HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-08 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Historic Resources Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: April 8, 2021
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 931 2144 8635 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
****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 live on Cable TV and Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center at
bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow.
Members of the public may comment by sending an email to
hrb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live
comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting 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.1,3
2. Receive Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report for the 2019-2020
Reporting Period
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
3. Review the City of Palo Alto’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook, and
discuss implementation of its contents
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of February 25, 2021
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
Subcommittee Items
5. 488 University Avenue [19PLN-00038]: Subcommittee to Review the Lobby Wall
Design, Guard Rail Design, Details of the Proposed Tile, and Color Brushouts.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA in Accordance With Guideline
Section 15332 (Infill Development). Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P) (Commercial
Downtown Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts). For
More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at
Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Historic Resources Board
Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers
are:
Chair David Bower
Vice Chair Deborah Shepherd
Boardmember Gogo Heinrich
Boardmember Michael Makinen
Boardmember Christian Pease
Boardmember Caroline Willis
Boardmember Margaret Wimmer
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Public comment is encouraged. Email the HRB at: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. Material related to
an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the agenda packet is available
for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
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: 931 2144 8635 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 # 12171)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 4/8/2021
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:
• 2021 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 5
Historic Resources Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2021 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/14/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
1/28/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
2/11/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
2/25/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
3/11/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Regular
3/25/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Regular
4/8/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
4/22/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/13/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/27/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
6/10/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
6/24/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
7/8/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
7/22/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
8/12/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
8/26/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
9/9/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
9/23/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
10/14/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
10/28/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
11/11/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular Veteran’s Day
11/25/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular Thanksgiving
12/9/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
12/23/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
2021 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 # 12144)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 4/8/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: CLG Report
Title: Receive Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report for
the 2019-2020 Reporting Period
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) receive the draft Certified Local
Government (CLG) Annual Report for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020.
This is an informational report and no action is required.
Background
On February 25, 2021, staff provided an update regarding the annual CLG report and
Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Report. The State Office of Historic Preservation
has set April 30, 2021 as the deadline for jurisdictions to submit these reports. The State Office
of Historic Preservation (OHP) collects information related to how the CLG program is 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 allows local governments to qualify for OHP grants. To qualify for a
2021-2022 OHP grant, CLGs must file documentation for the reporting period by the deadline.
Palo Alto’s 2019-20 Annual CLG Report
Staff has prepared a cover memo (Attachment A) and the CLG Annual Report for the review
period October 2019 through September 2020 (Attachment B). The cover memo notes that
Palo Alto’s program is primarily an incentive-based historic preservation and public outreach
program, assisted by a qualified historic preservation consultant(s). It highlights actions related
to historic preservation during the reporting period, including:
• two inventory category upgrades,
• an EIR review that included cultural resources,
• five HRB hearings, and
• implementation of Comprehensive Plan policy (L7.2), with a result that six properties
were found individually eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR),
2
Packet Pg. 7
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
and 17 properties were found CRHR ineligible. The attached tracking document shows
that since the Comprehensive Plan adoption in December 2017, 16 properties were
found individually eligible for listing on the California Register and more than 40
properties were determined ineligible for California Register listing.
The cover memo, annual report, links to meeting minutes, and staff and HRB member
biographies will be provided to OHP staff. The report indicates trainings HRB members
informed staff they completed during the reporting period. The City assists HRB members to
attend historic preservation training sessions, by covering the cost of registration. If HRB
members have additional training information, staff requests notice in the coming week.
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: Cover memo CLG 19-20 (DOCX)
• Attachment B: CLG_2019-2020 (PDF)
• Attachment C: Historic resources tracker for CLG 19-20 (DOCX)
• Attachment D: Links to reporting period 2019-20 five HRB meeting minutes (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 8
April 8, 2021
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 2019-2020
Dear Ms. Woodward,
Please find enclosed Palo Alto’s CLG Annual Report for 2019-2020. Palo Alto strongly emphasizes an
incentive-based historic preservation program and actively fosters Historic Resources Board (HRB) 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. With the report transmittal email, we provide links to HRB meeting minutes and member
bios, and a summary of properties found eligible and ineligible for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources since the Council’s December 2017 Comprehensive Plan adoption. While the City
was impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic and there were fewer HRB meetings, the HRB members and
staff continued, with consultant help, to manage our historic preservation program, evaluate
potentially historic properties and facilitate upgrades to historic resources.
If you have any questions regarding these submittals please contact Amy French, Chief Planning
Official, Planning and Development Services Department at Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org or by
phone at (650) 329-2336.
Kind Regards,
Amy C French
Amy French, AICP
Chief Planning Official
2.a
Packet Pg. 9
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
1
Complete Se
Name of CLG City of Palo Alto Report Prepared by: Amy French Date of commission/board review: April 8, 2021 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. None
2. Provide an electronic link to your ordinance or appropriate section(s) of the municipal/zoning code. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-12769#JD_Chapter16.49 B. New Local Landmark Designations (Comprehensive list of properties/districts designated under local ordinance, HPOZ, etc.)
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.
2.b
Packet Pg. 10
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
2
1. During the reporting period, October 1, 2019 – September 30, 2020, 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
None Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. 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 D. Review Responsibilities 1. Who takes responsibility for design review or Certificates of Appropriateness?
☐ All projects subject to design review go the commission.
Property Name/Address Date Designated If a district, number of contributors Date Recorded by County Recorder
Two properties received upgrades on local inventory May and June 2020 Council upgraded (Cat 3 to Cat 2) following HRB recommendations
Type here. NA – both properties were already listed on the local inventory
2.b
Packet Pg. 11
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
3
☒ Some projects are reviewed at the staff level without commission review. What is the threshold between staff-only
review and full-commission review? Minor alterations versus major alterations. Per PAMC 16.49.050 (a)(1) item (B), the HRB reviews single-family and duplex residences which are historic structures/sites in the Downtown area or which are significant buildings elsewhere in the city and “Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory.” Per item (C) the planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations
pursuant to guidelines which the HRB may adopt. Minor exterior alterations are those alterations which the director of planning and development services 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.” Staff is assisted in
all reviews of projects set forth in PAMC 16.49.050 item (a) by professional historic preservation consulting firms to perform Secretary of Interior’s Standards reviews (building permits and discretionary reviews). The HRB reviews projects in Professorville and Ramona districts and supports the Architectural Review Board in reviewing projects in
the Downtown and Significant properties (local inventory Categories 1 and 2) that are not single family homes or duplexes where they exist outside the Downtown. 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? The Chief Planning Official are 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. However, staff seeks historic preservation consultant assistance for CEQA documents for major Architectural Review projects that include properties listed on the local historic inventory or determined California Register Eligible. 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. In some cases, staff conducts a hearing at the HRB for public review of Environmental Impact Reports for properties containing listed historic resources. 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 consultant assistance, and/or HRB provide input to Section 106 documents as requested
2.b
Packet Pg. 12
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
4
• 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 Chief Planning Official, with consultant assistance, and/or HRB review Section 106 documents as requested II. Establish an Adequate and Qualified Historic Preservation Review Commission by State or Local Legislation. A. Commission Membership
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
Name Professional Discipline Date Appointed Date Term Ends Email Address
David Bower Construction 11/1/16 12/15/22 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
Debbie Shepherd Historian/Museum
Professional
May 2018 Type here. HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
Michael Makinen Engineering/Historian 12/15/17 12/15/23 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
Roger Kohler Architecture 12/15/17 Ended 3/1/21 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
Margaret Wimmer Architecture and Design 12/15/17 12/15/23 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
Martin Bernstein Architecture 12/15/17 Ended 3/1/21 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
Christian Pease Architecture/Analytics 12/15/17 12/15/22 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
Gogo Heinrich Architecture 3/1/21 12/15/23 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
Caroline Willis Architecture 3/1/21 12/15/23 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org
2.b
Packet Pg. 13
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
5
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? NA 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 Planning Chief Planning Official Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Commissioner/Staff Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Bower ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Shepherd ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Wimmer ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Makinen ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Pease ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Bernstein ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Kohler ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2.b
Packet Pg. 14
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
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
Bower 1.Dames and Disasters: An Historic Overview of CA Dams and their Risks. 2.
Preservation Positive LA, Housing Density and More! 3. Advocating for African American Heritage 4. Out of the Box Preservation: Guerilla Documentation and Tactical Advocacy
4+ hours CPF 1.5/9/20 2.5/5/20 3.6/22/20
4.2/23/21
Shepherd 1.A Deep Drive into the SOIS 2.World Architecture 3.CPF Annual Conference
6 hours 4 hours/week/3 months 12 hours
CPF 1.2/20/20 2.3/20-6/20 3.5/18-20/20
Wimmer 1.Intro to Classical Moldings 2.Thoughts-Geometry of Nature 3.On the Boards
4.Rule and Invention Webinar 5.Language of Ornament 6.Watercolor session
1.5hr; 1 hr, 1.5 hr, 2 hr; 1 hr; 1.5 hr ICAA 1.8/26/20 2.7/15/20 3.6/25/20 4.6/17/20
5.9/23/20 6.10/14/20
Makinen 1.Where Wright Went Wrong 2.How to Prepare and Use Historic Context Statements 3.Integrity Asssessments for Conventional/Unconventional Resources
1 hour 3 hours 1 hour
CPF 1.3/23/21 2.9/10/20 3.9/22/20
2.b
Packet Pg. 15
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
7
Pease 1.Preservation Marketing in Crisis;
2.Pixels, Clouds, Points, and Beyond: Survey & Doc Seminar 3.CPF Annual Conference
1 hour 1 hour
12 hours
CPF 1.4/21/20 2.2/11/21
3.5/18-20/20
Bernstein Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here.
Kohler Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here.
Amy French 1.CPF Annual Conference
2.Cabin Fever 3.Santa’s Village
12 hours
1 hour 1 hour
CPF 1.5/18-20/20
2.12/9, 3.12/16
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.
2.b
Packet Pg. 16
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
8
How are you using the survey data? To ensure no demolition permits are issued before properties are studied for Cal Register eligibility. When properties are determined California Register Eligible via these ongoing surveys, a discretionary
review application for modification/demolition is deemed not exempt from CEQA review and building is retained unless SOC with EIR. When Non-California Register Eligible determination, building demolition, substantial remodel is possible. 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
Castilleja School EIR hearings at HRB Draft EIR public hearing at the HRB in 2019, Final EIR public hearing at the HRB enabled public to hear responses to comments and better understand City evaluation of potential historic resources, modifications thereto. Cultural Resources https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72465 Report was included as appendix to and discussed in EIR
9/24/20
Survey Area Context Based- yes/no
Level: Reconnaissance or Intensive
Acreage # of Properties Surveyed
Date Completed Date Submitted to OHP
CLG 18-19 reported study yielding 11 CRHR eligibles
through 2/20. After 2/20, 4 properties were found CRHR eligible, of an
additional 16 properties studied.
no Reconnaissance NA 16 properties studied
2/2020 through 3/2021
2/20-March 2021 April 8, 2021
2.b
Packet Pg. 17
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
9
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, 2019-September 30, 2020) 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 Four
B. Local Register (i.e., Local Landmarks and Historic Districts) Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) 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, 2019-September 30, 2020) 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? Click or tap here to enter text.
2.b
Packet Pg. 18
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
10
Name of Program Number of Properties Added During 2019-2020 Total Number of Properties Benefiting From Program
Mills Act 0 1
D. Local “bricks and mortar” grants/loan program 1. 20uring the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) 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, 2019 to September 30, 2020? NA
Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited
NA Type here.
E. Design Review/Local Regulatory Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) 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, 2019 to September 30, 2020? 100 F. Local Property Acquisition Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) 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, 2019 to September 30, 202020NA
Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited
2.b
Packet Pg. 19
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
11
NA 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 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.
D. What are your local historic preservation goals for 2020-2021? (1) Reviewing modifications to historic resources, including
newly identified California Register Eligible properties, for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, (2)
Implementing Policy L‐7.2 (including conducting evaluations of potentially historic resources and updating City’s GIST
system with resulting determinations with respect to California Register Eligibility) and other policies/programs in the
updated Comprehensive Plan, (3) Working with willing, proactive property owners toward placement of homes on City’s
Inventory, category upgrades, and nominations to NR/CR, (4) Moving forward/completing the HRB subcommittee’s
proposal for a Tailored Mills Act program, and (5) Tracking demolitions of properties GIST system noted as ‘Potentially
Eligible for CRHR in 1998.’
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? Mills Act, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, Historic Building Code Usage
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
2.b
Packet Pg. 20
Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report
(Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)
12
Mills Act, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, Historic Building Code Usage
Workshop, webinar, publication (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 Email to Lucinda.Woodward@parks.ca.gov
2.b
Packet Pg. 21
Last Updated: 3/30/2021
Prepared for CLG 2019-20 Annual Report
Properties Found Eligible for California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
Commercial Properties and Residential Properties (Previously Potentially CRHR Eligible)
During 2019-2020 CLG Period: 6 properties found CRHR Eligible (4 SFR 2 non SFR)
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)
Found ELIGIBLE for California Register of Historic Resources Included in
CLG report
Address GIST status Determined by HRE Received by City Period
1145 Lincoln Ave
003-19-059
(Single-family)
Found CRHR
Eligible
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
7/26/18
17-18
518-526 Bryant St
120-26-061
(Commercial)
Found CRHR
Eligible
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
8/7/18 17-18
1027 Waverley St
120-18-027
(Single-family)
Found CRHR
Eligible
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
9/26/18 17-18
885 College Ave
137-02-002 (Single-
family) Stanford
Found CRHR
Eligible
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
11/21/18 18-19
2140 Yale St
137-01-133 (Single-
family) Stanford
Found CRHR
Eligible
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
1/16/19 18-19
980 Middlefield Rd
120-05-077 (mortuary)
Found CRHR
Eligible
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
1/16/19 18-19
340 Portage Ave and
3201-3225 Ash Street
132-38-071
(Multi-family zone,
retail and office use;
originally a cannery
and associated office)
Found CRHR
Eligible;
(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
18-19
788 San Antonio Rd
147-03-041
(Commercial)
Found CRHR
Eligible P&T
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
3/15/19 18-19
235 Hamilton Ave
120-26-073
(commercial) PA
Inventory Cat 3 and in
Ramona St National
Register District
(Commercial)
Cardinal
Hotel in
historic
district; PT
found
individually
CRHR Eligible
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
10/24/2019
Council upgraded from Cat.
3 to Cat 2 June 2020
19-20
526-534 Waverley
Street
120-15-083
(Commercial)
Toy and
Sport World
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
12/9/2019
Council upgraded from Cat.
3 to Cat. 2 March 2020
(after completion of rehab)
19-20
2.c
Packet Pg. 22
Last Updated: 3/30/2021
2340 Tasso Street
(Single family)
Found CRHR
Eligible P&T
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
1/9/20 19-20
546 Washington
(Single family)
Found CRHR
Eligible P&T
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
2/14/20 19-20
1080 College
(Single family)
Found NR
Eligible
under Crit.
A, (Eligible
for CRHR)
Page and
Turnbull
04/28/20 19-20
359 Embarcadero
(Single family)
Found CRHR
Eligible
Category 4
Professorville
Page and
Turnbull, Inc.
6/15/2020 19-20
759 -763 Homer
(Single family)
Eligible for
CRHR
Page and
Turnbull
12/8/20 20-21
525 University Av
(Commercial)
Eligible for
CRHR
Page and
Turnbull
12/3/20 20-21
Prepared for CLG 2019-20 Annual Report
Properties found Not Eligible for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
Properties noted in 1998 survey as potentially CRHR eligible and commercial properties
During 2019-2020 CLG period: 12 properties found Not CRHR Eligible (11 SFR, 1 non SFR)
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)
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
2.c
Packet Pg. 23
Last Updated: 3/30/2021
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
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
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
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
846 Lytton Ave
003-03-027
(Single-family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull;
201801221
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 12/21/18
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
2080 Cornell St
137-03-022
(Single-family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190116
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/16/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
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
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
1828 Middlefield Rd
120-08-049
(Single-family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190208
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/8/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
2050 Princeton St
137-03-051
(Single-family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190228
Page and Turnbull, Inc 2/28/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
796 San Antonio Rd
147-03-042
(Commercial)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190315
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/15/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
1012 High St
120-30-030
(Single-family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190329
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/29/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
716 San Antonio Rd
147-05-087 (commercial)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190501
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 5/1/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
2135 Emerson St
124-19-086
(Single-family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull, 20190701
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 7/1/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
436 Waverley St
120-15-040
(Single-family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190815
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 8/15/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
567-569 Homer Ave
120-04-074
(Two-Family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190826
Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/26/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
2.c
Packet Pg. 24
Last Updated: 3/30/2021
922 College Ave
137-03-030
(Single-family) Stanford
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190828
Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/28/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
2151 Princeton St
137-03-004
(Single-family) Stanford
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190828
Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/28/19
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
1307 University Ave
003-06-035
(Single- family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20190904
Page and Turnbull, Inc 9/4/2019
Included in #s for 2018-
2019 CLG Report
1630 Castilleja Ave
124-23-028 (Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible
Page and Turnbull, Inc 10/10/19
2019-20 CLG
575 Washington Avenue
124-04-025
(Single-family)
PT found Not CRHR
Eligible)
Page and Turnbull Inc. 12/20/19
2019-20 CLG
425 Middlefield Rd
003-02-024
(Single-family)
PT found Not CRHR
Eligible)
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/9/20
2019-20 CLG
525 Center Drive
003-10-019
(Single-family)
PT found Not CRHR
Eligible)
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/10/20
2019-20 CLG
3337 Ross Road
127-25-017
(Single-family)
PT found Not CRHR
Eligible)
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/10/20
2019-20 CLG
531 Center Drive
003-10-018
(Single Family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible; 20200313
VerPlanck and
peer review by Page
and Turnbull, Inc.
3/13/2020
2019-20 CLG
1078 Forest Avenue
003-21-070
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible 20200330
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/30/2020
2019-20 CLG
1241 Dana Avenue
003-20-024
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible 20200403
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 4/2/2020
2019-20 CLG
2280 Williams Street
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible
Page and Turnbull 7/1/20
2019-20 CLG
1633 Portola
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible
Page and Turnbull 6/30/20
2019-20 CLG
305 N California
(Church)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible
Page and Turnbull 6/10/20
2019-20 CLG
1550 Waverley
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible 20200826
Page and Turnbull 08/26/20
2019-20 CLG
904 Ramona Street
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible; 20201110
Page and Turnbull 11/11/20
2020-21 CLG
635 – 637 Webster St
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible; 20201222
Page and Turnbull 12/22/20
2020-21 CLG
1465 Edgewood
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible; 20201229
Page and Turnbull 12/29/20
2020-21 CLG
2.c
Packet Pg. 25
Last Updated: 3/30/2021
340 Coleridge Ave
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible; 20201221
Page and Turnbull 12/21/20
2020-21 CLG
265 Coleridge Ave
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible; 20210127
Page and Turnbull 01/27/21
2020-21 CLG
1400 Cowper St
(Single-family)
Contributor
Professorville. PT
Found Not CRHR
Eligible; 20210128
Page and Turnbull 01/28/21
2020-21 CLG
575 N. California Ave
(Single-family)
PT Found Not CRHR
Eligible; 20200922
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 09/22/2020
2020-21 CLG
1144 Forest Ave
(Single-family)
Found Not CRHR
Eligible by Page
Turnbull; 20210308
Page and Turnbull, Inc. 03/08/2021
2020-21 CLG
2.c
Packet Pg. 26
HRB meeting minutes links for CLG reporting period October 2019 through September 2020
September 24, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80353
May 14, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78447
April 9, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76590
February 13, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76071
December 12, 2019: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75146
2.d
Packet Pg. 27
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 12187)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/8/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Review of Boards and Commission Handbook
Title: Review the City of Palo Alto’s Boards, Commissions, and
Committees Handbook, and discuss implementation of its
contents
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s):
Receive and review the City of Palo Alto’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook.
Report Summary
This report summarizes some of the changes in protocol and practice required by the City
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook. Staff means to implement the changes into
the HRB’s operations.
Background
On November 30, 2020, the City Council adopted a new City Boards, Commissions, and
Committees Handbook1. Important aspects of the handbook are summarized below.
Staff Liaison
• The staff liaisons provide a critical role for the City and serve as the link between City
staff, City Council, and Commissioners.
• The staff liaison’s responsibilities include:
o Prepares the monthly meeting agendas.
o Coordinates, distributes, and post all agendas, ensuring public participation.
o Adjourns the meeting if there is a lack of quorum 15 minutes after start time.
o Facilitates the transmission of the HRB’s interests, concerns, and
recommendations to the City Manager and City Council.
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=65426.43&BlobID=80213
3
Packet Pg. 28
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Council Liaison
• The HRB should act independently in formulating recommendations for the City Council
to consider.
• It is improper for Council Liaisons to direct, guide, or unduly influence the policy
recommendations of the Commission.
HRB Members’ Responsibilities and Code of Conduct
• Annual mandatory review of the handbook.
o Submit signed review to staff liaison.
• Propose annual work plan for Council review and adoption.
• Endeavor to attend all scheduled meetings. An attendance report will be submitted to
City Council annually.
• If HRB members miss more than one-third of scheduled meetings, this will be reported
to Council and may result in removal from the HRB.
• HRB members are held to a high standard as representatives of the community. HRB
members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, hostile body language,
disrespectful language or verbal attacks, intentional or unintentional, upon the
characters of others.
• The City prohibits all forms of harassment and discrimination based upon protected
classifications.
• The Chair is expected to intercede when another Boardmember violates the code of
conduct.
• HRB members are eligible to serve two successive full terms on the same board or
commission (partial terms of two years or less do not count towards limit). HRB
members are ineligible to be reappointed to the same board or commission for two
years after expiration of the second successive full term.
• Letters of resignation must be addressed to City Council and submitted to the staff
liaison and City Clerk.
• Chair Elections will occur at the beginning of the year.
o Staff will return later this year to modify the HRB Bylaws so elections can take
place in January 2022.
The HRB can postpone the election until January 2022, which would maintain the current chair
and vice chair, or can choose to hold elections to determine chair and vice chair for the
remainder of 2021.
Work Plan
• The HRB is expected to prepare an annual work plan by the second quarter of the
calendar year.
• The work plan should include information on equity in the work.
• City Council will review the work plan and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City
Council meeting.
3
Packet Pg. 29
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
• The work plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan, metrics of community
involvement in meetings, and activities included in the HRB’s work.
• The handbook has a template for work plan development.
• If new issues arise during the year, the work plan should be amended and forwarded to
Council for review and approval.
Removal
• HRB members serve at the pleasure of City Council. Council reserves the right to remove
one or more HRB members at any time for any reason.
• HRB members are not entitled to any process in the event Council removes them from
service.
Public Meetings and Legal Requirements
• HRB members should be aware of the Brown Act and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.
• HRB members should not participate in matters where they have a financial or other
significant non-financial interest. The City Attorney’s Office can assist with questions on
conflicts of interest.
• HRB members should be attending AB 1234 training.
• Documents created by public officials are public records that must be made available to
requester unless an exception applies.
o This includes personal phone if a member conducts City business on the phone.
• Be professional in your communications. If someone asks for public records, contact the
staff liaison promptly.
Media Inquiries and Social Media Use
• Inform the chief communications officer of media inquiries. The chief communications
officer is available to provide advice and guidance.
• The Chair can be the spokesperson or the chief communications officer is available to
field the media inquiry on behalf of the Chair.
• Accepting an interview or providing a statement via email should be based on the
Chair’s comfort level with interacting with media.
• Comments on behalf of the HRB should only include information about the
Commission’s role in the policy issue media is asking about.
• Discourage sharing specific opinions on upcoming HRB discussions or commenting on
other HRB member social media posts on topics that the Commission is discussing.
• Encourage attendance to the public meeting, rather than discussing in detail
Commission actions via social media.
The City Manager’s Office provided a training on the new handbook to HRB members on March
24, 2021. Chair and Vice Chair training was provided on March 31, 2021. The video will be made
available to HRB members.
3
Packet Pg. 30
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
Analysis2
The expectation is that Boards and Commissions will adapt to align their practices with the
Handbook. While some of the changes in the Handbook require legislation to be considered and
approved by the Council, some require changes in bylaws and other non-legislative changes.
Staff have reviewed the Handbook and compared its contents to the operations of the HRB.
Table 1, below, presents the differences between the Handbook and HRB current procedural
practices. Table 1 also recommends adjustments to implement the Handbook’s direction.
Table 1: Handbook v Current HRB Bylaws and Practices
Handbook Current HRB Practice Adjustment
Recommended
Verbatim minutes are
discouraged.
Minutes are verbatim. Direct transcriptionist to
provide action summary
minutes.
An attendance report will be
submitted to Council every year.
Current practice is to provide
attendance report at time of re-
appointment consideration.
Staff will submit a yearly
attendance report to
Council.
Boards and Commissions need to
submit a yearly work plan for
Council approval.
Typically, an annual retreat; but
no work plan submitted to
Council.
HRB to submit a yearly
work plan for Council
approval.
Staff liaison will adjourn the
meeting if there is a lack of
quorum 15 minutes after start
time.
Not specified how long the HRB
should wait for quorum prior to
commencement of a meeting.
Staff liaison will adjourn
the meeting if there is a
lack of quorum 15
minutes after start time.
Terms to begin on November 1. Terms begin on December 16. Council to make
legislative change to Palo
Alto Municipal Code
Chapters 2.16 and 2.27.
Members are eligible to serve
two successive full terms on the
same board or commission
(partial terms of two years or
less do not count towards limit).
Members are ineligible to be
reappointed to the same board
or commission for two years
after expiration of the second
No term limit. Council to make
legislative change to Palo
Alto Municipal Code
Chapters 2.16 and 2.27.
2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public
testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an
alternative action from the recommended action.
3
Packet Pg. 31
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
successive full term.
Letters of resignation must be
addressed to City Council and
submitted to staff liaison and
City Clerk.
Not specified. Future resignations shall
be addressed to City
Council and submitted to
Staff Liaison and City
Clerk.
Chair election will occur at the
beginning of the year.
HRB Bylaws call for elections in
October.
Modify HRB Bylaws to
have elections at the
beginning of the year,
starting 2022.
Mandatory training shall be
provided to all board and
commission members through a
collaboration between the
Offices of the City Attorney, City
Clerk, and City Manager.
Department staff provide
orientation for new HRB
members. The proposed
training will be in addition to
the department training.
Training was provided to
HRB members on March
24, 2021. Chair and Vice
Chair training was
provided on March 31,
2021. The video will be
made available to HRB
members.
All HRB members are required to sign a yearly statement confirming that they have read the
handbook and will follow its guidelines. Staff will coordinate the signed statement via DocuSign.
Environmental Review
This report is not a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Report Author & Contact Information HRB3 Liaison & Contact Information
Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate Amy French, Chief Planning Official
(650) 329-2218 (650) 329-2336
vinhloc.nguyen@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 32
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 12175)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 4/8/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes February 25, 2021
Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of
February 25, 2021
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 25, 2021
Attachments:
• Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes February 25, 2021 (DOCX)
4
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair David Bower, Board Members Martin Bernstein, Michael Makinen, Christian Pease,
Margaret Wimmer, Roger Kohler
Absent: Vice Chair Deborah Shepherd
Oral Communications
Chair Bower: We’ll start the meeting with Oral Communications. Anyone who wishes to speak on any
non-agendized item will have three minutes to make a statement. In order to do that, raise your hand
and Vinh will recognize you and start the timer. Do we have any people raising their hands, Vinh?
Mr. Vinh Nguyen: Chair Bower, we do not have any speakers for oral communications.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bower: Okay, let’s move on to Agenda Changes, Additions or Deletions. I think there is one agenda
change. This is the last meeting of the 2020 Historic Resources Board, and it’s also the last meeting for
Roger, so we want to take this opportunity to recognize Roger’s service to the City of Palo Alto. Roger
and I have been friends for decades. I met Roger first in 1979. He wasn’t yet on the Historic Resources
Board, but he joined it shortly thereafter. He joined in 1994, and I understand that he is the longest
serving person on any board or any council in the history of Palo Alto. That’s saying something, because
Palo Alto was run when I was a child by a group of people that seemed never to leave. I think it’s
astounding that any person would offer their time and their expertise for 27 years, and I think the city is
better off for it. Roger will be remembered for a number of accomplishments. I think he will end up being
the second most prolific architect in the city’s history. Only after Joe Eichler, who actually was a builder,
but generated more buildings than any other person in the city’s history. Roger has his footprint all over
the city in a wide variety of architectural styles, and he’s brought his architectural experience to our
board for years, and in fact, encouraged me to join – I hate to say it – years and years ago. It’s over a
decade now. Anyway, I want to recognize and thank you, Roger, for your unrelenting service. It’s not
going to happen again. We’ve got new rules in place, and we have term limits, which I think were
carefully vetted and put into place by the last Council. At any rate, anyone else who would like to make a
comment about Roger’s service, I’d be happy to recognize. Allison?
Council Member Cormack: Mr. Kohler, it is my pleasure to be here to today, and to congratulate you on
your retirement from this Board and thank you for so many years of service on behalf of our Council and
all of the other councils you’ve served, and all the people in the community. Really, I hope you will
always reflect on this service with pride, and know that you go with our appreciation and gratitude.
Board Member Kohler: Do I talk?
Chair Bower: Well, you can. Let me see if there’s…Martin would like to say something. Martin?
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: February 25, 2021
Virtual Teleconference Meeting
8:30 A.M.
4.a
Packet Pg. 34
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Board Member Bernstein: Hi. Roger, as you know, throughout the history of the HRB, there have been
some times when emotions get a little higher based on possible restrictions that owners perceive. You
would always bring in some pleasant story to actually lighten up the mood. That’s, I think, one of the
talents and gifts you brought to the HRB, so again, thank you for your service.
Chair Bower: Great. Margaret?
Board Member Wimmer: I’d like to chime in and agree with Martin. Your historic stories and little life
experiences that you’ve had that you’ve shared during our hearings is so charming and endearing. I’ve
always enjoyed working next to you on the Board, and I’ve also enjoyed being a colleague of yours out in
the design world. Congratulations on all the wonderful years, and thank you so much for sharing your
expertise. Our Board was so much stronger because of it, so Roger, please accept our gratitude. We
really appreciate your work.
Chair Bower: Thanks, Margaret. Michael, your hand is up.
Board Member Makinen: Yes, Roger, it’s been a pleasure working with you, and we’ll miss you. It’s been
great contributions that you’ve made over the years, and we’re going to miss your great experience.
Chair Bower: Thanks, Michael. I would like to add that one of the benefits of having Roger on the Board
has been his photography collection. He has photographed…He’s an avid photographer, and in the old
days when we actually had film, he took pictures of everything. In the digital era, he still takes pictures,
but it’s a little harder to share them with the group, but he would frequently bring in pictures he had
gathered together of Palo Alto at a time when it was really booming in development. He provided a kind
of backdrop for a number of our reviews that just isn’t possible for probably anybody but Roger, who has
taken all these photos. It’s been a really significant contribution you’ve made, Roger, and I hope when
we go back to meeting in the Council Chambers that you will come and bring that same wisdom as a
citizen to the Board again.
Ms. French: I have a few slides to show if anyone would like to see some field trips we took with the
Board.
Chair Bower: Sure. Please share.
Ms. French: All right. Unless there’s another member who would like to speak.
Chair Bower: I think Christian is the only one that hasn’t spoken and there’s no –
Board Member Pease: I can’t find my hand here, for some reason, but I just wanted to say
congratulations, Roger, and my only regret is you won’t be around to help me learn more.
Chair Bower: Thank you, Christian.
Ms. French: Okay, I’m going to share my screen. Remember the Chambers? We used to have meetings
there. Roger, I believe, started in 1994 on the HRB, when we used to have pictures hanging on the wall.
And here is just a few memories, recent memories. We had a couple field trips. They were fun. We went
to the Junior Museum and Zoo and saw the construction there last December. The December before, we
were at HRB Member Shepherd’s home. We did have a visit to the Girl Scout House. I couldn’t find that
photo. We weren’t there that long ago. And then, we had a field trip up to San Francisco to celebrate the
Rinconada Library that won a CPF award a number of years ago.
Mr. Nguyen: Amy, if you don’t mind me chiming in real quick, at the top of your screen there’s a button
that says, “Display Settings,” you click on “Swap.”
4.a
Packet Pg. 35
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Ms. French: Okay, that’s better. So then, here’s another photo we had when Roger went over to the
webinar or seminar in Oakland with his colleagues here. That’s what I have for our little photograph
display. I should go back to the other one so you can see it better. Roger, thank you for your service. It’s
been a great time having you all these years. I’m going to stop sharing.
Board Member Kohler: I got lost a little bit there. Thank you.
Chair Bower: How about a round of applause?
[applause]
Chair Bower: It’s deafening here. All right. Congratulations, Roger. Once again, you’ve made history in
Palo Alto. There will be more.
Board Member Kohler: I just want to thank you all for everything that you all helped [gap in recording] in
and out with stuff to display, and check on you.
Chair Bower: Okay, we’re looking forward to it.
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments.
Chair Bower: Okay, let’s move on to the next agenda item, C, Official Reports. we’re going to have a
review of the meeting schedule. This is our first meeting in five months. Amy, do you have any thoughts
about future meeting schedule?
Ms. French: I do. I would like to meet at the end of March, next month. I anticipate receiving an update
from the Office of Historic Preservation as to when our annual CLG report is due. Last year it was due in
April. Due to COVID sheltering conditions, they extended the deadline, and I haven’t heard a peep from
them about the deadline this year, so I’m imagining it’s also in April. But I’m prepared to get that report
to you in March. We’ll touch upon it today as a study session, and then next month, we’ll have the full
report to see.
Chair Bower: All right, so on March 25th we’ll look forward to those materials. So, there will not be a
meeting on March 11th. Is that right?
Ms. French: Correct. We really don’t have enough projects coming through to have more than one
meeting a month, and under these conditions, it’s been much less than that.
Chair Bower: Yes, I totally understand that.
2. Official Report: Black History Month Awareness and Opportunities
Chair Bower: All right. The second item is a report on Black History Month, and we’re fortunate today to
actually be reviewing a project that has significance for Black History in Palo Alto. (crosstalk) Do you want
to say something about that?
Ms. French: I’m just going to share my screen again, and then invite…I don’t know if there’s any
attendees. Maybe Vinh can have a look. Go ahead and say what you’re going to say while I figure out the
sharing.
Chair Bower: Vinh, is there anyone?
Mr. Nguyen: We do have one hand raised, yes.
Chair Bower: Why don’t we recognize that while Amy is working to share her screen?
4.a
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Vinh: In that case, we’re going to need Veronica to share her screen and put up the speaker timer.
Actually, it looks like this person has lowered their hand, so I guess trying to speak to the next item,
most likely.
[Zoom technical issues]
Council Member Cormack: Would it be helpful if I just gave a little Council perspective on this work that
we’re doing while you’re doing that?
Ms. French: Sure. Yes, please.
Council Member Cormack: I don’t know how much…If you haven’t met in five months, you might not
have had much input from your Council Liaison last year about the work that we’re doing around race
and equity and diversity. One of the things that we’re doing – it’s referenced in the report – is we’ve just
completed a 21-day racial equity challenge. It’s still available if you’re interested in doing it, so about 15
minutes each day. We also had the Human Relations Commission work on the Black and Brown Lived
Experience in Palo Alto. If you haven’t had a chance to look through that document, it’s the second bullet
here. I encourage you to do it. There’s some stories from people that are tough to read and tough to
hear about. When I met with Ms. French in the transition, I asked if there were ways that we could
connect Black History Month and the work that we’re doing here. Of course, the current Chair of the
Human Relations Commission is the Pastor of the AME Zion Church, which is now located on Middlefield.
So, there’s a lot of connections there, and I think this is an opportunity for the HRB to take a look at how
we can all participate. Happy to answer any questions if you have any. The other thing I should say is
that Paulsan [phonetic] Services will be reviewing the diversity, race and equity work going forward. That
will include work with employees. It will probably also include training for Commissioners, et cetera.
Looks like Amy hasn’t shared yet, so I’ve got one more public service announcement. Chair Bower
referenced the work we did on Boards and Commissions last year. A lot of that work was really around
figuring out how to have a better experience for all of you, and one of the things we’re going to do is do
some training, for all board members and commissioners and for chairs and vice chairs. Now, many of
you have been serving for so long, and I’m sure you’re very comfortable with how we do things, but
when we bring new commissioners on, it’s important that we help them figure out how do it. All right.
That concludes my public service announcement.
Chair Bower: It doesn’t have to, but thank you for sharing that. Vinh, you have put up…I’m not sure what
this is. Do you want to describe it for us?
Ms. French: I had sent this to Vinh, because I was having difficulty. This is just an image I found in a
past slide show. I think Emily Vance, who was so good at unearthing some black and white photos, I
liked this, so I put it on for today’s meeting. It’s a yo-yo demonstration from 1953. Anyway, AME Zion
Church, which is National Registered. We have Page and Turnbull today, who is serving as the applicant’s
architect and historic consultant. We did invite folks from the AME Zion Church, and we’re hoping they
were able to pop in today, but it is early in the morning, and there wasn’t a huge role for them, so I
understand. This is a cherished treasure in our community. It was rehabbed a few years are, more than a
few years ago, as part of a project. We have the same owner here today to represent, and we have
Danielle Condit, who is going to present the next slide. She is a planner that we have brought into the
Historic Preservation Program. She’s doing a great job helping with the many projects. During COVID,
we’ve had a lot of property sales, still continuing, and people are interested in fixing up their older
homes. We’ve been quite busy over this past year. Vinh, if you could forward to the next slide, and then
I’ll introduce Danielle.
Chair Bower: Amy, if I could just interject here for a second. We’re now in Item 3 in our agenda, under
Action Items. I think I need to read the public hearing announcement.
Action Items
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 819 Ramona Street [21PLN-00015]: Request for Historic
Resources Board Review of a Minor Architectural Review Application for Consistency with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Project Includes the Installation of a New Ridge Skylight
and Four New Windows at the Rear Elevation at the AME Zion Church, Classified as a Local Historic
Resource Category III, and listed on the California Register of Historical Resources and deemed
4.a
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto Page 5
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Zone District: AMF (MUO). Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 (Historical
Resource Rehabilitation). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at
danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Bower: Now please continue, Danielle, and I apologize for the interruption.
Ms. Danielle Condit: No worries at all. Good morning, everyone. My name is Danielle Condit. I am
Associate Planner here with the City of Palo Alto. So happy to be here with everyone today. The project
we brought forward is located at 819 Ramona Street. It is the former location of the University AME Zion
Church. The congregation was located here for 40 years before it was relocated to 3549 Middlefield in
1965. As Amy mentioned, we did reach out to Reverend Smith from the congregation. A special hello to
anyone who may be out there watching with us today. We’re here today to discuss the proposed
improvements. They are located on the rear façade of the existing church, outside of the public right-of-
way view. The applicant is proposing to include four new window openings and a low profile ridge
skylight. We do not have an historic planner here on staff, but we are referring to the Historic Resources
Board for guidance on the compliance with the SISR. I will pass the presentation on to the project
applicant, Page and Turnbull, so they can move forward with the project details.
Chair Bower: Thank you, Danielle. I can’t see who is representing Page and Turnbull here in my screen.
Ms. Elisa Skaggs: Hi there. My name is Elisa Skaggs. I’m with Page and Turnbull. We’re the architect for
this project, for the alterations to the University African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the AME
Church. First of all, I want to say thank you very much, and hello to the Board.
Chair Bower: Thank you. I couldn’t see you, so I apologize for not knowing your name.
Ms. Skaggs: Not a problem.
Chair Bower: Please continue.
Ms. Skaggs: Okay. Just to give you, again, a look at the background. It sounds like you are already well-
versed, but the AME Church was constructed in 1925, and it has been determined to be eligible to be
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is listed in the California Register of Historic Places.
Also, it is a contributing building on Palo Alto’s Historic Resource Inventory. It has a period of significance
of 1925 to 1965. That is when it was occupied by the African American Palo Altans in the City. This
photograph, by the way, dates from 1964. It is of the front façade of the building. We reviewed the
project and have identified character-defining features that really give the building its unique historic
value. They include, among others, the symmetrical massing of the primary façade, the stucco cladding,
the steeply-pitched roof at both the main roof and the bell tower, the triangular leaded glass window
that’s on the front gable. Also, the segmented arched openings along the primary façade, the bell tower,
the open front porch, the original and restored leaded glass windows, and the concrete steps to the entry
portal. The goal for this project is to allow more light into the interior space. As I mentioned before, the
building has leaded glass windows that are amber in color and don’t allow as much light as we would like
to have in that space. We’d like to bring in more light and make it more attractive for future tenants. We
propose to do this by adding a new ridge skylight, and also some windows at the back façade. These are
the plans that show the work. This is the roof plan. On the left, we have the existing plan that shows the
portion of the roof that we plan to demo. That’s right in here. We’ll have to demo a little bit more to get
the waterproofing, the sheeting of the roofing material for the roof. Then, on the right is a plan showing
the skylight. These are elevations of the front façade of the building. On the left is the existing, and on
the right is the west elevation. It shows what the building will look like with the new ridge skylight. And
the north elevation, and again, on the left is the existing and on the right is the proposed new skylight.
We think that this is pretty minimal in terms of interventions. I think this slide is pretty informative. It
shows a perspective view of the building from the street. On the left is the existing condition, and then
on the right is the proposed condition. We sketched out what the skylight will look like. Again, pretty light
touch. Let’s go to the window. We’re proposing four windows along the rear of the façade in this location.
This is the existing plan, and then this is the proposed plan. This shows the elevation of the rear façade.
This is where we would be removing, making openings for the new windows, which will be 7 feet in
height and 30 inches in width. Four of them, and they will be fixed windows with clear glass. We have
4.a
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto Page 6
analyzed these alterations against the Secretary of the Interior Standards, and we believe that we comply
with the Standards. The skylight will be only minimally visible, and it will not disrupt the overall form and
massing of the building. It is something that is reversible, so if we decide to remove those skylights, we
can bring the building back to its original condition. The same thing with the rear windows. They will not
be visible at all from the street, so will not impact it in that way. They are also compatible with the other
windows in size and proportion and materials. They will be differentiated through their simple design, so
someone can recognize that they are not part of the building’s original fabric, and therefore will not
create any sort of false historicism. They are reversible. Thank you very much. I’ll just stop there, and if
there are any questions, we’re happy to address them.
Chair Bower: I’m sure Board Members have some questions. I’d like to ask you a couple of questions,
just for the record. The skylight on the roof, thank you for that comparison of photos. I think the skylight
will probably be smaller in impact visually than your drawing. What’s the material, and what’s the color?
I’m assuming it will be some kind of aluminum.
Ms. Skaggs: It is going to be an aluminum skylight. It’s going to be a single prefabricated ridge skylight
that’s going to be about 6 feet wide by 10 feet in length. It will be a dark material, so that it does not
stand out from the color of the roof, a gray.
Chair Bower: Yeah, so it’s probably anodized bronze, which in the photo on the right, both of these
photos, you can see the new building beyond the church has a bronze-colored metal façade. That’s
probably the color, you think?
Ms. Skaggs: Yeah, I think that we probably will look at mockups as we get into construction, just to make
sure that that is not something that stands out. We want to bring light into the building, but we want
something that can integrate with both the form, and that will be through the skylight that follows the
form of the roof, and then also through color. We’ll be looking, just to make sure we get a good match
for that.
Chair Bower: Sure. On a similar question about the windows that are being added on the rear, I note that
they are aluminum cladding, which I highly approve of, because that encourages and promotes long-term
survival. What color do you anticipate there?
Ms. Skaggs: I’m anticipating that we will have an anodized bronze color. Again, we’re going to look at
mockups and that sort of thing, just to make sure we get a good match, but it will be a dark color. We’ll
try to be compatible with the existing color of the other windows.
Chair Bower: Yeah, I’m looking at the window colors, and that’s not bronze, so I’m wondering –
Ms. Skaggs: Right. It’s lighter. I think that as we get into construction we’ll take out the colors – it’s a
Marvin window – and have something that’s compatible.
Chair Bower: Okay, and the last question I have is, I didn’t see on the plans the size of the existing
windows, width and height. Do you know what that is?
Ms. Skaggs: I am not sure, but we do have Steve Lee with us, and he may know the size of the existing
windows.
Mr. Steve Lee: Hi. Steve Lee with Page and Turnbull. The height is 7 feet. Basically, we’re trying to match
that height and basically match the sill height and the head height. I don’t recall off the top of my head
what the width of the windows is. I’m kind of going from memory. I think it’s about 4-foot-6, or 5 feet
wide.
Chair Bower: Yeah, it looks to me like it might be 4-foot-6, or 5 feet. That would make it almost a square
if they’re 7 feet wide. Okay, the reason I’m asking the question is, you’ve selected narrower windows by,
I think, design, and I’m just curious as to why that width was selected.
Ms. Skaggs: Part of it is just to make sure that we introduce something that does not dominate the
space. When we alter a building, things that we look for are ways to make the new feature with the
compatible with the existing, but not dominate or compete with what’s already there. So, we did want
them to be subordinate to the existing. We think that matching the height is a good idea, but we thought
4.a
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto Page 7
that by making them narrower, that it would differentiate them and then also make them subordinate to
those wonderful, large, amber windows.
Chair Bower: Sure. Thank you. Just the answer I was looking for. All right, any other Board Members
have any comments or questions?
Board Member Pease: I have a question. It’s a very unscientific one, but I’m just curious, on average, the
amount of light, by these modifications, being increased in the space. How would you split that amount
between the skylight and the four windows in the back?
Ms. Skaggs: That’s a good question. The windows that we propose to put in are going to have clear
glass. I mentioned, we’ve been there a couple different times, and we absolutely have to have just the
regular light in the space, because the natural light that comes in is just not very much. But as far as
technical information, how much light we’re going to actually bring in, I don’t have that. We can probably
reach out to the manufacturer to get more information on that, but I don’t have that. But again, light
coming from the top and then at the north façade, I think, will add just a nicer quality and just bring in
just that much more light into the space to make it more desirable and keep this building in use. One
thing that we are pleased about is that the building has been kept in just really good condition. We want
to keep it in good condition, and also keep it in use. I think that adding these windows will add a lot of
value to the space.
Chair Bower: Great, thank you. Martin, you have a question?
Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Thank you, and thank you, Elisa. The glazing finish of the skylight – is that
proposed to be clear, frosted or tinted?
Ms. Skaggs: That is supposed to be clear.
Board Member Bernstein: Okay, thanks. The reason I’m asking that is, when you look at how the sunlight
would be coming in, if the floor is of a certain age, will there end up being fading of the interior finishes,
particularly the floor? And would that be a concern from any historic preservation concern?
Ms. Skaggs: I don’t think that that’s going to be an issue. I don’t know whether you have some of the
spec information, Steve, to respond to that.
Mr. Lee: Well, in terms of the sun path, we have a very large skylight well, so we don’t anticipate that
there’s going to be much direct sunlight coming in and directly impacting any of the historic finishes on
the inside. I believe that the finishes may have been redone in the previous renovation. I can’t remember
if the floor is the historic floor, but that has also been redone. In any case, we don’t anticipate direct sun
hitting the floor or any of the finishes, due to the large size of the skylight well, and also the exposed
trusses that will be visible within it.
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you so much. When it comes time to talk about the Secretary of the
Interior Standards, I’ll have comments on that, when you’re ready, Chair Bower.
Chair Bower: I think we’ll do that in discussion phase. Other questions? I see another hand up by Jane
Vaughan.
Ms. Jane Vaughan: I’m the property owner, and I was in charge of doing the renovation. That floor is all
new, because what was there when we started the renovation was minimal flooring left, but enough for
us to see what it looked like, so we duplicated it.
Chair Bower: Great. Welcome, by the way, and thank you for preserving this building. Any other Board
Members have questions for Elisa?
Board Member Wimmer: I have a question. Sorry, I don’t see where I can raise my hand. I see that there
is a plaque on the front elevation, to the left of the stairs, and I was just wondering, there’s no detail of
what that plaque says. I’m just wondering if that gives reference to the AME Zion Church in order to help
maintain the history and explain to the public what the original building was. Is that what that plaque is
all about?
Ms. Skaggs: Jane, do you want to take that one?
4.a
Packet Pg. 40
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Ms. Vaughan: Yes. We worked with the AME Zion Church, largely their historian, Ruth Anne Gray, to
come up with the wording that they wanted on there. I can pull it up on the screen if you’re interested,
or just email it over to Danielle. I think I sent it to you, Elisa, right?
Ms. Skaggs: Yeah, you did. I may even have it up. I’m not sure. I think I have to stop share and then re-
share. Are folks interested in taking a look at that?
Chair Bower: We can circle back if it takes you some time to find it. Otherwise, we’ll wait. Michael, do you
have any…? I can’t see you on my screen, but do you have any questions for this phase?
Board Member Makinen: I just have one question. In the report there’s mention made of when it went to
the Building Department, a T24 submittal. I have no idea what a T24 submittal is.
Chair Bower: It’s an energy calculation. Amy could probably weigh in on that.
Board Member Makinen: It would be nice if on these reports, if they referenced some of those documents
and procedures, that there’s a little explanation given to those of us who are maybe less familiar with the
building requirements. It’s on page 12.
Ms. French: Title 24 is what that stands for. It’s part of the Building Code.
Board Member Bernstein: I just kind of hate when things are thrown out like that, assuming that
everybody knows what they are, and obviously people do not know what they are.
Ms. French: Sure. We’ll make sure we spell it out in the future.
Chair Bower: I’d like to, once again, advocate for not printing tree protection things in these plans that
were presented to boards. That’s a gigantic waste of paper. That’s important for the final submission. I
don’t know if that’s a requirement in the City, but that requirement ought to be changed, so we don’t
waste paper. We all are here not to evaluate whether the trees are protected, but whether this project
works within the parameters of our review. I now see we have the plaque that’s on the front of the
building up here, so we can move to that and give people some time to read it.
Board Member Wimmer: I appreciate that that’s there. I think that really preserves the history of the
building to some regard, so I really appreciate seeing that
Chair Bower: Yeah, so do I. I think these plaques actually add to the history of any city, and Palo Alto in
this case, in particular, in that anybody walking by there can actually understand the significance of the
building. I’d like to see more of these on other buildings that have significance in our history. Thank you,
Elisa. I think every Board Member has asked questions. I need to ask if there are any people in the public
who wish to comment at this phase. Vinh?
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower, we currently do not have any raised hands.
Chair Bower: Okay, well we may come back after we have our discussion. Let’s close this open portion
and bring it back to the Board and have a discussion of the issues that are before us. One is we need to
determine that the project is in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and that we
recommend to the City Council that this be considered to meet those requirements. Discussion by Board
Members? Martin, why don’t you lead off?
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Bower. I’d like to make reference to the requirement for the
Secretary of the Interior Standards, condition number 9, where it talks about any exterior alterations to
be differentiated and compatible in terms of the features of those new proposed items. Amy, are you
going to put up the sketch that I presented to you? If not, I can hold up the original drawing.
Ms. French: Yes. That’s Vinh helping out.
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you so much. Certainly, the differentiation is occurring with the windows
as proposed. You can see on the right side of the screen, that’s the proposed window, where there are
no muntins at all. On the left, you can see the existing muntin pattern of the historic windows. So,
certainly what is being proposed compared to the historic windows, certainly differentiation occurs. But
where is the compatibility? My thinking is that if there can be some muntin pattern introduced into the
new windows, just so there’s some compatibility between the new and the old, certainly there would still
4.a
Packet Pg. 41
City of Palo Alto Page 9
be the differentiation. But to have muntins on the old and then zero muntins on the new, I don’t see the
compatibility. Easy to make differentiation, but where’s the compatibility? So, my suggestion – I’d like to
hear other Board Members’ comments on this, or perhaps even the applicant also, to discuss – the
thoughts about getting some compatibility in by adding some muntin bars so that there’s some
relationship to the old. That’s my question for the Board Members and the applicant.
Board Member Wimmer: If I could go next, I’d like to continue with Martin’s thoughts on the windows. I
do agree that the new proposed windows seem to be…I think they could be more compatible. My initial
thought was to do a pattern of three windows and have them the same size as the existing windows,
because if you look on the side elevations, it seems like there’s a pattern of three of these windows.
Maybe make them the same size as the original windows on the side, have three of them, but
maybe…I’m not so concerned about the muntins and the breakup of the windowpanes, but I feel like if at
least they could be the same size, and I would suggest maybe three instead of four. I feel like that’s
another option to gain compatibility, and then if you want to do the muntin pattern, I would support that.
But then, I think a simplified muntin pattern, like maybe what Martin is suggesting, would be good. But
for me, I think it’s the size of the windows, and I think a pattern of three would look more compatible to
me.
[crosstalk]
Chair Bower: Hold on, Christian. I’ll get to it. Elisa, I want to go through all the Board Members, and then
we’ll hear from you. So Christian, go ahead.
Board Member Pease: I went and took a look at this. I’m actually comfortable with the design as
proposed. I walked around this building. In the back, there is really very little visibility to it. There are air
conditioning units and so forth. I was unable to get into the building. I really hoped that I could have
done that, but I can understand that it’s probably relatively dark in there as it exists now. I see a good
purpose in adding the light, so I’m fine with it the way it is, but I could go either way as well. Thank you.
Chair Bower: Great, thanks, Christian. Michael, your comments, if you have any?
[Zoom difficulties]
Chair Bower: While we’re waiting to see if Michael wants to make comments, I have looked at the
exterior elevations. Obviously, as all of us have, and like the fact that are four window there. I think
that’s a differentiation that is acceptable to me. I do have the same issue about the divisions. There is, to
my view, a stark differentiation between a single light window that size, and all the other windows on the
building, at least as represented by the plans, are divided. So, I think Martin has a point that it might be
useful to have some division in these new windows. It doesn’t have to be extensive or certainly anywhere
near as elaborate as the other windows. In fact, it shouldn’t be. I would be inclined to see some change
to this single light provision. Michael, are you there?
Board Member Makinen: Sorry.
Chair Bower: Comments?
Board Member Makinen: On the windows?
Chair Bower: Yes. Or anything.
Board Member Makinen: The comment on the skylight, I think they do hearken back to kind of an
industrial type of look. I think I’ve seen that type of skylight on old factories, so I think it’s very in
keeping with an older building. I wouldn’t call it contemporary. So, I think the skylight has good
compatibility with that building.
Chair Bower: Any thoughts on the window compatibility issue?
Board Member Makinen: I think some valid points have been made. I’m not a real hard over opinion on
having the compatibility stressed. I think they’re very difficult to see from the public view, so I think what
has been proposed is adequate. I think the skylight, though, I much prefer the look that they have
proposed, rather than flat panels that would be sticking up, because it does have more of, I would
consider, like a classical industrial look to it.
4.a
Packet Pg. 42
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chair Bower: Yeah, actually, I agree with you on that. Okay, Elisa, I’m sorry to have put you in the line
last, but share your thoughts with us.
Ms. Skaggs: Sure, let me just go back to sharing my screen. Let me just flip through this. I think that the
comments that have been offered are valid. I think there is a way to introduce more muntins in a way
that’s respectful and still differentiate from the existing. The existing windows do have that lead paning in
them, and if we introduce muntins, they would hearken to the look of having almost a multi-light
window. We would be open to doing this. Here’s an option that shows a four-over-two configuration that
would have 5/8 wood muntins on the windows. We do prefer to have the height be similar to the
existing, but we would like to have narrower windows, so if that is something that is acceptable, that
would be our preference. I think that we could accommodate them. These would also be differentiated
from the existing, so I think that this option would also apply. That’s one thing I like about the Standards,
in that it’s not prescriptive. You have to interpret them, and there’s more than one way to approach this.
I think both are valid. If it would please the Board, we would be willing to have an option similar to this
one.
Chair Bower: Martin, is your hand up again?
Board Member Bernstein: Yes it is.
Chair Bower: Okay, go ahead.
Board Member Bernstein: Elisa, thank you so much for that and for preparing the drawing on the screen
right now, showing the four-over-two. As motions are being entertained, I will be proposing a motion
that includes the simplified muntin specification that you’re showing here. Going back to Board Member
Wimmer’s comment about proposing three windows, instead of four, looking at the floor plan, which is
obviously very symmetrically laid out building, which means as you come in the front door, if there were
three windows, you would be facing an open window, natural light, straight into the building. As we are
photocentric, our attention is going to go right to that window, rather than the space. Looking back at
the history of building, where it was a church, usually the online symmetrical, straight-ahead feature will
be some object of art, or a pulpit, or some object, or some furniture, even a painting or an artwork, for
example, so I think having a window dead center, I think will distract from the historical use of the
building, even future use of the building for a presentation. To come into a relatively dark space with a
bright light straight ahead, I think becomes architecturally visually distracting element. I appreciate
Margaret Wimmer’s comment, three and three, to relate to the outside, but because this is a non-street-
facing view, I think the exterior view is not going to be a factor on what the building looks like with any
alterations that are being made. Therefore, I think having the four where you’re not having a direct
source of natural light straight ahead actually serves the interior better for that. Those are my comments
based on that. Thank you.
Chair Bower: I was actually, Martin, thinking the same thing, that in a building that has religious history,
and potentially could have religious use in the future, having a window right in the middle as you
approach, as you enter the building, is distracting and is not typical in any religious building or a building
that’s used for religious purposes that I’ve seen. I’m appreciative of Margaret’s comments, but I think we
ought to stay with the four that are proposed. I forgot to ask earlier. Are these fixed windows, or are
they operable?
Ms. Skaggs: They are fixed windows.
Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. Martin?
Board Member Bernstein: Also, as Elisa mentioned about the openness of the applicant to have the
simplified muntin pattern, again, from the interior point of view, as people experience the historic
windows from the inside they’ll see a simplified muntin pattern on the new windows. So again, I agree
with Elisa’s comment that that helps make more compatibility. Thank you.
Chair Bower: Christian or Michael, either one of your want to make a further comment? Or Margaret?
Board Member Makinen: I think Martin’s last comment is a good one, and that changes my opinion.
4.a
Packet Pg. 43
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Board Member Wimmer: I guess, yes, I do appreciate what Martin said, and of course, whenever there’s
a presentation, obviously, that center wall would be the primary spot to have a display of something. I
just want the applicant and the owner, I think, to encourage them to envision the interior. Because as we
study these applications, we just look at each individual exterior elevation, but in reality, when you
experience the space, you’re going to experience it from the interior, and all of these windows are going
to be in one space. So, I just want the applicant and the owner to envision these windows, the existing
windows and the new windows are going to be in the same space. So just the compatibility of the old
and the new are going to be visible right in front of you. I just wanted to make that point.
Chair Bower: Great. Michael?
Board Member Makinen: I think the attempts here are all valid, as far as the overall objective is to make
the building suitable for modern living and adaptable, and not necessarily to keep it as a church museum.
I applaud the efforts to add some additional light with the new windows. I think that’s moving in the right
direction. It makes the building really usable in the future, which we’re all trying to do that.
Chair Bower: Great. Thank you, Michael. I have one other question for Amy, which is a question of
record. I don’t think that on my term on the Board, that we’ve ever had the Historic Resources evaluation
done by the same firm that ended up doing the architecture. I think there are some advantages to that,
but I’m just curious as to whether that has happened before, or is unusual.
Ms. French: I would say it’s unusual. It’s not a normal thing that we do. In the case of this project, it
seemed that the…Anyways, the point is, we did not hire Page and Turnbull to evaluate their own project.
They produced a project that they evaluated themselves for Secretary of the Interior Standards. If we
had a historic planner on staff that had those qualifications, that would have been a perfectly reasonable
type of project for a staff historic planner to review and prepare the Secretary of the Interior Standards
findings. We did not hire another firm to peer review and prepare those findings. That is something, if
the HRB felt that they were off the mark and the HRB was not comfortable weighing in on those findings
and the project, we could go and hire a separate historic architectural firm to evaluate what’s been done
here to provide that expertise. So, that’s something the HRB could decide that they would like the City to
do in this case.
Chair Bower: I don’t want to go down that path. I don’t think that’s a reasonable expense to ask any
owner to incur, especially since we have extensive experience with Page and Turnbull. We have not
always agreed with their evaluations, although I totally agree with this current one and think Barrett has
done a very good job of capturing the history of the building. Would, or should, a project come before
the Board, in the future, I’m sure staff would pick this up if there were the appearance of a conflict – and
I don’t see one here – staff would pick that up. But I actually see some advantages in this project of
having the same firm that does the resource evaluation also do the proposed changes, because it is, I
think, an advantage to the City and to the owner of the building or the property to have someone who
has complete knowledge of the history in making the changes. I’m only putting this in the record because
I think this is an opportunity to actually shorten and lower the cost of the review. That said, Jane, you
have a comment?
Ms. Vaughan: Yes. It was purely accidental on our part. When we did the original restoration, we solely
relied on the City’s historic preservationist, Dennis Backlund, at the time. Since he was gone, I thought,
well, we should bring in a historic architect, because that would facilitate the process, and I had worked
with Elisa on a Goodwill building in San Francisco, so when I contacted her, I had no idea that her firm
was filling Dennis’ role. It was just someone I was familiar with and knew would be qualified to do this.
Chair Bower: Sure. Well, we also have Amy and Danielle who did review it, so it’s not as though this
project has not been reviewed. I think that’s probably enough said about this. At any rate, these Zoom
meetings are so difficult, I want to circle back and make sure there are no members of the public that
would like to comment on this. Vinh, are there any hands raised by anyone?
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower, we still do not have any hands raised for this item.
Chair Bower: Okay. It’s kind of hard to see. I’m only able to see 12 boxes here on the screen. All right. I
apologize for the delay in this. I am prepared to hear a motion to move this forward. Martin, would you
be willing to provide a motion?
4.a
Packet Pg. 44
City of Palo Alto Page 12
MOTION
Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Thank you, Chair Bower. I move that the proposed skylight and new
windows meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for renovation and recommend approval of this
plan, subject to the new proposed windows having a simplified muntin pattern for new windows. I would
reference the drawing that Elisa presented to the Board, showing the four-over-two pattern and that the
window frames and the skylight frames be the darker color. That would be the extent of my motion.
Chair Bower: Is there a second?
Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second that.
Chair Bower: Thank you, Margaret. Is there any additional discussion from Board Members? Roger?
Board Member Kohler: I just wanted to show you I had this thing I’ve been kicking around, and I finally
fixed it up. Can you see it?
Chair Bower: It’s a photo. It looks like an aerial photo.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, it’s Palo Alto. It’s hard to tell. Anyway, it’ll be in my office. If you ever want
to stop by, you can see it.
Chair Bower: Good. Let’s go back to the motion. We have a motion and a second. I’m not seeing any
further discussion by Board Members, so that said, Vinh, would you poll the Board Members?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, I’ll take a roll call vote. Board Member Bernstein?
Board Member Bernstein: Yes.
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower?
Chair Bower: Yes, I support the motion.
Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Kohler?
Board Member Kohler: Yes, fine.
Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Makinen?
Board Member Makinen: Yes.
Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Pease?
Board Member Pease: Yes..
Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Wimmer?
Board Member Wimmer: Yes.
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carried, 6-0, with one Board Member absent.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
Chair Bower: Great. Thank you, Vinh. I want to thank all of the participants, the owners and the Page
and Turnbull people. And of course, Amy and Danielle, for all of the work. This is harder to do remotely. I
think all of us recognize that, and the Page and Turnbull presentation today has made it easier for us to
evaluate this, so thank you for all of your contributions and good luck on the project. I look forward to
seeing – or in most cases, not seeing – the changes.
Ms. Skaggs: Thank you.
Study Session
4. Review and Discussion of Annual Reports Including Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual
Report and Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Report
Chair Bower: Let’s move on to the study session, number 4. I think we’ll have a brief discussion of our
Certified Local Government Annual Report. Amy, would you like to lead that off?
4.a
Packet Pg. 45
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Ms. French: Yes. I’m going to try one more time to share my screen, but I do have a backup, my secret
weapon, Vinh, who I have sent this to.
Chair Bower: At this point, while you’re loading that up, invite Council Woman Cormack to exit the
meeting. This is kind of nitty gritty stuff. You’re certainly welcome to stay, but you have a life beyond
Boards. Now you have two jobs.
Council Member Cormack: That’s kind of you. I’m happy to stay for the whole time. I think these details
are important, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.
Chair Bower: Sure, well, just wanted you not to feel obligated to stick around.
Ms. French: It will be fascinating, I’m sure. Vinh is uploading, because once again, I’ve had difficulty.
Here we are back in the Chambers, important business. You can forward it to the next, Vinh. This is just
a quick little report about the reporting period that we are going to be reporting on, which is October,
2019, through September, 2020. Unless for some reason, they extend that period or reduce that period
due to COVID. It feels like a longer year than that, actually. Time is funny right now. Just to report out,
quickly, we have five meetings within this reporting period. Here are the dates. We did a few important
projects, listed there with their addresses. We had some upgrades, as well, to category designations in
our Historic Resources Inventory, namely the Cardinal Hotel this year and 526 Waverly. Both of those
projects, those addresses, received an upgrade in historic category to the next higher level, Significant
Resource. And we had a couple of important projects – the hotels that came through and Castilleja,
which the HRB had done the review of the draft EIR the year before. This time around it was the final
EIR and changes to that Gunn Historic Building. And then we had a couple of homes that came through,
and of course, that field trip to the JMZ. The JMZ is nearing completion, so that’s pretty exciting. Then we
had our awards that we received through the California Preservation Foundation. I was able to go to that
with Christina Dikas and John Rush. This was the San Francisco awards for this document here that
Council adopted in April of 2018. These are quite successful as far as use in the individual review process
for two-story homes, to try to get them to be more compatible with their Eichler neighborhoods. We also
got an award, the Docomomo Award. That was in New York City, a little too far to travel for receipt of
that award. This is the type of things that we put in our Annual Review Reports, a kind of Comprehensive
Plan, policy implementation. We have our Policy 7.2 that we are actively implementing. Any upgrades like
the two I mentioned in terms of inventory category. Then we have a bunch of California Register
Eligibility reports that determined eligible, and then others that were determined not eligible in our
implementation of Policy 7.2. We talk about our responsibilities, the number of meetings we had, the
training. The Board Members are obligated to get training during these periods. I know some of your
have sent in on the trainings you attended. It’s a weird year, but in some ways it’s easier to attend
webinars virtually online. We update our GIST system with the new eligibles and not eligibles for each
address. There’s been a number of those. We have the grant that’s sitting there waiting for us to submit
it. This year we do have an estimate from one consultant to help us prepare that if we were to get
awarded a grant from CLG, so that deadline is in May, I believe. Then we have the usual public outreach
and education on our program. The Mills Act Program Establishment we put a pause on once we lost our
historic planner, and there hasn’t been much work since. Here are some questions that we’ve asked in
the past. If the Board would like to think about these questions, discuss them, we can come back to this
slide, if you want, after I present. There’s some important questions here. We are a CLG, Certified Local
Government, in good standing. That’s because every year we submit this annual report, so that qualifies
us to submit grant applications. Again, I mentioned, we have this Midcentury Era Context Statement
Grant that’s been completed, an application, and we now have an estimate for that from a consulting
firm to submit that grant to the Office of Historic Preservation. I just put up here the HRB roles and
duties for those in the viewing public that would like to know what the HRB does. This is the kind of thing
we report out on, what our job is as a Board. Then, just quickly, last night at the Planning and
Transportation Commission meeting, which I attended, there was an annual report about the
Comprehensive Plan implementation. We give these every year to the Planning Commission. That was
coupled with the Housing element implementation. I shared this with you last year. This is our
Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in December, 2017, and there is a number of historic policies on
here, notably Policies L7.2. but there are plenty of other policies here that relate to historic. Here are the
critical policies that are actively implemented. Policy L7.2 I mentioned, is where we have historic resource
4.a
Packet Pg. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 14
evaluations done for the potentially eligible addresses that were not found in the first round as National
Register eligible, but some of these still may be California Register eligible, so each time we have a
property owner that wants to tear down a home and put up a new two-story home, we are doing these
evaluations to make sure that it’s not California Register eligible. As I noted, we’ve had a few come back
as California Register eligible. We also do this, of course, for commercial properties. Then, one of those
programs is to add to our inventory the properties deemed eligible for the California and National
Register. We haven’t done that, but we need to discuss a timeline for implementing that policy. This is
just kind of repeat. I can just quickly go over the Comp Plan update. Vinh, just rapidly go through these
next ones, so we can get back to that question slide. These were some goals about the Historic
Preservation from the Comp Plan that are future year goals. There are quite a number of those. We can
come back to this later. Then, this was just where we are in the world with the Comprehensive Plan
implementation, so this kind of gives an idea how many actual programs that there are found in our
Comprehensive Plan. There’s 410 programs that the City is busily trying to implement. The report that
went to the Planning Commission talks about the priorities, the level of effort, resources needed and the
status. This kind of shows the status of where we are, percentage-wise and number-wise, on these
programs. Many of these are ongoing programs, the bulk of them are ongoing. Then there are some that
are pending. This talks about status by department. I just copied some of the slides from last night. I
think there may be one more slide and then I'm done. Oh, then, you might have heard of the housing
needs goals that we have the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. This is a tally of what we’ve
accomplished from our last round of housing element. We were supposed to build 1,988 housing units,
and this is where we are in the world, as far as accomplishing that goal. You might have heard, we’re
going into the next round of housing element, and we’ve heard from the ABAG what our allocation is. We
are supposed to build something around 6,000 housing units in the next housing cycle. So, the housing
cycles are about seven years. We’re nearing the end of the housing cycle we’re in how, but we have a
couple more years to accomplish the rest of these. I’m going to stop there. Maybe, Vinh, go back to
the…we’ll just ask the Chair or the Board if there’s any slide you would like to hover on to have a
discussion about goals for the next upcoming, or things you would like to note to put into the Annual
Report for the CLG.
Chair Bower: Thank you, Amy. That’s a lot of information. I’d like Vinh to share this presentation so we
Board Members – and actually anyone else who is watching – can review these. There’s a lot of
information here, so thank you for compiling it. I’d like to make two points. One, I think it’s important for
Palo Alto community residents to know that a Certified Local Government designation is a unique
designation to the Historic Resources Board. There is no other board or agency or commission that is a
Certified Local Government, and – correct me if I’m wrong – but the HRB actually can act in the place of
the State of California when applicable. It’s a very difficult designation to get. It takes a lot of work, as
Amy has demonstrated here, to keep that designation, and it’s important that Palo Alto has it. I think
that’s often missed by the bulk of people that I talk to in the community. Second thing, back early on,
Amy mentioned the Mills Act. The subcommittee that worked on the Mills Act got stymied when Emily
left. We are, I’d say, 90 percent done, and the tough questions at the end of our consideration still need
to be answered. I’d like to move that forward and get it to the Council. I don’t think any Mills Act
contract…There’s only one Mills Act contract in the City, and it doesn’t remotely conform to any of the
current standards that other Mills Acts in the state of California have. I think that we want to see the Mills
Act as a tool for the Council to use, and of course, Council controls whether it gets used or not. I think
we often get sidetracked by the fact that Mills Act is diverting or redirecting property tax revenue, and
that scares everybody. I think we just need to get this done so the next time a Mills Act contract comes
up for renewal, we can actually have a program that serves all of the community and not just the
individual property owner. Anyway, Martin, I think you had your hand up earlier. I didn’t see other hands,
but would be willing to recognize them. Go ahead, Martin.
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you, and thank you, Amy, for showing all those slides. One of your
slides – it’s our packet page 66 – and it’s program number L7.8.1. I can just read what that is. It’s not on
the screen right now.
Ms. French: Vinh can go back a few slides, too.
Board Member Bernstein: Okay, thanks.
4.a
Packet Pg. 47
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Ms. French: There it is.
Board Member Bernstein: Thanks. Where it says, “promote and expand available incentives with historic
merit in all zones,” the word “zones,” should that be meaning all historic categories, or is that the correct
word, “all zones,” and by zones you mean R1 or…zoning districts? Or should that word be “all historic
categories?” That’s the question.
Ms. French: I believe this is directly from the Comprehensive Plan and the word “zones” is to refer to
zoning districts, so residential, commercial, yeah. So right now, the incentives that we have, do include
residential zones. You might remember several years ago we updated the Zoning Code to enable
Categories 1 through 4 to avail themselves on the benefits that were previously only available to
Category 1 and 2, homes I should say. We have not altered the commercial incentives for a few decades,
but we did work on the residential zones most recently.
Board Member Bernstein: Great. Thank you so much. The reason I’m asking is that on one of slides you
showed previous to this one, it actually said “Draft,” so I didn’t know if that’s been enacted by the Council
yet.
Chair Bower: Great. Thank you, Martin. Any other questions or comments?
Board Member Bernstein: Yeah, my question is, has this L7.8.1, that’s been adopted by the Council?
Ms. French: Yes. All of these that I’m showing here were adopted with the Comprehensive Plan update in
December, 2017, which was the Council action. So, this is an adopted policy, and we have begun
implementing this policy, most recently with that change enabling Category 3 and 4 homes, basically, to
take advantage of some of the benefits or incentives that were only available to Category 1 and 2 homes
before.
Board Member Bernstein: Great. Thank you so much.
Chair Bower: I want to remind all Board Members to get to Vinh a list of any seminars, presumably
you’ve attended online. That’s the only way I’ve done then this year. I’ve actually done a lot more of
these seminars because I had so much time. I just saw one on Tuesday, called Gorilla [phonetic] Historic
Resource Evaluation, which was fascinating. Get that information to Vinh, so that Amy can put it in our
report. Any other Board Members want to make comments? I know time flies when you’re having fun,
but there are other lives for other people, and the staff needs to move forward with their day, too. I’m
not seeing anything, but I can only see about five of us.
Approval of Minutes
Chair Bower: Let’s move forward to our last agenda item. I’m sure we’ll come back to this item in our
next meeting, or a future meeting.
5. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 24, 2020.
Chair Bower: We can do this relatively quickly. Any corrections or changes to the minutes? Not seeing
any. Can I have a motion to approve? Anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes?
Board Member Pease: I make a motion to approve the minutes.
Chair Bower: Roger, you want to second the motion?
Board Member Kohler: I second the motion, yes.
Chair Bower: Good. Vinh, you want to read the poll members?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes. Board Member Bernstein?
Board Member Bernstein: Yes.
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower?
Chair Bower: Yes.
Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Kohler?
4.a
Packet Pg. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Board Member Kohler: Yes.
Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Makinen?
Board Member Makinen: Yes.
Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Pease?
[technical difficulties]
Mr. Nguyen: It looks like he just exited the meeting, so I’m guessing he might have had some technical
difficulties..
Chair Bower: Maybe you could circle back with him. If it’s permissible, circle back with him directly after
the meeting, and just verify his vote on this. He was here when we called for a vote. I guess you could
represent him as abstaining, or I don’t know, not voting. Whatever is appropriate.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, I think we have enough votes to pass, even with him abstaining, so we could do that.
Chair Bower: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Wimmer?
Board Member Wimmer: Yes
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, the motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0-1. (Pease abstaining)
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bower: All right, last item. Alison, you have a comment.
Council Member Cormack: Yes, Chair Bower. Looking at the plaque that was shown on the project earlier
today, I wondered, is there an interactive map for Palo Alto that allows people to walk, drive, bicycle
around, and view these plaques? Are they somehow documented somewhere in a way that makes it easy
for people to visit?
Chair Bower: I don’t know if the City has any kind of map. Palo Alto Stanford Heritage has, in normal
non-pandemic times, has walks throughout Palo Alto that recognize and identify historic properties.
Council Member Cormack: I just thought I’d show you what the Public Art group has done. There are
some temporary murals available right now. I’m just sharing my screen. You can see, you can walk
around, and you can have this on your phone. It gives you information on each of the artists for the
mural that’s there. I just show this as an example of a way to sort of make these plaques more
accessible for people. I just thought I’d share that.
Chair Bower: I actually saw that. That was a really impressive piece of information. I looked at all of
them and walked some of them, so it’s great. It’s a very good idea. We should do that.
Ms. French: We should.
Chair Bower: Christian is back, I see.
Board Member Pease: I’m here.
Chair Bower: We were taking a roll call vote on the minutes and lost you on your video feed.
Board Member Pease: Sorry about that. My connection dropped. I vote affirmatively to adopt the
minutes.
Chair Bower: Okay, good to know. We’re now on the Board Members comments or announcements. Are
there any others? I don’t see anybody raising your hands.
Adjournment
Chair Bower: With that, I very much look forward to seeing all of you in the Council Chambers as soon as
is safely possible. But in lieu of the fact that we can’t do that, it’s very nice to see you today after five
4.a
Packet Pg. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 17
months of not having seen each other. Thank you for participating and spending the time with us. Stay
safe, and stay healthy, and with that I’ll adjourn the meeting.
4.a
Packet Pg. 50
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 12152)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 4/8/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 488 University: Subcommittee Review of Guardrail, Colors,
Tiles, and Lobby Wall
Title: 488 University Avenue [19PLN-00038]: Subcommittee to
Review the Lobby Wall Design, Guard Rail Design, Details of
the Proposed Tile, and Color Brushouts. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt From CEQA in Accordance With
Guideline Section 15332 (Infill Development). Zoning District:
CD-C (GF)(P) (Commercial Downtown Community with Ground
Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts). For More
Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at
Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) Subcommittee take the following
action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction, or
2. Confirm the revised project meets the full HRB’s direction and recommend the Director
consider the Conditions of Approval to be satisfied.
Background
On June 23, 2020, the Council approved the subject project. On May 14, 2020, at the HRB’s
recommendation during the second hearing for the project, staff included Approval Condition
#17 requiring certain project elements return to the HRB Subcommittee. Condition #17
required the submittal of details for Subcommittee review noted below, along with the
applicant’s responses.
Links to the HRB’s May 14, 2020 public hearing documents are provided below:
Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76589
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80353
5
Packet Pg. 51
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Video: https://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-9242020/
Discussion/Analysis
Condition of Approval #17a
Provide details regarding the proposed new tile on the University Avenue façade
Applicant’s Response:
• See attached sheets 2, 3, and 4 for the tile details and pictures of existing tiles. The
applicant intends to replicate the historic tile at the low walls at the storefronts to
match the existing historic storefronts. The applicant or its designee intends to contract
with Stonelight Tile, the developer of the original historic tiles, in order to complete this
work.
Staff Analysis:
• Staff believes that the plans and information provided by the applicant stating their
intent to utilize the original tile manufacturer to replicate the historic tiles satisfies this
condition.
Condition of Approval #17b:
Provide details regarding the proposed modifications to the sixth-floor guardrail.
Applicant’s Response:
• The guardrail design and details are provided on sheet 5 of the Subcommittee package.
The plans show how the new guard rail would be attached to the existing balcony.
5
Packet Pg. 52
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Staff Analysis:
• Staff believes this satisfies Condition of Approval #17b to provide a detail of the
guardrail design.
Condition of Approval #17c:
Provide color brush-outs.
Applicant’s Response:
• Color samples were mailed and are available in the glass case at City Hall. The plans
reflect how the color is intended to be applied. Prior to painting the building, the
applicant will contact staff to coordinate a viewing of brush-outs on the building.
Staff Analysis:
• Staff believes that the colors proposed seem appropriate and that this satisfies
Condition of Approval #17c for the purposes of issuance of a building permit. Prior to
painting the building, prior to occupancy, the applicant will coordinate with staff to have
an HRB subcommittee view brush-outs on the building.
Condition of Approval #17d:
Provide details of the arches of the lobby wall.
Applicant’s Response:
• The design of the opening between the entrance lobby and the hotel registration lobby
is shown on Sheet 4 of the plans. The design of the lobby wall includes flat openings to
provide an elegant treatment to the large opening without distracting from the Roman
archway at the front door or the corbelled arch of the stair/balcony detail. The existing
arches are shown on sheets 3 and 4 of the plans.
Staff Analysis:
• Staff believes this satisfies Condition of Approval #17d. The original design presented to
the HRB included arches along the lobby wall, prompting the request for further details.
Staff understands that upon further review, the applicant determined that a flat
opening would be more appropriate so as not to detract from the other arches.
Therefore, the detail shows that the design along the lobby wall will include flat
openings that compliment, and do not detract from the existing arches.
The Subcommittee is encouraged to affirm these submittals meet Approval Condition #17.
Otherwise, the Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal
requires further refinement.
Separately from Condition #17, staff notes that the applicant has provided some visuals of
intended exterior lighting fixtures. These were not included in the original plans; however, staff
5
Packet Pg. 53
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
is seeking the HRB Subcommittee’s input on whether these fixtures would be considered minor
and therefore may be reviewed and processed by planning staff.
Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official
(650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2336
Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Proposed Colors (DOCX)
• Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
5
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment A: Proposed Building Colors
Color samples are provided in the glass case at City Hall
5.a
Packet Pg. 55
5.a
Packet Pg. 56
5.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment B
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to HRB Subcommittee members. During Shelter-in-
Place, project plans are only available to the public online.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “488 University 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=5157&TargetID=319
5.b
Packet Pg. 58