The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-06-13 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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Historic Resources Board Regular Meeting Agenda: June 13, 2019 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. Guest Speaker Bo Crane Presents 'Ticket to Rock' Booklet Regarding Palo Alto Rock History 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 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Approval of the Draft Minutes for April 25, 2019 Meeting of the Historic Resources Board Subcommittee Items 4. SUBCOMMITTEE: 526 Waverley Street (17PLN-00454): Subcommittee Formation for On-Site Review of Finishes and Colors to Address Conditions of Approval _______________________ 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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 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 or less 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 David Bower Vice Chair Brandon Corey Boardmember Martin Bernstein Boardmember Roger Kohler Boardmember Michael Makinen Boardmember Deborah Shepherd 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 # 10297) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Schedule of Meeting & Assignments Title: Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait 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: 2019 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments 06.13.19(PDF) 2019 Schedule Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Held with ARB 1/24/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 2/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/28/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 3/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Retreat 3/28/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 4/11/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 4/25/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/09/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 5/23/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 6/13/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Makinen 6/27/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower 7/11/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/25/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd 8/08/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd 8/22/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower 9/12/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/26/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower 10/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/24/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower 11/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/28/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 12/12/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/26/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 2019 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June Bower, Bernstein, Makinen: Inventory list of historic materials to be saved (redirected) in demolitions July August September October November December Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 10414) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Ticket to Rock Brief Presentation and Discussion Title: Guest Speaker Bo Crane Presents 'Ticket to Rock' Booklet Regarding Palo Alto Rock History From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) receive the presentation and comment as appropriate. Background Recently, staff was contacted by a representative of a famous rock band having Palo Alto origins, who is interested in seeing a recognition via pavement marker or wall signage regarding the location of the band’s first meeting in Centennial Alley. Staff also became aware of the new book ‘Ticket to Rock’ about rock history in Palo Alto, and after discussion with the HRB to confirm interest, staff invited author Bo Crane to come give a presentation regarding the book and its content to the HRB. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 10425) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 6/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes for April 25, 2019 Title: Approval of the Draft Minutes for April 25, 2019 Meeting of the Historic Resources Board From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):  April 25, 2019 Attachments:  Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes of April 25, 2019 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call 1 2 Present: Chair Bower, Vice Chair Corey, Board Member Bernstein, Board Member Kohler, Board 3 Member Makinen, Board Member Wimmer. 4 5 Absent: Board Member Shepherd 6 7 Chair Bower: Since we’re all here, all that are coming are here, call the meeting to order. Robin, can you 8 call roll? 9 10 Chair Bower: Thanks Robin. 11 12 Oral Communications 13 14 Chair Bower: I see no cards for oral communications, so we can move to… 15 16 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 17 18 Chair Bower: Any changes in the agenda? I don’t think so. 19 20 City Official Reports 21 22 1. Historic Resources Board Meetings, Schedules and Assignments 23 24 Chair Bower: So, we go on to Meetings, Schedules and Assignments, page 4 in the packet. Anybody have 25 anything to add to that? Any meetings you’re not going to… 26 27 Board Member Makinen: I have an addition. 28 29 Chair Bower: Go ahead. 30 31 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: April 25, 2019 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Makinen: I will be gone on May 23rd and I will be here on June 13th, I think. 32 33 Chair Bower: Thank you. Anybody else? That takes us up to our next item, which is a discussion of our 34 retreat items. 35 36 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Before we move along, if you don’t mind, on the Meetings, Schedules 37 and Assignments, I decided to put some things up here on the screen regarding the upcoming meetings, 38 because it is summer and, you know, the potential for cancellation is high. So, one of the things that I was 39 interested in knowing if there is, it was brought up at the retreat as well, Bo Crane has this book that he’s 40 written, or pamphlet or something on Rock and Roll History here, and so I was thinking and I guess he 41 participates with PAST… 42 43 (no mic) 44 45 Ms. French: Okay, so, you know, I thought it’s interesting if we wanted to invite him to this Board to do 46 some kind of presentation on it, if he would be inclined to do such a presentation, it might be interesting 47 for the public. I have, someone has been in contact with me about the place that Jerry Garcia and Bob 48 Weir met and it’s behind what used to be a music studio and it’s right Downtown on Centennial Alley. And 49 so, they reached out to me and I’m kind of in conversation with them about their interest that way. So, I 50 thought it might be topical. I guess the Dead are coming to perform this summer and you know, tour. So, 51 it might be a good timing to have, invite Mr. Crane to come and speak to the Board. So, that’s May 23rd 52 was a possibility for a date there. June 13th, the Castilleja School Project, we’re anticipating the Draft EIR 53 to be published in May and, late May, so this would be an opportunity for the HRB to look at that Draft EIR 54 and the Cultural Resource Chapter on that project. And then later on in the summer, have some discussion 55 following up the retreat discussion that we have. Okay, so that was that. 56 57 Chair Bower: So, could Board Members look at their calendars and let Robin or Amy know whether these 58 dates that Amy is proposing are going to be problematic. I think it would be nice to have as many of us 59 here as possible. Not just a quorum. And then, can you calendar this then, after we have weighed in? 60 61 Ms. French: Yes, so we’re looking at one meeting a month that works with everybody, so I’m glad Mike is 62 able to come on June 13th, because I think that Castilleja is an important meeting. Yeah, the Bo Crane is 63 informational and… 64 65 Chair Bower: Yeah, I’m, by the way, on the PAST Board as well and talked to Bo on Saturday night about 66 coming to an HRB meeting. I think that’s pretty flexible, because the book is almost done, I think it’s being 67 City of Palo Alto Page 3 published next week, this week or next week. So, we’ll, I think he’d be a good person to have at a meeting, 68 but I don’t think there’s any urgency. 69 70 2. Follow-up Discussion Items from March 14, 2019 HRB Retreat Including Formation 71 of Subcommittees. 72 73 Chair Bower: Okay. Since Phil is here and you’re the only person that’s actually going to present something 74 to us, why don’t we move to your presentation and then you can go back to your busy schedule. 75 76 Phil Bobel, Assistant Director of Public Works: Just so I don’t veer off in the wrong direction, Chair, could 77 you just guide me a little bit on sort of what you’d like to hear. We do have an Ordinance Proposal for what 78 we’re calling Deconstruction and Increased Salvage that will be going to City Council on May 20th. So, I 79 could describe, and what this one sheet that was passed out does, is it goes over what the new proposed 80 requirements are. Is that what you want to hear? 81 82 Chair Bower: Let me say that Amy can fill in after I make this comment. Michael had asked about a 83 Deconstruction Program that would include some kind of reuse of historic features on buildings that are 84 being demolished, and I think that’s how we get to your presence here, and Amy, you want to add to that? 85 86 Ms. French: Yes, it came up at the retreat. He had pointed questions which suggested that we didn’t care, 87 we weren’t doing anything, and so – we do care and there is an Ordinance coming forward and it’s not in 88 my, what I do exactly. It’s in the Zero Waste Group, so that’s why I said, well, maybe Phil can come and 89 answer questions and let us know. 90 91 Chair Bower: So, Phil, one thing you could do is update the Board on the current deconstruction policies. 92 I’m ten years away from work as an active builder here, but the last projects were did required that we 93 redirect as much usable material from a demolition as possible to, and mostly they were private companies 94 who would come in and remove windows, take hardwood floors out, hardwood flooring and other 95 appliances, and then they would either repurpose them by gift or sell. 96 97 Mr. Bobel: Okay, so what I’ll do then is say what the current requirement is, and then say what we’re, how 98 we’re proposing to enhance that or augment it. Okay? 99 100 Chair Bower: Sounds great. 101 102 Mr. Bobel: And then I’ll try to relate it to things that would have historic value, but I have to tell you right 103 off the top that we didn’t have the historic thing in our minds. Now, we’re still tinkering with it. As you can 104 City of Palo Alto Page 4 see, I’ve tinkered with the summary sheet because our thinking keeps evolving as we take more comments, 105 and it probably will evolve a little more on May 20th, when our Council gets ahold of it. So, still, if you guys 106 can think of something specific with respect to historic features, you know, we could add that. So, I’ll dive 107 in and use this sheet, and it kind of, the proposal we’re making kind of has two parts to it. A salvage part, 108 which I think you’re more interested in, and then a deconstruction part. So, I’ll start with the salvage part, 109 and there are existing requirements. So, you see that number one, it says Salvage, Survey and Reuse. So, 110 the current requirement is that, one, if it’s a complete, whole house, residential demolition, one has to do 111 a Salvage Survey. So, it’s not all buildings. It’s not commercial at the moment. It’s just residential. It’s not 112 keyed to some age of the house. Regardless of that age, one has to do this Salvage Survey, if you’re 113 knocking down the whole house. So, a weakness there that we’re trying to figure out how to overcome is, 114 as you know, sometimes a wall gets left for certain reasons and so we’re trying to figure out how to deal 115 with little problems like that. But the idea is, if you’re really knocking down the whole house, and it’s 116 residential, then you have to do a Salvage Survey, and Scott McKay who some of you know, is the principal 117 staff person that tracks all of this, and makes sure that the Salvage Survey gets done. So, but that’s as far 118 as it goes, the current report. So, what we’re adding is that once a Salvage Survey is done, you actually 119 have to salvage those things that are in this survey. It was a great first step, and I think we’re ahead of a 120 lot of cities in just requiring the Salvage Survey, so that was a good first step. But now it’s time for the 121 second step, we think, of actually requiring that it be salvaged. And it will change the survey a little bit, 122 because now when they put something on that, let’s say they hire the, well, whoever they hire to do the 123 Salvage Survey, they’re going to be looking to that entity to actually make sure it gets salvaged. So, they 124 will be less inclined to just write something down and hope for the best. They will be, it will be much more 125 scrutinized, we think, and it will be stuff that can actually be salvaged. Like I say, we didn’t really have the 126 historic features in mind. If you have an idea of how we could emphasize that, we’re open to it. So, Scott 127 will do his thing about making sure the survey gets completed, and then, because his plate is full up, we’re, 128 our Zero Waste Team is going to kind of takeover that part of it and then make sure that the things are 129 actually salvaged. That’s the short answer. And you see, I’ve tinkered with the – we see three phases and 130 we’re trying to start, avoid confusion in our first phase. Well, hopefully, we’ll avoid confusion in all phases, 131 but the first phase we’ve decided now, we’ll just use the existing triggers, which like I say is, if you’re 132 knocking down the whole house. So, we won’t try to go beyond that and solve some of these other 133 problems, except, we will include commercial, and we don’t think that’s going to be too confusing because 134 statistically this is only probably going to add about 15 sites, 15 commercial sites that are completely 135 knocked down, will be captured. That’s what the pattern has been the last several years is about 15 136 commercial sites per year, as opposed to the residential, which is more like 80 or 90. Just to give you a 137 feel for it. 138 139 Ms. French: Maybe I’ll jump in and let you… 140 141 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Bobel: Yeah, jump in. 142 143 Ms. French: Okay, so one of the questions and interest was, you know, what about the (inaudible) do this 144 recycling, and so I note here on Phil’s list it says that’s new is Items Accepted to be Conducted by City-145 Approved re-use organizations, so there are, you know, the market; there are, outside of Palo Alto as you 146 know, places that take salvaged materials and resell them, and so there is no…oh, I’m not on the mic, 147 shoot. Hello. We do have places outside of Palo Alto that do take salvaged materials and resell them. So, 148 there is a market for that and they’re outside Palo Alto and from my understanding from Phil is, you know, 149 we’re not going to be messing with that market. That’s not a proposal to go, to put a yard in Palo Alto, 150 because there is a market outside Palo Alto and we don’t want to go and mess with those economics, that 151 existing market. So, hopefully, that answers maybe Board Member’s Makinen’s question from the retreat, 152 that wondered whether we were going to create a yard in Palo Alto. We’re not. I don’t know if there are 153 any other questions for Phil. 154 155 Chair Bower: Martin, go ahead. 156 157 Board Member Bernstein: Thanks for commenting what you just mentioned, Amy, but on the very bottom 158 it says Green Waste will haul materials. So, on the very bottom; is that different than what you just said, 159 Amy? 160 161 Ms. French: No, it’s not. So, the question that came up at the retreat is, are we going to have a yard located 162 in Palo Alto to receive these salvaged materials? We’re not. Green Waste is the hauler that Palo Alto 163 contracts with to haul everything, from people’s homes to everywhere. You know, recycling, trash, all that. 164 It’s the same contract. 165 166 Mr. Bobel: (no mic) 167 168 Chair Bower: Phil, could you turn your mic on. 169 170 Mr. Bobel: Yeah. So, currently we have this confusing part of the ordinance that says, you know, we don’t 171 exactly have a franchise with Green Waste. It’s not considered to be a franchise, and yet the ordinance 172 does say that Green Waste will haul certain things, but for construction it also says that self-haul is okay, 173 if it’s a source-separated material. In other words, if you’ve got pure wood, you could have somebody other 174 than Green Waste come in and take your pure wood to be recycled or reused. It sounds good at first, but 175 what actually happens is they get some other vendor in there and they throw everything under the sun in 176 this bin, and we have to fight with them to say, oh no, it was just source-separated material. You’re just 177 creating a landfill bin, and we don’t like that. So, to clean that up, we’re saying it’s got to be Green Waste. 178 City of Palo Alto Page 6 You can take it to various places. We’re not dictating that and we’re not building anything in Palo Alto to 179 take it to, but it’s got to be Green Waste. One exception to that rule is trucks; and small entities do use 180 trucks, right? Just pull a truck in and fill up the bed. So, we’re not going to affect that. So, small projects 181 can still use trucks. But if you’re using bins, it has to be a Green Waste bin. So, that is to clear up this 182 confusion that exists currently. 183 184 (no mic) 185 Chair Bower: So, let me jump in here for a second. The last project I did for my daughter in 2014 was in 186 San Mateo. We used I’ll use the firm’s Redwood Hauling for debris boxes, but we specified that it go to the 187 Zanker, because Zanker Road is, I can’t remember the term, but they… 188 189 Mr. Bobel: They’re certified. 190 191 Chair Bower: Right, and nothing leaves there that’s not going to a recycled facility and they take all the 192 construction debris and they compost it. That’s what they used to do. I don’t know what they do today. 193 So, I’m wondering why that wouldn’t be acceptable, because the problem with Green Waste is, they are 194 not competitive in the market when you ask for recycling direction. And the three companies that I’m aware 195 of will ask you whether you have to have a tag that says it’s gone to a recycled facility, which we did have 196 to have in San Mateo and we should have that. So, I’m a little bit concerned about giving Green Waste the 197 only opportunity here in Palo Alto when there are other equally, what I think would be equally compliant 198 opportunities. 199 200 Mr. Bobel: Well, two things. One, we’re, we’ve gotten into this whole area because when we look at the 201 data for Palo Alto, what’s still going to landfills from Palo Alto is 45 percent construction related material, 202 and that kind of woke us all up about two years ago, when we said, oh my goodness. Well, if we’re going 203 to meet our zero waste goals, we’re going to have to address the construction. And it’s not just demolition. 204 It’s also stuff that’s created during the construction process, right, which is a lot of stuff. So, it’s demolition 205 and it’s the construction phase and putting those two things together, it’s 46 percent of what still goes to 206 the landfill. And some of the – what’s happening is people are taking stuff and it’s some of these other 207 vendors, to other landfills, and then it gets counted, because they have to report where they got it. So, the 208 Ox Mountain Landfill, these places are taking the stuff and it’s originating in Palo Alto. So, that’s one point. 209 The second point is, it’s what you said about Zanker isn’t completely correct. You said, everything that goes 210 to Zanker gets recycled. No, they have a pretty big amount, about 30 percent, of what comes in goes to a 211 landfill. So, they only get 70 percent what we call diversion at Zanker. And if its source separated, we think 212 that can be a lot better. If more material is salvaged, it can be a lot better. So, that’s why we’re entering 213 the fray here. 214 215 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Vice Chair Corey: I think what Martin is suggesting is if there was two people, you wouldn’t have a monopoly 216 and you wouldn’t have somebody who is completely uncompetitive. So, by having one now you don’t have 217 that competition, and I know several contractors who just sneak around and do their own waste and don’t 218 use Green Waste because it’s too expensive. I think that’s what, you know, two solves the problem. You 219 don’t need everybody, but one means they can charge whatever they want. I’m sure that’s obvious. 220 221 Chair Bower: Well, I’m surprised, Phil, to hear that about Zanker. But I guess the point is, my question is, 222 does Green Waste then guarantee 100 percent redirection? 223 224 Mr. Bobel: No, not 100 percent. So, we just think we can do better. We’re not sure how much better we 225 can do. 226 227 Chair Bower: Better than 70 percent? 228 229 Mr. Bobel: Yeah. So, our goal, our overall City goal is 95 percent what we call diversion by 2030. That’s the 230 same kind of goal that our greenhouse gas thing is. You know, we have these high-level goals here. A 231 number of them fall in 2030, and this is one of them. We’re not sure how much better a place like Zanker 232 can do, but they’ve told us, you know, look, if you do source separation and you have, and that comes to 233 us, first of all the price will be less because it can be less than half. You bring us a big doggie pile of stuff, 234 it’s one price. You bring us wood, it’s a very different price, and so there’s an economic advantage to 235 salvage and what we call deconstruction. We haven’t gotten to deconstruction yet. That’s the second part. 236 Maybe you don’t need to hear about that, but know that that’s part of the deal too, is trying to insure 237 deconstruction, even if it’s not salvageable, so that it can be recycled better. 238 239 Chair Bower: Martin, you had a follow up. 240 241 Board Member Bernstein: Yeah. My camp on comments you’ve heard by a couple of other Board Members 242 already about the monopoly, if Green Waste is the only person, the only company that needs for bin, boxes 243 delivery. So, you know, we have special inspection requirements also for projects, and a contractor or 244 engineer can specify any, from a list of approved, has to meet all requirements, and again, I’m just thinking 245 about from a contractor’s point of view, if there’s no competitive bid on hauling a bin, just like this special 246 inspection, there’s, you know, you have a choice. And maybe Green Waste becomes the decision, but at 247 least give contractors a choice so that they can look at some bidding opportunities. And why pass that, if 248 it’s a monopoly with a monopolistic price, that hurts building, homeowners. So, why put that punishment 249 on them financially. So, just like special inspection, it still has to be done, so why not have the bin hauling, 250 it has to be done properly. Thank you. 251 252 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Wimmer: I have a comment yet. So, I’m actually working on a project right now where 253 we’re doing a deconstruction. It’s a house that we’re, I mean we’re going through that process right now, 254 and so we’ve had Green Earth Appraisals come out and they have appraised the materials that are going 255 to be deconstructed, and another element that factors into this whole process is the tax write off for the 256 homeowner, and so the Green Earth appraisal will come up with a list of items and, I guess, I don’t know 257 if they attach a value to it, and then they give that itemized list to Rebuild Green who is the deconstruction 258 contractor, and then what happens is that once that material is removed, it has to be given, donated to, 259 they said there were two vendors, Habitat for Humanity or Garbage Reincarnation are the two companies 260 that will accept this material. They select one of these companies. And then once, so the appraisal, the 261 appraiser has to make sure that all of the materials that are on his list are delivered and received by one 262 of these donation companies. Then he will sign his appraisal as well as the company that receives the 263 material, and then with that the homeowner gets this, I forget the tax write off. It’s a special government 264 (crosstalk). 265 266 Mr. Bobel: It’s like a charitable donation. 267 268 Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, it’s a government form that - then the homeowner doesn’t get that form 269 until this process has gone, the whole process has gone through. And it’s more or less, I mean, I think it’s 270 great for the homeowner because it’s a tax write off incentive. I think that’s – and also it costs him less. It 271 will be interesting to learn how much of the material is salvaged actually and how much of it ends up in a 272 landfill. I mean, that’s something that will be interesting to know. But at least it will cost him less in the 273 long run because the salvaged materials are of value and won’t end up in the landfill, that he won’t have 274 to pay for that kind of disposal. 275 276 Chair Bower: So, let me piggyback on here. That’s exactly the experience I had when I was last working, 277 and there were two benefits. The tax benefit was legitimate. But the other benefit is, that’s less 278 deconstruction costs for me as a contractor and the owners, and we’re also getting that material back into 279 a use stream. And so that was such an easy sell to the client and that system worked really well for me as 280 a general contractor. So, any way that the City could incorporate that kind of system which already exists, 281 or at least make that an alternative would be, I think, useful. 282 283 Mr. Bobel: What Margaret described is perfectly aligned with what we’re requiring, so there’s no conflict 284 there. We love what she just said. 285 286 Chair Bower: Yeah. 287 288 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Vice Chair Corey: So, circling back to the Board, do we have thoughts on something we could add to this 289 on the historic, on this historic side? Any sort of prioritized materials or treatment for anything historic or 290 other reuse opportunities for that? 291 292 Board Member Wimmer: It seems like the homeowner, or whoever owns the property could, I hope, 293 logically identify what the historic value of the material is, and there are places like Omega Salvage and, I 294 guess that’s the only one that comes to mind that has, in Berkley, that has, that is a retail store that sells 295 these things. I mean, I guess that’s a viable way to deal with historic salvaged materials, doors, windows, 296 things like that. But another element that, you know, not to talk more about my project, but another 297 element that came up is we had to get an asbestos test, and we have, the house is all Torrance windows, 298 all still Torrance windows, which I think have some historic potential value. I love those windows, although 299 they’re not energy efficient, but they all have asbestos calking in it, so I don’t know how that’s, the 300 deconstruction company has a, you have to have some kind of special certificate to demolish things that 301 have asbestos in it. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but there’s that too, that when you’re removing 302 old materials, you’re going to run into some bio waste possible elements of these materials, which I don’t 303 know what happens then. 304 305 Mr. Bobel: Well, there is not a good solution for that, if there’s asbestos in it, yeah. 306 307 Chair Bower: Martin. 308 309 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair Bower. Picking up on Margaret’s comment about the process, 310 the point I want to make too is that there is a chain of transfer paper trail. So, just going back to the point 311 of, well, Green Waste could be one supplier of that, of the bin service, but again, because there needs to 312 be a certified process for all this deconstruction salvage work, there is a chain of paper, and so whoever 313 hauls stuff away, you know, it’s their responsibility, the contractor is going to make sure the process is 314 done properly here. So, I’ve gone through that process on two projects where, yeah, there is the IRS 315 certified appraiser and so the woman I used, she understood this is historic, non-historic. And then making 316 sure that the chain of paper goes to the right person, the right reseller, and all that stuff. And then, of 317 course, as Margaret mentioned, or Chair Bower mentioned, this one project, yeah, it was, the homeowner 318 saved $44,000 in taxes. So, it’s a pretty sweet deal. And so, the owners can really make it a good impression 319 on the contractor, whoever the contractor contracts with for this process, make sure that chain of paper 320 trail is correct and submitted properly. So, I think there are a lot of controls, so maybe any ordinance, that 321 might be the focus. Make sure there is a chain of information that’s in the ordinance and not so much of 322 make sure you use this vendor. Thank you. 323 324 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Bower: To answer Brandon’s question about whether we should have a list of historic, or how we 325 determine whether there’s an historic material that we want to save, I suppose we could, as a Board, create 326 that list, or create a subcommittee to put forward that. Martin? 327 Board Member Bernstein: Now, let’s see, so let’s say if there is a determination of this kind of feature is 328 historic, this is not. But that only depends if there is a market for that product, and how can we predict if 329 there is a market for that product? So, some might say, yeah, you have to store windows that are built in 330 the year 1900, but if there is no market for it, then what, someone has to pay for storage? That’s crazy. 331 332 Vice Chair Corey: I think you can do something, so Margaret mentioned Omega Salvage, they take stuff 333 there. Obviously, if they’re filled up… We would have to be careful, maybe to your point, Martin, about 334 having like a forced requirement versus at least an attempt, right? Because, you know, if you went to 335 Omega and they wouldn’t take them or they were filled, or you didn’t have another venue, then I agree, 336 you wouldn’t want to force people to store it. But at least that attempt, whereas now, you know, it’s likely 337 just going to be… Because you know, in that case, if it’s nonhistoric, so like using windows as a perfect 338 example, anything in widows today my assumption is if you ignore the historic value, they’re all going to 339 be thrown away because of the energy efficiency. We can argue about that delta, but you know, that’s 340 what people think. So, you automatically, any window that’s been built more than ten years ago is going 341 to be thrown away, and not any historic value considered. So, at least if you had an opportunity to like say, 342 hey, for an historic house where, you know, you care more about that preservation versus the, you know, 343 miniscule amount of energy efficiency, then maybe there’s an opportunity there, but then I agree, I 344 wouldn’t want to say, then you have to hold it forever. Mike. 345 346 Board Member Makinen: So, all good thoughts right there. Comes to mind maybe we would want to have 347 some kind of, some type of checklist with sensitivity, certain materials like ironwork, tiles that may be 348 historic that people can kind of go down the list and see if that’s, any of those materials are part of their 349 inventory. A lot of people don’t know what’s historic. You know, you get a house and you get a Batchelder 350 Tile that’s imbedded in a fireplace, and they don’t know what the hell it is, and it gets ripped out. It’s a 351 highly valuable piece and historically significant. So, some type of checklist. 352 353 Chair Bower: Excuse me for interrupting, I didn’t mean to interrupt. My sense of this discussion is that the 354 purpose of creating a list of materials that could be considered historic is not to drive those materials into 355 a storage place. It’s simply to raise consciousness that there is another way to repurpose this beyond 356 Omega, although Omega is a big resource for historic materials. So, I think that it’s just a way of taking 357 that survey one step farther. 358 359 Vice Chair Corey: I would also add on the awareness side, historic materials to specific people can have a 360 higher value, because, you know, an historic window, you know, somebody’s willing to pay a lot more than 361 City of Palo Alto Page 11 a new window, for instance. So, there’s another opportunity on the incentive side as well, with the 362 awareness, right. 363 364 Chair Bower: I’m reminded when Michael brought up tile, I’m reminded of the storefront on Bryant, actually 365 in the building right next to or down the street from the development center, where a contractor came in 366 and ripped out the tile on those, iconic may be too strong a word, but the entrances to those buildings, 367 and Dennis Backlund, who was our historic planner, actually walked by, saw it, stopped it. And those tiles, 368 if we were to recover that kind of material and make it available, could have been put, you know, back in 369 that space. So, let’s talk further about how to get this… 370 371 Mr. Bobel: And if you come up with some list or triggers, we could modify this in the future. We’re sort of 372 hell bent on going to Council on May 20th for this Phase One, but if we know that we’re pushing here and 373 they’re going to be changes, right, and we could add the feature that you’re talking about where they have 374 to look for certain things. We would have to have some guidelines for that, you know. Is it a year, is it an 375 age, is it an item, but…? 376 377 Male: Or manufacturer. 378 379 Vice Chair Corey: Or manufacturer, yeah. So, maybe we can, as you suggested, Dave, maybe we could 380 create a subcommittee. But maybe in the meantime, we could just add some wording when it goes to the 381 City Council that you’re working with the HRB to come up with some additional historic materials (crosstalk) 382 383 Mr. Bobel: …put that in a Staff Report and say we’re working on that, and that can be added when we 384 come up with the details. 385 386 (crosstalk) 387 388 Board Member Makinen: What I would suggest is that maybe the HRB could take upon itself as a working 389 task to create a reference guide, you know, like a pictorial thing. This type of ironwork is sensitive, these 390 types of tiles are sensitive, others that aren’t. 391 392 Mr. Bobel: You know, we toyed with one idea. You know, former Council Member Karen Holman, as you 393 all probably know, was really a salvage advocate, and pushed us to do more, so one thing that we toyed 394 with was the survey would be done, and then there would be like a two-week period where people could 395 come in and actually see the stuff and local people, rather than take it to a place. I’m not familiar with 396 Omega. I’m going to check it out now that you’ve made me aware of it. But rather than haul it off 397 somewhere else, let people in the immediate area see it and give them time. We discarded that, the 398 City of Palo Alto Page 12 contractors really didn’t like that because it adds a couple of weeks on, or you know, they don’t like that. 399 So, we don’t have that feature in there. Just to let you know. The other thing in response, if I could just 400 say, to having Green Waste be the sole hauler, we’ve been – that’s just the hauler. They can still dictate 401 where it goes, and that is where most of the cost is, the tipping fee. And so, there is a competitive feature 402 there. I just wanted to point that out. 403 404 Chair Bower: Okay. I think we will take the next step and try to develop materials list so that you can blend 405 that in later. I would tell you, in my personal experience on the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association 406 blog, that a lot of materials are put on these Torrance windows that we’re not going to reuse, does anybody 407 want them? It would be, I’m not sure how the City could do this, but… 408 409 Mr. Bobel: We’ve toyed with that idea. It’s another task. So, I mean, we would have to, you know, have 410 somebody do. 411 412 Chair Bower: That’s right, somebody has to put it in there. 413 414 Mr. Bobel: And check it and delete the stuff that’s old and, you know, you have to… 415 416 Chair Bower: I know. Listen, it’s not simple. 417 418 Mr. Bobel: Nothing is. 419 420 Chair Bower: The neighborhood is doing it now informally, and so that’s encouraging to me. 421 422 Mr. Bobel: Yeah, that’s great. 423 424 Ms. French: I think we should just announce that there’s a business opportunity and there’s an app for 425 that, and then someone will come forward and, you know, create a Craig’s list for whatever, for this kind 426 of a thing. And then there wouldn’t be a two-week waiting period. There would be, you know, instant alerts 427 or whatever, for people in the business that are looking for these things. 428 429 Chair Bower: It’s complicated, but it’s happening. Martin. 430 431 Board Member Bernstein: Yeah, picking up on that point about having people get notices about this, so, I 432 have two experiences personally where the bricks at Staller Court, formerly Laning Chateau, They were 433 removing those and they were put into a dump truck, and I just happened to walk by and I said, I’ll throw 434 those away for you. Anyway, he actually drove his dump truck to my property, unloaded it, and I have all 435 City of Palo Alto Page 13 those bricks. They’re fantastic bricks. And then on, I think it’s Wilson Condominiums on Alma street, they 436 were tearing down a 1920’s house with solid redwood columns. I just happened to be driving by, I did a 437 U-turn. I told the developer, it was Kulakoff, Harrington and Kulakoff, and I said, I’ll throw those away for 438 you. He said, write us a letter that you won’t get hurt if you take them. I wrote a letter and he said okay. 439 I have them in my house; they’re solid redwood door columns, fantastic. Anyway, my point is, only because 440 I was driving by, so maybe something we can think about is if we come up with an historic list or when 441 there’s a demolition underway, maybe somehow that gets advertised somehow. Maybe the ties in with 442 your comment; just let people know about it so that, hey, Saturday come look. I’m available, let’s go take 443 a look. Because you know, if people see it, oh, my God, that’s fantastic. 444 445 Mr. Bobel: We haven’t vetted this, so I don’t think we can throw it in on May 20th, but hearing you talk, 446 one thing we could require is say, everything that’s on the salvage survey, you have to post it on a website. 447 Maybe it’s the City website. That, if we make it there, and then you have to take it down, so it isn’t 448 confusing. 449 450 Ms. French: Or there this Nextdoor (crosstalk) 451 452 Mr. Bobel: Yeah, or put it on Nextdoor. So, that’s a good idea. We have to be careful. We can’t just throw 453 stuff in without vetting it, so again, I think that would have to be kind of an augmentation later, but that’s… 454 455 Ms. French: Encourage without requiring. 456 457 Mr. Bobel: Yeah, we can do that in a Staff Report, and then we could make it an actual requirement later. 458 That’s a good idea. 459 460 Chair Bower: Can I ask a question about how this process would apply to a residential building in the 461 downtown area that’s going to be demolished and replaced by a commercial building? 462 463 (no mic) 464 465 Chair Bower: Well, there are several, but I was just thinking, according to what you have described, Phil, 466 this is only currently applicable to residential properties. 467 468 Mr. Bobel: Currently, but we’re adding commercial. 469 470 Chair Bower: Right, but if a residential building downtown was going to be replaced by a large building, 471 this technically wouldn’t apply then? 472 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Mr. Bobel: No, it would. If they knocked the whole residential building down, it would apply. 473 Chair Bower: Even if it was currently being used in a commercial way? 474 475 Mr. Bobel: Yeah. 476 477 Chair Bower: These downtown, you know, old… 478 479 Mr. Bobel: Oh, I see what you’re saying. 480 481 Chair Bower: The cottage, the 20’s cottages that are currently being… 482 483 Mr. Bobel: Used for commercial purposes. 484 485 Chair Bower: Yeah. 486 487 Mr. Bobel: Yeah, so it would now catch them. There would be some confusion under the existing ordinance, 488 because it doesn’t cover commercial, but when we put this in place, it will cover both residential and 489 commercial. So, whatever you call it, if you knock the whole thing down, it’s covered. 490 491 Chair Bower: So, it’s really original use rather than current use. 492 493 Mr. Bobel: Well, it just doesn’t matter because they’re both covered when we do this 494 495 Ms. French: Residential, nonresidential. 496 497 Chair Bower: Whole house demolition, I’m sorry, whole building demolition. 498 499 Mr. Bobel: Whole building demolition. 500 501 Chair Bower: There you go. All right. 502 503 Mr. French: When you say commercial, do you mean nonresidential, which covers both commercial and 504 non – let’s say industrial or… 505 506 Mr. Bobel: And it covers the multi-family below four units, so it covers everything. 507 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Bernstein: And then, so I guess in termination, right now there is a word that says whole 508 house, so maybe instead of whole house, it should be whole building, whole structure, for example. 509 Eventually the ordinance would say that, instead of whole house, would be whole structure. 510 Mr. Bobel: Right. Yeah, good point. 511 512 Chair Bower: Okay, any other comments or questions that you want, Board Members want to ask Phil? I 513 don’t see any. So, Phil, thank you very much. 514 515 Ms. French: Thank you. This was on a moment’s notice and Phil was gracious to accept. 516 517 Mr. Bobel: We’re trying to get ideas and you’ve got a lot of good ones. 518 519 Chair Bower: Okay, so we will work on the list and try to get that to you before the end of the century. 520 521 Mr. Bobel: (no mic) 522 523 Chair Bower: Good. Thank you. Okay, we have… 524 525 Ms. French: Maybe we can return to the… 526 527 Chair Bower: Study Session? 528 529 Ms. French: The Agenda basically, yeah, so the Retreat follow-up. So, the first items, you know, information 530 and staff research, I put it in that bucket. And the second item will be subcommittee discussion, and then 531 we have approval of minutes. This is today’s agenda. So, we just covered the salvage reuse follow up. And 532 then there was also a question about, you know, in-lieu parking for residential downtown, so I just wanted 533 to make you all aware that an ordinance was adopted by City Council on April 1st. This goes into effect May 534 1st, and what it did was allows 100 percent residential use in the CDC Zone District. Previously, you had to 535 do a mixed-use project within the CDC, and now 100 percent residential is allowed. And then, if you do 536 100 percent affordable residential, then you get parking exemptions. And then the Council directed staff 537 and the Planning Commission to work together towards additional research and proposals for decoupling 538 parking and in-lieu parking and off-site parking for residential downtown development. One thing just to 539 be aware of is the in-lieu program that was established way back when, and the assessment district, were 540 related to nonresidential developments. So, they did study the parcels all downtown and came up with, 541 you know, how many parking spaces are not provided for this, you know, use, commercial or nonresidential 542 uses. And then they assigned a number to that and then there was a value to that and there was a payment 543 for those spaces not provided. But it was all based on a one space for every 250 square feet. We call it the 544 City of Palo Alto Page 16 blended rate, and so that’s what was paid into the Assessment Program that covered the parking garages 545 that have been built, and going forward, the next set of parking garages. So, there’ve been issues; for 546 instance, churches. This church across the street is a good example of a building that was never assessed 547 for parking not provided, because it wasn’t a commercial use. You know, we have that same situation for 548 residential uses. They weren’t assessed. So, going forward, this is the kind of thing that would be studied 549 as, gosh, if somebody wants to come in and put a residential project, can they pay in-lieu fees for parking 550 spaces not provided. I think that’s the question. It’s not set up that way right now, as far as I understand. 551 552 Chair Bower: So, could you help me understand how in a residential situation, if there was an in-lieu 553 payment, that would exempt parking on that parcel, what does that in-lieu payment, who does that benefit? 554 They’re not going to build a parking structure in a residential neighborhood to accommodate this particular 555 property that has no parking. That’s the theory, as I understand it, about downtown parking. You can’t 556 create a parking space, because the Downtown commercial district is too dense, so you pay into a fund 557 that supports the parking lots and now their garages. So, there is a direct benefit between the in-lieu 558 payment and the need for more parking, but I don’t see where that in-lieu payment benefits the residential 559 neighbors who live around some… Can you help me understand that? 560 561 Ms. French: Well, and this is again what the Council has directed staff to study, is my understanding. In 562 the Downtown zone specifically, if there was a residential project that say proposed not to provide parking, 563 if it’s affordable that’s fine. If it’s not affordable, it’s market rate, the people do need to have parking 564 spaces, so if, you know, right now the only payments are for commercial or nonresidential, and that’s to 565 build the parking garages. So, if a residential, if that was contemplated, that they also could pay into in-566 lieu for those parking spaces in a garage nearby. 567 568 Chair Bower: But this is only in the Downtown? 569 570 Ms. French: We’re only talking about the CDC specifically. 571 572 Chair Bower: Okay, so that’s what I didn’t understand. I’m thinking of a situation where you would have, 573 you know, a small multi-unit building built in a more residential area, like the South Forest area. I don’t 574 know if that’s included in the downtown. 575 576 Ms. French: Yeah, so the Downtown Parking Assessment District is where the in-lieu program exists. If it’s 577 outside the assessment district, so some of the South Forest areas are, most of the South Forest area is 578 outside the assessment district. There are some parcels within South Forest area that are within the Parking 579 Assessment District. 580 581 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Bower: So, there’s no proposal to make this a Citywide program? 582 583 Ms. French: My understanding from the April 1st action is it’s specific to the CDC Zone. You know, we want 584 to explore having greater housing, and here we are next to this train station, that it seems like we could 585 have more density for housing, and in fact, this ordinance requires, limits the floor area of these multi-586 family housing units, developments. You can only have 1500 square feet per unit, so it’s forcing smaller 587 units and therefore more units to solve our housing, or go towards our housing, some of the housing crisis 588 here, and with that, 100 percent no parking. But, yeah, it’s not going to, it’s not looked at as going beyond 589 the CDC Zone at this point. 590 591 Chair Bower: Martin, did you have a comment? 592 593 Board Member Bernstein: (no mic) 594 595 Ms. French: Correct. I created this for today. 596 597 Board Member Bernstein: (no mic) 598 599 Chair Bower: Okay, do you want to continue. 600 601 Ms. French: I created it this morning so we could have some talking points. 602 603 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. 604 605 Ms. French: So, basically that follow-up. Then the next topic is the subcommittees, so I just threw this 606 together. The first one, I guess Birge Clark began work 2019 with his father designing a famous house 607 over on Stanford, the Lou Henry Hoover House; the other one. Because then we have the Lou Henry 608 Hoover Girl Scout House next to the Junior Museum and Zoo. So, this was one, you know, if you want to 609 do a celebrations subcommittee, you know, if you want to have a couple of folks that are interested in 610 exploring these events that might come up, and this is one of them. I think anyone on the PAST Board 611 knows what’s going on with the Birge Clark 100 Year that’s coming up. 612 613 Chair Bower: Its next year isn’t it? I think it’s 2020 or maybe beyond. It has been a topic of discussion at 614 recent Board meetings, but I missed the last Board meeting, so I don’t really know which, where, how it’s 615 moving forward. But there is talk about it. 616 617 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Ms. French: So, I just threw on the screen here, this is related to that. You know, Birge Clark was called 618 the architect of Palo Alto, and you know, I’ve gone and looked these things up. So, he established an 619 architectural firm in Palo Alto in 1922. It was the only architectural firm in Palo Alto at that time, and this 620 was one of the first houses he designed in Palo Alto that I’m aware. It was built in 1923. It’s a Category IV 621 on the City’s Historic Inventory. They recently cleared the vegetation from the property, and now you can 622 see it. It’s in the DPR Form, which is - as you have probably seen, these 1970’s forms are very limited in 623 what they say. It just says it’s the Hansel and Gretel scaled Tudor, and, you know, everything’s kind of 624 scaled down, so it’s cute, but it does have this very peaked roof. It’s for sale and I’ve been in conversation 625 with potential buyers, and we have a potential buyer that is, you know, getting towards the end of that 626 process. Anyways, there’s, the reason I put this on here is sometimes there is maybe support needed for, 627 to try to help folks that are trying to do the right thing and buy a property because they’re interested in 628 preserving it. So, is there interest in, you know, part of the community outreach maybe an assistance 629 subcommittee that could be a contact. You know, for instance I could refer and say, hey, you want to call 630 somebody on this community outreach and assistance subcommittee and they can talk through some things 631 because it’s not something I can take on. Some of those things might involve, you know, talking to 632 appraisers or what have you and helping people, folks, banks or whatever, understand that there’s a value 633 to historic and it’s not just teardown. And help them achieve their goal of preserving a building. Anyways, 634 it’s just a thought. 635 636 Chair Bower: Do you have the address of where that house is? 637 638 Ms. French: Yes, it’s on Everett. 639 640 Board Member Makinen: Just a comment on that house. That’s kind of in my neighborhood. I went through 641 it just before, as it was being sold. 642 643 Ms. French: It hasn’t been sold yet. It’s in the process. 644 645 Board Member Makinen: Pardon? 646 647 Ms. French: It’s in process of being sold. 648 649 Board Member Makinen: Yes, the process of being sold. But that sold almost immediately, which kind of 650 validates the value of an historic property. It’s a very small house and not capable of meeting modern living 651 conditions for most families. But the family that purchased it, my understanding in talking to the realtor, is 652 a person who bought it for his parents to live in. 653 654 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Ms. French: The sale hasn’t completed. My understanding, because, you know, for each and every one of 655 these houses that goes on the market that’s either listed on our inventory or listed as potentially eligible, I 656 get those calls. It keeps me very busy, buyers and sellers, and so this is one of them, and to go through 657 and say, well, what does the code say about Category IV’s outside of downtown, not a real good 658 preservation. 659 (crosstalk) 660 661 Ms. French: We’re lucky when people come forward that want to preserve something. That’s a very lucky 662 occurrence. 663 664 Board Member Makinen: Yeah, it was Michael Dreyfuss who had the listing, and the house sold for pretty 665 much what they were asking for it. But I talked with him and he was lamenting the fact that, oh, it’s historic. 666 We can’t do a thing about it, it’s a Category IV. Anybody that buys it has to have it exactly like it is right 667 now. So, I mean… 668 669 Male: Misinformation. 670 671 Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I mean, that’s the whole point. He was kind of down on the historic 672 preservation thing, which indicates to me we need to do some more work on educating some of these 673 prime realtors in town, what the real story is, because they think that if it’s historic it can’t be touched. 674 675 Ms. French: Yeah, it’s a day-to-day conversation with each and every buyer and each and every realtor 676 that calls. I mentioned at the retreat that I had done a big presentation to the realtor group that meets, 677 SLVAR. There were about 80 realtors there, so I spoke with all of them, at least, in a big room. But, yeah, 678 how does the message get out there? How does the message get transmitted from, you know, to new 679 sellers who, this is new to them? They want to get maximum dollars and they don’t know. I mean, they 680 don’t necessarily call us, the realtors do. 681 682 Chair Bower: Can I interrupt briefly. Brandon has to leave, so before he goes, when we’re looking at these. 683 Can we go back, Amy, to this page? I don’t think today I want to try to create some committees for all of 684 these ideas. I’d like to have Board Members think about this. We already have a Mills Act Subcommittee, 685 which I want to talk about in a moment. Could Board Members review this and then maybe Robin could 686 send an email to all Board Members asking interest and then people can just respond, so we can get a 687 sense of who is interested in what. 688 689 Vice Chair Corey: Should we also add one for the conversation we had earlier to the list? About a salvage? 690 691 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Bower: Right. Thank you. Okay, so I know you have to go, Brandon, but I just wanted to get that in 692 the record, so we can have… 693 694 Ms. French: (no mic) 695 696 Chair Bower: Well, we’re not done. I don’t want to… Well, we still have a quorum. Do you have any? 697 698 Vice Chair Corey: I have no issue with the minutes. 699 700 Chair Bower: I have a lot of them, but that’s another issue. Okay. Thank you. See you next meeting. So, if 701 we could stay on this list for a moment, my impression is that the HRB Awards Program could be easily 702 partnered with PAST and PAHA. I think they have some similar type of recognition award. So, I’m not sure 703 we would need to have a subcommittee doing that. I think we can probably facilitate that outside of a… 704 But maybe other Board Members have a different opinion. I’m very interested in outreach, and I think your 705 ability to talk to 80 real estate agents at once is enormously helpful and I’m thinking we should try to figure 706 out a way to communicate with the local real estate board. I can’t remember what it’s called. 707 708 Ms. French: SLVAR is the one that I spoke to. Silicon Valley Realtor Association. 709 710 Chair Bower: They should know every meeting that we have, they should get some kind of email or 711 something with our topics just to be in their inbox. And if we can get them to publicize it so that their 712 members can actually come here and experience the evaluation process, the benefits and so forth, I think 713 that would be helpful. Midcentury Modern Era, the grant preparation, and the Mills Act, I think I will speak 714 for the Mills Act Subcommittee, I think we’re stuck because we don’t have any staff support, because we 715 don’t have an historic planner. So, my request would be that we get Page and Turnbull to be that person 716 that Emily Vance was. We got an enormous amount of work done, very close to being ready to move this 717 to the next level of consideration. But I don’t think we can do that without somebody. And I think the Mid-718 century Modern context grant is another place where we need to have the outside consultant really step in 719 as an entity in place of our historic planner. So, I don’t know how we move that forward, but maybe you 720 and I can talk about that. So, any Board Members have any other comments on these committees? 721 722 Ms. French: I would just add to that Mid-century Modern, I referenced earlier, some folks had contacted 723 me about, is there a way to commemorate this meeting of New Year’s Eve of 1963 of Jerry Garcia and Bob 724 Weir, you know, in the Centennial Allery over here? And so, you know, I can help connect them to people, 725 but it’s tough being in my role, whatever. 726 727 Chair Bower: You’re 25 different titles? 728 City of Palo Alto Page 21 729 Ms. French: Well, it’s more like I’m over code enforcement, so I can’t tell them, well just go do something, 730 you know. It’s more like, connect them to people that can brainstorm what to do. I contacted a property 731 owner and say, hey, you know, this is of interest to these people, but I can only go so far. So, this is just 732 one of these things that’s not 100 years old, so the PAST or PAHA will not pick up on this. It’s 50 years. 733 There’re things that happened here in the 1960’s that are very much of interest, so there’s no plaque for 734 that at this point. There may be events or place that maybe there’s an interest in midcentury modern that 735 could consider some kind of recognition. I don’t know, it’s not awards but it’s recognition of the importance 736 of the 1960’s, let’s say. 737 738 Chair Bower: I think Bo Crane’s book about the Rock history, which is starting in the 50’s really, but 739 accelerates quite a bit in the late 60’s is certainly the first step in publicizing this. 740 741 Ms. French: (no mic) speak, and then maybe somebody wants to be on a subcommittee that, you know. 742 743 Chair Bower: Okay. So, Martin. 744 745 Board Member Bernstein: On the community outreach, I’d be willing to participate. So, if you’re meeting 746 with real estate agents again, I enjoy speaking to real estate agents to help address some of the questions 747 that you get from them. 748 749 Board Member Kohler: I’d like to comment. 750 751 Chair Bower: Sure. 752 753 Board Member Kohler: I’ve been sitting here for a while. For some reason I wrote down, when did I get on 754 this Board, and I think it’s 1998. Martin, you came on with me at the same time. 1998, so that’s 21 years 755 ago. 756 757 (no mic) 758 759 Board Member Kohler: Yeah, so we’ve been on this committee for… 760 761 Board Member Bernstein: So, are we Category III or IV, Roger? 762 763 Board Member Kohler: I don’t know. You’re talking about Rock and Roll bands. I played in a band for quite 764 a while, and our main people we went to see every month was the Community Association for the Retarded 765 City of Palo Alto Page 22 on Middlefield. We played there for ten years and they thought we were the best thing ever known to Rock 766 and Roll. It was a wonderful, wonderful thing that we worked on. 767 768 Ms. French: It sounds like you might want to be on the subcommittee. 769 770 Board Member Kohler: What? 771 (no mic) 772 773 Board Member Kohler: Oh, I learned playing guitar. I wasn’t that great, but I ended up base in the band 774 because the base is fuzzy and you can’t really hear the base, so I was pretty good at that. 775 776 Chair Bower: Okay. Is there any other discussion of that particular issue? 777 778 Ms. French: I have one more slide, and this was, I was envisioning coming back and having a discussion, 779 because I brought this up at the retreat, is there any interest in learning about the history of what happened 780 with the ordinance back in the late 90’s and what we’re doing and what we, how to plan forward towards… 781 You know, we have 165 National Register eligibles. They’re not on our inventory, so they’re not protected 782 under the ordinance in the same way as the ones that are on the, the Category I’s and II’s on the inventory. 783 We have a Comp Plan that gave us some goals and policies, but we don’t have a program yet to move 784 forward on any of that, so that’s another kind of information session or discussion, study session, whatever, 785 to have going forward. 786 787 Chair Bower: So, is this L7.2, Proposed Language, or is this actual? 788 789 Ms. French: No, that’s what’s causing, since January of last year, me to have Page and Turnbull do historic 790 evaluations each and every time somebody comes through the IR, Individual Review Program for a new 791 two-story house or second floor addition, that we need to analyze it for California Register eligibility. 792 793 Chair Bower: Unless, of course, if they want to replace the house with a single-story house where there is 794 no Individual Review and that’s… 795 796 Ms. French: We’re not broadcasting that too much, but yes. 797 798 Chair Bower: Nobody’s watching us. 799 800 Ms. French: Probably not. So, anyways, this was another slide I just put up there because I think if there 801 is interest, you know, it’s kind of – we’ve got this awareness program that recognizes and honors 100-year-802 City of Palo Alto Page 23 old houses. We’ve got others that, you know, will be coming eligible and have been identified as eligible. 803 There’s no protection really. What do we do about that and do we want to start recognizing some of those 804 in a way that recognizes that, hey, you didn’t tear that down, that’s nice? And then they went and fixed 805 that, and it’s not 100 years old, but it’s… I don’t know. Is there something that we can do to encourage 806 and elevate these newly identified eligible resources? There might be something there. 807 808 Board Member Makinen: May I make a suggestion? On your bold type right here, the third line down, this 809 is L7.2, Inventory City Staff Shall Consider Whether it is Eligible for Inclusion. Can we say City Staff and 810 HRB Shall Consider? 811 812 Ms. French: We can’t because this was published in 2017 in the Comprehensive Plan. So, this is not being 813 considered. This is adopted in the Comprehensive Plan of 2017. This is already done. I’m just putting it 814 again on the screen so you’re aware of it. 815 816 (no mic) 817 818 Ms. French: Yeah. Again, this is the thing that is causing new eligible resources to be identified. 819 820 Board Member Makinen: The point I’m trying to make, I think the HRB is being short circuited on a lot of 821 these things that we should be saying. City Staff gets to look at them, and we never get a chance to weigh 822 in on it. That’s one of my points of contention right here. 823 824 Ms. French: Well, I’m bringing it here to talk with you about the program so you understand what is in 825 place. I mean, the wordsmithing of this policy back in 2017, I can’t talk to that exactly. I wasn’t involved 826 in that, but it’s here now and we’re doing something about it now. What I’m saying is, maybe we have a 827 study session in August, September, where we talk about it; you know, there’re at least six new eligible 828 resources that I can think of that were identified. What are we doing about that? What does the HRB want 829 to do to participate in the next steps about say those 165 National Register that are already with the State, 830 but are somewhat unprotected. You know, we have a policy that says, we should look at our inventory and 831 perhaps add some of these eligible homes onto our inventory. That’s a process I’m inviting participation in, 832 so that’s what I’m doing about it. 833 834 Chair Bower: So, you think that a subcommittee of HRB Members would be able to facilitate this evaluation? 835 836 Ms. French: Well, could work with me or the HRB, sorry, or Page and Turnbull, if I can put some money 837 into that contract to do some other things. This is again, this is on a probably medium or long-term 838 Comprehensive Plan implementation trajectory, so to move it up ahead, sooner, would require some work 839 City of Palo Alto Page 24 by somebody. So, if there is HRB subcommittee interest and activity working with me, then maybe we can 840 map out how to move that forward sooner than later. 841 842 Chair Bower: I think you just timed out. 843 844 Board Member Wimmer: But it looks like that’s slated for an August, to revisit that issue in August. 845 846 Ms. French: I was thinking, as I was mapping forward what our next agendas – I thought, well, what are 847 we doing in July and maybe I can come and share the list of eligibles that have been evaluated during this 848 last year. 849 850 Board Member Wimmer: I think that’s a great idea. 851 852 Ms. French: And, you know, talk about what our ordinance does and doesn’t do, and again, the Comp Plan 853 policies that say we should do something. 854 855 Board Member Wimmer: And are they both commercial and residential? 856 857 Ms. French: The ones, yes, there are some that are, have been deemed eligible for California Register, and 858 there are some projects that are commercial projects that would involve CEQA documents about those. So, 859 when we talk about commercial projects, or non-single-family residential projects, there’s a, because it’s 860 subject to Architectural Review Board and it’s discretionary, they can’t just do like what Chair Bower said, 861 and just say, well, I’m going to do a single-family, single-story home and get out of it. When it’s in 862 Architectural Review application discretionary, there is a whole CEQA process for that, because they are 863 not exempt from CEQA when it’s a multi-family or non-single-family. 864 865 Chair Bower: Do you want us to take any action on this projected path? 866 867 Ms. French: This is just giving you my ideas for what we can do at these meetings, because, again, we 868 don’t really have projects that are on file that are subject to our Historic Resource Ordinance, Preservation 869 Ordinance. 870 871 Chair Bower: Can you send this slide to me in an email? 872 873 Ms. French: Yes. 874 875 Chair Bower: I guess all of us could… 876 City of Palo Alto Page 25 877 Ms. French: Strategize. 878 879 Chair Bower: Could look at it and think about it. Okay. Anything else on this topic? I think that takes us 880 through our agenda except for Minutes. 881 882 883 Study Session 884 Action Items 885 886 Approval of Minutes 887 888 3. Draft Minutes of March 14, 2019 Historic Resources Board Meeting. 889 890 Chair Bower: I’m sure no one has any changes in the Minutes. I had a brief conversation with Robin prior 891 to the start of the meeting, and one of the things that bothers me the most about this, the way in which 892 minutes are transcribed is that there are grammatical errors that make understanding what was discussed 893 somewhat difficult, and I started to mark up some and decided that it’s such, in this case such an 894 overwhelming process. There are little things like apostrophes that need to be put into place because that 895 changes the meaning of, you know, a word with an s at the end of it. So, I don’t have any suggestions for 896 changes in this because the gist of our conversation, which was quite long, is there, but I’m just expressing 897 some frustration in the way in which this is preserved. And I am reminded of reading a 1998 Council 898 discussion of Historic Resources Board issue, and those, there were grammatical errors in that discussion, 899 and it made it somewhat hard to understand what was being discussed, and so that’s why I’m thinking 900 about this. I don’t know that there’s any particular way we can make this clearer, but it’s my comment. 901 Anybody want to make any changes? 902 903 Board Member Makinen: Well, I tend to agree with you. I went through these minutes, and they were 904 pretty difficult to comprehend a lot of things. Like you have the worst, instead of using to, it is too thing. 905 There are a number of different things like that. 906 907 Chair Bower: Yeah, exactly. 908 909 Board Member Makinen: I could have a long shopping list if I wanted to go through them. 910 911 Chair Bower: So, do I have a motion to approve? 912 913 City of Palo Alto Page 26 MOTION 914 915 Board Member Wimmer: I’ll move to approve the minutes. 916 917 Chair Bower: Is there a second? 918 919 Board Member Bernstein: I’ll second it. 920 Chair Bower: All right, with a motion to approve and a second and no further discussion, all in favor say 921 aye. All those not in favor? 922 923 MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH VICE CHAIR COREY ABSENT 924 925 Chair Bower: All right. So, we’ve taken care of that. 926 927 Subcommittee Items 928 929 Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 930 931 Chair Bower: All right. Well, thank you for putting together these set of slides. It makes our path forward, 932 I think, a little more straightforward. And with that, let’s see, our next meeting will be May 9th, is that right? 933 934 (no mic) 935 936 Chair Bower: 23rd? Oh, May 23rd. 937 938 Ms. French: Due to absences that were projected at the retreat or at some point, we’re kind of targeting 939 one meeting a month, so the next meeting I believe is on the screen, May 23rd will be our next. So, we’ll 940 cancel the meeting of whatever that is, 5/8, 9. 941 942 Chair Bower: May 9th, nine on our calendar. 943 944 Ms. French: In fact, I’m out of town, so that works out. And then June 13th is an important meeting because 945 that’s where I’m targeting for the Castilleja, I’m the project planner for the Castilleja Project. 946 947 Chair Bower: Good. All right. Any Board Member comments or announcements? I see none, so I think that 948 we will consider the meeting adjourned. Thank you very much for your participation. 949 950 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Adjournment 951 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 10457) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 6/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 526 Waverley Approval Condition Follow-Up Title: SUBCOMMITTEE: 526 Waverley Street (17PLN-00454): Subcommittee Formation for On-Site Review of Finishes and Colors to Address Conditions of Approval From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Receive the attached report and delegate a subcommittee of HRB members to visit the site after the HRB meeting to see and provide comments on color brush-outs, tiles and finishes. Report Summary The property owner and his architect request HRB subcommittee review of cement plaster and trim finishes/color, and tile colors and patterns. The architect’s memo (Attachment A) provides a summary and details for this session. Background On August 24, 2017, the HRB conducted a study session regarding the proposed reclassification of the Birge Clark designed 1927 building located at 526 Waverley Street from Inventory Category 3 to a Category 2 ‘significant resource’. The applicant submitted a staff level architectural review and historic review application (file 17PLN-00454), which was approved April 16, 2018. The letter of approval (Attachment B) contains condition of approval 2a and 2b requiring an HRB subcommittee site visit to review plaster texture and color, and the HRB to review on consent the tile design and color. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The owner’s architect recently contacted staff to say that all installations had been performed and input was now sought. Staff contacted the HRB chair and together went to the site. The HRB chair followed up with the architect and staff requested a memo to provide to the HRB. The main request is the formation of a subcommittee to visit the site after the HRB meeting and walk there to provide input on the cement plaster finish texture, wall tile color and pattern, paint color at wall and trim, and flatwork at entries. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: 526 Waverley HRB Review Request_190606 (2) (PDF)  Attachment B: Approval 526 Waverley 17PLN-00454 (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org P a g e | 1 of 4 6 June 2019 Thoits Bros, Inc. 629 Emerson St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Amy French Planning Department 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 526 Waverley St. – HRB Review – 17PLN-00454 Finish items Ms. French, We request the HRB review the following items: • Cement plaster finish texture • Wall tile color and pattern • Paint color at wall and trim • Flatwork at entries As you know, we have now re-textured the cement plaster finish at the entire front façade. In addition, we have installed wall tile and temporary flatwork at the building entries. I want to personally apologize for my oversight in not sharing these items with the Board in advance of installation. In our haste to improve the building, and partially due to our excitement about the improvement these elements bring, I moved forward without reviewing the Conditions of Approval. I understand you and David Bower have visited the site and described the following review in an email on 5/24/19: 1. The plaster texture looks good 2. The wall tile looks good 3. The choice for building color was not clear 4. The choice for trim color was not clear In an email from David Bower on 5/30/19, he confirmed items 1 and 2 above. He indicated concern with the flatwork tile in the entries and asked that we bring samples and information regarding all the above to the Board for review. To facilitate the review of these items, we offer the following: P a g e | 2 of 4 The 3 bays have all seen good progress. The left bay arch has been restored. The right bay pediment and corbels have been installed and finished. The center bay lintel has been exposed and is undergoing repair. The initial expectation for this element was to find a shaped profile at the beam end, but this was not present. It does not appear this member has been altered in any way, so our current thinking is the design was changed to a plumb cut when originally installed. We will retain the profile as we see it now. Wall tile has been installed and grouted. Paint color of the building body has been selected to match the color used at a similar building, 630 Ramona St. The color used is Benjamin Moore Icicle OC-60. P a g e | 3 of 4 We are evaluating 2 colors for the woodwork which includes the doors and frames, window sashes and trim, other miscellaneous trim, and the cornice line just below the roof edge. Our current preference is Benjamin Moore Ironwood (top of door) but are also comfortable with Behr Swiss Brown (top color on left side). We evaluated a few other colors but once we saw them in place on the building, we were not in favor of using them. We respectfully request a subcommittee of the HRB visit the site to review these colors in context to provide direction. Flatwork at the site is a hodgepodge of materials placed at different dates and accomplished with a range of success. In addition, age, wear, and damage have all taken their toll on the section of sidewalk at the building frontage. In discussion with Planning Staff, when the project Conditions of Approval were under development, we reached an agreement that replacement of the sidewalk would be deferred. This was discussed as part of an understanding that there is a larger improvement project to come, beyond the restoration of the façade, for the interior and potentially the overall structure. We fully intend to replace the entire sidewalk at the building frontage at a future date. P a g e | 4 of 4 In light of this, we elected to install a temporary tile that was not visually significant and would be easily removable and replaced when the sidewalk was repaired. It is our intention, if allowed by Public Works, to match the original color, texture, and pattern of the concrete flatwork. At that time, when the line of transition between tile and concrete can be defined in relation to the building, we would like to return to the Board to review entry tile color/pattern. Because there have been repairs and alterations over time, the line of transition is not consistent currently. We hope all of this will be acceptable to you. We look forward to meeting with you to review. Sincerely, Randy Popp