HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-09 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: September 9, 2021
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 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
2. Official Report to Historic Resources Board Transmitting Documents Regarding
Historic Preservation Program and Potential Retreat Topics
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 24, 2021
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Historic Resources Board
Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers
are:
Chair Caroline Willis
Vice Chair Christian Pease
Boardmember David Bower
Boardmember Gogo Heinrich
Boardmember Michael Makinen
Boardmember Margaret Wimmer
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
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: 968 0019 7512 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 # 13533)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 9/9/2021
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 Cancelled
3/25/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
4/8/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
4/22/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
5/13/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
5/27/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
6/10/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
6/24/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
7/8/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
7/22/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
8/12/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
8/26/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled
9/9/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
9/23/2021 8:30 AM
10/14/2021 8:30 AM
10/28/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
11/11/2021 8:30 AM Veteran’s Day
11/25/2021 8:30 AM 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
Cancelled Cancelled
Cancelled Cancelled
Cancelled Cancelled
Cancelled Cancelled
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 13558)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 9/9/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Report Transmitting Documents and Potential Retreat Topics
to HRB
Title: Official Report to Historic Resources Board Transmitting
Documents Regarding Historic Preservation Program and
Potential Retreat Topics
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) receive this report, review potential
topics for the October 28, 2021 HRB retreat, resources and trainings.
Background
Upcoming Retreat
The HRB Chairperson prepared a potential agenda for the October 28, 2021 HRB retreat.
Ideally the retreat will be in person; however, it is possible the retreat will be a remote
participation event, given the current Covid surge. No action is required by the HRB for this
item. The below six potential topics and agenda order are provided for discussion and to assist
the HRB chair in revising and finalizing the retreat agenda:
1. Introductions: Members convey interest in Preservation/HRB, background
2. Goals for the year: Members note two to three goals, large or small, they would like to see
the HRB accomplish in the upcoming year
3. Mills Act: Review history of Mills Act in Palo Alto, decide how best to proceed1
4. Virtual Preservation (HABS): Discuss the Secretary of the Interior’s American Buildings
Survey Standard (HABS) and how we might modify it to establish a digital archive of our
historic properties (See page 3 of Vice Chair Pease’s document, Attachment E)
5. 1998-2000 Survey Update: Review status, access, relationship to Inventory2
1 Please see Attachment A, January 2018 document reflecting 2017 work by HRB Mills Act subcommittee and former
qualified historic preservation staff Vance and Attachments B – D, older staff reports and HRB meeting minutes on subject
2
Packet Pg. 7
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
6. HRB Outreach: Blogs, Workshops, and how best to encourage preservation in Palo Alto
Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory and Survey Update - Preservation Webpages
Attached to this report are the executive summary, findings, and transmittal letter to the State
Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) for the City’s 1998-2000 survey update. The HRB and
public may wish to explore the City of Palo Alto’s historic webpages viewable via homepage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development/Historic-Preservation
A sample of the many documents viewable via the City’s historic preservation webpages:
• The National Register of Historic Places individual properties and Historic Districts in Palo
Alto are viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-
Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Historic-Registers
• Description and links to Palo Alto’s two surveys are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-
Preservation/Historic-Surveys
o The 1979 first historic resources survey and Inventory is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-
services/historic-preservation/1979-inventory-and-report.pdf
o The historic survey update final report for the 1998-2000 survey is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-
services/historic-preservation/dames-moore-final-survey-report-2001.pdf
• Links to local, County, Bay Area, State and Federal web-based documents are viewable
here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development/Historic-
Preservation/Historic-Resources
• Palo Alto Stanford Heritage - Inventory: https://www.pastheritage.org/inventoryH.html
This webpage has color photos and description of properties on the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory; descriptions match those on the DPR forms in binders at City Hall.
• Local Inventory Category 1-4 resources list from the 1978 Survey, as revised in 2012:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-
services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/city-historic-inventory-list.pdf
Note: Since 2012, Council upgraded several properties to a higher category; this 2012 list
needs to be updated online; recently, the following Downtown properties were upgraded:
• 526 Waverley: Council upgraded this property from a Category 3 to a Category 2
• 235 Hamilton: Council upgraded from a Category 2 to Category 3 (part of the Ramona
Historic District, this property is also individually eligible for the California Register).
Upcoming CLG Trainings
Certified Local Government (CLG) CAMP Trainings by the CLG Cities of Sacramento, Riverside,
and San Jose, in partnership with the state Office of Historic Preservation in October and
December. CAMP is the Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program by the National
Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC), to “build strong local preservation programs
2 Please see Attachments F- H, regarding Palo Alto’s historic preservation program
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
through education, advocacy, and training.” HRB members who wish to attend a training may
inform staff, to arrange for registration.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Draft Palo Alto Mills Act Tailored Program Prepared by ARB
Subcommittee 2018 (DOCX)
• Attachment B: May 3, 2006 HRB Staff Report City Policy on Mills Act (PDF)
• Attachment C: December 15, 1997 City Manager's Report (Policy) (PDF)
• Attachment D: November 5, 1997 HRB Minutes including Mills Act discussion (PDF)
• Attachment E: Vice Chair Pease June 27, 2021 Processes/Work Plan Initiatives for HRB
Discussion (PDF)
• Attachment F: Summary of Findings from 1998-2000 Historic Survey (PDF)
• Attachment G: Executive Summary from Historic Survey Report 1998-2000 (PDF)
• Attachment H: 2006 Letter to SHPO Transmitting DPRs - 1998-2000 Survey Update
(PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 9
MILLS ACT
TAILORED PROGRAM OUTLINE
January
2018 Prepared by the City of Palo Alto & the Historic Resources Board
2.a
Packet Pg. 10
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
Tailored Program Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2
Role of the Applicant ................................................................................................................................. 3
Role of Planning Department .................................................................................................................... 3
Role of Historic Resources Board .............................................................................................................. 3
Role of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office............................................................................................ 3
Role of California Office of Historic Preservation ..................................................................................... 3
Mills Act State Policy .................................................................................................................................... 4
State Criteria for Eligibility ........................................................................................................................ 4
State Contract Requirements .................................................................................................................... 4
Proposed Local Mills Act Policy ................................................................................................................... 5
Local Mills Act Criteria for Eligibility ......................................................................................................... 5
Local Mills Act Program Regulations ......................................................................................................... 5
Term Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 5
Tax Redirection Limitations ................................................................................................................. 5
Property Value Limitations .................................................................................................................. 5
Ranking System ................................................................................................................................... 6
Cancellation Penalty ............................................................................................................................ 6
Fees ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Submittal Date .................................................................................................................................... 6
Local Mills Act Contract Requirements ..................................................................................................... 7
HRB Review ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................. 7
Eligible Work .................................................................................................................................. 7
Ineligible Work ............................................................................................................................... 8
Tax Redirection.................................................................................................................................... 8
Property Inspection ............................................................................................................................. 8
Application Checklist .................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 1. Mills Act Contract Timeline ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.a
Packet Pg. 11
2
INTRODUCTION
Enacted by the State of California in 1972, the Mills Act grants participating local governments
the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively
participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving
property tax relief (CGC 12.50280-50290, CRTC 1.9.439-439.4). It is the “single most important
economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified
historic buildings by private property owners.”1
An important feature of the Mills Act program is its flexibility. Although the State has certain
requirements that must be included in all individual Mills Act policies, the program allows
jurisdictions to develop additional requirements to insure that unique local goals and needs are
met. By implementing a tailored Mills Act program in Palo Alto, with finely tuned eligibility
criteria and contract requirements, the City can both incentive the thoughtful preservation of
our shared heritage and wisely address the community’s priorities and needs. Tailored
programs have been successfully adopted in other California cities that have similar
complications like high property values and schools supported by Basic Aid.2
Tailored Program Summary
The Tailored Mills Act Program for Palo Alto will be program, where all tax relief received by a
property owner will be reinvested in the rehabilitation, preservation or restoration of the
historic property. Work will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
and will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards). Mills Act contracts
will be open to all property types but will be limited in length, the maximum being 15 years. For
educational purposes, property owners will be required to fund, with tax redirection, and
display an interpretive panel along the public right of way that is visible to the public. The Mills
Act program is voluntary and requires owner consent.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS ADDRESSED BY THE TAILORED MILLS ACT PROGRAM
1. contributes to Affordable Housing
3. safeguards a Sense of Place
5. fosters Civic Pride
7. protects Palo Alto’s History
9. provides Preservation Incentive
2. encourages Seismic Safety
4. promotes Heritage Tourism
6. preserves Neighborhood Character
8. supports Environmentally Conscious
Development
1 California Office of Historic Preservation, “Mills Act Program,” http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412.
2 Other nearby communities with successful Mills Act programs includes Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Saratoga, Los Altos,
San Jose and Campbell. Cities that have both basic aid school districts and Mills Act program include Beverley Hills, Campbell,
Los Altos and Saratoga.
2.a
Packet Pg. 12
3
Role of the Applicant
The Applicant is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property during the
duration of the Mills Act contract and must follow the approved Rehabilitation and
Maintenance plan. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining appropriate documents,
signatures and recordation attachments as well as associated fees prior to work and successful
contract recordation.
Role of the Planning Department
The Planning Department oversees all Mills Act applications and monitors existing Mills Act
properties. The Historic Preservation Planner will work with property owners to complete their
applications and develop rehabilitation and maintenance plans that are specific to each
property. The Planning Department will keep the applicant(s) informed throughout the year, as
the application moves forward through HRB review, City Council and the Assessor’s Office.
Once a Mills Act contract is entered into, all subsequent work on the property during the
duration of the contract will require staff approval which includes compliance with the
Standards.
Role of the Historic Resources Board
The HRB will first hold a hearing to consider a recommendation to City Council whether to
approve, modify or deny the initial Mills Act application. Once a Mills Act contract is entered
into, all subsequent work on the property during the duration of the contract will require staff
approval. If staff determines proposed work does not comply with the Standards, staff will
refer the application to the HRB.
Role of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office
The role of the Assessor’s Office is to locate and accurately assess all taxable property Palo Alto
and also serve as the county’s official record-keeper of documents such as deeds, liens, maps
and property contracts. In a Mills Act Historical Property contract, the Assessor’s Office assesses
qualified properties based on a state prescribed approach and records the fully executed
contract. All Mills Act properties will receive an initial valuation during the application process
and will be assessed annually by the January 1st lien date and in subsequent years, as required
by state law. The State Board of Equalization has strict guidelines the assessor must follow in
order to value Mills Act properties (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 439.2).
Role of the California Office of Historic Preservation
OHP provides Mills Act information to local governments and uses information provided by
local governments to maintain a list of communities participating in the Mills Act program as
well as copies of Mills Act ordinances, resolutions, and contracts that have been adopted. OHP
does not participate in the contract negotiations, is not a signatory to the contract and has no
authority over the administration of the Mills Act program.
2.a
Packet Pg. 13
4
MILLS ACT STATE POLICY
Effective March 7, 1973, Chapter 1442 of the Statutes of 1972 (also known as the Mills Act)
added sections 50280 through 50289 to the Government Code to allow an owner of qualified
historical property to enter into a preservation contract with local government. When property
is placed under such a contract, the owner agrees to restore the property if necessary, maintain
its historic character, and use it in a manner compatible with its historic characteristics.
State Criteria for Eligibility
As set forth in California’s Government Code 50280.1, a property is eligible for the Mills Act as
follows: “Qualified historical property” for purposes of this article, means privately owned
property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
(b) Listed in any state, city, county or city and county official register of historical or
architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks.
State Contract Requirements
As set forth by California Government code 50281, the following requirements must be
included in the language of any Mills Act contract:
(a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years.
(b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:
(1) For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary,
to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and
regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks
and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code.
(2) For the periodic examinations of the interior and exterior of the premises by
the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board
of Equalization as may be necessary to determine the owner’s compliance
with the contract.
(3) For it to be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of all successors in interest
of the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and
obligations under the contract as the original owner who entered into the
contract.
2.a
Packet Pg. 14
5
PROPOSED LOCAL MILLS ACT POLICY
The proposed Tailored Mills Act Program must include all the State contract requirements
above. In addition, staff is proposing to include the following more restrictive criteria to balance
historic preservation with the significant competing goals of the community, which is allowed
under the State’s Mills Act program.
Local Mills Act Criteria for Eligibility
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local modifications of the term “qualified
historical property” which will be defined as any property that meets any of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal
Regulations;
(b) Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources;
(c) Listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as Category 1 through 4, as defined in Section
16.49.020 of PAMC (b); or
(d) Contributing to a Local Historic District, as defined in Section 16.49.020 of PAMC (c).
Local Mills Act Program Regulations
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local regulations, which do not invalidate
State requirements:
(a) Term Limitations: Mills Act Contracts will have a minimum term of ten years and a
maximum term of 15 years. This is accomplished by the City issuing a notice of
nonrenewal in the 5th year of the agreement, after which the remaining 10-year
term of the contract occurs before the agreement formally terminates. During the
10 year phase-out period, the property tax benefits enjoyed by the Mills Act
property gradually decrease until they reach the full regularly assessed value of the
property at the end of the final year (Figure 1).
(b) Tax Redirection Limitations: A limit will be set on the total tax redirection that can be
associated with Mills Act properties. Program impact on City revenues will be
limited to $150,000/year, to be adjusted annually in amount equivalent to the
percent change of the overall assessed valuation of the City for the previous year,
excluding those properties that have been issued a notice of nonrenewal.
(c) Property Value Limitations: A limit will be set on total property value that would be
eligible for Mills Act contract. Pre-contract assessed valuation limits will be
$5,000,000 or less for residential and $10,000,000 or less for commercial.3
3 To be adjusted for inflation
2.a
Packet Pg. 15
6
Figure 1. Mills Act Contract Timeline
(c) Ranking System: A ranking system will be employed by the HRB when reviewing Mills
Act applications that is based on community priorities and needs and utilizes the
criteria listed below. Staff considers that the scope of the required rehabilitation
plan will ensure that all applications for a Mills Act will bestow a major public benefit
on the community by extensively rehabilitating and maintaining historic properties.
Public access to private homes is not a requirement. A higher ranking will be given
to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act contract:
▪ Will result in more affordable housing units;
▪ Will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition,
deterioration, abandonment and/or general neglect;
▪ Will result in the greatest number of improvements to the historic property,
resulting in the greatest benefit to the public.
(d) Cancellation Penalty: Noncompliance with the provisions of a Mills Act contract will
result in either legal action against the owner or contract cancellation. A contract
may be cancelled if the City determines that the owner has breached any of the
conditions of the contract or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point
that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historical property. The contract
may also be canceled it is determined that the owner has failed to restore or
rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in the contract. No contract shall
be canceled until property owner has been properly noticed and a public hearing is
held. If the contract is cancelled, the owner must pay a penalty of 12.5% of the
market value of the property at the time of cancellation, per state law.4 The
cancellation fee shall be paid to the City Tax Collector at such time and in such
manner as the City shall prescribe.
(e) Fees: Initial permit and planning fees will be waived for Mills Act participants. There
will be no application fee for submitting a Mills Act contract application but a one-
time activation fee of $250 will be required if the contract is selected and initiated.
4 California Government Code, Article 12, Section 50286
2.a
Packet Pg. 16
7
(f) Submittal Date: Applications will only be accepted and approved during the month
of June in any given year in order to allow sufficient time for the City and Assessor’s
Office to determine the cumulative financial impact, to record contracts prior to
January 1st in any given year and to reduce the cost of processing applications.
Local Mills Act Contract Requirements
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local additions to the State’s contract
requirements:
(a) HRB Review: All Mills Act applications, including rehabilitation and maintenance
plans and subsequent work, will be reviewed and approved by the Historic
Resources Board.
(b) Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plans: A rehabilitation and maintenance plan will
be required to be submitted for attachment to the Mills Act contract. All work
performed must conform to the rules and regulations of the California Office of
Historic Preservation, including compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and the State Historic Building Code. The rehabilitation plan must include
restoration of the identified character defining features of the property and the
removal or compatible replacement of incompatible alterations. The rehabilitation
plan can include exterior and interior work that has been pre-approved. Qualified
rehabilitation and restoration work that commenced up to two years before the
establishment of the contract may be indicated on the ten-year rehabilitation plan.
An annual report detailing the rehabilitation and restoration work performed during
the past year along with the overall cost of the work performed will also be
required. In general, work that is directly related to the repair or improvement of
structural and architectural features of the historic building will qualify. Examples of
eligible and ineligible work include but are not limited to:
Eligible Work
▪ Seismic upgrading
▪ Foundation repair
▪ Re-roofing and downspout restoration
▪ Exterior siding and trim repair and restoration
▪ Historic windows repair and restoration
▪ Paint exterior
▪ Removal of inappropriate additions and construction
▪ Plumbing system upgrades
2.a
Packet Pg. 17
8
▪ Electrical system upgrades
▪ Original door, hardware and other features restoration
▪ Front iron fencing restoration
▪ Chimney stabilization
▪ Consulting/Professional fees (limit this?)
▪ Repair and restoration of original interior features (like original built-ins
and woodwork) must get HRB approval to be considered eligible
▪ HVAC systems (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)
▪ Solar panels must be essential to the operation or maintenance of the
rehabilitated historic building and must get HRB approval to be
considered eligible5
Ineligible Work
▪ New construction and additions
▪ Landscaping
▪ Homeowner labor
▪ Acquisition/furnishing costs
▪ Parking lot
(c) Tax Redirection: All tax savings must be redirected into rehabilitation work for the
property and the anticipated construction must be equal to or greater than tax
savings.
(d) Property Inspection: The property will be inspected annually/ every two years/
dependent on work proposed by the Historic Preservation Planner (accompanied by
the Building Official if necessary) to determine compliance with the Mills Act
contract and approved Rehabilitation and Maintenance plan.
(e) Educational Component: For educational purposes, property owners will be required
to fund, with tax redirection, and display an interpretive panel along the public right
of way that is visible to the community. The panel will include information on the
history and architectural merit of the home for the public to enjoy. The property will
also be used for exterior home tours at the discretion of the City and other
promotional material with proper notification.
5 See National Park Service, Historic Tax Credit Qualified Expenses explanation on solar panels. Generally, HVAC
features are included as eligible cost so the function and purpose of a renewable energy system will determine if
it is an eligible expense. Systems that produce electricity to back feed the power grid may not qualify
(https://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/before-apply/qualified-expenses.htm).
2.a
Packet Pg. 18
9
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
2.a
Packet Pg. 19
2.b
Packet Pg. 20
2.b
Packet Pg. 21
2.b
Packet Pg. 22
2.b
Packet Pg. 23
2.b
Packet Pg. 24
2.b
Packet Pg. 25
2.b
Packet Pg. 26
2.b
Packet Pg. 27
2.b
Packet Pg. 28
2.b
Packet Pg. 29
2.b
Packet Pg. 30
2.b
Packet Pg. 31
2.b
Packet Pg. 32
2.b
Packet Pg. 33
2.b
Packet Pg. 34
2.b
Packet Pg. 35
2.b
Packet Pg. 36
2.b
Packet Pg. 37
2.b
Packet Pg. 38
2.b
Packet Pg. 39
2.b
Packet Pg. 40
2.b
Packet Pg. 41
2.b
Packet Pg. 42
2.b
Packet Pg. 43
2.b
Packet Pg. 44
2.b
Packet Pg. 45
2.b
Packet Pg. 46
2.b
Packet Pg. 47
2.b
Packet Pg. 48
2.b
Packet Pg. 49
2.b
Packet Pg. 50
2.b
Packet Pg. 51
2.b
Packet Pg. 52
2.b
Packet Pg. 53
2.b
Packet Pg. 54
2.b
Packet Pg. 55
2.b
Packet Pg. 56
2.b
Packet Pg. 57
2.b
Packet Pg. 58
2.b
Packet Pg. 59
2.b
Packet Pg. 60
2.b
Packet Pg. 61
2.b
Packet Pg. 62
2.b
Packet Pg. 63
2.b
Packet Pg. 64
2.b
Packet Pg. 65
2.b
Packet Pg. 66
2.b
Packet Pg. 67
2.b
Packet Pg. 68
2.b
Packet Pg. 69
2.b
Packet Pg. 70
2.b
Packet Pg. 71
2.b
Packet Pg. 72
2.b
Packet Pg. 73
2.b
Packet Pg. 74
2.b
Packet Pg. 75
2.c
Packet Pg. 76
2.c
Packet Pg. 77
2.d
Packet Pg. 78
2.d
Packet Pg. 79
2.d
Packet Pg. 80
2.d
Packet Pg. 81
2.d
Packet Pg. 82
2.d
Packet Pg. 83
1
Potential HRB Processes and Work Plan Initiatives
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Christian Pease, Vice Chair
Prepared at the request of Caroline Willis, Chair
City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board (HRB)
Purpose –
The intent of this document is to facilitate board discussion pursuant to the completion of a Work
Plan, as mandated by the City Council for its consideration and approval.
Initial Assumptions –
1) City staff resources assist the HRB with new initiatives will tightly constrained for the
foreseeable future.
2) Little of no budget (beyond staff hours) will be available to fund HRB initiatives generally.
HRB Outreach –
There appears to be consensus that the goal of establishing an on-going, effective, and
sustainable HRB outreach program is important to continued relevance of the HRB and
appropriate preservation of Palo Alto’s historic resources over time..
Preservation Constituencies –
The public worth and purpose of any civic organization or entity is by nature commonly defined
and measured by the value it provides or creates for its constituents.
Identifying and honing in on specific segments within the more expansive definition of
“community” (residents, businesses, stakeholders, etc.) is typically considered a best practice for
maximizing benefits in for the cost and time invested in doing so.
With respect to historic preservation, constituent segments might include:
1) Owners who believe their property has historic merit and are interested in obtaining a historic
designation, but first need to understand the costs and advantages of doing so – what the
process entails and to what end.
2.e
Packet Pg. 84
2
2) Professional investors, real estate developers, and builders who need a clear understanding
what may, or may not constitute a historic site or structure, what the associated financial
implications might be for their project, as well as how to proceed efficiently to resolve open
questions in order to make informed decisions.
3) Enthusiasts, volunteers with avocational knowledge, professionally skilled and expert
retirees, and youth motivated to engage community service projects in support of their
college and university admissions goals – are all part of Palo Alto’s rich pool of talent. This
abundance talent present opportunities to source contributions in support preserving historic
assets that might not otherwise not be done.
Example HRB initiatives per its required work plan –
For property owners: Adoption of the Mills Act – State of California – an economic
incentive program for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by
private property owners.
Apparently, quite a bit of work has already been done to compile and shape the information
and data needed for the City Council to consider adoption of the Mills Act. But this work has
laid fallow since the only fulltime historic preservation city staff position was eliminated
some years ago.
Nonetheless, this presents an opportunity for the HRB to revisit this work in progress and
potentially build upon it.
For example:
Pursuant to motivating City Council consideration and adoption of the Mills Act, what
existing documentation/work-in-progress materials are extant? And what is required to gain
access to them for review and evaluation?
How might the HRB develop a task plan to identify and scope the effort needed to prepare
those materials for submission?
And what new research and analysis might be needed to fit them current conditions and
realities?
For example, what have other nearby and in-region cities done with respect to adopting the
Mills Act – including understanding municipal revenue impacts – so Palo Alto can take
advantage of what they have learned and done?
2.e
Packet Pg. 85
3
For developers and builders: Creation of local digital preservation standard – to
capture content and create records of historic Palo Alto structures that are slated to be
demolished or significantly altered.
Premise: Adequate virtual preservation is better than no preservation at all!
For me, the demolition of the Campos building on El Camino Real trigged this idea.
That structure was deemed unqualified preservation and it was torn down without
documenting any of its salient features.
What is interesting is that in a time that emphasizes inclusion of people of color and other
marginalized communities that have long been left out much of the historical record, the
imperative to do so had to be balanced with the need for new, additional housing.
And there is also a precedent for this virtual approach: The Secretary of Interior Historic
American Buildings Survey Standard (HABS).
HABS is slowly evolving from its analogue roots, however it remains too complex, resource
intensive, and costly to provide a reasonable way to routinely capture content associated with
historic buildings, that for whatever reason, are going to be demolished.
The goal would be to create a local standard that streamlines digital capture, workflow, and
archiving of virtual historic preservation content, including best practices that make it easy
for practitioners to learn and implement.
Again, there is a lot of civic minded talent in our city. Just one example is the Palo Alto
Camera Club, whose membership includes many talented, award winning, and technically
skilled shooters. The club is often approached to cover local events on a volunteer, or small
stipend basis.
Gaining support for this preservation technique suggests many possibilities:
• Surveying and analyzing same or similar, or otherwise relevant digital preservation
efforts or programs used in other California municipalities..
• Scoping and validating cost parameters: Front-end, one-time costs for content
capture, organization, and quality assurance; back-end and ongoing costs for
repository and access infrastructure and operations.
• Identify advantages that this approach might covey to key constituencies and
stakeholders such as property owners and developers, as well as generating historical,
educational, accessibility benefits to our community as whole.
2.e
Packet Pg. 86
Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (1997-2001) 10/20/2015
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Page 1 of 6
Properties determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
Name/ Type Theme & Period Location No. of
Properties
Characteristics Notes
Various
Properties/
Individual
Resources
Palo Alto Early History
and Architecture, 1890s-
1940s
Concentrated in
Downtown/ North
Palo Alto
165
(147
existing)
Early residences, commercial
buildings, institutions, and other
structures
Various architectural styles/ types
The individual resource evaluations
(Status Codes) were listed in the
California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) in 2006
Square Cottages/
Multiple Property
Resource
Palo Alto Early Housing,
1890s-1900s
Concentrated in
Downtown/ North
Palo Alto
25 Historic working/ middle class
housing: one-story cottages/
bungalows
Queen Anne, Colonial Revival,
Bungalow styles
The identified Square Cottages were
previously listed in the Historic
Inventory in 1979
Two-Story Square
Boxes/ Multiple
Property Resource
Palo Alto Early Housing,
1890s-1900s
Concentrated in
Downtown/ North
Palo Alto
17 Historic working/ middle class
housing: two-story houses, flats,
apartments
Craftsman, Colonial Revival,
Renaissance, Prarie styles
The identified Two-Story Square
Boxes were previously in the Historic
Inventory in 1979
Professorville
/District
Palo Alto Early History
and Architecture, 1890s-
1940s
Bounded by
Addison, Cowper,
Embarcadero, and
Emerson streets
187 Early residential neighborhood
associated with the first generation
of University faculty
Victorian, Craftsman, Prairie, Period
Revival, Exotic Revival architectural
styles
The Professorville district was
previously listed in the National
Register, 1979/ Historic Inventory,
1979 & 1993
Updates are recommended
Green Gables
/District
Mid-Century Modern
Residential Design, 1950
Wildwood Lane,
Greer Road,
Channing Avenue,
Ivy Lane
63 Suburban residential subdivision
developed by Eichler Homes
Uniform single-story development in
Mid-Century Modern style
The Green Gables district was listed
in the National Register of Historic
Places in 2005
2.f
Packet Pg. 87
Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (1997-2001) 10/20/2015
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Page 2 of 6
Properties that may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources –
Further evaluation may be required to determine historical resource status
Name/ Type Theme & Period Location No. of Properties Characteristics Notes
Various
Properties/
Individual
Resources
Palo Alto Early
History and
Architecture,
1890s-1940s
Concentrated in
Downtown/
North Palo Alto
1,915 Early residences, commercial
buildings, institutions, and other
structures
Various architectural styles/ types
Potential individual resources include
properties previously identified as
potentially significant but not yet
intensively evaluated, as follows:
Study Priority Lists 1 & 2
Status Codes of “6”
Cottage Courts of
College Terrace
/Multiple
Property Resource
Early University
Housing, 1927-
1940s
College Terrace 50 Historic student/ working class
housing: groupings of vernacular
bungalows and cottages
Associated with the University’s
influence on the development of
Mayfield/ Palo Alto
The Cottage Courts of College Terrace
are considered to be a potential
multiple property resource because:
Period and thematic area are
defined and justified
Contextual theme is
established/ apparent
Christmas Tree
Lane /District
Palo Alto
Residential
Architecture,
1930-1940
Fulton Street,
1700-1800 blocks
31 Two-story, stucco-clad single family
homes built within a decade
Monterey Revival, French Norman
Revival, English Tudor Revival,
Spanish Colonial Revival, Colonial
Revival architectural styles
Unusual architectural cohesion for
Palo Alto
Christmas Tree Lane is considered to
be a potential district because:
Boundary is defined and
justified
Contextual theme is
established/ apparent
Minimal alterations/
intrusions
2.f
Packet Pg. 88
Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (1997-2001) 10/20/2015
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Page 3 of 6
Properties for which insufficient information exists to indicate that a historical resource may be present –
Further evaluation is not required unless new information becomes available regarding historical resource status
Name/ Type Theme & Period Location No. of Properties Characteristics Notes
Coastland
Subdivision
/District
Early Post-War
Residential
Development,
1947
Vicinity of
Oregon
Expressway
Approx. 100 Single developer, mass produced
suburban residential tract
Minimal Traditional architectural
style
Insulated, curvilinear street pattern
The Coastland Subdivision is not
sufficiently documented as a potential
district because:
Boundary is not defined or
apparent
Significance of architecture/
design is not established*
Subsequent alterations/
intrusions require analysis
*Existing 1940s-era street light
fixtures have aesthetic value and
should be maintained
Crescent Park
/District
Palo Alto
Neighborhood
Development,
1920s-1930s
Bordered by San
Francisquito
Creek, Chaucer
Street, Hamilton-
Center-Dana
streets, and
Newell Road
Approx. 200-300 Historic upper middle class
neighborhood, developed for
automobile owners
Mixed lot sizes, house types, and
architectural styles
Several master architects
represented by individual
developments
Crescent Park is not sufficiently
documented as a potential district
because:
Boundary is not defined or
apparent
Cohesive district theme is not
established
Criteria/ thresholds for
contributors are not defined
Subsequent alterations/
intrusions require analysis
Emerson-
Hamilton
Downtown
Expansion Area
/District
Early Downtown
Development,
1922-1927
Hamilton and
Emerson Streets
(overlaps with
the Ramona
Street district)
7 (6 existing) Two-story commercial storefront
buildings
Palo Alto Improvement Company
developments on Hamilton, Ramona
The Emerson-Hamilton Downtown
Expansion Area is not sufficiently
documented as a potential district
because:
District lacks integrity due to
2.f
Packet Pg. 89
Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (1997-2001) 10/20/2015
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Page 4 of 6
Properties for which insufficient information exists to indicate that a historical resource may be present –
Further evaluation is not required unless new information becomes available regarding historical resource status
Name/ Type Theme & Period Location No. of Properties Characteristics Notes
and Bryant Streets
Era of downtown development and
expansion
subsequent removal of a key
contributor and non-
compatible redevelopment
Remaining contributors were
previously listed in the Historic
Inventory, 1979 & 1993 and/or
National Register, 1986
Emery Subdivision
/District
Palo Alto
Neighborhood
Development,
1930s-1940s
Byron, Webster,
Santa Rita, and
North California
streets
Approx. 50-75 Historic middle class neighborhood
Mix of period revival and ranch
styles
Tract developed by individual
homeowners
The Emery Subdivision is not
sufficiently documented as a potential
district because:
Boundary is not defined or
apparent
Significance of architecture/
design is not established
Criteria/ thresholds for
contributors are not defined
Subsequent alterations/
intrusions require analysis
Hamilton-
University
Avenues /District
Palo Alto Early
Residential
Architecture,
1908-1925
Hamilton and
University
Avenues
between
Middlefield Road
and Chaucer
Street
Approx. 50-100 Historic upscale residential
neighborhood
Large residences, commonly Tudor
Revival and English vernacular
sources
Post-1906 development boom,
including San Francisco exoduses
Hamilton-University Avenues is not
sufficiently documented as a potential
district because:
Boundary is not defined or
apparent
Criteria/ thresholds for
contributors are not defined
Subsequent alterations/
intrusions require analysis
2.f
Packet Pg. 90
Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (1997-2001) 10/20/2015
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Page 5 of 6
Properties for which insufficient information exists to indicate that a historical resource may be present –
Further evaluation is not required unless new information becomes available regarding historical resource status
Name/ Type Theme & Period Location No. of Properties Characteristics Notes
Palo Alto Avenue-
San Francisquito
Creek /District
Palo Alto
Neighborhood
Development,
1900-1930
Palo Alto Avenue
between
Emerson and
Bryant streets;
possibly
Webster, Byron,
and Fulton
streets
Approx. 50-150 Historic middle class neighborhood
Wood frame residences in
suburban/ parkland setting
Craftsman/ bungalow predominant
Developed adjacent to City linear
parklands
Palo Alto Avenue-San Francisquito
Creek is not sufficiently documented
as a potential district because:
Boundary is not defined or
apparent
Cohesive district theme is not
established
Criteria/ thresholds for
contributors are not defined
Subsequent alterations/
intrusions require analysis
Roble Ridge Road-
Matadero Avenue
/District
Early Rural
Residential
Development,
1918-?
Roble Ridge
Road-Matadero
Avenue
25-30 Historic upper middle class
residential enclave
Eclectic rural properties located in a
U-shaped street pattern
Developments associated with Dr.
William Herbert Carruth et al.
Roble Ridge Road-Matadero Avenue is
not sufficiently documented as a
potential district because:
Boundary and period are not
defined or apparent
Significance of architecture/
design is not established
Criteria/ thresholds for
contributors are not defined
Subsequent alterations/
intrusions require analysis
Seale Addition
/District
Palo Alto
Neighborhood
Development,
1900-1940
Coleridge
Avenue, 200-600
blocks, and cross
blocks of Bryant,
Waverley,
Emerson streets;
Approx. 200-400 Historic middle class neighborhood
Mix of period revival styles
Tract developed by individual
homeowners
The Seale Addition is not sufficiently
documented as a potential district
because:
Boundary is not defined or
apparent
Cohesive district theme is not
2.f
Packet Pg. 91
Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (1997-2001) 10/20/2015
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Page 6 of 6
Properties for which insufficient information exists to indicate that a historical resource may be present –
Further evaluation is not required unless new information becomes available regarding historical resource status
Name/ Type Theme & Period Location No. of Properties Characteristics Notes
Cowper and
Waverley Streets
between Seale
and California
Avenues
established
Criteria/ thresholds for
contributors are not defined
Subsequent alterations/
intrusions require analysis
Southgate
/District
Palo Alto
Neighborhood
Development,
1923-1950s
Bounded by the
Southern Pacific
Railroad, Park
Boulevard, El
Camino Real, and
Churchill Avenue
Approx. 200-250 Historic upper middle class
neighborhood, developed for
automobile owners
Stucco-clad houses; mix of period
revival, ranch and modern styles
Subdivision design by the Palo Alto
Development Company
Southgate is not sufficiently
documented as a potential district
because:
Significance of architecture/
design is not established*
Criteria/ thresholds for
contributors are not defined
Subsequent alterations/
intrusions require analysis
*Existing 1920s-era street light
fixtures have aesthetic value and
should be maintained
2.f
Packet Pg. 92
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Palo Alto Historical Survey Update was an ambitious, multi-year project involving
the efforts of the survey consultant Dames & Moore, over 100 local volunteers, and the
City’s Planning Division Staff. The survey update identified, recorded, and evaluated
properties that appeared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
This final survey report was prepared to present the findings of the survey update and to
present the various types of information that were developed during the survey. The
contents of the final survey report include Historical Overview of Palo Alto’s Built
Environment (Chapter 1), Survey Methodology (Chapter 2), Findings (Chapter 3),
Potential Historic Districts Summaries (Chapter 4), Multiple Property Nominations
Summaries (Chapter 5), Historical Contexts Summaries (Chapter 6), Bibliography
(Chapter 7), List of Volunteers (Chapter 8), and DPR523 records (Chapter 9).
CHAPTER 1 — HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF PALO ALTO’S BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
This historical overview presents those aspects of Palo Alto’s history and architecture that
were addressed in the survey update of 1997-2000. The 1979 survey identified many of
the most obvious landmarks in the city, including the shingled houses of Professorville,
major houses and commercial buildings in the Spanish Colonial Revival (or Early
California) style and the works of several major architects. The buildings that were
identified in 1979 overwhelmingly represented the homes and businesses of the middle
and upper middle classes and were the products of an elite segment of the real estate,
design, and building industries. While these same types of buildings and groups are amply
represented in the 1997-2000 survey update, there is also much greater attention given to
the rest of the spectrum. This essay attempts to present a picture of the history of Palo
Alto’s built environment at all levels without repeating subjects covered in 1979. At every
moment, very different kinds of people lived in the city, and they built very different
kinds of buildings based on class, income, beliefs, and taste. This essay covers the period
up to about 1947. For the major Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings, for
Professorville, for a discussion of Palo Alto’s architectural styles, and for the downtown
1
2.g
Packet Pg. 93
development of University Avenue, see the 1979 survey and its survey report. This
historical overview was written by Michael Corbett, survey director.
CHAPTER 2 — SURVEY UPDATE METHODOLOGY
Notable aspects of the survey were the methodology designed to efficiently address a very
large number of buildings, an attempt to address a new feature of the built landscape —
the post-war subdivision — and a thorough consideration of all aspects of the NRHP
criteria for buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts. The survey process involved
three main stages or phases — the initial reconnaissance survey, an intensive survey, and
preparation of DPR523 records. The survey process is described in detail in the
Methodology section of this report.
CHAPTER 3 — SURVEY UPDATE FINDINGS
The Palo Alto Historical Survey Update evaluated 291 properties for individual eligibility
for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Of these 291 properties, 165 appear
eligible for the NRHP and 126 appear ineligible for the NRHP. The Evaluation Table in
this section provides a listing of all properties and their eligibility.
In addition to the properties that were evaluated for individual eligibility for the NRHP,
13 potentially significant historic districts, that warrant further study to determine their
NRHP eligibility, and three multiple property types were identified.
CHAPTER 4 — POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN PALO ALTO
A complete survey will identify significant properties in several categories: buildings,
structures, objects, sites, and districts. Each of these different types of properties is
identified and evaluated through a combination of field work and historical research.
Most potentially significant properties in Palo Alto are buildings (e.g. houses, churches,
commercial buildings) or structures (e.g. water tower). One property has been classified
as a site (Alta Mesa Cemetery). The last type of property — the historic district — may
include one or all of the other types of properties.
2
2.g
Packet Pg. 94
Historic districts are usually the last type of property identified in a survey. This is an
example of the cumulative nature of the survey process. Understanding the city’s history
and having identified buildings that are individually significant provides the knowledge
and basis for “seeing” districts. In a historic district the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts. For example, while a district may be composed of houses which are all
individually significant, it is more common that elements of districts may not be
individually significant. In other words, a district that is found to be eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places may include buildings that have not previously been
assessed as individually eligible for either the National Register of Historic Places or the
California Register of Historical Resources.
Thirteen areas were identified as potential National Register historic districts by Michael
Corbett, survey director. The potential districts were identified on the basis of the history
of Palo Alto and on the presence of concentrations of older buildings. A historic district
can be made up entirely of buildings that lack individual distinction if the group is
cohesive and significant. In almost every case, additional study is needed before a
definitive evaluation can be made. In most cases, an important factor in this additional
study would be the definition of a period of significance, the definition of boundaries, and
the evaluation of the integrity of the district. The potential historic districts identified in
the survey update are described in Chapter 4 of this report.
CHAPTER 5 — MULTIPLE PROPERTY NOMINATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE
SURVEY UPDATE
National Register Bulletin 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form, describes an alternative method for nominating certain
types of properties to the NRHP. “Groups of related significant properties” may be
nominated on a Multiple Property Documentation Form as a way of saving time and
effort. Preparation of a multiple property nomination may also serve as a way of
generating an historical context that recognizes a property type whose significance was
not previously evident. Although treated as a group, properties documented using the
Multiple Property format are individually eligible for the NRHP. At this time, three types
of properties appear eligible for the NRHP using the Multiple Property format, and the
3
2.g
Packet Pg. 95
final report provides a summary of these three types. These multiple property
nominations were identified by Michael Corbett, survey director.
CHAPTER 6 — HISTORICAL CONTEXTS DEVELOPED IN THE SURVEY
UPDATE
This section summarizes the historical contexts used in the preparation of the evaluations
on the DPR523 records for the survey. Historical contexts are general histories of a
variety of subjects which make it possible to compare and evaluate individual properties.
There are several types of entries of historical contexts in this section. Some are only a
list of standard sources of information that was consulted for the context (these generally
are either for well known and documented aspects of Palo Alto or for subjects that are
more general in nature). Other entries are a narrative text that was written for the survey
(these generally are for subjects specific to Palo Alto). Another source of historic
contexts was the book Palo Alto: A Centennial History by Ward Winslow. The contexts
in this section were prepared by Michael Corbett, survey director, and various survey
volunteers.
CHAPTER 7 — SURVEY UPDATE BIBLIOGRAPHY
The bibliography lists general sources used in conducting the survey update and in
preparing the final survey report. Sources used only in documenting specific properties
are cited on the specific DPR523 records, district summaries, or historical contexts to
which they apply.
CHAPTER 8 — LIST OF VOLUNTEERS FOR THE SURVEY UPDATE
The Palo Alto Historical Survey Update was the result of the combined efforts of Dames
& Moore, local volunteers, and City of Palo Alto Planning Division staff. The volunteers
were trained by the historical consultants Dames & Moore to perform tasks that required
them to record information. The volunteers recorded information about the existing
physical appearance of buildings in Study Priority 1 (using field forms prepare by Dames
& Moore), took photographs of these buildings, conducted property specific research for
Study Priority 1, maintained files on each property, and researched and wrote historical
4
2.g
Packet Pg. 96
contexts. A list of volunteers who participated in the survey update is provided in this
section.
CHAPTER 9 — DPR523 RECORDS PREPARED IN THE SURVEY UPDATE
In California, the results of surveys and the evaluations are typically summarized and
recorded on a standard form known as the California State Historic Properties (DPR523)
Record. Preparation of the DPR523 records was the final phase of the evaluation
process. Two hundred ninety one DPR523 records were prepared as part of the survey
update. Copies of these DPR523 records may be found at the Guy C. Miller Archives of
the Palo Alto City Library and the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
5
2.g
Packet Pg. 97
6
2.g
Packet Pg. 98
2.h
Packet Pg. 99
2.h
Packet Pg. 100
2.h
Packet Pg. 101
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 13532)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 9/9/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes June 24, 2021
Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 24,
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):
• June 24, 2021
Attachments:
• Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes June 24, 2021 (DOCX)
3
Packet Pg. 102
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair David Bower, Vice Chair Shepherd; Board Members, Michael Makinen, Margaret
Wimmer, Christian Pease, Gogo Heinrich, Caroline Willis
Absent:
Oral Communications
[None]
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
[None]
Officer Election
1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Chair Bower said he will stay on the Board until the end of his term. He said he thinks he has done enough
as Chair to step aside and let someone else run with the baton. In addition, he said Ms. Shepherd is moving,
and this will be her last meeting. He thanked her for her service and all the information she has shared
from the Santa Clara County Historic Committee. Chair Bower invited nominations for Chair.
Board Member Makinen and Board Member Wimmer declined to be nominated.
Board Member Wimmer nominated Board Member Willis for Chair, saying she has been on the Board before,
is very informed, has great experience and is very enthusiastic.
Chair Bower nominated Board Member Pease for Chair, stating he is another new member with energy and
interest. He said Board Member Willis has also expressed interest in initiatives important to the HRB, so he
would be pleased to have either of them as Chair.
Board Member Pease declined the nomination as Chair, but appreciated the confidence demonstrated in
him. Board Member Willis accepted the nomination for Chair.
Chair Bower nominated Board Member Pease as Vice Chair. Board Member Pease accepted this nomination.
Motion by Chair Bower to nominate Board Member Willis as Chairman and Board Member Pease as Vice
Chair. Seconded by Board Member Shepherd.
Board Member Willis stated that if she does chair the HRB, she expects the Committee to meet more often
and develop some goals to evidence progress in accomplishing a few things during the next year.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: June 24, 2021
Virtual Teleconference Meeting
8:31 A.M.
3.a
Packet Pg. 103
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Board Member Pease said when there are no properties in the docket to review, he would like to have
meetings from time to time to look at the Work Plan and evaluate where they are, to keep motivated and
moving.
The motion carried unanimously.
Chair Bower congratulated Board Member Willis and turned the meeting over to her.
City Official Reports
2. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments.
Ms. French explained that there is no major project on the docket for July, but the Committee could certainly
meet in July. Meetings will remain on Zoom until further notice. She thought there was talk of coming back
to a hybrid model, potentially by August, but this has not been confirmed. She said there are two calendar
dates each month for meetings. During the past reporting period five meetings were held.
Ms. French shared the dates for upcoming meetings and asked that if anyone has an issue with any of the
dates to let Vinh or her know, so they can secure the next meeting date. It was agreed to cancel the July
8th meeting date.
Chair Willis asked if they were restricted to Zoom for a retreat. Ms. French said she would explore this, but
thought it wise to look towards August for this, when City staff starts coming back into the building. Chair
Willis indicated she would like to meet on July 22nd to review subcommittee assignments and talk about
how to organize the committee for the next year. She would also like to do an in-person retreat, because
she feels there is a different type of connection when there is some down-time, especially outside of
“Zooming.” A July 22nd Zoom meeting was agreed upon. Ms. French said she understands that the City
Clerk will be advertising for the position to be vacated by Board Member Shepherd, but they may not have
a seventh member for a few months.
Board Member Bower said he assumed that they would not meet on Veterans Day and Thanksgiving, and
also wondered about December 23rd, which they have typically not done. Chair Willis agreed that these
three dates could be cancelled. She encouraged all to be available on December 9th, because she does
think they lose momentum when they wait too long.
Action Items
3. Discuss the Historic Resources Board’s (ARB) Draft Work Plan Shared With the City Council
Ms. French made a brief presentation on this item. She thanked Board Member Shepherd for her service
on the Committee and service as the Vice Chair. She shared the HRB Work Plan and explained the items
that are intended to be part of the plan. Council accepted the Work Plan on June 21st and did not add any
items. The HRB may add items during the year, and will also have the opportunity to work on the next
fiscal year plan. Council Member Cormack clarified that all of the Work Plans were on the Consent Agenda
for the Council, and nothing was pulled from Consent, so while it was reviewed, it was not an action or
discussion item.
Ms. French shared a slide defining the purview of the HRB, as listed in the Code. She presented a slide as
detailed in the staff report, with information drawn from the CLG (Certified Local Government) report,
indicating the five items on the Work Plan for the next fiscal year. These include review of alterations to
historic resources; supporting implementation of Comprehensive Plan policies; inventory upgrades and
nominations; improving outreach, reviewing incentives, and developing the work program for FY 22-23;
and Tailored Mills Act Program discussion. She shared the Comprehensive Plan, Goal L-7, which includes
robust goals pertaining to historic resources. She shared a number of additional policies which would be
good topics for the Committee to examine and discuss, perhaps at the retreat.
3.a
Packet Pg. 104
City of Palo Alto Page 3
In regard to “inventory upgrades and nominations,” Board Member Bower asked Ms. French to share with
the Board what happened with the application for the Mid-Century Modern Survey of Palo Alto, since they
have had a grant application ready for three years. Ms. French said there is an opportunity every May to
submit the grant applicant. She had received in the past year an estimate of cost from their lead consultant,
but a decision was made not to move forward because of uncertainty with the budget as well as lack of a
dedicated staff member for the program. The deadline has passed for this year, but she said it would be
great to take this on in the next year and get permission and support to submit the application. Board
Member Bower said he finds this very frustrating and unsupportive of the HRB. That the grant would be
free money to the City, but can’t be submitted because the City can’t find staff funding, even in this difficult
time, is unacceptable. He wondered why there is not money available for this after three years. Ms. French
said it was a combination of budget cuts. There were positions cut from the budget in prior years, and they
were in the budget cycle for this year, but it was uncertain what was going to happen. They are able to
use salary savings to pay for consultant help, but it is harder to commit to hiring a full time position with
uncertainty in budgets. Vice Chair Pease asked who makes this decision. Ms. French said Director Lait would
make the decision in consultation with folks that are preparing the budget. She said there are a number of
initiatives, such as the Housing Element, and it’s the same staff that are doing so many things. Vice Chair
Pease said if it was ready to go, he doesn’t understand not submitting it. Ms. French said it’s not that the
application needs more work. The problem is if the grant is awarded, it will require staff work to focus on
it.
Board Member Shepherd suggested, if staff availability is an issue, they could perhaps outsource, at least
to a consultant, a public program to raise awareness about mid-century architecture in Palo Alto. She
informed them that Stanford is going to be tearing down a mid-century building, the Lou Henry Hoover
Memorial Building, a low, white structure with very distinctive colonnade of white arches. She said she was
sorry to report that the County of Santa Clara has approved the demolition permit, and the Historical
Heritage Commission did vote to support the staff recommendation, although they qualified it with advice
as to adjustments that could be made to the design for the new building, which is taller, more massive
and, some felt, not responsive to context. The Zoning Administrator/Officer disregarded that advice. She
thinks they will be seeing other mid-century buildings coming down at Stanford in the relatively near future
and she sees it as an opportunity for Palo Alto to take the lead and at least start educating people.
Chair Willis said this is something they will want to talk about next month when they are together again.
She likes the idea of workshops or online tours or other ways to approach it. She asked the Board Members
to think about how they would like to see this done, and resources, aside from staff, that might be available,
adding that some of the members of the past community would help with legwork if needed. She asked
Ms. French if members of the public could be present in breakout groups. Ms. French said yes, as part of
a retreat. Chair Willis also asked if the Ad Hoc committees are restricted to Board Members, or if they can
include outsiders. She feels Ad Hoc committees are a good way to move things forward. Since the Board
is reduced to six, and many members are new, they could benefit from some outside help, and it might be
a way to lead people to joining the HRB.
Vice Chair Pease said this touches on a point he wanted to raise, after attending two of the annual
conferences for the Preservation Foundation. There are a number of presentations about cities larger than
Palo Alto that have done a good job of crowdsourcing a lot of work for preservation, including data entry,
recording of structures before they’re demolished, and other things. He thought it was interesting, and if
there is a chronic shortage of staff which bottlenecks progress, then it’s something that should be discussed
in this outreach. He said, while they should consider financial incentives, those seem less than adequate to
be compelling in the current market, in many cases. Chair Willis asked Vice Chair Pease to summarize this
proposal and send a brief report regarding how this might happen. Ms. French asked him to send the report
to her or Vinh to distribute to the Board, warning that they must always be careful about the communication
methods.
Chair Willis asked Ms. French to also send out the slides on the Comprehensive Plan, as they are particularly
relevant to the Board. She would also like the notebook given to new HRB members that gives the relevant
3.a
Packet Pg. 105
City of Palo Alto Page 4
parts of the Code without having to look through everything. Ms. French said the webpages have links, but
she will compile something and send it out to the Board along with the Comprehensive Plan policies, to
reinvigorate discussions in preparation for the retreat.
Ms. French said there is not a need for the HRB to adopt the Work Plan, because it has already been
transmitted, but if there are comments, they could consider reviewing it again, and if there are changes to
be made, it could be revised at that time. Chair Willis thought this should be a primary item for the next
meeting, focusing on whether there is anything missing from the Work Plan.
Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 8, 2021
Chair Willis pointed out remarks on pages 8 and 9 that were made by her but attributed to Board Member
Wimmer. She asked when the switch to summary minutes will occur. Vinh indicated this could happen
immediately.
Council Member Cormack pointed out an error in transcription on page 2, in Ms. French’s comments, where
“I quit” guidelines should be “Eichler” guidelines.
Motion by Board Member Bower, seconded by Board Member Shepherd, to approve the minutes as
corrected.
Council Member Cormack pointed out that votes must now be oral, and raising of hands does not constitute
a vote. Ms. French concurred and said that with official actions, voice votes are needed. She added that,
for those who were not in attendance at a meeting, they need to abstain from voting on approval of
minutes.
The motion to approve the minutes of April 8, 2021, as corrected, carried unanimously, by roll call vote.
Board Member Bower noted that the election of Chair and Vice Chair should probably be taken again, by
roll call vote.
Motion by Board Member Bower moved, seconded previously by Board Member Shepherd, to nominate
Caroline Willis as Chair. The motion passed, 7-0, by roll call vote.
Motion by Board Member Bower moved, seconded previously by Board Member Shepherd, to nominate
Christian Pease as Vice Chair. The motion passed, 7-0, by roll call vote.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Chair Willis invited questions and comments from the Board.
Board Member Shepherd shared that she has enjoyed serving on the HRB. She encouraged the Board
Members to let others know about Leadership Palo Alto, which is how she learned of the opportunity five
years ago, when she was new in town. She reported that the City Council voted at their last meeting to
extend the lease for the Palo Alto History Museum, in their efforts to restore the building, including using
grant money awarded from the County for the roof, so hopefully there will be great momentum again. She
said the survey is completed regarding the community stakeholder group in the San Juan Hill neighborhood.
The County commissioned the survey 15 months ago. The consultant was ESA. The community group met
five times. The County Planning Department will make their recommendations at the next Board of
Supervisors meeting. The survey identified four potential historic districts and 180 eligible historic homes.
They did not do HSAs as initially proposed in the contract for 15 structures. She said nothing new will be
added to the Historic Resource Inventory as a result of the survey, but the appendix exists with all of the
data that has been collected by the Stanford Historical Society, and it is a good resource. Planning staff is
not proposing to go forward with any historic districts. Unfortunately, coming out of this, people are even
more confused about what that might mean, thinking it’s expensive and invasive. They don’t understand
that it might increase the value of their homes.
Board Member Shepherd went on to comment that, in thinking of what to do at their retreats and training,
the Board might consider ESA, who did a nice 30-minute presentation about historic districts in general.
3.a
Packet Pg. 106
City of Palo Alto Page 5
She said when she came to Palo Alto she didn’t know anything about its historic districts, and she thinks
they are looking pretty good now after the experience she’s had. She suggested it might be helpful for
some of the newer or returning people to have a brush-up about what Palo Alto has, how they got there,
and how well it’s working now. Going forward, there will be no new historic districts, there will be no
additions to the Historic Resource Inventory, unless someone applies for a demolition permit or a major
renovation. She explained the three choices staff is giving to the Supervisors. One is to continue the status
quo, which is somewhat better than it was when it started, because staff did go back and look at the 2000
General Use Permit, where they found in the Historic Resource section that there were regulations that
were not being enforced either by the County or by Stanford, so they are attempting to be more vigilant.
The second option is to invest money in further research around one or more of the historic districts. She
said she is sure there will be absolutely no appetite for that because there is no money and no community
support for it. The third plan is to work with the Stanford Community Plan, which would possibly present
an opportunity in the future to restrict the increasing density in large lots in the San Juan Hill neighborhood.
She thinks this came about partly because there were concerns that buildings and homes were being left
derelict and would be torn down, and more units would be built on the properties. The thought is that
within the Community Plan it is possible to restrict density there, but only if they find other higher density
housing elsewhere on campus, which could be a very long process.
Council Member Cormack offered a minor correction regarding the Palo Alto History Museum, that the
Council did not vote to extend the lease. There is no lease. They voted to direct staff to work to create a
lease. The funding is quite complicated. If anyone is interested in where it came from, she was happy to
explain that and why she voted against using the funding in that manner at another time. She thanked Ms.
Shepherd for her service and was sorry she could not shake her hand. She wished her the best. The City
Council and community appreciates her service and are glad she has been a part of the community.
Chair Willis thanked Council for approving the funding for the Roth Building, saying might not have been
the best use of those funds, but it is easier to encourage preservation in Palo Alto when the City is onboard
with its own properties. They are grateful that this happened.
Chair Willis said she hopes all will be at the next meeting on July 22nd. The two subcommittees she envisions
for this year are one on the Mills Act and one on public engagement, so they might be thinking about where
they might want to engage on those. She would like to see everyone do one or the other. She asked Ms.
French about a letter regarding a house built in the commercial district, near Fry’s, in which the writer was
requesting assistance. She said it was an attached to the agenda, and she wondered if anyone had
responded to it. Board Member Bower said this was in regard to 340 Sherman. Ms. French added that she
had replied to the email.
Board Member Bower commented, in regard to the Fry’s site, that the committee that has been working
on the site once again came up with nothing that works in terms of historic preservation of Fry’s. He thought
the worst recommendation for the Fry’s Building – which is an incredibly important historic building in Palo
Alto and California history – was to tear it down and replace it with multiple units. The last plan proposal
was going to modify the building, much the way the Varsity Theater Building has been modified to totally
obliterate its interior historic features and characteristics. Board Member Bower said he was dumbfounded
that there wasn’t better representation about the importance of the building and thought that Sobrato,
oddly enough, gets it right. It ought to remain, in his opinion, as a mixed commercial building, because
that is the only way to preserve its historic character, but the committee examining it was tone deaf about
it. He feels they ought to be watching that situation, because it’s an important building for Palo Alto.
Adjournment
Chair Willis moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Vice Chair Pease, the motion carried, 7-0, by voice
vote.
3.a
Packet Pg. 107