Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-09 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 2. 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: April 9, 2020 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N- 29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26 and Midpen Media Center livestream at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/. Members of the public may comment in the following ways: 1) Send an email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org, or 2) attend the Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Links and instructions can be found on the last page of this agenda. 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.1,2 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 411 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00348]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to Consider Hayes Group Architects' Request for a Preliminary Architectural Review of a Three Unit Residential Project Which Adds Two _______________________ 1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 2. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Subterranean Housing Units to a Significant Building, Historic Inventory Category 2 Single Family Residence, Including Exterior Changes, a Rear Addition and Expansion of the Existing Partial Basement. The Project Includes a Request for Bonus Floor Area (2,500 Square Feet) Following Successful Rehabilitation, and Transfer of the Bonus to an Eligible Downtown Receiver Site. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD- C(P)). Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at Sahsing@m-group.us. 3. Receive Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report for the 2018-2019 Reporting Period. Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of February 13, 2020 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 2. 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 at bit.ly/PAHRB. The HRB Boardmembers are: Chair David Bower Vice Chair Deborah Shepherd Boardmember Martin Bernstein Boardmember Roger Kohler Boardmember Michael Makinen Boardmember Christian Pease Boardmember Margaret Wimmer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy6sibRxwOs, http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Public comment is encouraged. Go to bit.ly/PAHRB. Write to us. Email the HRB at: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. During the Shelter in Place Order, please email us rather than US postal service mail. Comments received by email by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received by email afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be forwarded to the Board by email. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the agenda packet will be viewable at this URL: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/historic/default.asp 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. _______________________ 1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 2. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrb@CityofPaloAlto.org 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 565 709 923 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11196) Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/9/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 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: • 2020 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2020 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/9/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 2/13/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/27/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 3/12/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 3/26/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled Shepherd, Pease 4/9/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 4/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers tbd 5/14/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers tbd 5/28/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers tbd 6/11/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers tbd Shepherd 6/25/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers tbd 7/9/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd 7/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd 8/13/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/27/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd 9/10/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/24/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/8/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/22/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/12/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/26/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thanksgiving 12/10/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/24/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Day before Christmas 2020 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11098) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/9/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 411 Lytton Avenue Study Session Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 411 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00348]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to Consider Hayes Group Architects' Request for a Preliminary Architectural Review of a Three Unit Residential Project Which Adds Two Subterranean Housing Units to a Significant Building, Historic Inventory Category 2 Single Family Residence, Including Exterior Changes, a Rear Addition and Expansion of the Existing Partial Basement. The Project Includes a Request for Bonus Floor Area (2,500 Square Feet) Following Successful Rehabilitation, and Transfer of the Bonus to an Eligible Downtown Receiver Site. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P)). Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at Sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide preliminary comments regarding the proposed modifications and addition to a ‘significant building’ in the City’s Downtown; the Historic Inventory Category 2 resource at 411 Lytton. Report Summary The preliminary plans include two initial components to create a three-unit, multi-family residential project on the site of a significant building within the Downtown: (1) Interior and exterior remodeling to rehabilitate an existing Local Historic Resources Inventory Category 2 resource, and 2 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 (2) New construction including a single-story rear addition and two new subterranean units below the building’s footprint. The applicant intends to submit formal applications for Architectural Review (AR) and a Preliminary Parcel Map for a three-unit condominium subdivision. The applicant submitted a preliminary AR application pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020(c). Pursuant to PAMC Section 16.49.050, staff requests that the HRB review the conceptual alteration plans. The HRB’s purview includes review of exterior modifications to a “significant” Downtown historic resource for compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (SOI Standards). Attachment A includes a location map of the project site. The conceptual project plans are included as a link contained in Attachment E. As this is a study session item, no formal direction is requested at this time. Staff will perform an analysis of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, and including any applicable guidelines (Downtown Urban Design Guide). Accordingly, there may be aspects of the plans provided for this study session that do not comply with the City’s regulations. The applicant seeks initial feedback on the proposed modifications to this Historic Inventory Category 2 structure. Staff would return to the HRB with the formal application for board- affirmation of the project’s consistency with the SOI Standards. The HRB’s recommendations on the formal application would be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Director of Planning and Development Services. Background During 1997-2000 Palo Alto conducted a citywide historic survey of several thousand buildings with the goal of identifying properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register or Historical Resources. The survey produced a large “Final Survey Report” and individual property Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms for all properties determined eligible for listing on the National Register. The survey identified 411 Lytton as a National Register eligible property under Criterion A and C at the local level of significance. Staff shared the DPR form in the HRB packet for the July 18, 2012 public hearing. At that meeting, the HRB recommended that City Council include the property on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 2 resource. The property owner requested the designation, which he intended to facilitate a future rehabilitation project and floor area bonus request. On January 13, 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution formerly including the property on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 2 resource or “significant” building. In 2014, the City received an application in conjunction with a request for development of the adjacent property at 437 Lytton Avenue for a new mixed-use building. The proposal included rehabilitation of the 411 Lytton Avenue structure, plus a small addition to the home. After 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 review by the HRB (https://tinyurl.com/HRB-3-10-2016) and the ARB (https://tinyurl.com/ARB- 3-17-2019), the Director of Planning and Development Services approved the project. However, the decision was appealed and the City Council (https://tinyurl.com/CC-8-15-2016) recommended the owner return to the ARB with a redesigned project. The applicant ultimately withdrew the application for consideration on June 5, 2017. The only completed rehabilitation work discussed in the prior historic resource evaluation was a reroof and replacement of gutters and downspouts. Discussion Site and Surroundings The 2,843 square foot parcel is a rectangular shaped lot, except for the missing westerly corner. The lot is developed with a one story, 854 square foot residential ‘square cottage’ bungalow constructed in 1901. Vehicular access is provided via a driveway on Lytton Avenue. City records indicate a 160 square foot garage existed on the property at one time but was likely located on the site that was later severed from the current property (sometime after 1924). A carport appears to have been added recently to the site, providing one covered parking space; however, there is no record of a permit having been obtained. Therefore, the carport is considered an illegal, non-complying facility. Adjacent uses include single-family homes to the northwest along Kipling Street, commercial uses to the southwest along Lytton Avenue, and a City parking lot and a convenience store across Lytton Avenue to the southeast. Photo and Aerial Map of 411 Lytton Avenue: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Source: M-Group 2020 Source: CNES/Airbus, Maxar, USGS 2020 Character Defining Features The applicant submitted a Historic Resources Report (HRE) and review of the SOI Standards in 2012 (by PAST Consultants, LLC) (Attachment B) as part of the project’s evaluation to be included in the City’s Historic Inventory. The City retained Metropolitan Planning Group, Inc. to conduct a peer review of the 2012 HRE and updated review of the Standards as it relates to the new project (Attachment C). In summary, the peer review concurs with the findings of the 2012 HRE. The reports identify the following character defining features of 411 Lytton: Very Significant Character-Defining Features: • Hipped roof massing with symmetrical primary façade, dominated by one-over-one, double-hung sash windows flanking a central porch. • Wood shingle, Craftsman-style exterior wall cladding. • Hipped roof with Craftsman-style overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails in primary roof and dormer roof. • Front porch with Colonial Revival-style porch posts and period front door. • One-over-one, double-hung sash windows. Significant Character-Defining Features: • Central chimney now encased in stucco. Contributing Character-Defining Features: • One-over-one, double-hung sash windows on non-primary facades. • Entrance to half-basement on rear façade. • Rear entrance with top-light and sidelight. Non-Contributing Features: • Newer site fencing along Lytton Avenue and in front of the driveway. • Replaced asphalt shingle roofing on primary and dormer roofs. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 • Steel pipe railing added to front porch. According to the reports, the very-significant, significant and contributing features make it an outstanding example of a simplified Craftsman-styled bungalow with Colonial Revival detailing. The reports note the home is a fine representative of the modest homes constructed for Stanford faculty, students and residents living within the City’s University Park subdivision. Project Description The applicant proposes a renovation and rehabilitation as well as new construction. The renovation and rehabilitation components include both exterior and interior work. The interior work includes the moving of walls and fixtures. The proposed exterior rehabilitation work includes the following: • Perform structural engineering assessment of building foundation and settlement of front porch; • Based on the engineering assessment, repair the foundation, if necessary; • Inspect wood shingles at dormer. Replace deteriorated shingles, as necessary; • Inspect roof fascia boards and rafter tails for any deterioration. Repair or replace deteriorated wood members if necessary. Repair, rather than replace as much historic wood as possible; • Inspect chimney. If feasible, remove stucco cladding from bricks. If stucco is applied directly to bricks and removal is not possible, repair stucco cracks; and • Paint the building. The applicant also proposes a 223 square foot addition to the rear of the existing building, and work that would accommodate two new housing units below grade. The existing carport structure would be removed. Excavation would occur underneath the building, and work at the rear of the property would expand the existing half-basement to creating a full basement with a sunken private open space area for the residents. The two studio housing units would contain 478 and 699 square feet of floor area, respectively, within the basement. The rear of the units would have direct access to the sunken private open space area. Three of the four parking spaces would be provided off-site at the adjacent 437 Lytton Avenue property. Figure 1: Perspectives of Proposed Project Source: Hayes Group Architect 2019 Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Project 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Source: Hayes Architect 2019 Comprehensive Plan Designation The subject property has a designation of Regional/Community Commercial. This designation includes larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters and non-retail services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village and University Avenue/Downtown. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices may also locate in this designation; software development may also locate Downtown. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential Floor Area Ratios (FARs) range from 0.35 to 2.0. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi- family housing may be allowed in specific locations. The following are applicable Comprehensive Plan historic preservation/rehabilitation policies to the project: • Policy L7.1.1: Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory to include historic resources that are eligible for local, State, or federal listing. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district. • Policy L-4.7: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. • Policy L-7.5: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. • Policy L-7.8: Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. • Policy L-7.10: Ensure the preservation of significant historic resources owned by the City of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered to meet 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 contemporary needs consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. • Policy L-7.12: Maintain the historic integrity of building exteriors. Consider parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation. • Policy L-7.13: Encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in finding ways to adapt and rehabilitate these buildings, including participation in state and federal tax relief programs. • Policy L-7.14: Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights from designated buildings of historic significance in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites in the CD zone. Consider revising the TDR Ordinance so that transferred development rights may be used only for residential development on the receiver sites. Zoning The site’s zoning designation is Community Commercial Downtown District with a Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (CD-C(P)). The CD-C zoning district is a comprehensive district for the Downtown business area, allowing a wide range of commercial, residential and neighborhood service uses, including mixed uses. The Pedestrian Shopping (P) combining district is intended to modify the regulations of various commercial districts in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. Analysis Exterior Alteration of Historic Structures In accordance with PAMC Section 16.49.050(a)(1)(B), because the project is a contributing historic structure in the downtown area, it is subject to HRB review. In accordance with this code section, staff requests the HRB review this application and provide informal feedback as to whether the project retains the historic character of the existing structure. As noted in the code, planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations to historic structures. Minor exterior alterations are “those alterations which the Director of Planning and Development or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings.” The City considers projects that are evaluated and found to be consistent with the SOI Standards to meet the definition of a minor exterior alteration. This project includes significant additions that exceed the threshold of minor exterior alterations and therefore, those are being addressed through the Architectural Review process. Compliance with Development Standards Staff conducted a review of the project for compliance with the zoning standards. Since this is a preliminary review, those comments were forwarded to the applicant for consideration. The 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 applicant intends to address these comments with a formal application; the comments are considered not yet resolved, presently. Those comments include the need to: • address adequate open space provisions per unit; • provide a covered parking space; and • create a three-party agreement for off-site parking. Summary of Impacts of Project on Building & Architectural Integrity The 2020 Report provides an updated analysis of the project’s impacts on architectural integrity of the project. The following summarizes potential impacts of the project by elevation: South (Primary Street) Elevation The proposed project makes no changes to, nor is it visible from, this elevation; the character defining architectural features are not impacted. West Elevation The proposed project converts the unimproved half-basement to a full basement accommodating two new residential units. The new exterior basement wall is of board-formed concrete, consistent with the existing concrete foundation. The two-level rear addition is set back half the width of the existing residence. The ground-floor (second) level of the addition is faced with stained wood siding, compatible with the painted wood shingles of the original structure. The basement level also uses the board-formed concrete. New doors and windows in the basement level are simple and of painted aluminum, differentiating them from, but compatible with, the historic windows. The roof is flat, with the parapet at the same height as the wall height of the original structure. The character-defining architectural features of the original structure are not impacted. South (Rear) Elevation The two-level addition extends northerly from the easterly half of this elevation. The wood shingle wall cladding (the only Very Significant Character-Defining Feature impacted) is removed; the new elevation is clad with stained wood siding compatible with the original painted wood shingles. The rear entrance with toplight and sidelight, called out as a contributing character-defining feature, would be removed. The new roof is flat, with the parapet at the same height as the wall height of the original structure. East Elevation The rear addition appears as only a ground-level addition, slightly offset from the wall surface of the original structure. The addition is faced with stained wood siding, compatible with the painted wood shingles of the original structure. The roof is flat, with the parapet at the same height as the wall height of the original structure. A single window is simple and of painted aluminum, differentiating it from, but compatible with, the historic windows. Architectural Integrity 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 The residence at 411 Lytton Avenue retains sufficient architectural integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, as well as eligibility for Category 2 status on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Resource Inventory, for its association with the first residential subdivision of Palo Alto. PAST Consultants’ evaluation of the subject property is appropriate and based on an adequate historic context. Compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards Staff determines the proposed changes would meet the SOI Standards and summarizes those findings in the following table. SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The proposed project continues the historical residential use; however, the number of dwelling units will increase from one to three. The project will adhere to Standard 1. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The form and materials of the original structure will be retained and preserved, except that the existing materials on half of the rear façade will be removed to allow for a ground-floor and basement extension toward the rear property line. Please note that the California SHPO does not require consideration of interior features and spatial relationships for projects not using the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program. The project 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The original form and materials of the existing structure will be retained, with the exception of those materials on half of the rear elevation. The addition will contain new materials that will be compatible with, but not copy, the historic materials. 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The existing structure does not contain significant changes from its original construction. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The original materials, features, finishes and construction methods that characterize the structure’s historic architectural integrity will be retained. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather 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. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: There does not appear to be any significantly deteriorated historic features that would call for replacement. 7. 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: It is recommended that construction of the project be required to follow the Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Rehabilitation, especially the Proposed Rehabilitation Sequence contained on page 34 of the PAST Consultants Historic Structure Report, dated February 2012. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Explanation: The original structure contains an excavated, unfinished “crawl” space. While it is not likely that new archaeological resources will be discovered, the City’s construction regulations would require a protocol should any be found. 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The new addition proposes removal of historic materials and features on the rear elevation only; the new materials and features on the addition will be compatible but differentiated from the original. The cladding of the original exterior walls is of painted wooden shingles; the cladding of the walls of the addition will be of stained wood siding. Both cladding materials will be of wood; however, the differentiation between the shingles and the wood siding will enable the viewer to differentiate the original structure from the addition. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The proposed rear addition could be removed in the future without damaging the integrity of the historic structure; new materials would have to replace those removed on a portion of the rear elevation. Potential Floor Area Bonus In accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.070 (a) (3), for Floor Area Bonuses, the project may be eligible for granting of additional floor area in the amount of 2,500 square feet. The owner does not intend to use bonus floor area on site for the project. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.070 (c), the floor area bonus may be transferred to a non-historic receiver site. The applicant would need to apply formally and follow the procedures for the granting of floor area bonuses contained within PAMC Section 18.18.070 (d). 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 Environmental Review No discretionary action is proposed or requested at this time; therefore, the project has not yet been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, prior to any future recommendation or decision on the formal application, the project would be assessed with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. 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 day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on March 27, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 26, 2020, which is 14 days in advance of the HRB meeting. Next Steps A meeting with the ARB is targeted for April 16, 2020 to gather comments on the architectural review request and findings to approve such a request. Subsequently, if desired to continue with the process, the applicant would file for a formal Architectural Review application. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Continue the project to a date uncertain. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Consultant Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2336 sahsing@m-group.us amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • COI - 411 Lytton Avenue TO BE DELETED (DOCX) • Attachment A - Location Map 411 Lytton (PDF) • Attachment B - PAST, Inc HRE 2012 (PDF) • Attachment C - HRE 411 Lytton Ave 2020 FINAL (PDF) • Attachment D - Zoning Comparison (DOCX) • Attachment E - Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 18 2.a Packet Pg. 19 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Subject Property 0' 86' 411 Lytton Avenue 19PLN-00348 P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f 6 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sahsing, 2020-03-19 16:26:40 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) CDC-P 2.b Packet Pg. 20 2.c Packet Pg. 21 2.c Packet Pg. 22 2.c Packet Pg. 23 2.c Packet Pg. 24 2.c Packet Pg. 25 2.c Packet Pg. 26 2.c Packet Pg. 27 2.c Packet Pg. 28 2.c Packet Pg. 29 2.c Packet Pg. 30 2.c Packet Pg. 31 2.c Packet Pg. 32 2.c Packet Pg. 33 2.c Packet Pg. 34 2.c Packet Pg. 35 2.c Packet Pg. 36 2.c Packet Pg. 37 2.c Packet Pg. 38 2.c Packet Pg. 39 2.c Packet Pg. 40 2.c Packet Pg. 41 2.c Packet Pg. 42 2.c Packet Pg. 43 2.c Packet Pg. 44 2.c Packet Pg. 45 2.c Packet Pg. 46 2.c Packet Pg. 47 2.c Packet Pg. 48 2.c Packet Pg. 49 2.c Packet Pg. 50 2.c Packet Pg. 51 2.c Packet Pg. 52 2.c Packet Pg. 53 2.c Packet Pg. 54 2.c Packet Pg. 55 2.c Packet Pg. 56 2.c Packet Pg. 57 2.c Packet Pg. 58 2.c Packet Pg. 59 2.c Packet Pg. 60 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP M-GROUP.us • 22561 Main Street, Suite 200 • Hayward, CA 94541 • 510.634.8443 • a new design on urban planning Historic Resource Evaluation Peer Review & Consistency Evaluation with Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 411 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 2.d Packet Pg. 61 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 2 Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Historic Preservation Planning Prepared by: Richard Patenaude, Principal Planner Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) M.A. in Public History & Historic Preservation from California State University, Dominguez Hills February 10, 2020 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 2.d Packet Pg. 62 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 3 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto retained M-Group to complete a peer review of the Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) report for the single‐family residence at 411 Lytton Avenue (subject property) in Palo Alto, California, which was prepared by PAST Consultants in February 2012. M-Group reviewed the HRE report to determine the adequacy of the physical description, background research, and historic context, and the appropriateness of the conclusion that the subject property possesses sufficient historic integrity to make it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources for its association with the first residential subdivision of Palo Alto. M-Group also evaluated the proposed development project on the site (plans by Hayes Group Architects, dated October 17, 2019) for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Parcel map for Lytton Avenue, between Cowper and Waverly streets; the subject parcel is Parcel 76 and is indicated by an arrow. 2.d Packet Pg. 63 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 4 The house remains in good condition and displays most of its historic character-defining features from its original design, as follows1: Very Significant Character-Defining Features: 1. Hipped roof massing with symmetrical primary façade, dominated by one-over-one, double-hung sash windows flanking a central porch. 2. Wood shingle, Craftsman-style exterior wall cladding. 3. Hipped roof with Craftsman-style overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails in primary roof and dormer roof. 4. Front porch with Colonial Revival-style porch posts and period front door. 5. One-over-one, double-hung sash windows. Significant Character-Defining Features: 1. Central chimney, now encased in stucco. Contributing Character-Defining Features: 1. One-over-one, double-hung sash windows on non-primary facades. 2. Entrance to half-basement on rear façade. 3. Rear entrance with toplight and sidelight. Non-Contributing Features: 1. Newer site fencing along Lytton Avenue and in front of the driveway. 2. Replaced asphalt shingle roofing on primary and dormer roofs. 3. Steel pipe railing added to front porch. The very-significant, significant and contributing features make it an outstanding example of a simplified Craftsman-styled bungalow with Colonial Revival detailing, and a fine representative of the modest homes constructed for Stanford faculty, students and local residents in the City’s University Park subdivision. The City of Palo Alto also retained M-Group to evaluate the impact of a proposed development project on the property on the property’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Said project proposes a ground-floor addition to the rear of the existing structure of 223 square feet along with a basement addition of 1,177 square feet containing two additional residential units. The impacts to the character-defining features are detailed below: South (Primary Street) Elevation The proposed project makes no changes to, nor is it visible from, this elevation; the character- defining architectural features are not impacted. 1 Historic Structure Report, PAST Consultants, LLC, February 2012 2.d Packet Pg. 64 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 5 West Elevation The proposed project converts the unimproved half-basement to a full basement housing two new residential units. The new exterior basement wall is of board-formed concrete, consistent with the existing concrete foundation. The two-level rear addition is set back half the width of the existing residence. The ground-floor (second) level of the addition is faced with stained wood siding, compatible with the painted wood shingles of the original structure. The basement level also uses the board-formed concrete. New doors and windows in the basement level are simple and of painted aluminum, differentiating them from, but compatible with, the historic windows. The roof is flat, with the parapet at the same height as the wall height of the original structure. The character-defining architectural features of the original structure are not impacted. South (Rear) Elevation The two-level addition extends northerly from the easterly half of this elevation. The wood shingle wall cladding (the only Very Significant Character-Defining Feature impacted) is removed; the new elevation is clad with stained wood siding compatible with the original painted wood shingles. The rear entrance with toplight and sidelight, called out as a contributing character-defining feature, would be removed. The new roof is flat, with the parapet at the same height as the wall height of the original structure. East Elevation The rear addition appears as only a ground-level addition, slightly offset from the wall surface of the original structure. The addition is faced with stained wood siding, compatible with the painted wood shingles of the original structure. The roof is flat, with the parapet at the same height as the wall height of the original structure. A single window is simple and of painted aluminum, differentiating it from, but compatible with, the historic windows. 2.d Packet Pg. 65 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 6 II. FINDINGS Architectural Integrity To complete its peer review, M-Group conducted a site visit of the subject property on January 20, 2020, and photographed (Appendix II) and noted the building’s exterior architectural features and existing condition. M-Group also reviewed the integrity of PAST Consultants’ assessment of the construction history of the building and the development of the neighborhood within the context of the history of Palo Alto. M-Group concurs with PAST Consultants that the residence at 411 Lytton Avenue retains sufficient architectural integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, as well as eligibility for Category 2 status on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Resource Inventory, for its association with the first residential subdivision of Palo Alto. PAST Consultants’ evaluation of the subject property is appropriate and based on an adequate historic context. The report also contains an accurate and complete building description and construction chronology. Conformance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. When alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use, Rehabilitation may be considered as the appropriate treatment. The Standards are applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project. The proposed development project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Standards for Rehabilitation 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. The proposed project continues the historical residential use; however, the number of dwelling units will increase from one to three. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The form and materials of the original structure will be retained and preserved, except that the existing materials on half of the rear façade will be removed to allow for a ground-floor and basement extension toward the rear property line. Please note that the California SHPO does not require consideration of interior features and spatial relationships for projects not using the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program. 2.d Packet Pg. 66 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 7 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. The original form and materials of the existing structure will be retained, with the exception of those materials on half of the rear elevation. The addition will contain new materials that will be compatible with, but not copy, the historic materials. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The existing structure does not contain significant changes from its original construction. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The original materials, features, finishes and construction methods that characterize the structure’s historic architectural integrity will be retained. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather 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. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. There does not appear to be any significantly deteriorated historic features that would call for replacement. 7. 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. It is recommended that construction of the project be required to follow the Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Rehabilitation (Appendix I), especially the Proposed Rehabilitation Sequence contained on page 34 of the PAST Consultants Historic Structure Report, dated February 2012. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The original structure contains an excavated, unfinished “crawl” space. While it is not likely that new archaeological resources will be discovered, the City’s construction regulations would require a protocol should any be found. 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. The new addition proposes removal of historic materials and features on the rear elevation only; the new materials and features on the addition will be compatible but differentiated from the original. The cladding of the original exterior walls is of painted wooden shingles; the cladding of the walls of the addition will be of stained wood siding. Both cladding materials will be of 2.d Packet Pg. 67 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 8 wood; however, the differentiation between the shingles and the wood siding will enable the viewer to differentiate the original structure from the addition. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The proposed rear addition could be removed in the future without damaging the integrity of the historic structure; new materials would have to replace those removed on a portion of the rear elevation. Conclusion As the original structure retains its architectural integrity and its conformance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the property retains its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. The property’s eligibility for the National and California registers provides eligibility for Category 2 of the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory under the following criteria: City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory (PA) Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code addresses the procedures for historic preservation. The Criteria for Designation are: 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; 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. Chapter 16.49 divides up historic resources on the City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory into 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 2.d Packet Pg. 68 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 9 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. 2.d Packet Pg. 69 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 10 APPENDIX I Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Rehabilitation WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS Identifying, retaining and preserving features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building (such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window and door surrounds, steps, and columns) and decorative ornament and other details, such as tooling and bonding patterns, coatings, and color. Protecting and maintaining wood features by ensuring that historic drainage features that divert rainwater from wood surfaces (such as roof overhangs, gutters, and downspouts) are intact and functioning properly. Applying chemical preservatives or paint to wood features that are subject to weathering, such as exposed beam ends, outriggers, or rafter tails. Implementing an integrated pest management plan to identify appropriate preventive measures to guard against insect damage, such as installing termite guards, fumigating, and treating with chemicals. Retaining coatings (such as paint) that protect the wood from moisture and ultraviolet light. Paint removal should be considered only when there is paint surface deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting or applying other appropriate coatings. Removing damaged or deteriorated paint to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible (e.g., hand scraping and hand sanding) prior to repainting. Using chemical strippers primarily to supplement other methods such as hand scraping, hand sanding, and thermal devices. Using biodegradable or environmentally-safe cleaning or paint- removal products. Using paint-removal methods that employ a poultice to which paint adheres, when possible, to neatly and safely remove old lead paint. Using thermal devices (such as infrared heaters) carefully to remove paint when it is so deteriorated that total removal is necessary prior to repainting. Using coatings that encapsulate lead paint, when possible, where the paint is not required to be removed to meet environmental regulations. Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted wood following proper surface preparation. Repainting historically-painted wood features with colors that are appropriate to the building and district. Protecting adjacent materials when working on other wood features. Evaluating the overall condition of the wood to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to wood features, will be necessary. Repairing wood by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood using recognized conservation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material 2.d Packet Pg. 70 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 11 of those extensively deteriorated or missing components of wood features when there are surviving prototypes, such as brackets, molding, or sections of siding. Replacing in kind an entire wood feature that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Examples of such wood features include a cornice, entablature, or a balustrade. If using wood is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or wood siding on a primary or other highly-visible elevation with a new matching wood feature. ROOFS Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs and their functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The form of the roof (gable, hipped, gambrel, flat, or mansard) is significant, as are its decorative and functional features (such as cupolas, cresting, para pets, monitors, chimneys, weather vanes, dormers, ridge tiles, and snow guards), roofing material (such as slate, wood, clay tile, metal, roll roofing, or asphalt shingles), and size, color, and patterning. Protecting and maintaining a roof by cleaning gutters and downspouts and replacing deteriorated flashing. Roof sheathing should also be checked for indications of moisture due to leaks or condensation. Providing adequate anchorage for roofing material to guard against wind damage and moisture penetration. Protecting a leaking roof with a temporary waterproof membrane with a synthetic underlayment, roll roofing, plywood, or a tarpaulin until it can be repaired. Repainting a roofing material that requires a protective coating and was painted historically (such as a terneplate metal roof or gutters) as part of regularly-scheduled maintenance. Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted roofing materials following proper surface preparation. Protecting a roof covering when working on other roof features. Evaluating the overall condition of the roof and roof features to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to roof features, will be necessary. Repairing a roof by ensuring that the existing historic or compatible non-historic roof covering is sound and waterproof. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of missing materials (such as wood shingles, slates, or tiles) on a main roof, as well as those extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as ridge tiles, dormer roofing, or roof monitors. Using corrosion-resistant roof fasteners (e.g., nails and clips) to repair a roof to help extend its longevity. Replacing in kind an entire roof covering or feature that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Examples of such a feature could include a large section of roofing, a dormer, or a chimney. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Replacing only missing or damaged roofing tiles or slates rather than replacing the entire roof covering. Replacing an incompatible roof covering or any deteriorated non- historic roof covering with historically-accurate roofing material, if known, or another material that is compatible with the historic character of the building. 2.d Packet Pg. 71 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 12 WINDOWS Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their functional and decorative features that are important to the overall character of the building. The window material and how the window operates (e.g., double hung, casement, awning, or hopper) are significant, as are its components (including sash, muntins, ogee lugs, glazing, pane configuration, sills, mullions, casings, or brick molds) and related features, such as shutters. Protecting and maintaining the wood or metal which comprises the window jamb, sash, and trim through appropriate treatments, such as cleaning, paint removal, and reapplication of protective coating systems. Protecting windows against vandalism before work begins by covering them and by installing alarm systems that are keyed into local protection agencies. Making windows weathertight by recaulking gaps in fixed joints and replacing or installing weatherstripping. Protecting windows from chemical cleaners, paint, or abrasion during work on the exterior of the building. Protecting and retaining historic glass when replacing putty or repairing other components of the window. Sustaining the historic operability of windows by lubricating friction points and replacing broken components of the operating system (such as hinges, latches, sash chains or cords) and replacing deteriorated gaskets or insulating units. Adding storm windows with a matching or a one-over-one pane configuration that will not obscure the characteristics of the historic windows. Storm windows improve energy efficiency and are especially beneficial when installed over wood windows because they also protect them from accelerated deterioration. Adding interior storm windows as an alternative to exterior storm windows when appropriate. Installing sash locks, window guards, removable storm windows, and other reversible treatments to meet safety, security, or energy conservation requirements. Evaluating the overall condition of the windows to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to windows and window features, will be necessary. Repairing window frames and sash by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing them using recognized preservation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated, broken, or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as sash, sills, hardware, or shutters. Removing glazing putty that has failed and applying new putty; or, if glass is broken, carefully removing all putty, replacing the glass, and reputtying. Installing new glass to replace broken glass which has the same visual characteristics as the historic glass. Replacing in kind an entire window that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Modifying a historic single-glazed sash to accommodate insulated glass when it will not jeopardize the soundness of the sash or significantly alter its appearance. 2.d Packet Pg. 72 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 13 Using low-e glass with the least visible tint in new or replacement windows. Using window grids rather than true divided lights on windows on the upper floors of high-rise buildings if they will not be noticeable. Ensuring that spacer bars in between double panes of glass are the same color as the window sash. Replacing all of the components in a glazing system if they have failed because of faulty design or materials that have deteriorated with new material that will improve the window performance without noticeably changing the historic appearance. Replacing incompatible, non-historic windows with new windows that are compatible with the historic character of the building; or reinstating windows in openings that have been filled in. ENTRANCES AND PORCHES Identifying, retaining, and preserving entrances and porches and their functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The materials themselves (including masonry, wood, and metal) are significant, as are their features, such as doors, transoms, pilasters, columns, balustrades, stairs, roofs, and projecting canopies. Retaining a historic entrance or porch even though it will no longer be used because of a change in the building’s function. Protecting and maintaining the masonry, wood, and metals which comprise entrances and porches through appropriate surface treatments, such as cleaning, paint removal, and reapplication of protective coating systems. Protecting entrances and porches against arson and vandalism before work begins by covering them and by installing alarm systems keyed into local protection agencies. Protecting entrance and porch features when working on other features of the building. Evaluating the overall condition of entrances and porches to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to entrance and porch features, will be necessary. Repairing entrances and porches by patching, splicing, consolidating, and otherwise reinforcing them using recognized preservation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated features or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as balustrades, columns, and stairs. Replacing in kind an entire entrance or porch that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. BUILDING SITE Identifying, retaining, and preserving features of the building site that are important in defining its overall historic character. Site features may include walls, fences, or steps; circulation systems, such as walks, paths or roads; vegetation, such as trees, shrubs, grass, orchards, hedges, windbreaks, or gardens; landforms, such as hills, terracing, or berms; furnishings and fixtures, such as light posts or benches; decorative elements, such as sculpture, statuary, or monuments; water features, including fountains, streams, pools, lakes, or irrigation ditches; and 2.d Packet Pg. 73 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 14 subsurface archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds which are also important to the site. Retaining the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape. Protecting and maintaining buildings and site features by providing proper drainage to ensure that water does not erode foundation walls, drain toward the building, or damage or erode the landscape. Correcting any existing irrigation that may be wetting the building excessively. Minimizing disturbance of the terrain around buildings or else- where on the site, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying or damaging important landscape features, archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds. Surveying and documenting areas where the terrain will be altered to determine the potential impact to important landscape features, archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds. Protecting (e.g., preserving in place) important site features, archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds. Planning and carrying out any necessary investigation before rehabilitation begins, using professional archeologists and methods, when preservation in place is not feasible. Preserving important landscape features through regularly-scheduled maintenance of historic plant material. Protecting the building site and landscape features against arson and vandalism before rehabilitation work begins by erecting temporary fencing and by installing alarm systems keyed into local protection agencies. Installing protective fencing, bollards, and stanchions on a building site, when necessary for security, that are as unobtrusive as possible. Providing continued protection and maintenance of buildings and landscape features on the site through appropriate grounds and landscape management. Protecting buildings and landscape features when working on the site. Evaluating the overall condition of materials and features to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to site features, will be necessary. Repairing historic site features which have been damaged, are deteriorated, or have missing components order reestablish the whole feature and to ensure retention of the integrity of the historic materials. Repairs may include limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of site features when there are surviving prototypes, such as paving, railings, or individual plants within a group (e.g., a hedge). Repairs should be physically and visually compatible. Replacing in kind an entire feature of the site that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples could include a walkway or a fountain, a land form, or plant material. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. 2.d Packet Pg. 74 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 15 SETTING Identifying, retaining, and preserving building and landscape features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the setting. Such features can include circulation systems, such as roads and streets; furnishings and fixtures, such as light posts or benches; vegetation, gardens and yards; adjacent open space, such as fields, parks, commons, or wood lands; and important views or visual relationships. Retaining the historic relationship between buildings and landscape features in the setting. For example, preserving the relationship between a town common or urban plaza and the adjacent houses, municipal buildings, roads, and landscape and streetscape features. Protecting and maintaining historic features in the setting through regularly-scheduled maintenance and grounds and landscape management. Installing protective fencing, bollards, and stanchions in the setting, when necessary for security, that are as unobtrusive as possible. Protecting buildings and landscape features when undertaking work in the setting. Evaluating the overall condition of materials and features to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to materials and features in the setting, will be necessary. Repairing features in the setting by reinforcing the historic materials. Repairs may include the replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of setting features when there are surviving prototypes, such as fencing, paving materials, trees, and hedgerows. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible. Replacing in kind an entire building or landscape feature in the setting that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS Placing functions and services required for a new use (including elevators and stairways) in secondary or non- character-defining interior spaces of the historic building rather than constructing a new addition. Constructing a new addition on a secondary or non-character defining elevation and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building. Constructing a new addition that results in the least possible loss of historic materials so that character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Designing a new addition that is compatible with the historic building. Ensuring that the addition is subordinate and secondary to the historic building and is compatible in massing, scale, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color. Using the same forms, materials, and color range of the historic building in a manner that does not duplicate it, but distinguishes the addition from the original building. Basing the alignment, rhythm, and size of the window and door openings of the new addition on those of the historic building. 2.d Packet Pg. 75 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 16 Incorporating a simple, recessed, small-scale hyphen, or connection, to physically and visually separate the addition from the historic building. Distinguishing the addition from the original building by setting it back from the wall plane of the historic building. Ensuring that the addition is stylistically appropriate for the historic building type (e.g., whether it is residential or institutional). Considering the design for a new addition in terms of its relationship to the historic building as well as the historic district, neighborhood, and setting. Designing a compatible rooftop addition for a multi-story building, when required for a new use, that is set back at least one full bay from the primary and other highly-visible elevations and that is inconspicuous when viewed from surrounding streets. Limiting a rooftop addition to one story in height to minimize its visibility and its impact on the historic character of the building. Adding a new building to a historic site or property only if the requirements for a new or continuing use cannot be accommodated within the existing structure or structures. Locating new construction far enough away from the historic building, when possible, where it will be minimally visible and will not negatively affect the building’s character, the site, or setting. Designing new construction on a historic site or in a historic setting that it is compatible but differentiated from the historic building or buildings. Considering the design for related new construction in terms of its relationship to the historic building as well as the historic district and setting. Ensuring that new construction is secondary to the historic building and does not detract from its significance. Using site features or land formations, such as trees or sloping terrain, to help minimize the new construction and its impact on the historic building and property. Designing an addition to a historic building in a densely-built location (such as a downtown commercial district) to appear as a separate building or infill, rather than as an addition. In such a setting, the addition or the infill structure must be compatible with the size and scale of the historic building and surrounding buildings—usually the front elevation of the new building should be in the same plane (i.e., not set back from the historic building). This approach may also provide the opportunity for a larger addition or infill when the façade can be broken up into smaller elements that are consistent with the scale of the historic building and surrounding buildings. 2.d Packet Pg. 76 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 17 APPENDIX II PHOTOS Street (South) Elevation 2.d Packet Pg. 77 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 18 2.d Packet Pg. 78 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 19 Dormer 2.d Packet Pg. 79 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 20 West Elevation 2.d Packet Pg. 80 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 21 Rear (North) Elevation 2.d Packet Pg. 81 411 LYTTON AVE PA HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 22 East Elevation 2.d Packet Pg. 82 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 411 Lytton Avenue, 19PLN-00115 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Mixed-Use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 9’ No Change Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 28’ 11’ Interior Side Yard None Required 4’ 10’-6” No Change Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 854 sf 2,843 sf Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% (569 sf) 63% (1,791 sf) 24% (682 sf) Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (450 sf) 1,795 sf 477 sf Maximum Height Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone (1) 50 feet 40 feet 16’-8” No Change Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line Complies Complies Residential Density (net) No maximum 0.065 acre site and 1 unit = 15 units / acre 0.065 acre site and 3 units = 46 units / acre Maximum Weighted Average Residential Unit Size 1,500 sf per unit Unit A: 854 sf Unit A: 1,077 sf Unit B: 478 sf Unit C: 699 sf Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (2,843 sf) 0.3:1 (854 sf) 0.79:1 (2,254 sf) (1) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 2.e Packet Pg. 83 Page 2 of 2 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Bicycle Parking) for Mixed-Use Projects Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per studio and one- bedroom; 2 spaces per two- bedroom unit (at least one covered) Total: 4 spaces (one covered) 1 space 4 spaces (three off- site) (none covered) Bicycle Parking Residential: 1 Long-term per unit (3) Total = 3 long-term Not Applicable (Single-Family Residential) Long Term: None 2.e Packet Pg. 84 Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Development Services Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “411 Lytton Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4824&TargetID=319 2.f Packet Pg. 85 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11136) Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/9/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Receive Annual CLG Report Title: Receive Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report for the 2018-2019 Reporting Period. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) receive and review the Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report (Attachment A). The report is due to the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) on April 17, 2020. Background The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) collects information related to how CLG programs are working. The National Parks Service (NPS) collects “products” information such as the number of properties designated. OHP sends these CLG reports to the NPS on behalf of the CLGs. Filing of the CLG Annual Report with the State OHP allows CLGs to qualify for OHP grants. To qualify for a 2020-2021 OHP grant (for which there is a deadline - May 1, 2020), CLGs must file documentation for the reporting period by April 17, 2020. 2017-2018 Annual CLG Report The City’s 2017-2018 CLG annual report submitted in early 2019 highlighted: (1) City Council’s adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in December 2017, (2) Staff’s outreach to the community in the fall of 2018 regarding the Policy 7.2 implementation resulting in evaluations of properties for their eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); (3) Council’s adoption of the Eichler Guidelines in April 2018; (4) Council’s adoption of ordinance changes in 2018 enabling Inventory Category 3 and 4 resources to also be eligible for zoning incentives (as the HRB recommended); and (5) Palo Alto’s hosting of the May 2018 California Preservation Foundation conference. 2018-19 Annual CLG Report 3 Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 The attached CLG annual report covers the period October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. Staff’s cover memo (Attachment B) highlights the City’s recent awards, code changes, and historic evaluations leading to identification of properties eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and Local Inventory upgrade activities during the reporting period. More specifically, the letter notes: • Two awards received for the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines, • Progress implementing several Comprehensive Plan policies and programs supporting historic preservation, including: o Council’s 2019 adoption of Zoning and Subdivision code changes to enhance applicability of the subdivision incentive for historic preservation, o Resource evaluations (four single family residences and six commercial properties were found CRHR Eligible, 22 properties were found ineligible), and o Inventory classification upgrade efforts. The 32 properties evaluated this year include 21 single family residential properties previously identified as ‘potentially eligible’ for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), one duplex, and ten non-residential properties, as noted in the attachment (Attachment C). City’s Historic Preservation Program Palo Alto’s program continues as an incentive-based historic preservation and public outreach program, but this year saw greater activity given the policy boost from the Council’s adoption of the updated 2030 Comprehensive Plan. For the duration of the reporting period, the City worked with a qualified historic preservation consultant. Page and Turnbull, the City’s on-call historic preservation consultant, provided historic preservation assistance reviewing permits for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and preparing most of the historic resource evaluations. These evaluations were prepared at the homeowners’ expense. Several other historic preservation consultants assisted the City during the reporting period. These on- call consultants primarily reviewed non-single-family residential development applications in conjunction with review of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), again at the applicants’ expense. No comprehensive survey has been proposed, and no changes to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 16.49 have been proposed. A status (Survey Update statement) and historic program highlights are included as Attachment D to this report. State Legislation Regarding ADUs/JADUs During the reporting period, the State adopted legislation designed to increase the production of housing in California, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). The Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance January 13, 2020, intending to ensure the City’s ADU/JADU codes did not conflict with the State’s ADU laws. The ordinance did not change the ADU code section that enables the Director to review of ADUs on listed historic properties or properties deemed eligible for the State or National historic registers. Staff is preparing a follow-on ordinance for Council review and adoption, intended to provide clarifications of the new ADU/JADU code provisions. 3 Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Discussion The HRB does not typically go over the Annual Report in detail during an HRB meeting. If HRB members have input for the report, such as additional trainings attended during the reporting period, staff asks that the input be submitted one week prior to the submittal deadline (April 17, 2019). The trainings HRB members can report are those completed during the reporting period (October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019). The City assists HRB members to attend historic preservation training sessions, by covering the cost of registration. 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: CLG 2018-2019 Annual Report (DOCX) • Attachment B: CLG Report Cover Memo (DOC) • Attachment C: HRE Status Tracking CLG Report Attachment (DOCX) • Attachment D: Survey Update Statement (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 88 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 1 Complete Se Name of CLG City of Palo Alto Report Prepared by: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Date of commission/board review: March 26, 2020 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION I. Enforce Appropriate State or Local Legislation for the Designation and Protection of Historic Properties. A. Preservation Laws 1. What amendments or revisions, if any, are you considering to the certified ordinance? Please forward drafts or proposals. REMINDER: Pursuant to the CLG Agreement, OHP must have the opportunity to review and comment on ordinance changes prior to adoption. Changes that do not meet the CLG requirements could affect certification status. No amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) are proposed at this time. Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Policy L7.1.2, the City first intends to reassess Chapter 16.49 to ‘ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and preservation of historic resources…”; this is cited as a “medium” priority with a 5-10 year timeframe. Reassessment may coincide with Policy L7.1.1 implementation to update the Inventory, educate and encourage owners of California Eligible properties to pursue benefits of Register listing. Any ordinance update may include reference to a Mills Act Program (Palo Alto has no Mills Act ordinance; there is one Mills Act property in Palo Alto). An HRB Subcommittee intends to resume work on a pilot program concept to present to the full HRB for recommendation to City Council to establish a Mills Act program. INSTRUCTIONS: This a Word form with expanding text fields and check boxes. It will probably open as Read-Only. Save it to your computer before you begin entering data. This form can be saved and reopened. Because this is a WORD form, it will behave generally like a regular Word document except that the font, size, and color are set by the text field. • Start typing where indicated to provide the requested information. • Click on the check box to mark either yes or no. • To enter more than one item in a particular text box, just insert an extra line (Enter) between the items. Save completed form and email as an attachment to Lucinda.Woodward@parks.ca.gov. You can also convert it to a PDF and send as an email attachment. Use the Acrobat tab in WORD and select Create and Attach to Email. You can then attach the required documents to that email. If the attachments are too large (greater than10mb total), you will need to send them in a second or third email. 3.a Packet Pg. 89 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 2 2. Provide an electronic link to your ordinance or appropriate section(s) of the municipal/zoning code. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$v id=amlegal:paloalto_ca B. New Local Landmark Designations (Comprehensive list of properties/districts designated under local ordinance, HPOZ, etc.) 1. During the reporting period, October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2019, what properties/districts have been locally designated? REMINDER: Pursuant to California Government Code § 27288.2, “the county recorder shall record a certified resolution establishing an historical resources designation issued by the State Historical Resources Commission or a local agency, or unit thereof.” 2. What properties/districts have been de-designated this past year? For districts, include the total number of resource contributors? Property Name/Address Date Removed Reason NA NA NA C. Historic Preservation Element/Plan 1. Do you address historic preservation in your general plan? ☐ No ☐ Yes, in a separate historic preservation element. ☒ Yes, it is included in another element. Provide an electronic link to the historic preservation section(s) of the General Plan or to the separate historic preservation element. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63469 Property Name/Address Date Designated If a district, number of contributors Date Recorded by County Recorder NA NA NA NA 3.a Packet Pg. 90 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 3 D. Review Responsibilities 1. Who takes responsibility for design review or Certificates of Appropriateness? ☐ All projects subject to design review go the commission. ☒ Some projects are reviewed at the staff level without commission review. What is the threshold between staff-only review and full-commission review? Downtown properties and Professorville District category 1-4 resources go to the HRB; Category 1-2 resources citywide are subject to HRB review. Non single family residential projects would go to the ARB or staff for design review following review by the HRB. The City’s on-call consultant provides expertise for staff reviews of discretionary development applications for exterior changes to historic resources. A historic resource is defined as listed in the City’s Inventory, located within a locally designated historic district, listed on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources, listed in the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update (Dames & Moore, 1997-2000) as NR or CR eligible or determined CR eligible through another application review process. The City’s consultant reviews the application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. If analysis indicates that there may be a potential impact to a historic resource, the project is inconsistent with the Standards or exceeds the scope of “minor exterior alteration” [only applicable to certain historic resources], then the application is referred to the Historic Resources Board. 2. California Environmental Quality Act • What is the role of the staff and commission in providing input to CEQA documents prepared for or by the local government? During the reporting period, the Chief Planning Official was involved in scoping and reviewing administrative draft CEQA documents involving historical resources, and related technical reports including Historic Resource Evaluations (HRE) and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SIS) reports. Generally, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is not involved in the development of draft environmental documents, though the HRB is given the opportunity to comment on Draft EIRs prepared for development projects on sites containing historic resources, during the public comment period. What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing CEQA documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? Draft CEQA documents are made available for public review, including by HRB members. In addition, staff and/or other City bodies may refer draft CEQA documents and/or related technical reports to the HRB for review and comment. The HRB’s role is advisory. Staff/City consultants prepare CEQA documents for development projects and ordinances; CEQA documents for projects involving historic resources are discussed with the HRB in a public hearing setting. 3.a Packet Pg. 91 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 4 3. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act • What is the role of the staff and commission in providing input to Section 106 documents prepared for or by; the local government? The Chief Planning Official, with assistance from on-call preservation consultant(s) and/or the HRB, provide input to Section 106 documents as requested. • What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing Section 106 documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? The City’s consultant(s), reporting to the Chief Planning Official, and/or HRB conduct reviews of Section 106 documents as requested. II. Establish an Adequate and Qualified Historic Preservation Review Commission by State or Local Legislation. A. Commission Membership Name Professional Discipline Date Appointed Date Term Ends Email Address David Bower Construction 11/1/16 (original) 12/15/22 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Deborah Shephard Historian/historic property owner May 2018 12/15/22 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Brandon Corey Construction/economics 12/13/17 12/15/19 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Margaret Wimmer Architecture and Design 12/15/17 12/15/20 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Martin Bernstein Architecture 12/15/17 12/15/20 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Michael Makinen Engineering/Historian 12/15/17 12/15/20 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Roger Kohler Architecture 12/15/17 12/15/20 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Christian Pease Historian/ Analytics 12/15/19 12/15/22 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. 3.a Packet Pg. 92 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 5 Attach resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for all members. 1. If you do not have two qualified professionals on your commission, explain why the professional qualifications not been met and how professional expertise is otherwise being provided. NA 2. If all positions are not currently filled, why is there a vacancy, and when will the position will be filled? NA B. Staff to the Commission/CLG staff 1. Is the staff to your commission the same as your CLG coordinator? ☒ Yes ☐ No If not, who serves as staff? Click or tap here to enter text. 2. If the position(s) is not currently filled, why is there a vacancy? The PDS Department retains the services of a qualified consultant (Page and Turnbull) as the primary ‘staff’ for evaluations of resources and modifications thereto Attach resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for staff. C. Attendance Record Please complete attendance chart for each commissioner and staff member. Commissions are required to meet four times a year, at a minimum. If you haven’t met at least four times, explain why not. Name/Title Discipline Dept. Affiliation Email Address Amy French Chief Planning Official Planning Planning and Development Services Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Commissioner/Staff Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep David Bower ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ Deborah Shephard ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ Martin Bernstein ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ Margaret Wimmer ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ Brandon Corey ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ 3.a Packet Pg. 93 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 6 D. Training Received Indicate what training each commissioner and staff member has received. Remember it is a CLG requirement is that all commissioners and staff to the commission attend at least one training program relevant to your commission each year. It is up to the CLG to determine the relevancy of the training. Commissioner/Staff Name Training Title & Description (including method presentation, e.g., webinar, workshop) Duration of Training Training Provider Date Martin Bernstein Hyde Street Pier New Housing in Historic Districts Type here. National Park Service State of California 2/28/19 3/17/19 Brandon Corey Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. David Bower Case Examples on Contextual Infill Type here. CPF 8/13/19 Michael Makinen Case Examples on Contextual Infill Type here. CPF 8/13/19 Deborah Shephard SF Art Institute American Architecture Ruin and Reconstruction 3 hours 30 hours 2 hours National Trust Stanford University Berkeley Architectural Historic Association Type here. Margaret Wimmer Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Roger Kohler Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Michael Makinen ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Roger Kohler ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 3.a Packet Pg. 94 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 7 Amy French (Staff) Advanced CEQA Workshop Shaping Community 1 NOA… Leadership in uncertain times 8 hours 1.5 hours 1.6 1.5 hours AEP Cal APA Conference 2/15/19 10/8/18 10/8/18 III. Maintain a System for the Survey and Inventory of Properties that Furthers the Purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act A. Historical Contexts: initiated, researched, or developed in the reporting year (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: California CLG procedures require CLGs to submit survey results, including historic contexts, to OHP. (If you have not done so, submit an electronic copy or link if available online with this report.) Context Name Description How it is Being Used Date Submitted to OHP Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. B. New Surveys or Survey Updates (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: The evaluation of a single property is not a survey. Also, material changes to a property that is included in a survey, is not a change to the survey and should not be reported here. Survey Area Context Based- yes/no Level: Reconnaissance or Intensive Acreage # of Properties Surveyed Date Completed Date Submitted to OHP 35 properties found not National Eligible in 1998 were fully studied, yielding 11 Cal Register Eligible properties no reconnaissance 11 individual properties 35 1/18 – 2/20 With this Annual Report 11 DPRs 3.a Packet Pg. 95 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 8 How are you using the survey data? To ensure no demolitions are issued before property is studied for Cal Register eligibility IV. Provide for Adequate Public Participation in the Local Historic Preservation Program A. Public Education What public outreach, training, or publications programs has the CLG undertaken? How were the commissioners and staff involved? Please provide an electronic link to all publications or other products not previously provided to OHP. Item or Event Description Date SILVAR Realtor Presentation Chief Planning Official presented New Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2 to a Silicon Valley Realtors November 2018 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ANNUAL PRODUCTS REPORTS FOR CLGS NOTE: OHP will forward this information to NPS on your behalf. Please read “Guidance for completing the Annual Products Report for CLGs” located at http://www.nps.gov/clg/2015CLG_GPRA/FY2013_BaselineQuestionnaireGuidance- May2015.docx. A. CLG Inventory Program During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) how many historic properties did your local government add to the CLG inventory? This is the total number of historic properties and contributors to districts (or your best estimate of the number) added to your inventory from all programs, local, state, and Federal, during the reporting year. These might include National Register, California Register, California Historic Landmarks, locally funded surveys, CLG surveys, and local designations. Program area Number of Properties added Identifying California Register Eligible Properties Nine properties identified 3.a Packet Pg. 96 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 9 B. Local Register (i.e., Local Landmarks and Historic Districts) Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did you have a local register program to create local landmarks and/or local districts (or a similar list of designations) created by local law? ☒Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been added to your register or designated from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? 0 C. Local Tax Incentives Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did you have a Local Tax Incentives Program, such as the Mills Act? ☒ Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many properties have been added to this program from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? 0 Name of Program Number of Properties Added During 2018-2019 Total Number of Properties Benefiting From Program Mills Act 0 1 D. Local “bricks and mortar” grants/loan program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did you have a local government historic preservation grant and/or loan program for rehabilitating/restoring historic properties? ☐Yes ☒No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? NA Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited NA NA E. Design Review/Local Regulatory Program 3.a Packet Pg. 97 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 10 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did your local government have a historic preservation regulatory law(s) (e.g., an ordinance) authorizing Commission and/or staff review of local government projects or impacts on historic properties? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many historic properties did your local government review for compliance with your local government’s historic preservation regulatory law(s) from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? About 100 properties F. Local Property Acquisition Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did you have a local program to acquire (or help to acquire) historic properties in whole or in part through purchase, donation, or other means? ☐Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? NA Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Type here. Type here. IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM CLG REQUIREMENTS, OHP IS INTERESTED IN A SUMMARY OF LOCAL PRESERVATION PROGRAMS A. What are your most critical preservation planning issues? Pressure of development, demolitions, high property values and extreme alterations of historic building stock B. What is the single accomplishment of your local government this year that has done the most to further preservation in your community? Implementation of the 2017-2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2 requiring evaluation of properties – also Council modified subdivision ordinance to incentive preservation in R-1 zone to allow flag lot creation behind a historic home C. What recognition are you providing for successful preservation projects or programs? Our local advocacy group, PAST (Palo Alto Stanford Heritage) provides centennial plaques and awards for successful examples of preservation each year. 3.a Packet Pg. 98 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 11 D. What are your local historic preservation goals for 2019-2020? (1) modify Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Zone Regulations) to reference the use of Eichler Guidelines in conjunction with the Individual Review process for new two story homes and second floor additions in Eichler tracts, (2) Fully implement Policy L-7.2 and other policies/programs in the updated Comprehensive Plan, (3) Continue to combat misinformation about owning historic resources, (4) Forward to Council or a Council committee the HRB subcommittee’s proposal for a Tailored Mills Act program, and (5) work with the property owner toward nomination of the Lou Henry Hoover House to the NR/CA registers E. So that we may better serve you in the future, are there specific areas and/or issues with which you could use technical assistance from OHP? Answer a question – how soon after studying an individual property does the City have to send individual property study to OHP? Annually? F. In what subject areas would you like to see training provided by the OHP? How you like would to see the training delivered (workshops, online, technical assistance bulletins, etc.)? Training Needed or Desired Desired Delivery Format Mills Act, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, Historic Building Code Usage Workshop, webinar, handout G. Would you be willing to host a training working workshop in cooperation with OHP? ☒Yes ☐ No H. Is there anything else you would like to share with OHP? Click or tap here to enter text. XII Attachments (electronic) ☒ Resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for all commission members/alternatives and staff ☒ Minutes from commission meetings ☐ Drafts of proposed changes to the ordinance ☐ Drafts of proposed changes to the General Plan ☐ Public outreach publications 3.a Packet Pg. 99 Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 12 Email to Lucinda.Woodward@parks.ca.gov 3.a Packet Pg. 100 DRAFT COVER MEMO March 27, 2020 Lucinda Woodward Office of Historic Preservation California Department of Parks and Recreation 1416 9th Street, Room 1442-7 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: CLG Annual Report for 2018-2019 Dear Ms. Woodward, Please find enclosed Palo Alto’s CLG Annual Report for 2018-2019. Palo Alto strongly emphasizes an incentive-based historic preservation program and actively fosters Historic Resources Board and staff involvement in an extensive ongoing public outreach program in addition to implementing its Comprehensive Plan policies, enforcing its certified local ordinance, CEQA, and other State and Federal regulations. We have attached to the CLG Report a summary of properties found eligible and ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources since our Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2017. During this reporting period, the City received awards for the City’s Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines, which help staff provide guidance for home additions in these mid-century modern tracts. Sincerely yours, Amy French Chief Planning Official Palo Alto Department of Planning and Development Services 3.b Packet Pg. 101 Last Updated: 3/14/2020 Properties Newly Eligible for California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) Commercial Properties Residential Properties Potentially CRHR Eligible in 1998 Survey Prepared for CLG 2018-19 Annual Report Found ELIGIBLE for California Register of Historic Resources Address GIST status Determined by HRE Received by City 1145 Lincoln Ave 003-19-059 (Single-family) Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 7/26/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 518-526 Bryant St 120-26-061 (commercial) Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 8/7/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 1027 Waverley St 120-18-027 (Single-family) Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 9/26/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 885 College Ave 137-02-002 (Single- family) Stanford-owned Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 11/21/18 2140 Yale St 137-01-133 (Single- family) Stanford-owned Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/16/19 980 Middlefield Rd 120-05-077 (mortuary) Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/16/19 340 Portage Ave and 3201-3225 Ash Street 132-38-071 (Multi-family zoned, in use as retail and office) (originally a cannery and associated office) Found CRHR Eligible by Page and Turnbull; not yet noted in GIST (discussed in NVCAP reports) Page and Turnbull, Inc. 4/11/19 report provided to HRB for its meeting July 25, 2019 (ID#10499) Two addresses 8/19/19 PT response to comments 788 San Antonio Rd 147-03-041 (commercial) Found CRHR Eligible by Page and Turnbull; not yet noted in GIST Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/15/19 235 Hamilton Ave 120-26-073 (commercial) PA Inventory Cat 3 and in Ramona St National Register District Cardinal Hotel PT found CRHR Eligible, eligible for upgrade to Cat 2 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 10/24/19 2340 Tasso Street Single family residential Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/9/20 546 Washington Single family residential Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/14/20 During 2018-2019 CLG period: 10 properties found CRHR Eligible (4 SFR properties, 6 commercial) During 2017-2018 CLG period: 3 properties found CRHR Eligible (2 SFR properties, 1 commercial) 3.c Packet Pg. 102 Last Updated: 3/14/2020 Properties found Not Eligible for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Properties noted in 1998 survey as potentially CRHR eligible and commercial properties Found NON-ELIGIBLE for California Register of Historic Resources Address GIST status Determined by HRE Received by City 2348 South Court 124-14-008 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/2/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 1849 Middlefield Rd 003-58-060 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Historic Planner Emily Vance Emily Vance Historic Planner 2/14/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 1940 Webster St 124-06-057 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/23/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 1750 University Ave 003-10-003 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 5/7/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 1445 Tasso St 120-08-049 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Garavaglia Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. 6/22/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 2251 Bowdoin St 137-05-073 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 7/12/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 3707-3709 El Camino Real 132-41-085 (Commercial) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 9/14/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 2342-2344 Yale St 137-01-110 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 9/17/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 2050 Dartmouth St 137-06-043 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 9/24/18 Included in #s for 2017- 18 Annual CLG Report 327 Tennyson Ave 124-08-049 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible By Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 11/21/18 853 Alma St 120-28-046 (SOFA II CAP, Multi-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull Page and Turnbull, Inc. 12/14/18 846 Lytton Ave 003-03-027 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 201801221 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 12/21/18 2080 Cornell St 137-03-022 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190116 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/16/19 181 Addison Ave 120-28-088 (SFR home, SOFA II CAP) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190123 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/23/19 3.c Packet Pg. 103 Last Updated: 3/14/2020 1828 Middlefield Rd 120-08-049 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190208 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/8/19 2050 Princeton St 137-03-051 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190228 Page and Turnbull, Inc 2/28/19 796 San Antonio Rd 147-03-042 (Commercial) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190315 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/15/19 1012 High St 120-30-030 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190329 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/29/19 716 San Antonio Rd 147-05-087 (commercial) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190501 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 5/1/19 2135 Emerson St 124-19-086 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull, 20190701 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 7/1/19 436 Waverley St 120-15-040 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190815 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 8/15/19 567-569 Homer Ave 120-04-074 (Two-Family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190826 Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/26/19 922 College Ave 137-03-030 (Single-family) Stanford Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190828 Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/28/19 2151 Princeton St 137-03-004 (Single-family) Stanford Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190828 Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/28/19 1307 University Ave 003-06-035 (Single- family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190904 Page and Turnbull, Inc 9/4/2019 1630 Castilleja Ave 124-23-028 (Single-family) PT Found Not CRHR Eligible Page and Turnbull, Inc 10/10/19 526-534 Waverley Street 120-15-083 (Commercial) Inventory Cat 3 (PT Found CRHR eligible Inventory Cat 2 eligible) Page and Turnbull, Inc. 12/9/2019 575 Washington Avenue 124-04-025 (Single-family) PT found Not CRHR Eligible) Page and Turnbull Inc. 12/20/19 425 Middlefield Rd 003-02-024 (Single-family) PT found Not CRHR Eligible) Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/9/20 3.c Packet Pg. 104 Last Updated: 3/14/2020 525 Center Drive 003-10-019 (Single-family) PT found Not CRHR Eligible) Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/10/20 3337 Ross Road 127-25-017 (Single-family) PT found Not CRHR Eligible) Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/10/20 During 2018-2019 CLG period: properties found NOT-CRHR Eligible (17 SFR, 1 duplex, 4 commercial) During 2017-2018 CLG period: properties found NOT CRHR Eligible (8 SFR properties, 1 commercial) 3.c Packet Pg. 105 Summary of Palo Alto’s Survey Program Attachment to the 2018-19 CLG Annual Report Background – Survey Program The City’s Survey Program 1997-2006 was comprised of two elements (1 and 2 below). 1. Periodic Citywide Update Additions to the 500-Property Historic Survey of 1978- 1980 by Beach and Boghosian. The emphasis of Palo Alto’s periodic updates was identifying properties that became eligible for the National Register. (a) The August 1997-February 2001 Survey Update by the firm Dames & Moore, Inc. of San Francisco, included extensive public participation. The Survey update identified 165 properties that appeared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and 1,789 properties that appeared potentially eligible for the California Register. The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) participated in the Dames and Moore Survey update and approved its methodology. (b) In 2003 the Eichler Historic Quest Committee undertook the first survey of post- WW II properties in Palo Alto. The Committee nominated two substantially intact Eichler neighborhoods, Greenmeadow (Units 1 and 2) and Green Gables, for listing on the National Register. On March 17, 2004, the City’s Historic Resources Board (HRB) unanimously recommended the two nominated Eichler neighborhoods as meeting the criteria for National Register listing. On April 19, 2004, the City Council reviewed the report, and the Mayor’s signature accompanied the transmitted report for review by the State Historic Preservation Officer. The State Historical Resources Commission received the report and listed Greenmeadow and Green Gables neighborhoods on the National Register. 2. Individual Property Designations to the Historic Inventory Based on Previous Surveys. Palo Alto’s Historic Preservation Planners prepared designation reports for HRB to review against the criteria for designation contained in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. The City reclassified 1061 Bryant Street (“Maybeck “Sunbonnet”) and provided a new designation for 449-453 Addison Avenue, and submitted these reports to the OHP. The reports showed in detail staff’s survey approach to applications for (a) new designations to the Historic Inventory, and (b) reclassification of properties already on the Inventory to a higher level of listing. 3.d Packet Pg. 106 CLG Reporting Period 2018-2019: Historic Preservation Program Highlights 1. Individual Property Evaluations January 2018-2020 The December 2017 City Council update of the Comprehensive Plan led to staff implementation of Policy L7.2, below. On March 16, 2020, Council adopted the Annual Comprehensive Plan Implementation Report and Housing Element Progress Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=64737.14&BlobID=75670. The HRB reviewed the draft Comprehensive Plan Implementation Report, which showed progress on historic preservation policies and programs. Gray highlighted text is extracted from that report. Policy L7.2 If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character‐defining features of the building.” Notes: Implementation of Policy 7.2 commenced in January 2018. Homes constructed prior to 1948 identified as potentially eligible for California Register of Historic Resources have been evaluated case by case (1) when owners are considering selling or have submitted proposals for major alterations or demolition and (2) non-residential and other properties are evaluated for eligibility, when Architectural Review or other discretionary applications are submitted. Progress on Policy 7.2 implementation has benefitted from historic resource evaluations prepared by the City’s on-call consultant, Page and Turnbull. From January 2018 through February 2020, the consultant evaluated approximately 35 properties previously identified during the last Survey Update (1997-2001) as Potentially Eligible (PE) for the California Register and built prior to 1948. The evaluations yielded the following: • 11 formerly PE properties were determined eligible for listing on the California Register Historic Resources (CRHR). • 24 formerly PE properties were found ineligible for CRHR listing. Interested parties may see the updated historic status of properties by address via Parcel Reports the City’s Parcel Reports the GIS system generates. 3.d Packet Pg. 107 Program L7.1.1 Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory to include historic resources that are eligible for local, State, or federal listing. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district. Notes: The Historic Resource Inventory has not been updated to list the eligible State and National eligible resources. This would require Council action. However, the GIST system shows eligible resources. When properties are found California Register Eligible and ineligible via ongoing individual evaluations, the staff systematically updates the City’s GIS system. Six of the 11 properties found CRHR eligible are single family homes, and five of the properties are commercial properties. None of the homes have been officially added to the City’s Inventory as a Category 1-4 resource. Two of the five commercial properties are already listed as Category 3 resources on the City’s Local Inventory and the owners are seeking reclassification to Category 2, with restoration and rehabilitation projects. Staff will discuss with the HRB and property owners the benefits of listing the remaining nine unlisted properties on the City’s Inventory. Program L7.1.2 Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and preservation of historic resources, particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Note: Program has not commenced. 3.d Packet Pg. 108 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11197) Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/9/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB draft Minutes February 13, 2020 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of February 13, 2020 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): • February 13, 2020 Attachments: • Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes February 13, 2020 (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Bower, Board Member Bernstein, Board Member Kohler, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Pease, Board Member Shepherd Absent: Board Member Wimmer (came late) Chair Bower: Good morning everyone. Thank you for coming. Thank you for the big audience response. Amy do you want to call roll? Vinh, someone call roll. Thank you. Before we get started, I would like to welcome Christian Pease to the Board. He is a long-time resident of Palo Alto, has a lot of experience here and he has also done some historic preservation work in Sonoma County. Welcome and we’re glad you are willing to join us. I’d like to change the order of the agenda, since we have only one item that we need to review and we can the other stuff is housekeeping. I’d like to move Action Item Number Four up to Number One, and then we can just take the agenda as set. Is that okay? Oral Communications Chair Bower: While you’re doing that, Amy, I’ll as if there are any oral communications from anyone who wants to speak on anything other than our agendized items? Not yet, and there are no speakers here. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions [The Board moved to Item Number Four.] Chair Bower: We will now go back to our agenda as listed and there was one change, and that’s the agenda order. No other changes or additions to the agenda? No, okay. Officer Election 1. Election of Vice Chair Chair Bower: Let’s move on the election of a Vice Chair. With the loss of Brandon Corey as our Vice Chair, we need to have somebody fill that chair. I’m open to suggestions and nominations. NOMINATION Board Member Makinen: I’d like to nominate Deborah. Board Member Shepherd: I appreciate that. Margaret, you are the one who so often puts the motion forward and frames it well, and you seem to have a grasp of parliamentary procedure or whatever it is that we call it here. Do you have any interest in doing this? I feel I’m too new. Board Member Wimmer: Well, actually I have already served as Vice President during one term, so I would be happy to allow someone else that golden opportunity to do so. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: February 13, 2020 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. 4.a Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Shepherd: Okay, well I guess I do need some instruction or training, but I would be happy to do that. Chair Bower: Okay, so, any other nominations? We can have more than one. I’m quite pleased if Debbie wants to step into that position. We need a second. Do I hear a second for Deborah, Debbie? Board Member Male: I second that. Chair Bower: Any further conversation Board? Not seeing any, all in favor of Debbie being the Vice Chair say aye. Any opposed. None opposed. I’m assuming it’s unanimous. BOARD MEMBER SHEPHERD WAS VOTED 7-0 TO BECOME VICE CHAIR Chair Bower: Great, thank you. It’s not a big job. Board Member Wimmer: Just one question on that, what is the term for that? Is it for this year or? Ms. French: I would just say it’s at the pleasure of the Board basically, the Chair and the Board, because the HRB does not meet twice a month every month for a year. We have less meetings and so in the past the person has served beyond a year, just because of that fact, infrequent meetings. Chair Bower: I would say that anyone who wants to take over the Chair’s position, I would be happy to step aside. I have done it for two years now, and because of the small number of meetings we have, we have in the past extended. I’m happy to stay as Chair, but I’m willing to step aside because I’ve done it for a long time. Board Member Wimmer: David, I think you’re doing an excellent job and I think you should be our fearless leader from here on. Chair Bower: Well, I appreciate that vote of confidence. But I just want to make it clear that anyone else who would like to step up, I’m certainly happy to step aside. Okay, thank you. We’re done taking care of that. City Official Reports 2. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chair Bower: I have a number of meetings that I will miss because I will be traveling, sadly. I’m not sad I’m traveling but I’m sad I’m missing the meetings. I will not be here for the March 12th meeting, the April 9th meeting, May 14th, June 11th, August 13th and September 24th. I’ll send this to Vinh and you, Amy, so you know. Any other Board Members that know they will be traveling on any of the dates should send that to Vinh and Amy so we are sure we have a quorum and, please, when Vinh sends out information asking about meetings, confirm that you’re going to be there, so we know that we will have a quorum, because it is difficult. I mean, we don’t have a lot of meetings and I want to be sure we get, if there is information that we need to review, that we’re all available, or as many as possible. Study Session 3. Review and Discussion of Annual Reports Including Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report and Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Report and Potential Topics for an HRB Retreat. Chair Bower: City Official Reports. 4.a Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. French: First of all, we have our, we prepare our annual reports and one of them is the CLG Report, Certified Local Government Report, which as a certified local government, we are obligated to turn in a report every year that declares, go ahead. Chair Bower: Can I interrupt? This is tab three in our booklet for Board Members. Sorry, I just wanted to make this clear. Ms. French: Packet page seven. The Certified Local Government Annual Report summarizes what trainings the HRB members have undertaken during the reviewing period of October 2018 through September 2019. So, those of you who are here can report out what trainings you did and I will capture that in the report that I prepare and send. The deadline this year is much later than it was last year. Last year it was in February, I believe. This year it’s in April, so we have a bit more time. So, I haven’t yet packaged that report up to share with you because of that deadline delay. So, I’m thinking the March packet for the HRB will have the report completed. So, those of you who haven’t turned in, we know what you’ve done as far as any kind of training related to architecture, such, please do send that in to Vinh or myself and I can capture that. I also report in this report what the general activities have been. Have we done any nominations, have we undertaken any studies? So, in this report it will declare that we received two awards for our Eichler Design Guidelines that had been packaged up the year before, in 2018. We’ll also declare all of the Historic Resource Evaluations we’ve been doing since the Comp Plan was adopted at the end of 2017. We’ve done quite a number of Historic Resource Evaluations case by case as folks come in to either tear down an existing home or add on to an existing home that is potentially eligible for California Register. So, we’ve done a number of those. I’ll also report out on the number of meetings we had, and anything else that’s of interest in the world of historic preservation. I did include in your item three, tab three, everything that I received from the State starting with packet page ten, read this first it says. This is the how to that says when it’s due and all of that. And then the following piece is the Annual Report template. So, this is what I will be filling out, this form and so you’ve seen these in past years and you’ll see it again in next month’s packet. Chair Bower: I notice in that, on page ten of our packet down at the bottom, reminder number three, in order to compete for a 2021 CLG Grant you have to have submitted your annual report by no later than April. What about a grant? As you noted on page eight, we had talked about a Modern Air Context (phonetic) Grant to do that review and we’ve also got unfinished Mills Act work to do. Can we get that grant in? Ms. French: Maybe this is the year, right? If there’s a groundswell of support and bandwidth and all of that, depending on – I know this grant application we filled out before but didn’t turn in, there were estimates on the amount of time it would take on Staff’s end and a consultant. So, we can touch base again with a consultant and see, double check the resource there and speak with our Director about putting that on the work program if that’s of interest to proceed. Chair Bower: My recollection is this Board is very supportive of that endeavor and maybe it would be useful for you and me to meet with the Director. And if need be, we can go to the Council. I would be happy to talk to Council, go to a Council Meeting and talk this up. I think it’s an important thing to do. It’s a requirement, as I remember, to do every ten years, do some kind of survey and, of course, we haven’t done one since 1998, so we’re a little behind on that. We’ve done the application, if I remember correctly, so we’re really talking about just moving it forward. I would imagine the amount of money we’re saving by not hiring a permanent full-time planner can easily offset some of the costs of this. Let’s you and I get together and move that forward. Ms. French: Okay, that’s fair. So, the other part of this tab three is to share with you the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Report because there are items in there regarding historic preservation, so I’ll go ahead and proceed with that. Last night the Planning and Transportation Commission heard from Staff regarding the progress that’s been made on the Comprehensive Plan Programs and the Housing Elements Programs and where we are in that. So, I’ll just skim through this information, but if you wanted to do a deeper dive there, you could go to the City’s website and look at the Planning and 4.a Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Transportation Commission Staff Report. I’ll just give you a taste of that today. Basically, the Comprehensive Plan Annual Report has the Historic Preservation Programs. There are 410 programs all together in the Comprehensive Plan and we’ve reported out that 18 percent of those are completed or partially complete. We’re just at the very beginning, basically the first two years of a Comprehensive Plan that goes till 2013, so we have a few more years to get these things accomplished. The Housing Element Report talks about the work, where we are towards our regional housing needs assessment numbers. You probably heard of those. This gives an overview of where we are. We’re 62 percent of the way into the housing cycle. These are some other stats over here, 107 new housing units were added in 2019. We are getting quite a few more accessory dwelling units since we passed some regulations that eased up on some of these things. Chair Bower: What does RHNA stand for? Ms. French: Regional Housing Needs Assessment. So, this is something that comes out every several years about what’s expected. We expect a new report coming out that will vastly increase the number of housing units that we’re expected produce in the City, so that’s coming up. So, here are some stats for you. Here is a summary of the Comp Plan. So, we do have, these are what’s called elements. The required elements of a city’s General Plan, we call it the Comprehensive Plan, this is how many elements that we have studied in this annual report. Some of these are required elements such as housing. Housing has a seven-year cycle, so every seven years we produce a housing element that will update everything. So, over here on this side of the screen we have the number of programs and so the land use, where there are 63 programs of the total of 410, those 63 include the Historic Preservation Programs that appear on the Comp Plan. This is again some states about the completion rate, where we are. I’m just going to present to you the ones that you’re probably already aware of. Policy 7.2 was adopted at the tail end of that process was inserted and there wasn’t a program definition in the Comprehensive Plan, just the policy. So, I’ve been reporting to you these last couple of years about how we’ve been implementing this policy, which was to do these Historic Resource Evaluations every time somebody comes in seeking to demolish a home or sometimes people are going to sell a property and they want to know, it says potentially historic, but is it really historic. So, we engage a consultant to prepare these Historic Resource Evaluations. So, the note here as far as what our progress is says just that. We began this implementation in January 2018 and we try to present a summary of these properties that we do evaluations of, so we’re developing quite a list. As we go forward, we put notes on our GIST System that states that now we’ve determined that it is not California Register eligible or we have determined that it is California Register eligible. So, we’ll make that change in our system so folks can see that in the community. Here’s another couple of programs. This one is to update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory and there it is in black and white. We have not updated the list. It would require Council action for us to do this. They haven’t given us the go ahead. This is what I just finished saying, that when we do find they are California Register eligible we will make note in our system. Then this program here, 7.1.2 is to reassess the ordinance to ensure its effectiveness. I laugh because I’m sure its effectiveness is, maybe increase its effectiveness would be a better way of saying that. We haven’t begun. The Comp Plan Policy, sorry, Program 7.8.1 is to promote and expand available incentives. So, this just gives some notes about what we accomplished. We did make those code changes that I reported out at our retreat last year that we added Categories 3 and 4 to the inventory categories that could avail themselves on our incentives, such as increased floor area and others. We also have this subdivision incentive for Historic Preservation, and we modified it just this year for the 874 Boyce Project which you all who were here got to see. So, the sister homes you might recall. So, we changed our zoning code and our subdivision code to enable a project when the front property is the one with the historic home. Because the way it had been written before, it was the rear property that was to have the historic home and, in this case, there wasn’t a rear property. So, now that’s available to folks. Then, here’s another one that talks about salvage and reuse. We do have a Deconstruction Ordinance that is coming on line, is going to be effective in a few months from now, so we’re no longer going to be saying demolition. It will all be deconstruction. Two more that talk about Historic Preservation specifically. This one here, 7.8.3 talks about innovative ways to apply current codes to older buildings using the State Historic Building Code and we did talk about this at our retreat in 2019. We had our Chief Building Official come and give a presentation on the Historic Building Code. Then this one, which is parking exceptions 4.a Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Page 5 for historic buildings, we haven’t begun that program. Then two more, expanding, I’ve already said this. There’s one more. Okay, so these are other policies that I think the HRB is interested in. We have an ARB Awards, and some of you may not know this, but this is the year, 2020 is our every five years we give out the Architectural Review awards, so it’s the ARB that does the work to come up with five or more projects that the ARB has reviewed. In the past there have been projects that the HRB also reviewed that made it to the top of the list. One of those was the Rinconada Library that did an addition that was very compatible. So, it’s possible that there will be some projects that rise to the top of that list that will have an historic component. Those are in the ARB Bylaws. I know that HRB has maybe in the past expressed an interest for some kind of awards. We can talk about that, perhaps, at our retreat if we want to embark upon that. Maybe a different type of set of awards. Another one that the HRB has expressed interest in is the Fry’s, the old cannery that was found to be California Registry eligible this year, in 2019. So, this is one of these programs, to prepare a coordinated area plan for the North Ventura Area. So, that’s in progress and you might be following that. Finally, there is another one that perked my interest and that was the Cal Ave area. There is a program that talks about create regulations to encourage retention and rehabilitation of smaller buildings. We were just talking about rehabilitation. So, we don’t really have a program going right now on this. Again, if somebody were to come in Cal Ave and there was a building that was an older building and they wanted to demolish it or deconstruct it, we would do the same thing we’re doing elsewhere in town, which is to have an Historic Resource Evaluation done to see if it was worthy of California Register listing. I think that concludes all of that as far as the Comp Plan. I have some more stats here about the housing activity and the building permits issued. So, again, our RHNA allocations is pretty high. You know, we have a lot of units to go to get to our prior RHNA allocation. This kind of shows where we’ve accomplished. Because we have accomplished above moderate housing units at the rate of 72 percent, we are okay as far as the SB-35 which you might have heard about. This gets into weeds that the HRB purview doesn’t really cover, so I’ll just gloss over this. I think that pretty much sums up the other annual reports that I thought HRB might have interest in. Does anybody have any questions regarding at least the Historic Preservation Programs that I’ve gone through? Chair Bower: So, I had sent in information about the training I’ve done for the last year and should other Board Members do the same? Send it to him and he can… Ms. French: Yes, to Vinh or myself, yes, please. Chair Bower: All right. This is an aside, because Debbie and I and Christian were newly appointed, the City Clerk reminded us that we have to, we are required to have ethics training, because that’s required every two years, fill out Schedule 700, which all Board Members should have received an email from the City Clerk about. I’m just bringing that up because we’re required to do those things, as part of our, I think it’s part of our activity as a City of Palo Alto Board. So, just a reminder. The Ethics Program is now a fascinating two-hour read on-line and it’s two hours. Board Member Makinen: When’s the due date on that? Chair Bower: Well, the last time I had done this was January of 2018, and I did it here. The City, provided ethics training and Brown Act training. So, that’s how I knew, but because we were reappointed, they just made us do it as part of our reappointment. So, if you haven’t done ethics training in a while. Thank you, Amy, for that. Vice Chair Shepherd: Could I just clarify so I’m sure I understand it and everyone understands? I think you have to do the Form 700 every year. Chair Bower: Correct. Vice Chair Shepherd: Okay. Ms. French: Yes, it is. 4.a Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Page 6 (off mic) Chair Bower: I think the City Clerk’s Office tracks that, because that’s where I got the email from, but that was part of our reappointment or appointment. And that’s a very easy thing to do because they’ve now got it all on line and they keep your prior history there, so you can just update it or it doesn’t change. Okay, thank you. Do we want to talk about, at this point, about Board Retreat topics, because that’s part of this? Ms. French: Yes. It was a potential topic and you know, when do we want to have that retreat. I do have, I believe I’ll have an item for the end of March, the CLG Report, as I mentioned, but there might be another actual project item. We might have another nomination of, we have an exciting proposal for another, sorry, upgrade, Category upgrade. So, that may be coming at the end of March. So, we could look maybe towards April as a potential retreat, a month. Chair Bower: Or do we want to set a date and then talk about topics, or? Ms. French: Yes. If you set a date first or a month, then we can consider what might be of interest between now and then that we would want to pull together items on. Chair Bower: So, I missed the second item in our agenda, which is Meetings Schedules and Assignments, so maybe while we’re looking at dates, lets go through this. [Board moved to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions] Chair Bower: Okay, so, maybe the 26th of March is the date you think you’ll think you’ll have something for us? So, we could do April 23rd for a retreat? Ms. French: Are there others who know they will not be here on that? Because for the retreats we definitely, I think, want to have the entire full Board. Chair Bower: Exactly. Board Member Bernstein: I’m still formulating my travel plans to Italy. It will be probably in April, but nothings confirmed yet. (crosstalk) Ms. French: Certainly, there’s no trouble targeting the May retreat, but if we wanted to do grants… We don’t have to have a retreat to move forward with that grant, if we’re concerned about that. There can be other things we do on that. Chair Bower: I think we dealt with that last year. I mean, there was strong Board support last year for that, so I think we could move forward. It would be nice to talk about it at a retreat, but better to put the grant in. Anyone else have any dates problematic dates? Vice Chair Shepherd: So, April 23rd? I can come, but it’s very difficult for me, so if anyone else has a problem, maybe we could consider a different date. Chair Bower: May 28th? (off mic) Chair Bower: You wouldn’t be there. (off mic) 4.a Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Bower: The only two dates in March and April that I have are the 26th of March and the 23rd of April, and that’s difficult for… Do we have to do it on a Thursday? Ms. French: No, we can choose another day. It’s just that, you know, we have these dates all set up in the system and we have the room and, I mean, we don’t have to even have it here. We can have it in a more special location, a retreatful place. In past retreats, we have enjoyed having them in the Community Room or one time it was at a member’s house that’s an historic home. Board Member Bernstein: Chair, I know I’m available in March. (off mic) Board Member Bernstein: I am available for retreat in March. Board Member Pease: March 26th I can’t do. Vice Chair Shepherd: I can’t do March 26th either. Chair Bower: Is there, so, I’m out of the country from the 11th to the 21st, but I can pretty much do anything else in March. So, that’s the first Thursday, I mean the second Thursday, which is the 12th I won’t be here, but if we want to do a different day… Board Member Pease: And the May 23 date didn’t work? (off mic) Chair Bower: May works, that works for me. (off mic) Chair Bower: May 28th. No, Michael won’t be here. Board Member Wimmer: What happened to April, the April dates? We’ve got the 9th and the 23rd. Chair Bower: The 9th and the 23rd I’ll be out of town on the 9th. Board Member Wimmer: Oh, you said you were out, okay. (off mic) Chair Bower: I’m here but that’s difficult for Debbie. Vice Chair Shepherd: I would come. Board Member Wimmer: It seems like it’s better to start doing it in the spring, because in summer everyone is really gone. Chair Bower: Yeah, it’s really tough in the summer. Board Member Wimmer: Or May 28th is also a possible date. It looks like April 23rd or May 28th. Chair Bower: Christian, you can’t do April 23rd? Is that what you said, I’m sorry. (off mic) 4.a Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Bower: Does April 23rd work? Board Member Wimmer: I think it’s May 28th, isn’t it? Chair Bower: Martin, you don’t know yet. Board Member Bernstein: I don’t know yet. But, again, we don’t need a – there can be six out of seven. Chair Bower: Oh, but we would miss you. Should we target the 23rd of April and then circle back of somebody – I mean, Martin may be here. Let’s try that because (off mic) Chair Bower: I know. That’s no choice. Okay, let’s tentatively set if for the 23rd of April and please keep in touch with Amy and Vinh if that changes. Actually, Martin, you could confirm when you know. Board Member Male: Is that typically a full day? Chair Bower: No, we meet for what, two hours. It depends on how much we have to talk about. Ms. French: You can choose more or less and meaty or less meaty topics for your retreat, and thereby regulate how long you’re here. Chair Bower: Yeah, okay. Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Amy, do you know from any Board Member who is not present in Palo Alto, can they participate this way on an HRB retreat, do you know? Or is that a question I need to ask some other department? Ms. French: There has been participation, and I know in the past by skype for Council meetings, somebody participating remotely that they have to, you know, if you were in a hotel in Italy, it has to be a public place that people can come into, so I don’t know, if you open your hotel room and put a sign on the door. Chair Bower: Go sit in the coffee shop. Board Member Bernstein: How about Piazza della Signoria? Ms. French: That could work. We’d be happy to be virtually there with you, if it turned out that way. Chair Bower: Actually, I’d be happy to be there with you. So, let’s all go to… Board Member Bernstein: Board Member Pease was asking, now where is that meeting going to be? Chair Bower: Okay. Not to prolong this, because some people actually have to work. So, I think that takes care of Item Number Two and Item Number Three. Ms. French: I should say then, on that retreat, because we haven’t talked about potential retreat topics, we could defer that discussion because of the retreat date being in April, we could talk about that in March, as far as retreat topics for April. Chair Bower: Good Idea. Let’s put that on the agenda. Board Member Wimmer: Well, does anyone have any ideas? Let’s just poll everyone and see if anyone has any ideas for the retreat. 4.a Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Bower: The three that I just jotted down. We should consider HRB nominations to the ARB for a recognition award. We should discuss midcentury modern surveys, as we have previously. Just get that back on the record. We ought to do, also reiterate our support for Mills Act, finishing the Mills Act Program. Martin, any? Board Member Bernstein: I agree with your last. Chair Bower: Any other suggestions? Board Member Makinen: Wasn’t there some interest in accessory dwelling units again, to get some further clarification on that? Board Member Kohler: What do you want to know? I mean, I’m working on two or three of them, so if you have any questions, I can. Ms. French: Michael, are you feeling you would like to have a presentation on what the regulations now are and what the City is reviewing and how many are coming forward? Board Member Makinen: Some type of an update. Ms. French: Okay, updates. We can do that. Also, today we had a property and talking about a certain code section and Martin, Board Member Bernstein commented something about being interested in learning more about that. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah, I just read that code section. It looks like there is some topic for debate on that. It’s Section 18. Chair Bower: What’s the title of it or what’s the focus? Board Member Bernstein: The focus is what to do with an addition that is considered nonhabitable, but it helps with egress and it might affect historic restoration. That’s what that paragraph talks about. Chair Bower: We could put that on there too. Anything else? No. Okay. Ms. French: Any of these programs here? We talked about this last year, but there’s, you know, these Comp Plan Programs related to historic preservation, if there’s any interest in discussing any of these, learning more or whatever. Board Member Wimmer: I think, yes, that the inventory, update and maintain the City Historic Resource Inventory. I think that should be on the top of our list. However, I’m not sure how much we can accomplish in a retreat versus is this really a Staff required job? I don’t know. I mean, the two things that stand out in my mind are pushing the Mill’s Act forward and updating our inventory, because we’ve been talking about those for a long time. Board Member Kohler: We have been getting requests for these living units that are, what, 800 square feet and there’s no rule about them. We’re now working on two where the, this house is part of the whole structure, but you can’t, there’s no connection between the two. A lot of them, the homes are in the back or in the old garage. I mean, it’s going to change the look of a lot of the homes in Palo Alto because there’s going to be two units there in all these homes. There are a lot of people out there building them, so it’s going to have an impact on historic homes, I think, fairly soon. Just to let you know it’s coming. Because it’s turning out to be a very popular item to do. Ms. French: So, I have that on the list of potential topics to do an overview of the accessory dwelling units at the retreat. We can further winnow this down at the March meeting if you like, as a Board. 4.a Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Bower: Let’s get together and talk. Okay. Board Member Kohler: Are you having a secret meeting? Is that what you said? Chair Bower: Yeah, very secret. That’s why I said it so quietly. I know the microphone I’m sure didn’t pick that up. Let’s move on, unless there are other comments. That’s already a big list, so we’ll try to winnow it down a little bit. Action Items 4. Report Documenting the Completed Façade Restoration/Rehabilitation Project as Compliant with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Affirming HRB’s 2018 Recommendation for Reclassification of 526 Waverley Street to Historic Inventory Category 2 from Category 3 Chair Bower: All right, so Item Number Four is a Report Documenting the Completed Façade Restoration/Rehabilitation Project as Compliant with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Affirming the HRB’s 2018 Recommendation for Reclassification of 526 Waverley Street to Historic Inventory Category 2 from Category 3. Amy, do you want to… Amy French: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. This report transmits the historic structure’s report that the applicant provided resources for the City to have retained or prepared by Page & Turnbull serving as the City’s on-call consultant for items like this. So, what happened while two of you were not on the Board, notably Member Pease and Member Shepherd, was, I believe Shepherd was not yet on our Board in 2018, when this project came forward. This project being the rehabilitation and restoration of 526 Waverley, formerly the Toy and Sport World, I believe is the name of the business that was there for many, many decades. And, of course, the owner is here represented in the audience, so is available for questions, those of you who are not as familiar with the project, but those others, four of you who were familiar with the project back in 2018 when the Board considered the project and provided a support for a recommendation to upgrade the building from a Category 3 to a Category 2. So, the upshot is, the work has been done according to the plans that were approved through our architectural review process with HRB input and recommendation. We are here now today to reconfirm that recommendation so that we can then proceed to the City Council. So, on the screen I put a slide. Basically, what we’re doing is confirming the HRB’s 2018 recommendation and we have four votes to do that. Those of you who have studied this can also vote now, I think, and then these are the two things that the historic structure report did, which was document the completed improvements and also looked at the rear addition that was put on after the Birge Clark building was built and the mezzanine to allow consideration for a future potential project, which has not come in as a project. With that, I’ll say that again, the owner is in the audience if anyone has questions about the project or question of me, please. Chair Bower: I have just one procedural question. I presume that what we should do at the conclusion of our discussion is to create a motion that verifies what you have just described, what the Page & Turnbull report describes, so that the Council can see that we support this change in category? Is that right? Ms. French: That would be helpful and also if you want to commit as Chair to being available to attend the City Council hearing on this, it’s a Consent Calendar item, so it won’t be a hearing necessarily, but it will be on the Consent Agenda. So, you know, we can work together on dates, but we’re looking to a March date with Council. I don’t know if there is availability there, but sometimes this (crosstalk). Chair Bower: I can talk to you about that afterwards. Ms. French: Yeah. Chair Bower: Okay. John, if you would like to say something, it’s not required because we’ve got a record, but we would be happy to hear from you. 4.a Packet Pg. 119 City of Palo Alto Page 11 John Shenk: Sure. Good morning. John Shenk representing Thoits Brothers, and I won’t be long. We’ll all keep going, but I wanted to thank you all for the work that you do. I thank Staff. Amy has been absolutely fantastic helping to guide me through this process. It’s the first time that we’ve taken on a project like this, first time for me and first time for the Thoits Brothers in a few decades. As owners of lots of properties in the downtown, the Thoits family has a few pictures on the back wall and has been here for about 120 some odd years in ownership, and we do care deeply about the broad health of the community in the downtown, and part of that is the historic fabric that is a meaningful part of our community. For that reason, we are motivated to take over ownership from the Hoffacker family, the original developers of the building and to see through this rehabilitation. We’re really excited about it. I may have shared before, but there are many times, and currently I’ll go out there and stand in front of the building thinking what’s next, how are we going to do this, what would the right tenant be. People can probably tell that I have something to do with the building, and they will stop and often say, thank you, it’s beautiful, these sorts of things. I think there is some personal reward in that, but it’s really important to us to have this happen in the community over and over. So, we are currently analyzing our own portfolio, and we own some other very old buildings, where can we do this? And I think it’s neat that the ordinance, the codes have these sections that we’re going through now where there is - in a way that we align ourselves, because it’s a costly, time-consuming process, but because it’s a win-win, there is this process to win a TVR if you will, sort of thing that helps align us. So, there’s not a burden on the owner to take it on all by themselves in a way, and I really do appreciate that piece that the community I think all holds hands around. The last thing I’ll leave you with is something, and I don’t know if it will be the right venue for this, but as we went through this process, there’s a piece of the code that I think is worth exploring. Maybe it will be with you guys, maybe it will be Staff and the City Attorney’s Office sort of thing, trying to riddle it out. It’s in 181806, E1, and I think the way we had looked at it is it’s an opportunity for us to further align around properties that are historic where something has been added onto it. The addition is not historic and takes away from the historic value of the building. My reading of it says that, hey, if you remove that area to restore the historic, it becomes I think technically except area or something where you’re able to move it. You don’t just lose part of your building to restore the historic piece, you could move that square footage, again following all the historic regulations and everything else to the degree that we’re even possible, but it gives you that opportunity. There are some who are interpreting the language to not say that, and I think that becomes a disalignment around, we’re trying to find ways to restore these historic buildings. So, I mentioned it. Maybe you guys peek at it on your own time. It’s something I’m exploring with Amy and will continue down the path, because I just think it’s – I truly believe within the community there’s lots of rifts and different perspectives on things, but I think around restoring historic buildings, I think we’re all on the same page. I think those words might need clarification either way, but I think we would all agree that it ought to go towards the let’s restore the entirety of the historic building where possible. Anyway, that’s it. I think you all for your time and your assistance, as well, as we went through the 526 Waverley Project. Thank you. Chair Bower: Martin, question for John? Board Member Bernstein: Thank you John. Can you repeat that code section again? Mr. Shenk: Sure, 181806, E1. Chair Bower: Thank you. Mr. Shenk: You bet. Thank you all. Chair Bower: Hold on, don’t go away. Anyone have questions for John? Okay, one question I have is, the addition on the back, I know is a secondary addition. Do you know what the date of that is? Mr. Shenk: It’s in the report. I believe it’s in the 40’s. I forget the exact date. 4.a Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Bower: It doesn’t represent an historic – according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, because it’s been there for 50 years, even though it wasn’t part of the original building, it does get some consideration as an historic addition. Now, what you do with that and how you move forward with the next phase, I just wanted to be sure you’re aware that that, even though that portion of the building is not part of the original building, it has some of its own, it has standing on its own. It’s actually not attractive and isn’t seen from the street, but just be aware of it, that’s all. Mr. Shenk: Very fair. And just so you know, Chair Bower, is as I bring this up, that was the issue that was in our brains. We looked at it. But I really think whether that happens or it doesn’t, just more globally if it were only 20 years old, and I don’t think that’s the issue that we’re struggling with. It’s being able to remove this area and it becomes where you can move it to restore the historic. I appreciate the nuance of the age of that addition. Chair Bower: I think, Martin and other Board Members, that’s an accurate statement about the addition. After 50 years it becomes significant on its own. Board Member Bernstein: It does add some level of significance because of its age, right. Mr. Shenk: It will be an interesting one to explore another day. I think we even had asked Page Y Turnbull, maybe not, I forget what’s in the report, to kind of look at that piece. And then we’ve got some, how do you weight the balance of historic significance - there is a neat piece, the back as Birge Clark has on many of the buildings where we can find similar, almost identical details on some various buildings used in different ways. The rear of the building. I just, literally a couple of months ago was walking down the back alley behind, where are we here, the Caldwell Banker Building now, the back of that two-story building with the metal sash windows of two stories. It is the back of 526 Waverley’s original back, and I just thought, wow, being able to restore – as much as it’s at the back of the building. But it’s, you know, maybe someday it’s a big city public parking lot or maybe it’s something. But I think the back can be neat to look at as well. But I did think it was funny to walk by and see, wait, that’s the back of Waverley, well, originally. Chair Bower: And the front of that building is almost identical in its style of having three, what appear to be three separate storefronts, even though they’re all one interior space. Mr. Shenk: That’s right, that’s right. Chair Bower: So, clearly Birge Clark had a style. Mr. Shenk: It did. Chair Bower: All right. Martin, you had? Board Member Bernstein: Yeah. To your point about that code section, we have on our agenda today is put together suggestions for our retreat, and so maybe our Board, when we come to that agenda and we can discuss if we want to put that on the retreat. Chair Bower: Good idea. Mr. Shenk: But only do it if you really want to have a fun time on the retreat, because looking at code sections is so fun. Chair Bower: It’s what we do. Any other questions for John while we are still in the influence phase? Good morning Margaret. Glad you could make it. (off mic) 4.a Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Bower: I think we’ll close the discussion period and bring it back to the Board and have a discussion about the issues here. Michael. Board Member Makinen: Thank you Chair Bower. It’s somewhat of a rarity that we see a project that’s classified as a restoration here. Most of our projects are rehabilitations and I’m quite pleased to see that. I don’t know, I can’t think of another one that was a restoration that we’ve entered into here. I don’t know how the Board feels about it, but maybe we should look at the categorizing of this as a restoration rather than a restoration/rehabilitation. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that, but it might give a stronger case for moving it up to a Category 2 from a Category 3. Chair Bower: That’s what we’re doing today. We’re actually moving it up to a Category 2. Board Member Makinen: I know we are, but I think it would make the case stronger when it goes to Council if we’re calling it a restoration. How does the rest of the Board feel about that? Chair Bower: Well, I don’t know. Any other Board Members want to weigh in on that? Board Member Bernstein: Is the definition of the categories in our packet today? Board Member Makinen: We’re calling it a restoration/rehabilitation, which is kind of a locally made-up type of definition. I don’t know if the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards really recognized the dual status. Ms. French: May I jump in and call your attention to the Historic Resource Evaluation. It’s packet page 24. If we want to start considering definitions or what have you. On that page in the first paragraph, at least Page & Turnbull is saying the subject property underwent a façade rehabilitation to return it to its original design. So, that’s a firm that is well qualified that uses the word rehabilitation. In the Staff Report I referred to it with, in both tenses because the types of things that were done to the façade, I think, may have included both types of construction. Board Member Makinen: When I read through the report, I recall that when Emily Vance analyzed this, she categorized it as a rehabilitation, at least in one paragraph that I read of her report, her analysis. Chair Bower: You know, it might be useful to know the difference between the definition of those two words. I think it qualifies on both levels and I have no strong feelings about using both, or using one. It seems to me that restoration would suggest restoring what was there and rehabilitation would suggest that you are adding back what was there. So, I think you can either do one or the other. Board Member Makinen: Rehabilitation, in my understanding, is bring an historic property back into use for modern times and still preserving the character-defining features, the essentials of it. Chair Bower: I’m happy to adopt your suggestion, if the Board feels that’s appropriate. I don’t think there’s a wrong way to do this, and maybe your suggesting that we use just one term will simplify the Council consideration. Chair Bower: Anyone else? Christian? Board Member Pease: I support that idea. Chair Bower: Debbie? Okay, Debbie supports it. Margaret, any opinions. Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, I think those two terms are used so closely together, and a lot of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards guideline or Standard points fall under both of those categories most commonly. So, I think it’s a really interesting topic of discussion to really pinpoint which is which. But I do think that it feels like this is more of a restoration. 4.a Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Bower: Fine. So, Roger, any feelings on this? Okay, I think the Board agrees with your suggestion, so let’s just move forward calling this a restoration and simplify things. Is that okay? Ms. French: Sure, yeah. You know, I would always just go to a source document to see how our – this expert firm that we have refers to it. There is another, packet page 34 also refers to restoration of the original French doors on the second floor due to the fact that the windows would be mostly concealed behind restored iron balconies. Anyways, that’s a restoration according to Page & Turnbull. They elsewhere used rehabilitation. So, I think it’s fair to be able to call it both. Chair Bower: John has something. Ms. French: I will read aloud what our owner has provided as well, just before you vote maybe on that. Rehabilitation, according to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards acknowledges the need to alter or add to an historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character. Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Chair Bower: So, actually I think restoration would be a more accurate description, because the project removed a lot of unsightly and inappropriate… Board Member Makinen: And if you do a categorization as a restoration, you do have to be very clear on the period of significance. Chair Bower: Yeah, but I think the period of significance would be, what, the 20’s when the building was constructed, originally constructed? Board Member Makinen: It’s in the report somewhere. Chair Bower: So, I don’t know, maybe we’re getting too far down in the weeds here. Maybe we should use both terms. Board Member Wimmer: The only thing I can find is that with the word rehabilitation, it can include some kind of modification from what it was originally, whereas restoration is clearly maintaining what was there originally. But with rehabilitation it can also include some modification and I guess that’s the question, has it been modified from its original. I know that you were playing around with the arches and the location of the door and what have you, so that if there is a modification from what is absolutely original as documented by the original drawings, then it would also include the rehabilitation work, I think. Chair Bower: Right. So, the one thing I noticed on the project is the ironwork, which is true to the style and the drawings, but is not detailed anywhere by Birge Clark. This simply doesn’t – there’s no detailing it exists with dimensions. The ironwork is slightly larger than what is apparent on other Birge Clark projects. In other words, the ironwork on 527 has one-inch corner posts. This is so insignificant in terms of the fabric of this building, but I notice it because as a builder, because it’s a little bit different. And that, I’m perfectly comfortable with that being a differentiation, compatible but differentiation from the original. We don’t have any originals, but we have other buildings. My point here is that I think you’re right. There have been very small changes, so we’re not really restoring what’s there because a lot of what was there was removed. We’re putting back what was in kind, creating the same stylistic feeling of the façade. That’s, I guess, how I would describe it. And so, it is both restoration of what was there and refurbishment in terms of bringing something new but slightly different. Is that a fair… Ms. French: And I have one more packet page to steer you to, just in case you want more source data. Page & Turnbull did tackle this. Packet page 38, 39 says Emily Vance’s review from the proposed changes would meet the Standards for restoration. While the project was reviewed as a restoration undertaking and viewed favorably at the time, the completed project is more applicable to the Standards for 4.a Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Page 15 rehabilitation due to its use of some new components in a similar, but not exact appearance to the original design. So, that’… Chair Bower: All right. So, I think your… (off mic) Board Member Makinen: Rehabilitation is probably the more correct interpretation of what was being done here, rather than – somebody could say you didn’t really restore it because you didn’t bring back everything exactly the way it was. Chair Bower: Okay, I’m comfortable with that. Martin? Board Member Bernstein: I’m smiling with familiarity about the topic of restoration. The example of restoration is that when the Doge’s of Venice repair the Palazzo Seroci (phonetic), that’s a restoration, where it’s unchanged and it’s just repaired. But if there are any changes to any kind of detailing, that’s rehabilitation and well supported and I think the Board will agree this is a good project. Chair Bower: Any other comments? So, are we agreed we can put this into the motion, but we’ll use the term restoration not, I’m sorry, rehabilitation to describe the project? Okay, other comments? Any other comments? I would like to just note part of Page & Turnbull’s analysis here, because I thought they did an excellent job of first discussing eligibility for the California Register for Historic Resources, and of the four criteria that they evaluated, Criteria One, which is events, Criteria Two, persons, Criteria Three, architecture, and Criteria Four is information potential, that is Criteria One and Three they meet the requirements. Four doesn’t really apply and Criteria Two does not meet significance, but that’s a very strong evidence that this is, indeed, California Registry eligible. Then the second thing I wanted to just put into the record, which of course, is there but reiterate, is that the Standards for Rehabilitation which we deal with all the time, starting in page 39 of our packet. Rehabilitation Standard One is the property’s use for its historic purpose. Two, the historic character of the property will be retained. Three, each property is recognized as a physical record of its time. Four, even though properties change over time, those changes have acquired historic significance of their own right, thus the addition in the back may be captured by this. Five, the distinctive features, finishes and techniques are preserved. Standard Six is deteriorated historic features doesn’t really apply. Standard Seven, chemical or physical treatments were not used, that doesn’t apply. Standard Nine, new additions or alterations shall not destroy the historic character. We don’t have that issue here. And Ten, we don’t have any archeological features. So, of the ten, this project meets six, I think, of these and the others don’t apply. That’s another very strong statement about why this project and why this recategorization is not only appropriate, but should be moved forward by Council. So, having said that, if there are no other questions or statements, can I have a motion to approve this renovation, reaffirm our earlier – so first of all, it’s that the evidence and the project outcome now qualifies this building to be categorized as a Category 2 building on our Register instead of Category 3. Is that appropriate? Anybody want to make that motion? Michael? MOTION Board Member Makinen: I make a motion that we approve the project moving it from a Category 3 to a Category 2. It does meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation as evidenced by the reports from Page & Turnbull and other analyses that were performed. Chair Bower: Great. A second? Board Member Shepherd: I second it. Chair Bower: Any further discussion? Martin. 4.a Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair. I just want to comment to the ownership representative, Mr. Shenk and the Architect, Mr. Popp. I think under the stewardship of you and your team, excellent job. Chair Bower: Okay, no further comments? All in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0. IT’S UNANIMOUS. Chair Bower: Thank you John. Nice job. [The Board moved to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions] Approval of Minutes 5. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of December 12, 2019. Chair Bower: The last item is minutes. Approval of Minutes from December 12, 2019 meeting. I had found one item, Amy, a name that is spelled wrong or is not the right name. On page 68 of the packet, it’s way in the back. The second to the last paragraph under Chair Bower, it says, Hartford day school, and it’s actually, I think, Harker day school. It used to be Harker, there used to be a Harker, I think it was boys’ academy, but I know it’s not Harford, so I think it’s Harker. Do you remember that, Christian? Is that the right? (crosstalk) Yeah, it was demolished and Eichler housing, Eichler style housing was built on that space. That’s the only thing I would ask to be corrected. Anybody else have any corrections, additions, deletions? Okay, seeing no further response, a motion to approve. MOTION Board Member Wimmer: I move to approve the minutes that include the comments that Chair Bower just mentioned. Chair Bower: Okay, second? Board Member Shepherd: I second. Chair Bower: All right, any further discussion? Not seeing any, all in favor of approving the minutes say aye. All opposed. Okay, unanimous. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0. Ms. French: Can I add something about that? Not about the minutes themselves, but those minutes happened to be about 840 Kipling. That item has been called up for hearing on the variance request, so it’s going to the Planning and Transportation Commission, as well as the individual review hearing request. So, we can let you know as that progresses, because eventually the variance request does appear on the Council agenda. Chair Bower: Right. Would it be worthwhile for me or any other Board Member to appear before the Planning hearing? Ms. French: I’m not sure, it might be, I’m not sure. I have to review what the request was about. If it had something to do with historic, certainly the variance findings for that had to do with, I mean the findings may have some discussion about the historic benefit of saving the home. I can’t recall off the top of my head. Just to let you know about that. Chair Bower: Martin might know something about this. It is a complicated project because of the redwood trees and because there is a lot line offset which… 4.a Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. French: We probably should be talking about it too much because of the, yeah, we don’t want to. Chair Bower: All right, well, let’s catch up with this at our other meeting. Subcommittee Items Chair Bower: So, we’re down to Subcommittee Items. There are none, since the only subcommittee that still is in existence or was in existence, was the 527 Waverley subcommittee for the tile work, and that project if over. There is still the Mill’s Act subcommittee, but nothing going on there. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Chair Bower: Any Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements? There is next week, two weeks from now there is a California Preservation Foundation seminar in Mountain View, which is pretty good. Board Member Shepherd: I’m planning on going to that. Chair Bower: I think I’ll go because I was going to be out of town, but now I’m not, or not traveling on Thursday, the 20th? Yeah, good. So, maybe we’ll see each other. Michael. Board Member Makinen: I sat in on the webinar yesterday put on by California Preservation Foundation on Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 45 years later. I don’t know if anybody else did. I thought it was a pretty good seminar. Kind of complimentary to the one on the 20th, I think. Chair Bower: If you had the time, they also had a webinar on contextual infill, which I watched in December, I think. It was really fascinating and it talks about the impact of building new projects next to historic properties. Board Member Makinen: Right, that was similar to this. Chair Bower: It’s work it. It’s very short, I think it’s two hours. Board Member Makinen: Is the opening, or the position for Preservation Planner, is that still something the City is seeking, because I was approached by a person who might be interested in it? Ms. French: It’s not an advertised position at this time. We’re kind of continuing our practice of using our consultant. Board Member Makinen: So, I can refer this person to you, Amy? Ms. French: If they want to come forward and have a conversation, I’d be happy to do so. Board Member Makinen: Okay. Chair Bower: Any other comments? I’d like to say that some of us went to the Junior Museum after our last meeting and it was really a fabulous, it is a fabulous space. It’s going to be an amazing addition to Palo Alto’s cultural opportunities. Really impressive. So, I’m hoping when it’s all done, we’ll all be invited to come to the opening, to the dedication ceremony. I’m sure we will because we weighed in on it. Anyway, if there are no other comments or announcements. Board Member Wimmer: I wanted to mention because you mentioned that, I got an email from the President Hotel. Did you guys all get that email about having a tour. Maybe, is that something we would do together or separate? I glanced at it. I didn’t really read about it, but it’s the people who have taken 4.a Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Page 18 over the President Hotel and they’re remodeling it, and they invited – maybe they invited me because I went to an open house thing they had there. Board Member Kohler: I got a note about it too. Board Member Wimmer: Should I share that with everyone, or how? Ms. French: Yeah, they had reached out to get everybody’s contact information, so it sounds like what they’re doing is reaching out individually. We would be – this project is going to come to the Board, their proposals for that building, so it’s up to you what you want to do. But if there was interest in a group tour, we could certainly agendize that and post it and all of that. Chair Bower: Or let’s do it in less than quorum numbers, as we’ve done in the past. Just do three and three or two and two or three. Yeah, I’d like to see the building. I think it would be helpful to tour it. We did that with the Varsity Theatre renovations five years ago, the second version. We went in two different groups. Board Member Wimmer: Did anyone not get that email? Chair Bower: I didn’t get it. Board Member Wimmer: Oh. So, maybe I’ll forward it to all of you individually. Chair Bower: Good idea. Let’s do that. Board Member Wimmer: I wouldn’t mind going as a group. I think… Chair Bower: Well then, if we all go together (crosstalk) Board Member Wimmer: Is that a problem. I know we have to advertise it. Chair Bower: It’s a public meeting. Board Member Wimmer: Is that a problem? Ms. French: It’s not a problem. I think I’d want to come too. And the planner would probably want to come too. Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, I think it’s good to go as a group, because then we all hear the same information. Chair Bower: That’s find. It’s just a little more complicated, the notice. Board Member Makinen: We could do it on retreat day, a field trip. Board Member Wimmer: We could. Chair Bower: Okay, Margaret, would you like to coordinate that with Amy? Board Member Wimmer: Yes, I would. Chair Bower: Okay, and then we’ll hear from you or Vinh. All right, if there are no other announcements or comments, I’ll adjourn the meeting. Thank you for coming. I appreciate having you all here. 4.a Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 9:50 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 128