more house that we definitely want to try to keep because it nice to drive down Hamilton and City of Palo Alto Page 31 see some of these older properties. So, I’m doing everything I can to help promote that to keep these kinds of structures. With the 6-inches, obviously there is that impact which Martin mentioned would kind of come back and from the street side, you know 6-inches, you’re really not going to notice it from the street side but if you’re inside the house 6-inches is a big deal. Again, I just want to encourage you to really appreciate the fact that for this particular project, which as you mentioned has come up before, that is a big consideration for the family. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, thank you. Alright. [The Board moved to Board Member questions, comments and announcements.] Approval of Minutes 5. Historic Resources Board Draft Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2017. Chair Bernstein: We’re actually going to go a little bit out of order. We’re going to finish off the agenda Item Five which is approval of the minutes first before we go back to item number four. Is there a motion to approve or amend the minutes of November 9th? MOTION Vice Chair Bower: So, moved. Board Member Makinen: I have an amendment. Chair Bernstein: Ok, please go-ahead Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: On page 22 of the packet, here we refer to the bottom paragraph. Ms. French: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: There’s not a page 20 – I mean packet page. Board Member Makinen: Packet page 22. Ms. French: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: No, it says package 50 something right? Here, right there, packet…. Board Member Makinen: Packet page 22. Chair Bernstein: Oh, my gosh. Vice Chair Bower: What? Ms. French: So, he’s looking at the excerpt minutes for the Eichler Guidelines and then there are the full minutes at the back. Chair Bernstein: Oh, I see. Ms. French: So, I’m on page 22, yes. Board Member Makinen: The bottom paragraph where there were some quotes made at the bottom two lines. It said Wright was greatly influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright, that should read Eichler was greatly City of Palo Alto Page 32 influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright and strike off the word that’s and the genius of all these Eichlers was Frank Lloyd Wright. So, delete the word that’s and substitute Eichler for Wright. Vice Chair Bower: It’s down here. Board Member Makinen: So, it will read properly. Ms. French: Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Any other amendments? Alright, anything else for – there’s been a motion, is there a second to the motion including the amendments? Board Member Makinen: Second. Chair Bernstein: Alright, I’m not going to be voting, I was not in attendance of this meeting. All those who did attend vote by signaling aye or nay. That passes, thank you for that. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1 WITH CHAIR BERNSTEIN ABSTAINING. [The Board moved back up to agenda item number four] Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Chair Bower: Alright, Amy updates. Ms. French: I want to get you to your cars but just quickly, I want to let you know that last night the Planning and Transportation Commission was due to take on this, I call it the loophole. We’ve proposed and Council Member Holmen I believe mentioned this at the last HRB meeting and so we quickly – ok, well anyways, we popped it into the ordinance that is under review by the Planning Commission and to get to the Council. This is basically to say that remove the incentive or close the loophole basically. So, if someone comes in with a one-story home and says I’m going to demolish this one-story home because I’m proposing – or I’m going to demolish this historic home because I’m only doing a one-story home and it’s just a building permit not subject to CEQA and they demolish it. Then they come back with a two- story home in the IR program, well this would say you have a 5-year cooling off period where that’s not – it may have an effect of closing that loophole and discouraging that behavior. We don’t know, it’s a possibility that that might have an effect so that went last night to the Planning Commission. I wasn’t there so I don’t know how that conversation went. Then the other things that are—we’ll talk about at the retreat I believe is the Comprehensive Plan update that the Council approved on November 13th. There are some historic preservation policies. I don’t want to go over them completely today. Tomorrow is the end of the challenge period so – but there’s some good news in there talking about the eligible properties with respect to our inventory. I touched on that a bit and then there’s quite a few historic related and archeological related Comp. Plan policies that we’ll just go over at the retreat. Vice Chair Bower: So, this wasn’t part of our packet today. Ms. French: No. Vice Chair Bower: I wonder if you could email it to us. Ms. French: Sure, certainly. I did email this to the Chair with respect to the project that you just reviewed so he’s aware of the new policies in the Comp. Plan but yeah, we’ll send that out. Vice Chair Bower: Alright. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Kohler: I have one real quick question when you get all these drawings and data and all this, do you keep any of that up there or do you put it on – I guess you all have it on the computer, is that right? Ms. French: Are you speaking of the website that the City has? Board Member Kohler: No, just in general. I mean I opened some of my desk drawers and they are filled with old drawings and stuff from previous meetings we’ve had. I guess now with computers, you just – everything goes on the computer I guess. Ms. French: We do have – well, there’s the web pages. I think things will live on there for some time but then we also have our kind of a cloud storage where we have to retain projects that have come through the City. At least those that have a planning application and then building applications, same thing. They have a way of storing things. Board Member Kohler: Maybe next meeting or something I’ll just bring some of my little collections to see what I’m -- to tell you what I’m talking about. Vice Chair Bower: I have one update on… Ms. French: I’m sorry, one more thing is whether we do election of Chair and Vice Chair at the retreat. That’s something that we could then or on the 25th if we want to put it off until the 25th. We need to – we should do that every year. Vice Chair Bower: I would think that we do it at a regular meeting. Ms. French: Ok. Vice Chair Bower: The 25th. I wanted to an update on the Mills Act subcommittee. We met again last week and I think we’ve made very good progress. We should have a draft to circulate soon and we – subcommittee members look forward to sharing that with the rest of the Board and of course staff sees it. Ms. French: We do have one thing to report on, which was the City Council approved the revised contract with the Squire House so that we keep the one Mills Act contract that we do have for the next 10-years. That was a success, otherwise, there was a non-renewal that was pending. Vice Chair Bower: One of the issues that we could not resolve at our meeting was what happens if we actually put in this program, which has requirements and specific performance metrics in it, what do we do with the one Mills Act that we have that’s totally non-compliant? So, I guess we will have to address that at some point. Alright, Karen? Council Member Holman: I think this was at the last Council meeting and I’m trying to – sit here trying to remember exactly what it was but there were two things – I don’t think this was Planning Commission meeting. It was – I’m having a foggy memory about this but there were a couple of things that the HRB had brought up that actually came with the code clean up or something that was recently adopted. I’m trying to remember what in the world it was. There were a couple of things, Marty, in particular, had been promoting them. I’ll have to go back and look. Ms. French: Martin Bernstein? Council Member Holman: Yeah. Vice Chair Bower: Maybe you could… City of Palo Alto Page 34 Council Member Holman: I’ll have to go back and look them up, there’s too much going on. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, any other comments? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? MOTION Board Member Makinen: Motion to adjourn. Board Member Corey: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, all in favor? See you next time. Happy holidays everyone. Adjournment Attachment B Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8842) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/25/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2017 Title: Historic Resources Board Draft Meeting Minutes of December 14, 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):  December 14, 2017 Attachments:  Attachment A: HRB Minutes December 14, 2017 (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Brandon Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen Absent: Beth Bunnenberg, Margaret Wimmer Chair Bernstein: Welcome everybody to the December 14th meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Would staff please call roll? Thank you. First, I’d like to thank all and welcome all the Board Members who have been reelected to the Historic Resources Board. Congratulations to all, good, great. Oral Communications Chair Bernstein: First on our meeting is oral communications. Members of the public may speak to any item, not on the agenda. I don’t have any cards from the members of the public, nor do I see any members of the public here. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bernstein: We’ll move onto if there are any agenda changes, additions, and deletions? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments Chair Bernstein: Next is City official reports, board meeting, schedule, and assignments. Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: I note that this our last meeting of the year and as a Member of the Board, I wanted to thank staff for all of their hard work for all of the weeks that you come and see us. I hope that we’ll see you much more often next year because we’ll have that much more work that we want to review so thank you very much for your dedication and thoroughness. Chair Bernstein: Great, nice sentiment and I agree with those comments too. Board Member Makinen: Thank you for the fine breakfast. Board Member Corey: Yeah, it was very nice. Board Member Kohler: I’ll be here next Wednesday as well. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: December 14, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Study Session 2. Discussion of Potential Retreat Topics for 2018 Chair Bernstein: Alright, next on our agenda is a study session for discussion of potential retreat topics for 2018. Shall staff have any comments to start us off? Ms. French: Yes, we have a PowerPoint to display the potential retreat topics here and we – when we say January 11th, that is a target date. We have not advertised it yet but obviously, advertising will happen soon because of the holidays so we kind of wanted to find out if there was capacity or in other words are people available on the 11thr for a retreat? We can start with that and that would be the first meeting of January. We do have a second meeting in January which would be a potential follow up on these Eichler Guidelines that you are discussing today. So, I’ll end with that and I’ll let Emily present the PowerPoint. Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Hi, good morning everyone. I just wanted to reiterate what Amy was saying about the potential date of January 11th. That would be – is that better? Can you hear me now? One of the reasons we picked that date is so that we could discuss the CLG Annual Report which is due on January 22nd. If we do it earlier, that way everyone can provide input on that document and you’ll notice that there was a sheet at each of your places. I’ve received the statements from some of you but it would be nice to get that sometime before the 22nd. So, here’s – again, here’s just some of the potential retreat topics, that picture that you saw earlier was from the interior of the ITT building. Did you want to – Ok, so I’m just going to run through these real quick. One that would be a good idea would be the Mills Act and discussing the continuing work that the subcommittee is doing. The Girl Scout House over at Rinconada Park and its potential National Register listing and California Landmarking. The ITT building and what should be happening with that building. Continuing the discussion of demolition issues, the Comp. Plan update, Eichler Guideline implementation, Native American Month which is November, Historic Preservation Month which is May, the CPF Conference, as well as additional training opportunities. I just wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that there’s a really good Standards of the – Secretary of the Interior Standards webinar in March. As well as continuing to discuss the Mid- Century Era Context Statement Grant Application which we had mentioned at a previous meeting. So, here are just some of the potential topics, we obviously can’t cover them all so it would be a good idea to pick a few for the retreat. Ms. French: I would just add to that, we have just a couple of updates today; one on the ITT and one on the Comp. Plan update but we’ll talk about that later. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any – this is a study session, any comments, suggestions from Board Members? I have one – oh, sorry, go ahead. Board Member Corey: Oh, sorry, I was going to say how do you suggest – we just pick a handful of these? Ms. Vance: Well, maybe we’ll just gage what you guys are more interested in, less interested in and we can kind of prepare a list from there. I guess we’re looking for feedback at this point and of course, you can always pick something that’s not on this list if there’s something that the Board would like to discuss as well. Ms. French: I should say, there’s always an opportunity at a retreat to discuss how we do a thing as a Board. That’s always what’s going well, what could be improved, that type of topic but we don’t have to call that out in particular. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chari Bower. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Vice Chair Bower: In looking at this list, it would be several retreats to cover this amount of information. I would suggest the Board think about concentrating on things that we’re not going to review and make recommendations to the City Council next year. So, I think the Mills Act discussion which is going to come before this Board I think early next year is one we wouldn’t necessarily need to cover in the retreat. I think the Eichler Guidelines implementation is maybe not something that we need to think about in the retreat because we’re going to hear about it and we’re going to have more opportunities to consider that. I’m not sure about the Comp. Plan update, I think that’s something that we ought to probably address during a Board meeting rather than at the treat. Then the one thing that I’d like to consider is a discussion of how this Board can encourage the City Council to list properties or historic districts on the City Register so that we can get some protection for those properties and some different treatment. Ms. French: So, that’s related to the Comp. Plan update. Vice Chair Bower: Oh, alright well that’s my suggestion. Chair Bernstein: During this year’s joint Historic Resources Board/City Council meeting there was expressed interest to have some training session for City Council Member so that could be tied in with the CPF Conference training opportunities date. I’ve heard from Council Member – some Council Members that they believe that the Members of the HRB are – have good expertise on Secretary of Interior Standards and they may – and they have not received that training. So, that’s why they suggested this would be a good – so however that gets arranged between HRB and City Council Members to have a detailed discussion about the Standards. That would be my suggestion for under – that could – if that happened concurrently during the CPF Conference, that could be a good time. Ok, other Board Members? Ideas? Alright, I think that’s where our comments are right now. Before we move on, any other – before we on to another agenda item? Board Members Kohler or – you have a comment or something? Ok, good. Board Member Corey: I agree with the other suggestion so just for what it’s worth. Chair Bernstein: Alright, well, we have a nice good list in here so any other questions or requests from Staff on this agenda item? Ms. French: Well, I guess we heard from one Member that of the ones that don’t seem to be a retreat, not worthy but you know the word I am looking for, just we can handle them at a different meeting. So, what we’re left with I guess if that’s a concurrence and then we’ve got the other ones left to discuss. I might say the Mid-Century Era has been talked about quite a bit. Right now, we’re in the Eichler moment which is about Mid-Century as well at least to housing. So, there might be things we want to just float at that meeting regarding that but not to take on the grant application because we’re full into what we’ve got going on now and the Mills Act. That would be the only comment I would have is maybe that’s gets put off. Board Member Corey: Just in case, I’m just going to throw out my opinion for this anyway so I think the Mills Act and the demolition issues and the historic preservation month would be the three topics that I would like to discuss if we had to pick three. Chair Bernstein: I was thinking about the same thing that Board Member Corey just mentioned about demolition issues. Oh, something that I think we’ve discussed at a previous retreat as a Board was the idea that of demolition, when does a district start losing its district character? So, that could be part of the demolition… Board Member Corey: There’s also this deconstruction business that’s going on to work around. Ms. French: We have an update today on that as well. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bernstein: Ok, excellent, good. Welcome Council Member Holman to our meeting, great. Council Member Holman we were just discussing potential topic retreats for HRB retreat and what we’ve focused so far is the idea of demolition and deconstruction issues, training for HRB and City Council – training for Council Members who would like to have more information about the Secretary of Interior Standards and just some of the technical aspects that the HRB is already familiar with. So, that could happen concurrently during the CPF Conference issue. Was there anything else Board Member – Vice Chair Bower? Vice Chair Bower: I would recommend that the Chair meets with Staff and kind of based on this discussion make a decision so that you will be able to prepare for the retreat. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Ms. French: Could be Chair and Vice Chair if you wanted to join in, we could… Chair Bernstein: Yeah, let’s do it. Ms. French: …but we’d have to pull it together next week basically as far as a meeting. Chair Bernstein: Alright, anything else on this agenda item? Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: As a Council Member who’s been on the Planning Commission and watched things over the years, I think the training on the Secretary of Interior Standards is really a great idea but it isn’t just for the Council. It’s for the ARB, it’s for the Planning Commission, it’s for the Building Department because all of those departments effect and impact historic resources. Chair Bernstein: Ok, that’s a fantastic idea. Let’s see so maybe we could add that to the minutes too. Great, good so that joint or however that training session works, yeah bring all Boards and Commissions involved. That’s an excellent idea, for sure. Ok, anything else on this agenda item before we move on? Ok, thank you. Action Items 3. PUBLIC HEARING: HRB Discussion and Comments on Eichler Design Guidelines Chair Bernstein: Next would be an action item and that is a public hearing, HRB discussion, and comments on Eichler Design Guidelines. Shall staff have an introductory report for us, please? Ms. French: As noted in the report, we did publish these back on November 9th and provided them to the Board. We asked that you bring your copy today with the assumption that you’d looked at it and had some comments, great or please do this or do that edits for us so we could take a look. If you wanted to go through those as a Board today and provide a recommendation, we welcome that. With the understanding that we – our next steps are to go to a public workshop, we’re holding and you’re invited on January 18th at Mitchell Park Community Center where we will have a full discussion of the guidelines with the public who can come. It’s in the evening and we will also discuss potential code changes that could be directed by Council and so we have kind of a matrix of potential options that the Council may direct us too come back with and go through the process on that. I think we have a couple slides here perhaps, this shows the flow chart that I prepared to keep my head straight on this. Basically, we’ve got today, again comments or if you choose, recommendation and then we have the end of the guidelines comment period January 12th which happens before the public workshop. Of course, comments are solicited then but we wanted to get written comments which we haven’t gotten any so far and then this workshop as I had mentioned. Then we can come back to the HRB and talk about that on the 25th and talk about the code change matrix. We’re looking to go to Council probably in March – early March to ask the Council to adopt the guidelines. We’re going to not go to the Planning Commission before Council, just on the guidelines but we will go to the Council following – if Council directs us to make code City of Palo Alto Page 5 changes. Then we will start kind of a process on that and that looks likes towards June where the Council could potentially adopt code changes that are related to Eichler’s. When I say code changes I mean the option for neighborhoods to elect to have Eichler overlay zone or conservation district or any of those and potential zoning code development standard modifications that could be discussed with this Board, Planning Commission, and Council. Chair Bernstein: Question, I was looking through our staff report and or our Board report, this little chart looks like a great chart for the path of action. I don’t – if there’s some way that we could get a copy of that? I don’t see it in the – in our packet here. Just it helps – I know it helped me organize my thoughts about the process. Ms. French: We’ll email it to the Board. Chair Bernstein: Excellent, thank you so much. With that, I know I have several comments to make on these guidelines but I’ll start by asking if any other Board Member have comments? Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: I think this is a good thing to have going here, this Eichler setup because I had a very unhappy situation with a client. Chair Bernstein: Excuse me for a second, what I would like to have this focus on is not an individual project that comes before… Board Member Kohler: Well, the point that I am making Martin is that from what I can tell in the booklet, it has opened up the possibility of some situations that previously were not even considered allowed in the Eichler neighborhood. What I’m talking about is two-story homes and there are neighborhoods that have limits on the second floor, is that correct? Chair Bernstein: Correct, yes. Board Member Kohler: There are whole lots of areas that don’t have so I just read here it says that this does not limit the use of two-story homes so I’m just… Ms. French: That is the situation today. I’ll just give a brief overview on this so again, we have some single-story overlay neighborhoods and they are restricted to one-story. All of the other neighborhoods in this City are not restricted to one-story. These guidelines provide the opportunity for architects, homeowners, and staff and the Board to – and the IR process to review modifications to existing Eichlers be they one-story in a single-story overlay neighborhood or two-story in a non-single-story or second- floor addition in a non-single-story overlay neighborhood. These are designed guidelines tools, they are not requirements, they are guidance for folks to know best practices on adding to an Eichler or either one or two stories. Board Member Kohler: I lost my spot here but I think it was saying that this does not – in this particular area, it doesn’t limit you to a certain style of the house. Is that correct or do you still have to do an Eichler type home? Ms. French: These are not proposing you have to do anything, these are – this is guidance. Only the Council can put a mandatory requirement so that is for later if the Council directs mandatory compliance with these guidelines. We’re not at that stage Roger, we’re just at the stage of looking at the guidelines and how they’re set up and the content of the guidelines; not the content of the zoning code. Board Member Kohler: I’m a little confused so in other words, right now at one point I read you said this does not limit the house to one-story. That two-stories will be permitted is what it says in here at some point. So, I guess you’re not saying that still may not happen or is that – I guess I’m a little confused. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. French: It would be up to the Council to direct staff to pursue modifications to the zoning code. If Council directs staff in March to pursue modifications to the zoning code, we would come back through a public hearing process with those options. Right now, what we’re looking at is options so the Council could direct us to say set up an Eichler overlay zone where neighborhoods could self-select to use these in more rigorous manner. In other words, they self-select just like the single-story overlay zones self- select to be one-story. So, you know you could have an Eichler overlay zone that wants to have two- stories, in fact, we do have a two-story Eichler tract in Palo Alto, Victoria Court. They could select to be an Eichler overlay zone and they have two-story homes. Board Member Kohler: So, they are meaning that particular neighborhood? Ok so are you – maybe I am getting this confused, are you saying that the neighborhood itself can decide whether or not they are limiting to one or two-story homes? Ms. French: Yeah and that’s a different conversation than today’s conversation because we’re at that point yet, where we’re talking about code changes. We’re only talking about guidelines which are different than code restrictions, these are not restrictive, it’s advice. Chair Bernstein: Any Board Member comments? Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: I have a couple of questions about some of the language in here. On page 19 there’s a discussion of the Individual Review process and guidelines. In the second paragraph, it says that the single-family Individual Review guidelines establish specific requirements. I don’t want to read the whole thing; however, the IR process is not a design review process. In the next paragraph it says that the single-family Individual Review guidelines are one, to reserve a unique character, promote construction, encourage respect for existing context and those four – and there’s another – there are two more. These things, I think do – are exactly about design review so I find the language in here confusing because, on one hand, it says no, this is not a design review process and then in the next paragraph it says these are the things that we’re going to do when we look at your design. So, I think that – I’m not sure how to make it clearer and maybe it can’t be clearer but if I’m confused by this, a homeowner I don’t think is going to have an easy time of it either. Ms. French: Often confusion is the result of politics and it’s no different from the Individual Review Guidelines. They were – there was – when these came through, there were very strong statements that these are not design guidelines, these are not design guidelines so they can never say that about themselves. It’s a conundrum but we are just reviewing privacy, mass, and streetscape. We are not telling people this style of house you need to do – you’ve chosen this style of house, now you must do it well. You must do – you can’t do a turret on this house because you’re not doing that tutor style house. You know it’s very confusing for people because we aren’t doing design review, we aren’t making well- resolved houses per say in the design chosen. We can give advice which we do but make or break the findings for approval of Individual Review are about those three topics, not about how well designed a house is. Chair Bernstein: I love those, those are great, I love your words; privacy, massing, and what – those are… Ms. French: The focus of the IR program is privacy, massing, streetscape. Chair Bernstein: Streetscape. Ms. French: So, we are looking to make sure that we are, to the best of our ability, not introducing direct views of – for privacy. Massing being we have a neighborhood with -- we’re just trying to work on those for compatibility. Chair Bernstein: Ok, yeah and that’s always been my interpretation of the IR process is – yes, exactly, streetscape, privacy, and massing. That’s what I tell everybody who asks me about that. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Vice Chair Bower: A couple of other questions. Chair Bernstein: Ok, sure. I also want to remind the Board that we’ve got two members of the public that want to speak on this topic also. Go ahead. Vice Chair Bower: At our study session I was encouraging Page and Turnbull to reorganize the two charts on page 21 and 23 which show the Eichler tracts in the City and have the IDs actually be age-adjusted, not alphabetical because I think it will be more helpful to the community to understand where each of these tracts was developed based on the beginning of the Eichler tracts. Then the end of that period so it’s the beginning is what, 51 and then 70 something; 74 I think. I think that’s just a reorganization of the chart. On the flood hazard map… Chair Bernstein: Page? Vice Chair Bower: …which is page 23, I think it would be helpful to have the tracts that are actually affected by flood zone issues in a different color than the ones that are not. So, on this map, all Eichler tracts are in orange, the National Register Districts are in dark green. There are only two of them but then there’s this light blue floodplain or flood zone area and so those tract, it’s not clear to me whether it’s -- for instance Tract 29, is in or out of that flood zone because it’s right on the edge of the blue; it could be included. This – obviously the purpose of this is to, again tell homeowners and anyone else who wants to know whether their house is in the flood zone. Then the next question or the next issue I’d like you to address as staff, is if an Eichler tract were included in a National Register District, it’s my understanding that then the flood zone issues are not – they are exempted from flood zone requirements or not? Ms. French: There’s a – there’s something called a variance, it’s not a variance – zoning variance, it’s a variance from the Public Works requirements to not build basements in a flood zone or what have you. If it’s a historic home, that’s one of the perks is that you can qualify for one of those variances. Can I – can we just go back for a moment to your earlier statement. I think that’s great to show the flood zone tract as a different color from the non-flood – for this map. I have a question, it appears that the flood zone maybe bisects a tract, would you prefer that the whole tract is colored or reflect the – because the flood zone is kind of shown – the blue is shown there. What do you think? Vice Chair Bower: Well, I think it’s – for the homeowners that are in say Tract 29 and maybe 25, I don’t know whether that one -- and 11 and 8, maybe 18 depending upon what that little space is; because the blue doesn’t actually blend into the orange color, I would assume from looking at this map that says 29 and 25 were exempted but then there’s 11 which is clearly partly in and maybe partly out and 8 which looks like it’s half in and half out. So, a color shading that puts those – the Planning Department has to have the actual parcel numbers on the floodplain but this is kind of a broad overview for homeowners and real estate agents and people looking to buy property. You ought to be able to tell fairly quickly by looking at this map whether you’re in or out. Also, it seems to me if – my next question, if in fact historic buildings or properties in a historic district are exempted from the FEMA requirements, that solves a problem that we have in this City where buildings – existing buildings that are renovated beyond fifty percent of value would have to be raised and that ruins the neighborhood context. Having one house up 3 ½-feet with a house next door being at current grade, that’s a complaint we had at our study session from a member of the public who came and said, people next door had to raise their house and they are looking in my windows. So, this is one way of encouraging these districts to become registered as historic and it also solves a zoning problem that is not easily solved any other way. Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Vice Chair Bower. I have a comment on the idea of I think it’s good for property owners to certainly know if their parcel is in a flood zone. I’m going to suggest that the Eichler Guideline Booklet would not be a good place to put that technical information because she says it was mentioned that one of these tracts, there may be one parcel that’s in the flood zone and one parcel that’s not in the flood zone. So, it should not say Tract 29 is in a flood zone because that’s not good City of Palo Alto Page 8 information. Also, flood zones can change so if it gets memorialized in a book like this and all of sudden then the National Flood Insurance Program says ok, this property is not – then this is out of date. I think the best source for a property owner to find out a technical issue on flood zone is just keep it where it is right now and that’s in the parcel maps because those can be updated very quickly. This will not get updated very quickly and this becomes out of date. So, I think flood information is really critical for homeowners so let’s just keep – I would say don’t put it in this book because this is not going to get revised. Whereas the parcel reports that are available online in like pretty quick – like instantly on a computer, I think that would be the best place to keep flood zone to address the issue of are you in a flood zone or not. Then as an applicant wants to make changes to the property that is in a flood zone or just make it real specific because this is not going to be revised. Vice Chair Bower: So, let me just respond to that very briefly. If in fact we – it’s better not to have flood zone information in here, then let’s take this map out. That’s the whole purpose of the map, this page is only here to show people whether they are in or out so I’m just – I’m trying to make it clearer. Chair Bernstein: Clearer, yeah. Vice Chair Bower: I take your point and you’re absolutely right, flood information is… Chair Bernstein: Changeable. Vice Chair Bower: … well, no not really. It will take 25 – I’m in a flood zone, I’ve been there since 1998 and there’s no hope in my lifetime that we’re going to be out of that flood zone because of how difficult it is to get the Army Core of Engineers to move that. I think this is going to be an unlined document, printing the way we know it today is not really going to be the way information is transmitted in the future. So, I take your point but I think if we’re going to have this here, it ought to be clearer or maybe we don’t have it, that’s all. Board Member Kohler: I just think the map is helpful because when people walking through this but certainly could have a little script below there that says this is a fluid document… Chair Bernstein: No pun intended. Board Member Kohler: That’s right, ok, yes, it’s water under the tree when the water gets… Vice Chair Bower: So, on page… Board Member Kohler: … but I’m just saying is that a little note there that says, by the way, this flood data gets changed on and off over the years, verify with the Building Department before. I think the map would be a helpful thing to at least get them understanding that they are in the flood zone if they don’t already know. Ms. French: I’ll just weigh in on that. I think if we – it might be helpful if we keep it – we can put the date, as of 2018 January or whatever so they know and then add the disclaimer subject to change. Then the possibility to do a dashed line through the tracts showing approximately where that flood zone might help… Board Member Kohler: Yeah, if you say approximate. Ms. French: Yeah. Vice Chair Bower: I would like to give credit to Page and Turnbull, this box here on page 22 says go – gives you exactly the internet log in – I mean direction to get to the flood zone information by parcel. So, it’s there, it would be better if you could put it on this – on the same page but that’s not really going to City of Palo Alto Page 9 be possible because of the way – so, they’ve done a good job of putting this information. I just think that it could be a little bit better. Chair Bernstein: Before the HRB continues on this, I’d like to – we’ve got members of the public who would like to speak. I’d like to hear their words of comments, please. First speaker would be Lee Lippert, welcome. Mr. Lee Lippert: Good morning distinguished Members of the Historic Resources Board. I’m Lee Lippert, I’m an architect in Palo Alto, I’m also the President of Past Heritage. I’m speaking tonight as an individual, not as speaking for the -- for Past Heritage. First of all, I want to thank you for your document, I think it’s really well done but the difficulty or challenge I see is implementation. What you really need is a path forward as to how individual house owners, as well as – homeowners, as well as each of the neighborhoods, will embrace this document. The problem is that unfortunately with sea level rise and climate change, moisture is not the friend of the Eichler. Eichlers are basically, I use this – this is an analogy, they are basically cardboard houses and so they are really subject to moisture, dry rot and those sorts of things and with sea level rise, I can just see the problems getting worse. The whole issue with the floodplain is one of interesting complexity. If a home is in the flood zone but is not deemed historic, there’s no way to sort of writing it out of the flood zone. The house basically, if it exceeds fifty percent of the replacement evaluation, needs to basically be lifted the construction value. However, if these homes were deemed historic and the only path to get there is by individual owners doing that, they are subject to a number of incentives that they can take. One is that Public Works would deem it out of the flood zone and therefore certain work can be performed on improving these buildings without parallel of that tax shall we say. In other ways, they could make use of the State Historic Building Code in renovating their building and there are other incentives, I’m sure as you know, coming down the pike. The failure of Eichlers is really in several different components, one is the beam overhangs. The beam overhangs are subject to dry rot and failure on the exterior and the solution for that is that homeowners wind up cutting them off thereby negating or losing some of the historic fabric right there. The second is in the siding, the siding is no longer available. You have to have it custom milled but most homeowners what they do is they simply rip off the siding and they sheath it with plywood or stand board and then they simply go in and cement plaster over it. Then the third area failure are the garage doors. As you know, many Eichlers have those wonderful sliding garage doors and again, those get bound up in the tracks, the tracks are very old, they cut the tracks off, they remove the garage doors and the next thing you know you have a sheet metal, roll up overhead garage door. They are not particularly attractive so if there’s some way to incentivize citizens to be about to find a path forward to embrace your guidelines here, I think you’ll begin to find that you’ll be able to preserve many more Eichlers in the neighborhoods. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Bernstein: Thank you so much for those excellent comments. Next member of the public is [Mira Eldamen], welcome. Ms. Mira Eldamen: Good morning, thank you to the Board and the Committee and thank you for all the work on the guidelines. They are really thorough and I also really appreciate the community involvement. I’m an Eichler owner in Royal Manor and before that I was an Eichler owner in Willow Glen in San Jose for 4-years. I have deep respect for architectural beauty and in my previous life I was in Washington DC where I had a historic residence where Harry Truman once lived. I really support the attempt to protect privacy and continue to have good architecture in the Eichler neighborhoods. I want to discuss today Section 5.1.1 on page 76. These are guidelines that talk about new additions to existing Eichlers, specifically with respect to first-story additions. I think this particular guideline would merit some more study. It reports to put some limits on how additions to front and rear elevations of Eichlers can be done and it includes three graphics. One with a green check mark which I understand is probably a correct way to add a rear addition and then two with red X’s which seem to imply poor additions. One to the front and one to the back, although there is a typo in the third graphic. As you know there are a variety of Eichler designs, some are flat fronts, some have certain off-sets on the front of the house where one portion of the house is further back from the other. This is often divided where a garage might be further back or further forward from the living area of the house. Eichlers are small and lots are small in Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Page 10 and so we really need to allow owners to have the ability to add additions that are consistent with zoning regulations and architectural integrity to the front and the rear of their houses as they need them. There are Eichlers in some communities, including mine, where additions where added both to the front and the back which are consistent with the original intent of the Eichler and with the graphics and the text of this guideline, might be in the future be considered inconsistent. I will provide written comments and provide some addresses. One of the Eichlers that added a very beautiful rear addition was actually on the San Mateo house tour, which I know is not within these guidelines control but it was on house tour and was done absolutely beautifully by an architectural firm. Read additions in particular, I think should have a very soft touch in these guidelines because most Eichlers are completely fenced off from the front and we’re interested in protecting the privacy of the backyard. Owners who want to add additions to the backyard which is almost always the only place where there is room to add an addition, are not even seen from the street. With the first-story addition, even if you’re putting up walls of glass in the back, you’re not going to be intruding on the privacy of any of your neighbors because of the way the fences are. In the front of the house, often when you have an offset front of the house, you can add an addition about 6-feet to the side of the house that is set back from the road, further than the other side, to bring the house flat to the front, which is also consistent with several Eichler designs. Both designs where there’s a flat front of the house where a courtyard has been added, where a fence goes to the front of the house, you have a flat front. Those are my two comments on the guidelines for the additions to the front and the back. I think there’s also a beautiful addition with a read addition in Green Meadow, I’ll find the address for that one, and again, there’s also one in my Royal Manor neighborhood that a front addition that is quite beautiful. Thank you for your time. I appreciate all the attention that has been given to this and hope that we have some really great outcomes for the owners that truly love our homes. Chair Bernstein: Thank you so much. Any other members of the public that would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Board, additional comments or suggestions from Board Members? Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I just had one thought here, you emphasize this as a guideline and not a prescriptive situation right here. It might be interesting if there was an incentive that was attached to this that if you follow these guidelines, you get some type of incentive. I don’t know what it would be, maybe additional size or square footage or something that you could do but make it more of a voluntary type of thing and not prescriptive. You might get more interested in it, incentivize it. Chair Bernstein: I agree with that. The Board Members have repeatedly commented about what can be put in any guideline, including any ordinance for incentives. Incentives can – and those can be based on a voluntary basis but if you follow the money, then you might choose to take care – do the incentive. So, I think those – and we’ve heard a member from the public speak to an idea of an incentive so if somehow that can be incorporated somehow in the guidelines and maybe if ordinances become in place regarding Eichler Guidelines, I think that’s an excellent idea. Board Member Makinen: I just – when I look at this I think anybody who is a person looking at this as guidance would eventually assume that it was going to be prescriptive at some point. You went through all the trouble to build this guideline but if you clear made it as an incentive program, it would sort of remove that possibility and put it more as an incentive type program. Chair Bernstein: I think that’s a common voice that this choir has sung about, just if – where ever opportunities are to provide incentives, whether it’s guidelines or ordinances that would be great. Alright, well I’ve got several things to look at, let’s start on page 24. On page 24, on the right-hand side, it talks about National Register of historic places and districts. My question is, is only the district historic and not individual homes? So, individual homes are not historical properties, is that correct to date -- as we are today? Ms. French: Yeah, the National Register forms for both of those National Register Districts are focused on the tract as a whole. The significance derives from the arrangement on the sites and kind of a holistic City of Palo Alto Page 11 look at it. There may be some homes out there that qualify individually but they have not been identified in either of those nomination forms. Chair Bernstein: I see your lights on here, welcome. Ms. Christina Dikas: Typically – Christina Dikas, Page, and Turnbull, typically contributors to the historic districts are considered historic resources for other purposes that you might have in the City. So, the next page has the maps that color them with contributors and non-contributors to help differentiate. Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok. Then the contributors – so I guess from an ordinance point of view, are they considered historic properties on the – from the Historic Preservation Ordinance? Ms. French: Our Preservation Ordinance does not address National Register District Eichler tracts so the ordinance has nothing to do with that at this point. Chair Bernstein: At this point. Ms. French: Yeah, that’s a discussion that could happen in the future as far as the relationship between contributors to a district and our ordinance. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. Again, I do see that – actually on page 27, on the right-hand side near the bottom, I’ll just read it. It says National Register Historic Districts are not currently listed in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. Thank you for that clarification. Next is on page 64, my comment is it talks about exterior colors so that’s 4.1.2 on page 64. I’ll read this then colors – that’s not an enforceable guideline -- it’s not enforceable, right? Color? This is page 64. My question is so it looks like colors – that’s not enforceable, anyone can paint any color they want. Ms. French: There is nothing in our code regarding colors of any -- prescriptive of any homes anywhere in the City. These are – the Architectural Control Committees that are in place in two of the three – two? Three of the districts – two of the districts are -- or sorry, of the Eichler tracts, they employ discussions or at least I think Green Meadow Architectural Control Committee has discussions with homeowners about the color – traditional Eichler colors. These are not intended to be prescriptive. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Board Member Corey: Actually, it says right here that the use of specific original colors is not required in Eichler neighborhoods, for whatever that’s worth. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thanks. Next on page 72 on mechanical systems, again it looks like – just it’s a guideline that if you’re going to put ductwork on the building, just to have it minimally visible from the street. I think it just says it so I support that idea as a guideline. Please, Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: I’d just like to put into the record something that I think a lot – occurs often and that is that the mechanical companies don’t – because they don’t have the aide of a mechanical engineer to design these HVAC systems, that they typically just put round ducts everywhere. In HVAC systems the primary consideration is the number of square inches or volume of air you move through a duct and it doesn’t matter whether it’s round or rectangular. There’s a little bit of drag in rectangular but rectangular ducting would diminish the impact of these systems hugely so I’m encouraging people to somehow to think about that and maybe even put something in this document that talks about that. Chair Bernstein: That’s actually a good point. I’m imagining this scenario, homeowner – their steel hydronic heating system fails and then they call directly a mechanical contractor. Says hi, can you give us a price, we need ductwork up in here? Then I guess my question is for Eichler Guidelines, is there – let’s see. What would encourage or let the mechanical contractor when they come to get a permit, is there anyone at the Development Center saying oh, you’re Eichler, please consider rectangular ducts versus – City of Palo Alto Page 12 what’s the mechanism between the contractor and the owner so that the contractor knows about this concern or is it just –says I’ll put round ducts, he gets a permit, it gets installed and that’s it? Without any interface with these guidelines at all. Is there any process of how that – to speak to Vice Chair Bower’s good comment. Ms. French: Well, once the Council adopts the guidelines in whatever form they do adopt them. There are opportunities for training of the Development Center Staff so they can at least have a conversation. The planning – certainly the planners that are over there will receive firm instructions and then – but people do walk in and do things at the counter – over the counter all the time. Chair Bernstein: This is probably just a straight – right now it’s probably just a straight building permit issues. I mean there’s not going to be – I don’t – so far there won’t be any planning issue. I mean so just a good comment about how to – before a permit is issued, how can it get addressed to what these guidelines are saying; a process question, good question. Next is on page – about three more items here. On page 77 and one of the speakers made reference to page 77. Take a look at the middle diagram where it says a no with the addition beyond the side view there. There’s another page, I think it’s on page 104, where it talks about the idea of any addition and it encourages to be subordinate to the main existing house. There can be an addition as on page 77, the middle diagram where is extents back there, but as long as it’s subordinate there can be fencing that’s not visible. So, I think that can be achievable to allow for that kind of an addition and still having it be subordinate without affecting the historical aspects. Again, and part of the flexibility that one of the last speaker mentioned, I think that would be good to incorporate. So as long as it’s subordinate, because that is one of the guidelines, is that whatever addition happens is that it’s subordinate to the existing house. The middle diagram on page 77 then that could be a yes. Ms. French: Thank you, I think we can certainly take that middle diagram and have it focused on how to be subordinate. Chair Bernstein: Perfect. Ms. French: What are the bullets that make it subordinate maybe so people can understand visually how that can (inaudible). Chair Bernstein: That sounds great. Then the last speaker also made a typographical error on page 77, on the right-hand diagram, it says inappropriate rear so it should just be inappropriate front. On the -- yeah, she’s got it, ok good. Then as the last speaker also mentioned, yeah, some kind of flexibility of if – again, these are all subject to a reviewing body I believe, right? Whenever anyone – I guess not, ok. It sounds like if a homeowner wants to make an addition, it’s – again, these aren’t registered historic properties so I guess none of the projects would come before the HRB. Ok, right, ok, alright. Vice – Board Member Kohler, yes. Board Member Kohler: Just in the comment about the no in the middle where it says X, no in the back. You know all these Eichlers have these 6-foot fences everywhere. Who’s going to see that in the back and what difference does it make? Chair Bernstein: That’s why I made that comment about – anyway, but the idea of subordinate and then – so there’s the note there. Good comment Board Member Kohler. Ms. French: I would just add to this conversation about the rear additions. I mean we do have that – I don’t think it’s called an incentive but we have that ability to encroach into the 20-foot rear setback width across half the width of the house or half the – that dimension at the rear for a distance of 6-feet. So, we could actually have several diagrams that could help people understand how to use the code to make the backyard, at least for one-story additions, a good place to start. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Vice Chair Bower: So, I think what we’re talking about as we review these diagrams is that effectively it’s only a front façade protection that we’re seeking. I mean, of course, we want to preserve as much of the building – original building as we can. That’s one of the Secretary of Interior’s primary standards in any addition or renovation but the reality is because of fencing, we can’t see the backyards unless we’re actually invited in by the homeowners. So, I think, again any series of sketches that would allow what you were just describing, which is the encroachment issue, is probably not an X as the center one but maybe a question mark. It’s nuanced and so I think that’s to be encouraged. I think obviously the right- hand diagram where there’s a front addition is completely problematic in preserving the design and also, I think it’s unlikely. A lot of -- well, it depends upon the era of the Eichler tract but most of them were built on the front setback so I don’t know that there’s any exemption for front setback intrusions. Chair Bernstein: Again, these are – and these are guidelines and so then someone can propose something and then as the neighborhood review. My last comment is on page 103 -- I’ll wait till you guys finish. Page 103 and the diagram about the knob handle. With an aging population, knobs are going to be pretty difficult, it can be a challenge for a lot of people so in the middle of the page on 71.3 it says retain original door hardware knob. I’m going to suggest that there be – don’t put that in a guideline that could perhaps become prescriptive. Knobs are pretty – can be challenging for people as we age so I’m concerned about putting that in a guideline and if certainly, a guideline becomes prescriptive. Ms. French: Can I just make a quick comment on the guidelines becoming prescriptive? Chair Bernstein: Sure. Ms. French: If the Council directs us to have prescriptive anything, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that everything that’s in print in here is prescriptive. You know I mean the – anyways, that’s a conversation for another time. Chair Bernstein: Alright, I just noticed that, about the ---is says retain original knob and so just as a comment for accessibility. Those are all the comments I had. Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Just one further comment on page 72, we did have some discussion about heating systems and if you put some of this ductwork on top of the roof, it’s pretty unsightly. That is addressed kind of in a soft manner right here where it – the third bullet – the second bullet down on the right-hand side. Explore ductless heating and cooling systems such as mini split air conditioning units. I think this should probably be emphasized more as being a really practical solution to this problem. I personally have used these things for the last 10-years on a couple projects we had and they really work quite effectively. They get rid of a lot of that unsightliness and it solves a very significant problem when you have heating tubs embedded in concrete floors. You can get around it with this newer system, newer technologies, and these mini-split systems, they have – you can do several rooms right now with one condenser so I think that should be kind of highlighted as a major improvement too. Vice Chair Bower: Can I ask you, are they reversible? I know that you can cool with split… Board Member Makinen: Yes, you can do… Vice Chair Bower: You can heat with them too. Board Member Makinen: You can do – they have a system I put in recently, a hyper system that’s good – not around here but it’s good to minus twenty degrees; it extracts heat. Chair Bernstein: Alright, any other comments on the guidelines? Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: I had one other comment that wasn’t covered. On page 67, on the improving the energy efficiency of the house by repairing or upgrading windows. In general, I like all this in here but City of Palo Alto Page 14 there was – I never saw anything about trying to match the materials so it would be nice to incorporate something about materials. There’s a lot about size and profile but nothing about materials so I would encourage people not to replace wood with vinyl, aluminum and those sorts of things, right? Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible) Board Member Corey: I couldn’t find it but maybe… Vice Chair Bower: It's in the middle of page… its that middle column on page 66. It says new vinyl windows are discouraged, as are aluminum. Odd enough, of course, aluminum was the original Eichler window style but it doesn’t meet any energy codes now so I don’t even know if you can still buy them. You can’t certainly buy them at Home Depot or Lowes. Anyway, good point, that’s an important point to make. Chair Bernstein: Any other comments from the Board or staff on this agenda item? Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Yeah, I have a question – I’ll save my comments on the guidelines for later and otherwise. Just one – oh, one comment though about the schedule, actually, it’s a question. I’m not understanding this schedule because it says that the public comment period ends on the 12th but the community workshop is – you said on the 18th now has been confirmed? Ms. French: Yes, the comment period is really the initial – kind of like a CEQA, initial comment period where we’re asking people to get us the comments so we can prepare for that workshop on the 18th. The comments continue on the 18th which is yes, the targeted date. We get a little worried about when is the State of the City going to be and so we were kind of looking at two possible dates but we landed on 18th and hope that the State of the City is on another date. That’s the point and then we will continue to get comments on the 18th and work that into a revised set of guidelines after that. Council Member Holman: So, on the 18th then you will have compiled the comments received by the 12th or – the reason I am asking is that we’re getting a lot of comments from the public about – Council Members are about schedules. There’s been an RPP meeting scheduled for December 20th for instance and we’re getting a lot of pushback on that and a lot of – I mean understandably but there’s a lot of comment these days about meeting schedules so I’m just wondering how that was going to work. You’ve sort of explained how that would so would the comments received by the 12th be compiled in for the meeting on the 18th for people to review so we’re not repeating everything. Ms. French: We’ll do our best, it depends on the extent of the comments received on the 12th. So far, we haven’t gotten anything so I don’t know what’s going to come into my email box or the – we have an Eichler inbox that people can send comments too that I look at – that we both will look at. Then we’ll have, yeah, some kind of list of what or description in that meeting of what we’ve heard to date from the HRB, from others. Council Member Holman: Based on history, I think you’re more likely to get comments on the 18th than you will the 12th, probably. Ms. French: I’m hoping that people do come to the event, yes. Council Member Holman: Then so the meeting is on the 18th and then those comments you’re going to compile and bring to the HRB – back to the HRB on the 25th? Do I read that right? Ms. French: Well, not necessarily, the ARB is making their comments today. They can recommend what they recommend today, that’s an option. The 25th we were going to start to talk about these code – potential code changes that we would – we’re exploring, discussion of that to get – to start that conversation. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Council Member Holman: Based on the comments received by the 18th? Ms. French: And other – and just looking at codes and how our codes function. For instance, we have our Chapter 1812 that doesn’t mention the Eichler Guidelines because – and they also don’t mention the Professorville Guidelines at all so that’s a code change for instance. That’s an easy code change I think, to talk about the existence of both sets of guidelines that the Council could then say yes, talk about the guidelines in the zoning code about residential. Then there will be other potential options such as mention the Eichler optional overlay if you want to call it that, combining district or conservation district or however the Council directs staff to explore that. Council Member Holman: Ok, that clarifies helpfully, thank you. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower, you had a suggestion? Vice Chair Bower: If we’re finished with this phase of discussing the guidelines, I would like to propose to Board Members that we continue this discussion until the 25th of January or at least until after the last public input which I think is on the – January 16th or 18th? It's in here. Ms. French: Well, yeah, January 18th is the – now, we’ve landed on that with our fingers crossed that nothing bumps it, yes. Vice Chair Bower: Well but that’s the next public meeting. Ms. French: That’s the public workshop, the other workshop. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, I think we can’t make, as a Board, we should not make the decision. We could but I think it would be unwise to make a decision about this and move this forward in the regulatory scheme until we actually hear that last meeting. I’ve been to one meeting, the very one, it was very strong opinions on both sides of whether or not there should be any guidelines. I think after this information is now widely available for the public, I’d like to hear what the public has to say. I’m recommending that we continue this until after that meeting. Ms. French: That’s great. If there are – if what has been said by the Board or the public today if there’s discussion about that as far as a straw poll or anything else. You know I haven’t heard anyone saying I don’t agree with that when other Members have spoken but we can certainly – because we’d like to get Board concurrence at some point on the changes that have been voiced today. Board Member Kohler: One sort of comment, have you noticed the choice of colors for houses lately by the way? White, white all outside, white all inside. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, we are seeing a lot of that. Board Member Kohler: It’s just – I just – but we even did a house in – and we never talked about… Chair Bernstein: Yeah, ok. Board Member Kohler: But I’m just saying is it mentioned in here color of… Chair Bernstein: Yeah, color is mentioned and there are guidelines for color. There are, yeah. Board Member Kohler: They are guidelines but can you do a white Eichler? Chair Bernstein: They are only guidelines, they are not in forceful. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Kohler: Ok. Chair Bernstein: Following up on Board Member – Vice Chair Bower’s comment, if it’s to have a continue again so I guess that could just show up on a subsequent agenda item after the public hearing. Ms. French: If you’d like to continue it to the 25th, that’s the – we wouldn’t talk about that on the 11th because that’s before so we can continue it to that date if you’d like. Chair Bernstein: Ok, good, does the Board agree? Vice Chair Bower: I also think it would be important to have all seven Board Members to move this forward. Chair Bernstein: That would be wonderful. Anything else on this agenda item? I’m going to suggest for the next – let’s take a 10-minute break so we can set up for the next agenda item so we’ll reconvene in 10-minutes and that’s at 9:52. Ok, great, thank you. [The Board took a 10-minute break] [The Board move to the approval of the minutes before hearing item four.] 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 Chair Bernstein: Next is agenda item number four, I will read the agenda item and then I’ll make an announcement. Agenda item number four, study session, 755 Hamilton Avenue requests for a study session of an Individual Review application for a second-story addition to a single-story home. The zone district R-1 single-family and the environmental assessment is pending. I’m the architect of record so I will be stepping down from this agenda item and Vice Chair Bower will convene the rest of the meeting, thank you. Vice Chair Bower: Thank you, Martin. Ms. French: Staff has a presentation. Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I’ll let Martin get settled. Oh, I guess we could go ahead and start with the staff presentation. Ms. Vance: Sure, ok, good morning everyone. I’m just going to provide a little bit of background information on what makes this home a historic resource, as well as providing some images of the existing and proposed elevations. The 755 Hamilton was built around 1920, it is considered an archetypal example of the California bungalow. It is a one-story wood frame home clad in stucco with a low-pitched roof and recessed front porch. Principle stylist features of the house are the tapered porch columns, moderately overhanging eaves, exposed rafter tails, multiple gables and the tapered brick chimney. Additionally, the home is significant for its association with Ralph Beal, a leader and early electronic industry in Palo Alto who made significant contributions to American military technology in World War I and World War II. You can see a picture of him in the upper right corner. Ralph Beal and his wife Merle where the first occupants and first owners of 755 Hamilton, which was built by Biel’s father in law George Burch. Beal worked for the Federal Telegraph Company from 1912 to 1926 and was an outstanding leader and authority on radio research and television. According to Ward Winslow, Beal and two others worked out the theory of the great arcs that Federal Telegraph built to become the backbone of the US Navy communications during World War I. 755 Hamilton has been deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria B and C, as the home of a leader in early electronics and as an City of Palo Alto Page 17 archetypal example of the California bungalow (inaudible). We’re going to run through just a few more pictures of the exterior and floor plan, as well as existing floor area sizes. Here are the existing elevations and w can always go back to these if you want to look at it further. Oh, existing and new, excuse me. This would rear of the home and this is the north side and here is the garage. Ms. French: So, the garage is currently a three-car garage? Ms. Vance: Right so the garage is going to be proposed for I guess demolition and then building a much smaller garage on the same footprint. So, that is kind of a brief background of this project and we have Hailey King here who was the project planner for this who can help answer questions and I think that’s if from staff. Thank you. Vice Chair Bower: Thank you, Emily. Typically, we would nowhere from the applicant’s architect and then where are no, at least to date, there is not yet any public – any members of the public who want to speak to this but that might change. So, Martin if you are ready, then please review the project. Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you, Vice Chair Bower and Members of the HRB and staff, Martin Bernstein, architect. I’ll just say that for a member of the public to know, I received notice from the California Fair Political Practice Commission that as I am the architect of record and without employees, I am permitted that Commission to present this project to the Historic Resources Board. I want to start by making a simple statement about the goals for the homeowners and the owners are here to answer any other question also, Fan Yang and Hui Tan and owners are represented by Nick French. As far as the goal is it to create for contemporary use a three-generation family home, there will be three generations living in this home. That important family goal is the reason for the proposed design you’re seeing today. Two other goals, we want to maintain eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and consequently the – subsequently the California Register of Historic Places and keep the existing basement. This project and application also include requesting a variance and that variance is to keep the existing basement. The National Flood Insurance Program allows for -- that’s in the Palo Alto code and also the federal guidelines is that if the structure is specifically eligible for the National Register for Historic Places and if it’s deemed to continue with that eligibility, that the existing basement can remain. That requires then a variance procedure for that so that is specifically the exact words in the National Flood Insurance Program. That if it’s eligible for National, then the basement can stay in the flood program. We are also asking for a Home Improvement Exception and that is to – the ceiling is low and the main rooms inside the existing house, they are very expansive. I’ve been in the house several times as you can imagine and it feels very compressive at 8-foot 6. The Home Improvement Exception we’re looking for is to raise that ceiling 6-inches to get to a 9-foot ceiling and 6-inches will make a difference on how that feels. The reason that we would need a Home Improvement Exception is you can see on one of the documents that you have, the – on the Fulton Street, that building is 15-feet 10-inches from the property line and the side setback is 16-feet. We are 2-inches into that setback and then so to raise that up 6-inches, that’s one of the reasons why we have to go through the formal Home Improvement Exception is to raise it 6- inches or 2-inches away from the sideline there. Aspects that are certainly important to the Historic Resources Board would be the… Board Member Kohler: Martin? Chair Bernstein: I’m sorry. Board Member Kohler: I need to ask you a question before you get too far. The raising, what is being raised? Chair Bernstein: The first-floor ceiling height, we want to raise that 6… Board Member Kohler: So, does this mean the rafters stay and (inaudible)… City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Bernstein: We’re looking at -- so the rafters are 2 by 8 so we would raise those rafters up 6-inches. We – yeah. Board Member Kohler: So, the height of the roof and everything from the exterior is raising up? Chair Bernstein: 6-inches, correct, yes. Board Member Kohler: Ok. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Other aspects that are certainly important to the Historic Resources Board would be conformance with – substantial conformance with the Secretary of Interior Standards and so those are – I’ll speak briefly about compatibility, differentiation, and massing. I will say and compliment the process of the Individual Review Process and then also Historic Review. We -- I personally feel this, is that I think based on the comments we received from Historic Planner Vance and IR consultant Manuela. Then also with the guidance of Planner King and then you’ll see I’ll mention some of the improvements we’ve made based on that -- is how do we get – maintaining the historic quality? As far as compatibility and you’ll see in the perspective renderings that are in front of you, the second-floor addition certainly has the same characteristics as the historic first-floor. The differentiation and this is where I took some good Council from Historic Planner Vance, is you’ll see in the packet there, there are some other photographs in the back of the existing brackets of the roof and it shows a certain little profile on there. For the second-floor brackets, those will just be kind of square and cut off and won’t have all the finesse that the historic ones do so that would be an example of the differentiation. As far as the massing, we took good Council again from IR consultant Manuela and that has we reduced the Fulton Street length of the second floor. We also moved it farther away from Fulton Avenue and then we put a couple of cut outs on the back and the front and then lowering the plate height so that – you’ll see those perspective drawings from the street point of view on how it minimizes the impact of that mass. Again, we just took good Council – I took good Council from those great comments. You’ll also see in the packet from the – you’ve got these pictures in front of you of examples of craftsmen style and two-story homes with a lot of different setbacks. You can see the first two pages just shows examples of two-stories in through there and then little-shed dormers. The next three and four pages that you have in front of you are showing the renderings of the proposed addition, you’ll see the bracket details of existing, and then on this rendering here, you have shown the different dormer options. One of the comments that came out during the Individual Review with Historic Planner Vance was one idea to help break the mass of the second-floor and again, this is subject to HRB comment of course. You see Option A and Option B of the two different ways, my renderings are showing Option A because my thinking is that that’s the least of adding mass to it but looking forward for your comments on all that. Other aspects that I think are important for the Historic Resources Board would be as far as keeping historic character and content and that is the first-floor windows that are facing Fulton and the first-floor windows facing Hamilton are unchanged. The first-floor, any of those character-defining aspects are completely remaining in place. We’re not raising the floor of the building above – any higher because the general guidelines for the Historic Preservation point of view is don’t lift the building. Then we want to keep that basement because again, the variance allows us to apply for that. There will be comments of – then we can go over the Standards for Rehabilitation, you see that in the staff report about some items that are consistent and some items that are not consistent. Those comments were based on previous plans, the current plans you have now are – will be addressing some of these items since you are here. The – I also want to make a point is that when we talk about massing, certainly the exterior elevations are not how a building is viewed because those are drawn at infinity so the heights are there. So, the idea of perception is what does it look like from the street point of view and that’s why I provided those renderings. If at the Board’s leisure, we can just go through the – on page – packet page 32, if it pleases the Board I can just go over briefly a comment and response to the comments that are on the standards. Is that acceptable to the Board? Yeah, ok, thank you. We’ll start on packet page 31, a property shall be used for its historic purpose and that is – so this project is considered consistent. Number two, the historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historical materials or alternations shall be avoided. This is saying not consistent, that was a previous plan and you’ll see the explanation talks about the windows. The current plans have no change to the existing windows on the street facing facades. It City of Palo Alto Page 19 was discussed during our historic review preliminary meeting with Historic Planner Vance that there wasn’t much concern expressed regarding the inboard side property windows changing because those are never visible from the public street and then from the rear, that was minimal impact from the street point of view. The windows again on Fulton and Hamilton are completely unchanged and so that would be the response to the making it consistent with the Standard number two. Number three, each property should be recognized physical place and time, changes that create a false sense of historical development. Again, earlier plans talked about the scale and mass of the second floor, again through the good Council from Manuela, we reduced the length of the wall on Fulton Street and also on Hamilton by setting back. The floor plans show where those things are setback or cutback to reduce that mass so that addressed the consistency issue for number three. Number four, properties change over time, that’s consistent. Number five, distinctive features, it says explanation floor modifications to include change the number location size of glazing on windows. The current plans you have now show no change those existing windows for that issue. Standard number six, not applicable and number seven not applicable. Number eight, significant architectural resources is affected, that’s consistent. Number nine, new additions and alterations shall be different from the old. Explanation of this -- on this – on page now 34, packet page, it says the addition appear to duplicate the exact form. Then the current plans, based on the good advice and Council from Manuela, is that we’ve made changes to the form and the shape of the building here. Then also with the brackets being a simplified version so that they are not confused with the historic issue. Then number ten, new additions related to new construction be undertaken in the matter of removed in the future. The proposed project could have permanent impact because adding a second floor or actually, it talks about the proposed increase in wall height. The increase of height is 6- inches and that 6-inches is going to be within the shadow lines of these – we’ve got like 30-inches overhangs in through here so if I went up 6-inches, my suggestion is that by the time you get to the second-floor addition that will not be a perceived change in the historical quality but it will affect and improve the interior view here. I did want to also include on the very last page, this is a project one block away on 811 Hamilton Avenue. The reason I’m bringing up this is this building has been remodeled, it was a one-story building, it was designed by Willis Polk a significant architect, and that no existing historic fabric was retained-- there was – or removed. I know this house quite well, I’m – I’ve lived in the neighborhood. The front entry columns use to be these appropriately scaled, because Willis Polk was a genius at this, of 14-inch door columns in through there and now we’ve got 10-inch columns so those were demolished; thrown away. I don’t -- I talked to the development team, they weren’t even salvaged. The – all of the existing windows were removed and then you’ve got the second-floor massing on there so Willis Polk’s genius of a design was abandoned. So, just for factual information and that’s – so I took Council from that before this project got started on how do we keep the historic integrity of that first- floor and then having a compatible second-floor. Again, addressing all the IR issues and certainly the eligibility issue which is important. The eligibility issue is important because that allows then for us to apply for the variance for keeping the basement. So, summarizing, it’s the idea of perception of what will this look like from the street point of view and that’s why I provided those renderings and that’s our suggestion as the applicant that this does meet all the criteria for the variance. Then the Home Improvement Exception, we’re looking for your comments on that and then any other comments you have. Available to speak to us would be – to speak to you would also be the owners or the owner’s representative as questions come up. So, I’m here to answer any of your technical issues as architect of record and any life quality issues then homeowners can address your questions. Thank you. Vice Chair Bower: Thank you, Martin. That’s a lot of material to cover and I’d just like to remind my fellow Board Members, excuse me, this is a study session so we’re not going to come to any conclusions today. We want to give the owners and their architect feedback on the design so questions anybody has or comments? Brandon. Board Member Corey: Can you explain the – I’m a little confused on the height, on the 6-inches versus a foot versus a foot and a half. There’s a lot of -- just – it says the wall plates are going to raise a foot and then the second-floor framing is on top but it’s 6-inches to the – for the eaves. Can you just explain that? Chair Bernstein: There is an original suggestion that the interior ceiling goes from 8-foot 6 to 10-feet high and from a spatial point of view, that would be a good point from a spatial point of view but that’s City of Palo Alto Page 20 changing the historical aspect. So, again, there was an earlier set of plans, not the current set of plans, and the earlier set of plans was 1-foot high. So now – so we’re only proposing now to go 6-inches higher. Board Member Corey: So, everything would move up, the ceiling and the eaves would move up 6-inches? Chair Bernstein: Correct, yes. Vice Chair Bower: So, following – can I make a comment about this or it’s really asking a question? By raising the first-floor ceiling height by 6-inches, you’re going to be encroaching on the daylight plan on the right side of the building as you face it from the street, is that right? Chair Bernstein: I believe not, let me look at the diagram here. No, if you look on page A4.1, there would be no daylight plane intrusion. Vice Chair Bower: Oh, so 6-inches and you’re still under the daylight plane? Chair Bernstein: Correct. Vice Chair Bower: So, I thought earlier in your – early in your presentation you said you were applying for a variance? Chair Bernstein: Homeowner Improvement – that’s the improvement exception because that wall is 15- foot 10 from the Fulton Street side setback, not 16-feet. So, we want to make – so that’s 2-inches intrusion so it’s a 2-inch non-conformance. We want to make that wall 2-inch – 6-inches higher so that’s technically making a non-conforming wall even taller. Vice Chair Bower: I see so you’re not encroaching on the daylight plane, you’re still inside that. Chair Bernstein: Correct, there’s no intrusion into the daylight plans on this project. Vice Chair Bower: Brandon, was that all the comments you had? Board Member Corey: Let me collect my thoughts. I just wanted to clarify that. Vice Chair Bower: Michael, you have any comments? Board Member Makinen: You’re taking comments in general? Vice Chair Bower: Sure, or questions. Board Member Makinen: I have a couple of additional examples that I collected here and I’ll pass them around to the Board Members of projects that involve adding a second-story onto an additional original structure. My general feeling is that this can be done successfully, although this particular project looks like it’s a little excessive in height on the second-story. The massing seems to be making it more dominant than I would like to see. These are examples of less dominate second-floor additions and I think was more successful in integrating a second-floor into an existing first-floor and still preserving the historic character. Vice Chair Bower: Roger? Board Member Kohler: Did – so in your discussion with Martin – no, with Arnold, you’ve met with him several times I guess. The –what I’ve been hearing from staff quite a bit is that the daylight plan you’ve shown would be not acceptable on most of the homes we’ve done. That the actual – the daylight plan can actually go right up close to the wall but the staff I’ve been working with has discouraged us from doing daylight plans quite that close because… City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Bernstein: Are you looking on page A-4.1? Board Member Kohler: A-4.1 on the upper right-hand corner, you have the daylight plan hitting the overhang. Chair Bernstein: Correct. Board Member Kohler: Which I know is ok… Chair Bernstein: Correct. Board Member Kohler: …but in Arnold’s world, no. Chair Bernstein: We didn’t hear any objection to that from Arnold. Board Member Kohler: Well, it may have been because – I’m just saying I see Arnold almost every week so this has become a big deal with staff (inaudible). Now, I can understand it’s a historic home and everything like that so maybe you’re getting a little bit eased on that. I have to admit, I mean I like the look of the house. It looks really good and everything. As I – along with the previous comment, I have to wonder whether or not it’s – it does change the overall look of the size of the house, especially on the new south. You can – it’s almost a two-story wall except for a little bit of roof across at the – in the middle so I – but I like the way it looks and everything. I’m just curious about the – what was the house and now what it’s going to be. If it’s – somehow – I don’t know how you would do it actually but the up (inaudible) and it says new south which I guess is facing the street, correct or not? Chair Bernstein: Correct, that’s facing Fulton. Board Member Kohler: So, there’s one little strip of roof line there, otherwise that’s a full two-story wall and again, Individual Review comments that would not be acceptable so – but it’s a historic home and should get some acceptations. I’m not – I don’t know, I think it’s a well-done house. I’m just – when I look at the requirements that I’m receiving, this would not be acceptable this large two-story wall facing a street. I’m not sure what to say about that. Other than that, I mean it’s a nice looking everything. Board Member Corey: I’m trying to understand I think a combination here. I mean maybe it’s the actual width of the second-story but the way I’m seeing it here, other than raising the first-floor to 9-feet which the second-floor is 8-feet, and the roof pitch is very – is sloped pretty low. I don’t know how you could really get tighter than 8-feet. I actually think – I’m surprised that 8-foot 6 isn’t an acceptable height because I’m a tall guy and 8-foot 6 ceilings are very roomy to me but I mean 8-foot is kind of at the limit. I don’t know if there are any thoughts on if it’s just the width or but again, I don’t see a real way – other than not extending the first floor up 6-inches, I don’t see another way you could avoid making – you could make it any shorter. Board Member Kohler: Well, the 8-foot ceiling is the wall height but the ceiling inside -- I assume in his room as well that all the bedrooms slope up? Board Member Corey: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: On the second floor. Board Member Corey: On the second-floor, yes. Board Member Kohler: On the second floor so you – even there’s this 8-foot wall, you come in and the rooms feel quite large depending on – this is low pitched so you don’t gain a lot but the room would not just be 8-feet. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Corey: Yeah, I’m just wondering how you would be able to make that shorter. Board Member Kohler: Make what shorter? Board Member Corey: Make the actual – the ceiling height shorter. You’re saying actually you would – how would you make it…. Board Member Kohler: It starts out at 8-feet and then the inside slops up or it pops up or I guess all – I imagine Martin has done that as well but all the bedrooms have a higher ceiling than 8-feet. Vice Chair Bower: But you’re talking about the first-floor, aren’t you? Board Member Corey: Well I was talking about the first-floor before as far as the need about raising it up 6-inches but even on the second-floor, unless you start encroaching at the outside wall to go below 8- feet with a low slope roof like that. I don’t know how you can really – the only way you can make it lower is to actually encroach in the footprint to bring those corners – to bring the edges down below 8-feet right? Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, you can drop – but…. Board Member Corey: Sorry. Vice Chair Bower: … that’s not really an issue in this project because as long as he’s under the daylight plane, it doesn’t have to but you could drop the – on a second-floor, you could drop the plate 2-inches so it would be 7-feet 10 and because it’s a vaulted ceiling, you wouldn’t notice that at all. Board Member Corey: I think my only point was that it was within the daylight plan and my only point was that doesn’t seem unreasonably tall given the constraints is what I think I was trying to comment on. Board Member Kohler: Well, I think one of the issues is as I’m looking here when you look at the side which – the south side and you look how far back the second-floor is from – at least from the porch, that’s pretty good. Then in the house, it’s another 5 or 6-feet back from the front wall so you are kind of – the emphasis is on the existing roof line in the front which is acceptable. It’s – again in my world with Arnold is that second floor, I’d have to go back. Typically, second floors have to go back 9, 10, 11-feet instead of the 4 or 5 we have here. This is an older home and all that and you’re trying to work so I don’t really have any issues. Vice Chair Bower: I’d like to sort of move the discussion on since what Arnold has reviewed here is in front of us. I have the same concern about raising the first-floor to 9-feet that I think Brandon does. I have a house that has an 8-foot 4 ceiling and I have a very large two – the living room and dining room is essentially one space of about 40-feet long and that’s very comfortable. My concern about raising that 6-inches is it seems to me that you then effectively have to take everything apart so that not only, I would imagine – I know will significantly increase costs but I’m not sure where – how that really costs – where the benefit is. I’m assuming you could – well, describe to me how – what you’re going to do with all the character-defining features like the knee braces for instance. They are all going to be removed? Chair Bernstein: I’ve don’t this on another project in Palo Alto where it was in a historic district and it’s all – yeah, we just salvage and then we reattach. Now of the fabric is going to be thrown away. Vice Chair Bower: I assume that but I just wanted to hear it. Chair Bernstein: For the record, that will happen. Vice Chair Bower: Could we focus for a moment on your picture that you provided of the knee braces? City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Bernstein: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: As I’m looking at these, we’re looking at a corner where – I guess this must be in the back of the building? Chair Bernstein: No, this is facing Fulton Avenue. Vice Chair Bower: Facing Fulton. Chair Bernstein: Looking at this picture? Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, that’s right. Chair Bernstein: So, Fulton Street is to the right of that photo. Vice Chair Bower: I see, ok and so it’s a rear – it’s the rear of the house on the left-hand side of this photo and the rest of the house is on the Fulton Street side? Chair Bernstein: Yeah, correct. Vice Chair Bower: As I’m looking at these two prominent knee braces, they are different and one of them is newer. I can’t quite figure out which one, I think it’s the one on the right. Chair Bernstein: These are all existing. Vice Chair Bower: Well, ok so there’s a variation there. I’m just looking at the way the bevels are cut and that might just be a function of the… Chair Bernstein: That could be, yeah. Vice Chair Bower: … photographic view. Chair Bernstein: Could be. Vice Chair Bower: How would you differentiate the new knee braces from these? Chair Bernstein: We discussed that with Historic Planner Vance and instead of having the little camphor or the taper. Vice Chair Bower: The 45-degree cut at the end? Chair Bernstein: Yeah, we would just do square and then same with the little bottom brackets here. Instead of having that little camphor, we’d just block them off straight so that’d be our differentiation. Vice Chair Bower: I’m not sure that I think that’s a very attractive differentiation but I would encourage you to work on a different plan that doesn’t reproduce this but it still is differentiated. I think that angle – those angle cuts are the (inaudible) of what these knee braces look like. Chair Bernstein: I agree. This other project that I made reference to where we salvaged the existing brackets and then we – that was also adding a second-floor to a historic structure. We actually replicated the ones but using – so these are 4-inches by 4-inches and for the second floor we did 3 ½ and 3 – we’ll find out – we’ll find some way to differentiate. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Vice Chair Bower: That, by itself, because the material that’s available now is 3 ½-inches net dimension rather than the full 4, it seems to me that would be adequate differentiation by itself. I just can’t see those being square. Chair Bernstein: I totally agree with you. We’re looking for differentiation but however, we get there. Vice Chair Bower: The other Board Members can weigh in on that but that would be my suggestion and the knee braces on the garage will match the second-floor? Chair Bernstein: Yeah, correct. Vice Chair Bower: Go ahead, Michael. Board Member Kohler: Could I just – just a quick question on these brackets? Are these brackets in these pictures the existing ones? Chair Bernstein: These are all existing, yes. Board Member Kohler: Ok. Vice Chair Bower: Alright, Michael? Board Member Makinen: I have one additional comment. If you look on your drawing A-4.1 and we look at the elevation new south… Chair Bernstein: Yes. Board Member Makinen: …in the upper left. You have on top of the roof, it looks like a little (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Bernstein: Shed dormer. Board Member Makinen: Little shed roof right there? Chair Bernstein: Correct, yeah. Board Member Makinen: I think if that was eliminated, it would serve to diminish the appearance of excessive mass being added to the structure. Just purely eliminate it. Chair Bernstein: Sure. Board Member Makinen: You would have less stuff sticking up in the air right there over the existing structure. Chair Bernstein: Ok, that will work for us. Vice Chair Bower: I actually had that on my list of things. I don’t see that motif a place on the building… Board Member Makinen: Doesn’t add anything to it, it really detracts from the whole. Vice Chair Bower: That’s exactly how I felt, I think it that it would be much simpler without that. Chair Bernstein: I mean that – I mean the common words I’ve heard about the perceived mass of it. We can remove that item. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Vice Chair Bower: If I can continue, in the – let’s see if I can find this. There is a bedroom number one on the first floor on the new – I think the new first-floor. If you go to page A-3.4… Chair Bernstein: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: … which is the second-floor floor plan. Chair Bernstein: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: It looks to me like you’ve got a fan shape roof design there. Chair Bernstein: That’s existing. Vice Chair Bower: Yeah but when I look on the elevation of 4.1, I don’t see that anywhere. Chair Bernstein: Let me take a look. There is right there, the new north. It’s a bay window, first floor – new north first-floor, there’s a bay window there. Vice Chair Bower: Right but there’s no – those hips aren’t in there. Chair Bernstein: Ok, sure. Vice Chair Bower: So, those are two different things and I’m picking this apart but you could frame it without doing that raised hip. Chair Bernstein: Got it, of course, I’m drawing the hips – the ridges. Got it, sure. Vice Chair Bower: Sorry, I’m asking not – I’m not criticizing, I’m asking as a clarification. Chair Bernstein: Got it. I’m adding it right now. Vice Chair Bower: There was a comment about a variance for the basement… Chair Bernstein: Correct. Vice Chair Bower: … and I guess this is a question for staff. Should the Board weigh in on that or not? I don’t see that as being a historic resources issue. Ms. French: The variance is not a zoning code variance, it’s a variance from the Flood Zone Regulations that require a historic – I mean the exception, if you will, is from the Flood Zone Requirements is hinging upon the preservation of a historic resource. That – the findings for that Flood Zone Exception if you will, are based on a historic resource so retaining the integrity of the historic resource is important. (Inaudible) say it that way. Vice Chair Bower: What we need to do as a Board when we make our final determination is to decide whether or not this – the historic fabric of this building is retained to a great enough extent for that to qualify for this variance from the flood zone. That just – so I’m unclear about that, is that right? Ok. Ms. French: Correct. Vice Chair Bower: Alright, thank you. I don’t see any streetscape elevations. Usually, we would see adjoining properties. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, we have that. I have that. It was in the initial submittal. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Vice Chair Bower: Ok so obviously you’ll have that when it comes back to us. Chair Bernstein: Oh, yeah, of course. Vice Chair Bower: Let’s see, I wanted to reference a comment in our Board packet from a neighbor that wants us to not to allow this project to move forward because of construction impacts in the neighborhood. I’d like to say that I am totally sympathetic with that but that’s totally irrelevant to what our – to what we consider as a Board. So, respectfully, we will not be able to address that but I did want to make reference to it because it’s part of the public record. Michael? Board Member Makinen: Just another comment, right down the street from this other project that you mentioned in here, the Willis Polk house. There’s a house at 857 Hamilton that as a similar upper story that appears to be (inaudible) renovation right now and it does look pretty good. The job they’ve done to it but I think the second-floor add-on is definitely subordinate to the primary structure which makes it, in my eyes, successful. Chair Bernstein: That was 857 Hamilton? Board Member Makinen: 857. Chair Bernstein: Ok, we’ll take a look. Vice Chair Bower: I think my final comment would be I like the design. I think that this works pretty well with the existing building and the reality of it is larger houses are driving all real estate development in City and this one is sensitive to the original designs. I am uncomfortable about raising the first-floor because I think that triggers a huge amount of demolition that just doesn’t need to be there. That’s just my personal feeling and I would feel more comfortable about the whole project if that were not here. Board Member Corey: I echo that feeling. Vice Chair Bower: In a new house I don’t think it matters but in an existing house, that’s really taken – that’s a significant demolition problem. Other than that, I look forward to this coming back. Nice job, even if you are a Board Member. Board Member Makinen: I had one more question, the survey indicates that it is – was surveyed and determined to be eligible for the National Register. Was it ever taken one step further and actually nominated to the register? Chair Bernstein: The – it’s… Board Member Makinen: Accepted? Chair Bernstein: To date, I think it has been but I will redo the – that’s a good question and that could be a separate conversation if the thing goes on but right now, the ordinance – it’s not – that’s as far as it is right now; eligible. Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I just wondered what the status of the process was. It looks like it was determined to be eligible by the DPR Form right here; 532 Form. Ms. Vance: I can answer a couple of those questions. Board Member Makinen: Ok. Ms. Vance: It was deemed eligible for the National Register and by deeming something eligible for the National Register, it’s automatically eligible for the California Register. So, this one has been sent to the City of Palo Alto Page 27 state and is listed with the state as a historic resource – as California historic resource. It is not listed individually on the National Register. That next step has not been taken. In additionally, to speak to Vice Chair Bower’s comment about when this project will come back, that’s if this project needs to come back. If these updated plans meet the Standards and are in alignment with what we’re hearing today, then I don’t believe it would be necessary to send it back to the Board. Vice Chair Bower: Oh, ok. Ms. Vance: Just to clarify. Vice Chair Bower: Right because this was… Ms. French: (Inaudible) ordinance. Vice Chair Bower: …billed as a study session so I assumed that it would – that’s the preliminary step in a Formal Application. Ms. French: I’d like to speak to that so we have a situation here where this is governed by our City ordinance for historic preservation. It’s only governed by California Environmental Quality Act and these steps that they are taking to – you know for this flood zone. We’re trying to approach it with input from the HRB and get it to a point where it is compliant with the standards so that it can be determined that it qualifies for this variance from the flood zone and we’re following through with CEQA. It is not subject to the City’s ordinance for historic preservation. Vice Chair Bower: So, if we were – so, then I don’t understand how you – the staff can reach the FEMA – the bar that allows the basement to remain. If the Historic Resources Board doesn’t make a decision about the integrity of the existing design features and historic fabric, who’s going to do that? Staff? Ms. French: Well, the National Guidelines for all of this for these exceptions don’t have – it doesn’t say that it needs to be on the City’s local inventory. It – by virtue of it being listed with the State of California as a resource, that’s enough for us to do this work as far as determine compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards. Board Member Kohler: This has to go through the Individual Review program, right? Ms. French: It’s currently in that program as a Formal Application. Board Member Kohler: Is there a formal site plan? Ms. French: Yes. Board Member Kohler: This is all – all I have here is Ed Woo’s drawing. Is there a site plan? Ms. Hailey King: The site plan should be sheet A-1.0 in the plan set. Board Member Kohler: Nope, I have no 1.0. I have three – oh, I see. It’s on the front page, ok. It’s awfully small, ok. So, in other words, this is not coming back to the Board? Vice Chair Bower: Actually, that – if I can interrupt? The answer to that is it's probably not coming back to the Board, is that a fair assessment? Ms. French: The assumption is the owners will allow their architect to modify the plans so that it does retain the existing plate height on the first-floor given your comments and give the staff comments about that issue; to retain the first floor more intact than what is proposed in the plans. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Vice Chair Bower: I thought it was coming back so I was making more general comments about this but if it’s not coming back, then I have at least one other question. Martin, how will you differentiate the second-floor exterior finish from the first-floor? Chair Bernstein: The existing first-floor has a subtle texture cement plaster. If you look at the building – the drawing with the brackets, you’ll see on the middle right side of the drawing there’s a little bit a texture of the stucco. So, the second floor, if we use a – if we went to a smooth plaster, same color, we’ll probably do an integral color. If we go with smooth plaster, that could actually help address some of the perceived mass of (inaudible). So, if there’s more texture on the first-floor and less texture on the second-floor, that could be a differentiation but keep the color the same, same material but just a little different texture there. Then taking your comments on the brackets, we can look at that so there’s some differentiation and not just an exact replica. Vice Chair Bower: I’m looking at this picture that we’re talking about, there’s a – it looks like there’s a downspout. Chair Bernstein: There are – that’s a downspout. Vice Chair Bower: Is that what’s that is in the middle? The downspout has texture and what that tells me is…. Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Bower: … that this texture was – there’s a product that use to be applied generously on houses because they said you could – we’ll just spray your house with this and you get color and you get a new texture. That wouldn’t be the original texture and as Roger was just pointing out, there’s another picture where the – and I think it’s the next page where the texture is actually much less significant. I’m just bringing this up, that’s the way that the Board asked the Peninsula Art League which is just across the street here… Chair Bernstein: I remember that. Vice Chair Bower: …to differentiate their new building from their old; same material, just different finish. I guess I would reiterate if it’s not – this is not coming back, that I don’t see how you can reach a decision that the historic fabric is being retained if you raise the first floor. That’s just going to take everything away or what – it doesn’t take it away, it removes it temporarily, then you have to bring it back and then you have to patch and that’s --- I mean that’s a huge difference than just adding the second-floor. Those are my comments, anybody else have any comments? Board Member Makinen: I concur with your comments. Vice Chair Bower: Brandon, you’re ok? Board Member Corey: As do I, we’ve covered it. Vice Chair Bower: Roger, anything further? Board Member Kohler: No, I think – I mean I can understand the art of trying to raise the first floor 8- feet. In a bigger home like that, the 8-feet feels kind of low but that’s what historic homes feel like, the ceilings are generally lower than they are now. Board Member Corey: To clarify, the original ceiling is 8-foot 6. Board Member Kohler: Oh. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Vice Chair Bower: It’s not 8-feet. Board Member Kohler: Oh, ok. I not sure how to say – finalize, I guess I’ll leave it up to whatever you guys decide. I mean if it can be done and look appropriate, I would accept it but if looks… Vice Chair Bower: I’m just reminded that at 11 o’clock our parking stickers expire so if there – oh, Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I have a global question, it’s more really for staff and it's about the role of the HRB. I appreciate the staff report and I’m not without some experience in historic preservation and I guess it’s easy, we all fall into this, getting into the details of a project. It’s easy to do that and projects are defined by their details but isn’t the role of the HRB with a global, big picture, is if this was built the way that it’s being proposed, even with the changes that the HRB is recommending, would the building still be eligible for the National Register? I think that’s the big global question that the HRB is not addressing and maybe that’s a question for staff about the role of the HRB. Vice Chair Bower: It’s a very valid consideration but I think – how to address this? I think the process that we’ve just been involved in where we’re doing a study session for a project that doesn’t come back to us, is a flawed process and I’ve said that with other projects like this. I’m happy to weigh in on and I think all of the Board Members are on design issues but I just feel that the Board doesn’t have the kind of tools it needs to the kind of evaluation that Council Member Holman is talking about. We could do it but at this point its way beyond relevant. Ms. French: It’s not spelled out in the City’s old historic ordinance that your job is to ensure that eligible National Resources are – kept their eligibility. There’s nothing in there, there are no teeth. We do have, I’ll just say, a couple things that are going on here but I know you have to leave but if we want to finish this one, I can talk to you about some things. Board Member Kohler: It’s also possible when you add a second floor, you have the existing ceiling and then when you put the second-floor up above that, you can pop up in the middle of those rooms to get a raised ceiling and still have the original 8 ½-feet on the outside. You end up getting 6 to 8-inch rise so you’re going to be up close to 9-feet. That saves the issue of reducing – ok, never mind. Vice Chair Bower: Maybe that’s a topic for a retreat discussion, is how we could get the – encourage the Council to actually give us better tools. Board Member Kohler: I have one… Ms. French: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Bower: Sure, so thank you, Martin, for the presentation and I guess we’ll move forward with updates and Board Member comments. Amy. Chair Bernstein: Actually, if the Board please I think the owner – Nick French, the owner’s representative, has a few comments. Vice Chair Bower: Certainly, I’m sorry. Mr. Nick French: Thank you and thanks again for your time. I just want to make – on behalf of Hui and Fan, I just want to make it clear the intention of the family. So, as we went through this process and engaged with Martin on trying to preserve the historic significance of Palo Alto in general and this property being included. We obviously want to make sure also that it’s practical for the family. I mean obviously, there’s a reasonability that we should be looking at. These structures are expensive, construction, of course, is there any part of what we’re hearing – I understand that there’s a lot of subjectivity included and I’m hearing that amongst you today as well; talking about how tall you are and City of Palo Alto Page 30 how ceiling of 8’ 6’’ is good enough. You also – I think we just need to be reasonable and think that what we think is reasonable may not be the same to other people. So, for the family looking at doing this project, I’ve encouraged them from the beginning that we really want to maintain that character of Palo Alt but also being sympathetic to people’s goals. One thing that’s very important to this family is that 9- foot ceiling, not coffered ceilings, not vaulted ceilings but having a 9-foot ceiling so we’ve really been trying to work with the historical pieces of this process to kind of make that work. We started with 10- feet and we’ve kept dropping it down. We’ve talked about the cost involved and of course, yes it would be a significant cost to do it but that 6-inches in an important piece to the family doing this project. I want you to understand that because when we’re going through and seeing if we’re going to pursue it, that could be a make or break situation so it is important. We talked about the shadow that’s going to kind of cover that extra 6-inches so obviously if we go to the 10-foot, that’s significant, we get it, which is why we kind of pulled that back. So, I just want to make sure that’s clear that that’s really there. I think that’s pretty much the one big continuous item we’re talking about. Vice Chair Bower: I would add to that, that you’re not the first – this is not the first project that’s come to use with that concern and that interest. Our perspective is in applying the Secretary of Interior Standards to these projects. I think a pure application would say you can’t have a second-story because of it – there is an argument to be made that the second store totally destroys the character of the building and that’s what you’re trying to preserve. I think when we make comments about specific items, it’s with the understanding of course that the owner of the property wants to have the best house they possibly can to fit their needs. I don’t think we’re every – I know I don’t make comments ever about those needs. My comments are always or at least I try to make them about how we apply the Secretary of Interior Standards, which are our tools, to a project. You know I grew up in Palo Alto, I can remember when the first house that I built as a builder had any ceiling higher than 8-feet because that was the standard. Even though my house is built in 1923, is 8’ 6” like this one, that was the standard then. It went to 8-feet and now we have standards 9’, 10’, 12’. Those aren’t standards really, those are just changes in design and appeal. They are not any less legitimate but they don’t really apply to what we’re doing here. That’s - - just so you understand, we’re not trying to make it difficult for your clients. Mr. French: Of course, yeah. Vice Chair Bower: We’re just trying to apply the tools we have to this project. Mr. French: I appreciate that but just respectfully, I heard earlier when you’re talking about the raising of 6-inches, you talked about one of the negative things being the additional costs but quite frankly, additional cost is really not your concern. Board Member Corey: I don’t think we talking about the additional cost financially. We were referring to the additional cost to the change of the existing structure; pulling things off and would that cause damage to the… Mr. French: That is fair. Board Member Corey: … it was not at all financial. It’s the historic integrity we were referring too. Vice Chair Bower: That was a peripheral comment of mine. Board Member Gooyer: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: My part is that these projects are costly enough but to have to add that cost and at the same time lose the fabric as we described it, that’s really the issue that I was trying to point out. Mr. French: I appreciate that and so, just to give you an idea as well, really the goal here is to maintain Palo Alto because obviously, we’re all seeing it change so that’s sort of the elephant in the room. This is just one more house that we definitely want to try to keep because it nice to drive down Hamilton and City of Palo Alto Page 31 see some of these older properties. So, I’m doing everything I can to help promote that to keep these kinds of structures. With the 6-inches, obviously there is that impact which Martin mentioned would kind of come back and from the street side, you know 6-inches, you’re really not going to notice it from the street side but if you’re inside the house 6-inches is a big deal. Again, I just want to encourage you to really appreciate the fact that for this particular project, which as you mentioned has come up before, that is a big consideration for the family. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, thank you. Alright. [The Board moved to Board Member questions, comments and announcements.] Approval of Minutes 5. Historic Resources Board Draft Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2017. Chair Bernstein: We’re actually going to go a little bit out of order. We’re going to finish off the agenda Item Five which is approval of the minutes first before we go back to item number four. Is there a motion to approve or amend the minutes of November 9th? MOTION Vice Chair Bower: So, moved. Board Member Makinen: I have an amendment. Chair Bernstein: Ok, please go-ahead Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: On page 22 of the packet, here we refer to the bottom paragraph. Ms. French: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: There’s not a page 20 – I mean packet page. Board Member Makinen: Packet page 22. Ms. French: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: No, it says package 50 something right? Here, right there, packet…. Board Member Makinen: Packet page 22. Chair Bernstein: Oh, my gosh. Vice Chair Bower: What? Ms. French: So, he’s looking at the excerpt minutes for the Eichler Guidelines and then there are the full minutes at the back. Chair Bernstein: Oh, I see. Ms. French: So, I’m on page 22, yes. Board Member Makinen: The bottom paragraph where there were some quotes made at the bottom two lines. It said Wright was greatly influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright, that should read Eichler was greatly City of Palo Alto Page 32 influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright and strike off the word that’s and the genius of all these Eichlers was Frank Lloyd Wright. So, delete the word that’s and substitute Eichler for Wright. Vice Chair Bower: It’s down here. Board Member Makinen: So, it will read properly. Ms. French: Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Any other amendments? Alright, anything else for – there’s been a motion, is there a second to the motion including the amendments? Board Member Makinen: Second. Chair Bernstein: Alright, I’m not going to be voting, I was not in attendance of this meeting. All those who did attend vote by signaling aye or nay. That passes, thank you for that. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1 WITH CHAIR BERNSTEIN ABSTAINING. [The Board moved back up to agenda item number four] Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Chair Bower: Alright, Amy updates. Ms. French: I want to get you to your cars but just quickly, I want to let you know that last night the Planning and Transportation Commission was due to take on this, I call it the loophole. We’ve proposed and Council Member Holmen I believe mentioned this at the last HRB meeting and so we quickly – ok, well anyways, we popped it into the ordinance that is under review by the Planning Commission and to get to the Council. This is basically to say that remove the incentive or close the loophole basically. So, if someone comes in with a one-story home and says I’m going to demolish this one-story home because I’m proposing – or I’m going to demolish this historic home because I’m only doing a one-story home and it’s just a building permit not subject to CEQA and they demolish it. Then they come back with a two- story home in the IR program, well this would say you have a 5-year cooling off period where that’s not – it may have an effect of closing that loophole and discouraging that behavior. We don’t know, it’s a possibility that that might have an effect so that went last night to the Planning Commission. I wasn’t there so I don’t know how that conversation went. Then the other things that are—we’ll talk about at the retreat I believe is the Comprehensive Plan update that the Council approved on November 13th. There are some historic preservation policies. I don’t want to go over them completely today. Tomorrow is the end of the challenge period so – but there’s some good news in there talking about the eligible properties with respect to our inventory. I touched on that a bit and then there’s quite a few historic related and archeological related Comp. Plan policies that we’ll just go over at the retreat. Vice Chair Bower: So, this wasn’t part of our packet today. Ms. French: No. Vice Chair Bower: I wonder if you could email it to us. Ms. French: Sure, certainly. I did email this to the Chair with respect to the project that you just reviewed so he’s aware of the new policies in the Comp. Plan but yeah, we’ll send that out. Vice Chair Bower: Alright. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Kohler: I have one real quick question when you get all these drawings and data and all this, do you keep any of that up there or do you put it on – I guess you all have it on the computer, is that right? Ms. French: Are you speaking of the website that the City has? Board Member Kohler: No, just in general. I mean I opened some of my desk drawers and they are filled with old drawings and stuff from previous meetings we’ve had. I guess now with computers, you just – everything goes on the computer I guess. Ms. French: We do have – well, there’s the web pages. I think things will live on there for some time but then we also have our kind of a cloud storage where we have to retain projects that have come through the City. At least those that have a planning application and then building applications, same thing. They have a way of storing things. Board Member Kohler: Maybe next meeting or something I’ll just bring some of my little collections to see what I’m -- to tell you what I’m talking about. Vice Chair Bower: I have one update on… Ms. French: I’m sorry, one more thing is whether we do election of Chair and Vice Chair at the retreat. That’s something that we could then or on the 25th if we want to put it off until the 25th. We need to – we should do that every year. Vice Chair Bower: I would think that we do it at a regular meeting. Ms. French: Ok. Vice Chair Bower: The 25th. I wanted to an update on the Mills Act subcommittee. We met again last week and I think we’ve made very good progress. We should have a draft to circulate soon and we – subcommittee members look forward to sharing that with the rest of the Board and of course staff sees it. Ms. French: We do have one thing to report on, which was the City Council approved the revised contract with the Squire House so that we keep the one Mills Act contract that we do have for the next 10-years. That was a success, otherwise, there was a non-renewal that was pending. Vice Chair Bower: One of the issues that we could not resolve at our meeting was what happens if we actually put in this program, which has requirements and specific performance metrics in it, what do we do with the one Mills Act that we have that’s totally non-compliant? So, I guess we will have to address that at some point. Alright, Karen? Council Member Holman: I think this was at the last Council meeting and I’m trying to – sit here trying to remember exactly what it was but there were two things – I don’t think this was Planning Commission meeting. It was – I’m having a foggy memory about this but there were a couple of things that the HRB had brought up that actually came with the code clean up or something that was recently adopted. I’m trying to remember what in the world it was. There were a couple of things, Marty, in particular, had been promoting them. I’ll have to go back and look. Ms. French: Martin Bernstein? Council Member Holman: Yeah. Vice Chair Bower: Maybe you could… City of Palo Alto Page 34 Council Member Holman: I’ll have to go back and look them up, there’s too much going on. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, any other comments? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? MOTION Board Member Makinen: Motion to adjourn. Board Member Corey: Yes. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, all in favor? See you next time. Happy holidays everyone. Adjournment