The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-01-27 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: January 27, 2022 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 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 through 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. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Call to Order / Roll Call 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic Resources Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency 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 2. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Historic Resources Board Retreat: Topics Include Discussion of Work Plan Related to Existing Historic Resources Inventory and 1998-2000 Historic Survey _______________________ 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. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October 28, 2021 5. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of December 9, 2021 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes 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 Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz 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. Please read the following instructions carefully. • 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. • 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. • 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. • When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. • 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. 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. 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 # 13958) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/27/2022 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: • 2022 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 11 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2022 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 01/27/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 02/10/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 02/24/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 03/10/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 03/24/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 04/14/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 04/28/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 05/12/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 05/26/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 06/09/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 06/23/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 07/14/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 07/28/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 08/11/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 08/25/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 09/08/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 09/22/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/13/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/27/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/10/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/24/2022 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled Thanksgiving Day 12/08/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/22/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 2022 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December 2.a Packet Pg. 12 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 13750) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/27/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Retreat Title: Historic Resources Board Retreat: Topics Include Discussion of Work Plan Related to Existing Historic Resources Inventory and 1998-2000 Historic Survey From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff and the HRB Chair recommend the following Historic Resources Board (HRB) agenda. Roundtable Member introductions and statements of interest in Historic Preservation Inventory 1. Status of Local Inventory1 properties a. How many/which of the 511 properties demolished since 2012 update (and why) Note: 206 of these are category 3s & 4s outside Professorville/Ramona historic districts) b. Which properties upgraded their category since 2012 (and why) Inventory Update Process 1. Review Local Inventory Nominations Process - PAMC Section 18.49.040 a. Owners contact staff, submit DPR, photos, owner signature page, fee b. HRB meeting, Council Consent Item 2. Discuss Next Steps Including Potential for Submitting OHP Grant for Districts 3. Status of our National and California Eligible Properties (not on Local Inventory) a. 165 NRHP Properties from 1998-2000 Historical Survey (minus # demolished)2 b. 16+ properties determined CRHR Eligible since December 2017 Comp Plan 1 Inventory Master List circa 2012: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/city-historic-inventory-list.pdf 2 National Register Eligible Properties Chart 2022 Prepared by Chair Willis 3 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Revisit HRB Work Plan 1. 2021 Work Plan – Overview of results, metrics of community involvement/participation 2. 2022 Work Plan – Discuss (due April 2022 to Council) and Draft Goals for 2022 a. Update Inventory3 – Process (today’s discussion) b. Mills Act - schedule for February agenda c. Outreach - Plan for Preservation Week activities (Schedule for March Agenda) d. Development of New Historic Districts (June Agenda) e. System to store Information on lost resources (Schedule for July Agenda) City’s Historic Preservation Webpages 4 DPR forms (black and white) vs PAST website’s color photos/content Background Information and Attachments • September 9, 2021 report link that contains links to important historic preservation pages: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2021/hrb-9.9-retreat.pdf for informational documents to explain the 1998-2000 survey (attachments include Summary of Findings/Executive Summary from Historic Survey Report 1998-2000) • Chart of NRHP Eligible Properties 2022 prepared by Chair Willis (Attachment A) • Mapping Team draft document prepared by Vice Chair Pease (Attachment B) Report Author & Contact Information HRB5 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: National Register Eligible Properties Chart 2022 Prepared by Chair Willis for January 27, 2022 (DOCX) • Attachment B: Team One Map Overlays prepared by Vice Chair Pease for January 27, 2022 HRB (DOCX) 3 Council Direction 12-6-21: Council requested staff to return to Council with the information necessary to update the city’s inventory 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation 5 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 14 ATTACHMENT A: PROPERTIES DETERMINED ELIGIBLE FOR NATIONAL REGISTER IN 1998-2000 SURVEY EVALUATION TABLE PREPARED BY CHAIR WILLIS FOR JANUARY 27, 2022 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING LEGEND: ✔️ VERIFIED ADDED TO LIST X NO LONGER APPEARS ELIGIBLE, DEMOLISHED ? DID NOT LOCATE ADDRESS ?? QUESTIONABLE ELIGIBILITY A ALISA WILL SURVEY CP CHRISTIAN WILL SURVEY updated January 18, 2022 ADDRESS STREET NRHP ELIGIBLE UNDER CRITERIA ARCHITECT OWNER YEAR NOTES A B C 471 Addison Ave x ✔️ 201 Alma St x x City 1910 Water tank 1101 Alma St x ✔️ Rail Road Bridge Alma St over San Francisquito Creek x x Union Pacific RR 1902 Rail Road Bridge 2230 Amherst x x 695 Arastradero Rd x x 1904 Cemetery 2264 Bowdoin St x ✔️ ? 162 Bryant St x x 1908 Added daylight basement 541 - 549 Bryant St x x Commercial, lingerie, ramen 635 Bryant St x x ✔️ 730 Bryant St x x Jana 1903 x 802 - 804 Bryant St x x 1904/1898? x 806 Bryant St x x x 840 Bryant St x 1906 x 846 Bryant St x x 1904 2160 Bryant St x Lawrence Kruse 1936 Cape Cod & Georgian 336 Byron x 518 Byron x x 3.a Packet Pg. 15 2 ADDRESS STREET NRHP ELIGIBLE UNDER CRITERIA ARCHITECT OWNER YEAR NOTES A B C 2277 Byron x 321 California Ave x x Safeway 1938 “Super Drive In Market” Moderne 421 California Ave x Birge Clark 1929 “Golden State Creamery” Wells P. Goodenough, Builder Spanish Colonial Revival Batchelder tile 1382 California Ave x 1900 Demolished? 1590 California Ave x x 1912 California bungalow 555 Center Dr x Leslie Nichols 1934, 1939 W.P. Goodenough 471 Channing Ave x x 1902 Moved 1980 Queen Anne & craftsman bungalow ?? 667 - 669 Channing Ave x x 1896 LAVENDAR, STRANGLY MODERNIZED 751 Channing Ave x x 1906 545 Chaucer St x ?? 560 Chaucer St x x REBUILT 538 Churchill Ave x ✔️ 380 Coleridge Ave x ✔️ 418 Coleridge Ave x x x ✔️ 509 Coleridge Ave x x ✔️ 537 Coleridge Ave x ✔️ 570 Coleridge Ave x x x 660 Coleridge Ave x x ✔️ 643 - 645 College Ave x barn ✔️ 885 College Ave Stanford 1927 Reviewed 2018 ✔️ 1032 College Ave x x 1080 College Ave x Currently getting large addition ✔️ 2025 Columbia St x 3.a Packet Pg. 16 3 ✔️ 2115-2121 Cornell St x x Twins w/neighbor, stone chimney, shingled ✔️ 2127-2133 Cornell St x x Same as above ✔️ 250 Cowper St x x 1906 Queen Anne & Craftsman Bungalow ✔️ 330 Cowper St x pink ✔️ 818 - 820 Cowper St x ✔️ 828 - 830 Cowper St Matches above property - add ✔️ 904 Cowper St x x x 1906 Parkinson ✔️ 1535 Cowper St x x ✔️ 1570 Cowper St x DeLemos 1929 Normandy Vernacular ✔️ 1620 Cowper St x x Charles Sumner 1931 ✔️ 1965 Cowper St x x x Seale Addition, long-time Mayor ✔️ 2005 Cowper St x 1931 Community Players ✔️ 2150 Cowper St x x Leslie Nichols 1936 Ferry Morse Seeds ? 2175 Cowper St x x Erwin Keichel 1930 Colonial Revival Builder: WF Klay. Structure intact Solar panels added to street facing roof ✔️ 50 Crescent Dr x x x 1929 ✔️ 63 Crescent Dr x Gottschalk & Rist 1926 ✔️ 75 Crescent Dr x x 1928 Monterey Colonial Revival ✔️ 1275 Dana Ave x Sumner 1936 addition 1935 Paddleford/ ”styelistically Old-fashioned” CP 2601 East Bayshore Road x x City communications ✔️ 541 East Crescent Dr ✔️ 1401 Edgewood Dr x x David Clark 1938 ✔️ 1449 Edgewood Dr x Dr Roth 1929 Clinic ✔️ 1474 Edgewood Dr x x Birge Clark Clinic ✔️ 1485 Edgewood Dr x ✔️ 2171 El Camino Real x Church, Ananda ✔️ 311 El Carmelo Ave x 1894 Moved 1947 Boarding house, Stick Eastlake, Originally 164 Hamilton ✔️ Underpass Embarcadero Rd at Alma x ✔️ 2560 Embarcadero Rd x x Birge Clark Sea Scouts 210 - 216 Emerson St x x 1905 4 units 3.a Packet Pg. 17 4 611 - 623 Emerson St x x ✔️ 731 Emerson St x x 1895 Cook/Willis ✔️ 945 - 949 Emerson St x Commercial w/house behind ✔️ 1215 Emerson St x ✔️ 1436-1464 Emerson St x x Bungalow Court 482 Everett Ave x x ✔️ 332 * Forest Ave x x Apartments, newly painted ✔️ 446 Forest Ave x x Appears altered, but not recently ✔️ 555 Forest Ave x x Moderne, 7 units ? 939 Forest Ave x x Altered ✔️ 1055 Forest Ave x 1896 Gutted and rebuilt 1001 Fulton St x x 1011 Fulton St x x ✔️ 1726 Fulton St x Fairy Tale, Christmas Tree Lane ✔️ 365 Guinda St x x x JW Wells 1910 Wells owner & contr. Classical ✔️ 381 Guinda St x Shingled bungalow 551 Hale St x x DIDN’T FIND ADDRESS ✔️ 132 - 136 Hamilton Ave x x 1924 PA Ice Delivery Co X 755 Hamilton Ave x x 1920 Pattern book: NEW ADDITION OVERSHADOWS HOUSE ✔️ 855 Hamilton Ave x x Charles Kaiser 1916 ✔️ 925 Hamilton Ave x 1908 ✔️ 951 Hamilton Ave x x ✔️ 972 Hamilton Ave x 1924 Renaissance/Baroque ✔️ 975 Hamilton Ave x x 1909 Prairie X 1157 Hamilton Ave x W.F. Klay 1941 Modern ranch 1407 Hamilton Ave x x 1933 Arts and Crafts 1423 Hamilton Ave x 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival Builder: E.J. Schmaling 1452 Hamilton Ave x ✔️ 2131 Harvard St x 1906 - 1908 John Albee, Mayfield Marshall ✔️ 365 Hawthorne Ave x ✔️ 375 Hawthorne Ave x x ADDED BASEMENT, REWARD THEM 544 - 554 Hawthorne Ave x 3.a Packet Pg. 18 5 ✔️ 317* High St x 1901 - 1902 Builder: G.W. Mosher ✔️ 323* High St x x 1904 ✔️ 334* High St x x 1899 Queen Anne, Square cottage Builder: H.L. Upham ✔️ 342 – 344* High St x x 900 High St x x Birge Clark 1946 PA Nash Co 260 Homer Ave x x Erwin Reichel 1931 Cardinal French Laundry 469 Homer Ave x x Charles Hodges 1906 Craftsman bungalow Adjacent to Woman’s Club ✔️ 680 Homer Ave x x CORNER OF MIDDLEFIELD 175 Island Dr x Branner 1936 Builder: Goodenough ✔️ 230 Kellogg Ave x 1916 First female council member Duplex ✔️ 270 Kellogg Ave x x x 1909 Craftsman bungalow, High Jump Innovator, Olympian ✔️ 360 Kellogg Ave x x 1919 ✔️ 559 Kingsley Ave x x x ? 437 Kipling St x x Addition in back, plain ✔️ 815 Kipling St x x ✔️ 817 Kipling St x x ✔️ 823 - 825 Kipling St x x ✔️ 832 Kipling St x x 630 Lincoln Ave x x 2931-2933 Louis Rd x 1914 farm ✔️ 411 Lytton Ave x x OLD HOUSE 1511 Madrono Ave x Pop Warner 419 Maple St x Leslie Nichols & Birge Clark 1930 Builder: Goodenough For Nichols fathert X 778 Melville Ave x x 1904 ✔️ 211 Middlefield Rd x 1920 ✔️ 218 Middlefield Rd x ?? 258 Middlefield Rd x ALTERED 1990 Newell Rd x x David Clark 1939 3.a Packet Pg. 19 6 ✔️ 426 blue Palo Alto Ave x x 1903 Craftsman bungalow ✔️ Cistern Palo Alto Ave at Hale x x City of PA 1924 Cistern and pump house 1757 Park Blvd x x 1795 Park Blvd x x 1904 285 Quarry Rd x x Reed & Corlett Stanford 1931 Palo Alto Hospital 245 Ramona St x x 925 Roble Ridge Rd x x James Witt 1922 Dormers added 955* Roble Ridge Rd x x 435 Santa Rita Ave x Leslie Nichols 1936 Tudor Revival X 943 Scott St x x x 1247 Stanford Ave x 425 Tasso St x x Underpass University Ave at Alma x City of PA 1941 1056 University Ave x x 1926 For sale 1341 University Ave x 1570 University Ave x x Birge Clark 1933 121 Waverley St x 1904 Colonial Revival/Queen Anne ✔️ 311* Waverley St & 404 Everett x 1900 1923 Airplane bungalow 1923 converted to multifamily ✔️ 313* Waverley St x x 1902 “doll house like” ✔️ 324 – 326* Waverley St x x 1901 Queen Anne square cottage ✔️ 333* Waverley St x x 1906 ✔️ 385* Waverley St x x 650 Waverley St x x 720 Waverley St x x 1911 ?? 845 Waverley St x x STANDING SEAM MTL ROOF ✔️ 947 Waverley St x x FIRST GROUP? ✔️ 959 Waverley St x x FIRST GROUP? C-Y 1545 Waverley St x x 1905 Queen Anne/Colonial Revival ✔️ 251 Webster St x x ✔️ 530 Webster St x x ? 619 - 623 Webster St x 619 intact, locate 621 3.a Packet Pg. 20 7 ✔️ ? 721 Webster St x x 1905 Dennis Levett. IDENTIFY 719 and 723 new addresses ✔️ 1235 Webster St x x ✔️ 1345 Webster St x x ✔️ 1935 Webster St x Wurster 1935 Modern ranch ✔️ 2280 Webster St x Stedman 1934 ranch 488 West Charleston Rd x 1928 Agriculture in PA Fruit and truck farmer 3.a Packet Pg. 21 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF PALO ALTO HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD -TEAM ONE- MAPPING TASK HOMEWORK FOR THE JANUARY 2022 RETREAT Trial Balloon Draft for Team Review Prepared by Vice Chair Pease Objectives: To explore the feasibility of creating and deploying a publicly accessible interactive map of the City of Palo Alto, inclusive of user selectable filters and overlays. This process commences in consultation with Roland Rivera, City of Palo Alto GIS expert, for an initial assessment of what is technically possible and at what level of difficulty and cost, as well as what is not feasible or practical to undertake. Importantly, this evaluation should account for the necessary mechanics needed to perform updates and corrections to any and all underlying source lists or databases. It should also consider how integrations with these data sources might be rank ordered for implementation, as well as how subsequent integrations can be implemented most efficiently. Potential User Selectable Filters / Overlays: 1) Existing historic districts – 4 total. 2) Requested or potential but unlisted historic districts – 13 total (via a 1998-2000 survey). 3) Current inventory of historic resources individually listed locally and/or on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and/or the National Historic Registers of Historic Places (NRHP) 4) Current unlisted inventory (via a 1998-2000 survey) of approximately 165 structures deemed eligible for the CRHR and NRHP. 5) Current unlisted Inventory (via a 1998-2000 survey) deemed to be possibly eligible for local listing and/or the CRHR and NRHP. 6) An emerging inventory being compiled by/through the Housing Element Working Group’s (HEWG) 6th Cycle Housing Element planning process – the “opportunity housing sites selection process”) – in response to recently enacted statewide housing legislation. 3.b Packet Pg. 22 7) Other user selectable filters and mapping overlays TBD Points of Integration: 1) City of Palo Alto: Parcel Look-up System 2) Santa Clara County Built Environment Resource Directory or “BERD” (excluding properties owned by Stanford University and located within university boundaries). 3) Forms for each of the 165 unlisted structures deemed eligible for listing as a result of the 1998-2000 survey, all presumably paper-based documents now housed in the Palo Alto Library’s Guy Miller Archive, that may require an intelligent scanning process: optical character recognition; as well as the addition of meta-data for searchability. 4) Other potential points of integrations to existing lists or databases TBD. 3.b Packet Pg. 23 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 13934) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/27/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes October 28, 2021 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October 28, 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): • October 28, 2021 Attachments: • Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes October 28, 2021 (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Caroline Willis, Vice Chair Christian Pease; Board Members, Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, Christian Pease, Gogo Heinrich, and David Bower Absent: Oral Communications [None] Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Willis recommended that the approval of the minutes be moved to the beginning of meetings going forward. Motion by Chair Willis to move the approval of minutes to the beginning of the agenda of all future meetings. Seconded by Vice Chair Pease, the motion carried unanimously, by roll call vote. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 9, 2021. Motion by Vice Chair Pease to approve the minutes of September 9, 2021. Seconded by Board Member Bower, the motion carried unanimously, by voice vote. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments Chair Willis requested that the schedule include both the January and December meetings. Ms. French advised that the Board Retreat will be held on December 9th and could be done in-person, which would be a hybrid meeting. She said the Council will hold their first in-person, hybrid meeting this coming week. She said that only the Chamber is currently set up to do hybrid meetings, so the retreat would have to be held at the Chambers, because it is a requirement that the meetings are recorded, and with a quorum of members. Hybrid meetings are not required until January. Ms. French explained that a hybrid meeting is when all of the Board Members are present in the Chambers, and the public may attend. Staff will be present remotely, and Zoom participation will also be available for the public. Chair Willis asked if they could meet in the staff area, around a table. Ms. French wasn’t sure, since the meeting will be filmed. Chair Willis requested the Board meet in person for the December meeting. All Board Members agreed to this. Chair Willis hoped that they could meet at a table, face-to-face, as opposed to seated on the dais. Chair Willis advised that the meeting scheduled for December 23rd probably won’t happen. The January meetings would be scheduled for the 13th and 27th, and she hoped to hold both of them in order to get started working on goals set at the retreat. Board Member Bower advised he will not be available on the 13th, but could probably attend via Zoom. Ms. French said the options for HRB meetings are officially listed as the second and fourth Thursday of each month, although typically it is based on what is on the agenda. She commented that she would prefer to get staff reports out before the week of the 20th for meetings in December. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: October 28, 2021 Virtual Teleconference Meeting 8:30 A.M. 4.a Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Willis reiterated she would like to get back on a regular schedule, and she would like the Board to be more proactive than reactive. She would like to meet on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month through 2022 and suggested this be discussed at the retreat. 2. Review Potential Discussion Topics for December 2021 Retreat. Chair Willis asked for feedback from the Board Members on items for discussion at the retreat. Vice Chair Pease thought she had outlined the topics very well, although they have not yet discussed the teams the Chair wished to organized. Board Member Wimmer thought the teams were a wonderful idea and that they should perhaps go over each team and discuss their tasks, add or subtract from them, and learn the Chair’s thought process on each of them. Chair Willis began discussion on Team One. She said she felt mapping is important, because their historic districts are their strong suit, and if there are concentrations of other historic buildings, it would be good to have a visual awareness of them. She hoped there might be a City program that would make it easy to do this as an overlay. She suggested that a team of two take this on and come back at the December retreat and share how this might actually work. Board Member Bower asked for clarification on the term mapping and what activity would be involved in this. Chair Willis wasn’t sure but said she assumed the City has a mapping program used for various purposes, such as zoning districts, flood plains, et cetera. She thought they could take the map and outline Professorville and the downtown, as well as potential historic districts that Dames and Moore had identified. She thought they might be able to highlight the ones and twos in terms of historic properties, and the threes and fours. Board Member Bower asked Ms. French if there was such software. She replied there is a GIST system in Palo Alto which is used to create the parcel maps. She commented that, due to the shape of the city on a map, it may be difficult to look at this on one map. She said they do have maps of Professorville and the zoned districts online currently. Chair Willis asked if there was a map that could be pulled up showing the four historic districts on one map. Ms. French responded that there may be, and she will check on this. Vice Chair Pease thought this was a good idea and ideally they could have a map with layers to reduce confusion. He said there was great data in the packet provided by staff, and ideally, those could be integrated. He wondered however, how realistic it was and how many resources it would take to do it. He thought it would be wonderful to have a site where residents and Board Members could go to look at the map and layer it with such things as what is in the inventory and what’s not, where the historic districts are, et cetera. Chair Willis said she is willing to start small, and if all they could do was take a map of Palo Alto and mark out the districts and properties with a marker it would be better than nothing. She hoped they could work towards something in which the historic districts are integrated with the rest of the information. Board Member Wimmer said she uses the parcel maps often to look up properties. She said people use them to look up their own properties, and a click of a button will bring up a summary of the property with certain details, including a historic rating. She thought they could possibly start there, by perhaps applying a special color for certain properties, since it is a map already in existence. She felt it would be easy to accentuate the existing map with that feature first, as a first step, and then pulling that information onto a special HRB map, or a historic planning map. Chair Willis asked Ms. French if someone on the staff could look at the parcel maps and figure out a way to identify things that are already designated historic. Ms. French thought they should engage Roland Rivera from the Planning Department, who would have the knowledge base for that. She suggested the first meeting of the Committee Number One might try to get Mr. Rivera to come to the meeting to answer these types of questions. Chair Willis asked if there were further comments and asked if anyone was interested in this committee. Board Member Heinrich was interested in participating. Board Member Bower thought the discussion on SB 9 and SB 478 might have some impact on this, because, as he understood the staff report, historic districts and historic properties on the Historic Register are exempt from the legislation, so this might be an incentive for owners of potentially historic properties or people living in potential historic districts to escape this subdivision of land that will be occurring. He looked forward to hearing more about those two bills and thought it might also have a bearing on how to move forward on this particular initiative. Chair Willis shared her thoughts on Team Two, stating she was curious why the properties that were identified 25 years ago as National Register eligible are not on their local inventory. She thought this might require some history and understanding of what has come before them. She said that updating their inventory is crucial and she hoped Team Two would take this on. Board Member Wimmer questioned how 4.a Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Page 3 to accomplish this, because the 1998 was called a “dashboard survey.” She wondered if this same format would be used this time and whether they would revisit all of the those that were considered eligible and also incorporate some new properties that are not currently on the list. Chair Willis said her thought was that there is the list of potentially National Register eligible, and California Register eligible. She thought this team could be tasked with deciding on a process for working through this. She advocated starting slowly, with National Register Eligible properties. There are DPR sheets on all of them that are fairly extensive. Generally, she hoped this team would organize how they move forward. She added that she hoped all four of the teams would come back from the retreat and share plans on how to get from their current point A, to point B, to point C. Board Member Bower asked how many DPR forms there are. Ms. French said she will be presenting on this later, but there were 165 properties deemed eligible for National Register as part of the 1998 to 2000 survey. Since the Comprehensive Plan in 2017, with Program 7.2, they have identified 10 additional properties that are California Register Eligible, and many that are not California Register Eligibles. These are more likely to be gone. She said the studies were done based on the “windshield survey” of potentially eligibles, which basically means unevaluated properties that dated before 1948. Chair Willis clarified that the windshield survey was more the California Register Eligible properties; however, on the 165, there is some substantial information out on those, so she assumed the work is already done. Ms. French said for all of the 165 that were sent to the State that are on the State record as eligible for National Register and California Register Eligible, those are the 165, and they have DPR forms for all of those. Also, she said they have DPR forms for the ineligibles, which are those in the 1998 to 2000 survey period that were found ineligible for National Register and also newer, since 2018, DPR forms for those determined eligible for California Register and those that are deemed not eligible for California Register. She said this is quite a few more DPR forms since the Comprehensive Plan adoption of the 7.2 Policy at the end of 2017. Chair Willis noted that as a Certified Local Government, they are required to have a system for adding to and maintaining their inventory. She thought this could be part of Team Two’s tasks. Board Member Bower thought they were also supposed to routinely do the survey, which they have not done for 20-some years. Board Member Wimmer asked about packet pages 38-40, the 3D, and wondered whether these were the 165 properties listed. Ms. French clarified on the survey from 2000 which pages showed the deemed eligible as one of the attachments. Ms. French said the sheet stating, “Evaluation Tables from 1998 to 200, Historic Inventory” are the ones that are deemed National Register eligible that are on file with the State as eligible for National and California listing. They are not on this list, so they are not protected in the event of a ministerial permit going through. They are only protected for CEQA purposes. Chair Willis said some of these were determined not to be National Register Eligible on the valuation tables from 1998 to 2000 Historic Survey. She believed there are DPR forms for all of the current. Ms. French said in addition to the 165 forms of those that were deemed eligible, they have many more DPR forms for the deemed ineligible from the survey in 2000. Vice Chair Pease said it is easier to follow all of this in the PDF. He thought staff did a good job of dividing these long lists and highlighting them by category. The orange highlighted list is the ones they were referring to which are qualified but not moved to their list. Board Member Wimmer asked if there was a way to get DPR forms other than from staff, or if there was a way to upload the information so that a homeowner could extract it from the internet. Ms. French said they need to request this from staff. She explained that she looks at the eligible and ineligible lists, because sometimes the ineligible DPR forms have nuggets that prompt her to have the consultant look further, statements about some reason why they couldn’t finish the study, and it is incomplete. She said it is a painstaking process for her, and what is shown online is whether it is deemed eligible or only potentially eligible, or a historic resource category 1-4. Chair Willis said that she thought they were also in the historic files, but filed by address. Ms. French added that the library has copy of all of them, as well as City Hall. They were scanned at one point. Chair Willis thought they needed to go back and look at the ones that were deemed ineligible. One of them is her own house, which had an addition in the 50’s. Chair Willis discussed Team Three, stating she wants the Mills Act situation to either be nailed or just not go there. She thought they should get ready to go to Council, hopefully in the first half of next week, with some proposal to at least have a trial period of four or five. Board Member Bower thought the work that Board Member Wimmer and Brandon Corey did moves them fairly far along. He thought the Council would probably adopt a Mills Act program, but whether or not they would spend the money was a different question; however he did think the Chair’s goals were within reach. 4.a Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Willis invited the Board Members to share their preference for which team. Board Member Bower volunteered for the Mills Act team since he has some knowledge of it. Board Member Pease indicated he would participate on Team One. Board Member Wimmer said she preferred to be on the Mills Act Team since she was previously on the preliminary committee. Board Member Makinen volunteered for Team One, along with Chair Willis. Regarding Team Two, Board Member Wimmer indicated she would help Chair Willis on this team as well. Chair Willis said she may also call on members for help on this team if needed. Ms. French announced that the HRB position that was vacated will need to be filled, and it is an active recruitment program. The deadline is imminent; however, the person does not need to live in a historic inventory property 1 or 2, or in Professorville or a historic district, because they have that person in Board Member Heinrich, who lives in Professorville. Chair Willis asked if there were any applicants, and Ms. French advised she has not received a list. She felt the date for closing of recruitment was this week. Action Items 3. Update on Recent State Housing Legislation and Housing Opportunity Sites Selection Process and HRB Discussion of Potential Amendments to the Historic Resources Board Work Plan Ms. French presented an update on housing legislation and topics related to that legislation. There were four notable bills in the legislative session. The most notable and impactful bill for unlisted historic resources is SB 9, which goes into effect in January. SB 9 will enable ministerial lot splits and duplex development in non-historic single residential zones, including those properties that are not listed on any register or inventory. Housing Legislation SB 8, 9, 10 and 478 impact Palo Alto’s policies on streamlining and housing production. Ms. French said she learned that HCD is adding enforcement staff for oversight of SB 9. However, there is some capacity for the City to develop objective standards and lay down some basic rules which implement State law in a way in which they can have some level of control. This will go to the Council on December 6th as an Urgency Ordinance. She said that the changes are unavoidable, so it is a good time for the HRB to learn about them and weigh in. Regarding historic resources, Ms. French read from the law’s description of exempt properties, which states, “A site located within a historic or landmark district or a site that has a historic property or landmark under state or local law as specified.” Regarding urban lot split requirements and duplex provisions, the Urgency Ordinance cannot call these “projects” under CEQA with a ministerial review. Historic resources individually listed on the local inventory and California and National Historic Registers, as well as Professorville, Greenmeadow and Green Gables are protected. Resources deemed eligible but not listed on any register or local inventory are not protected. The Urgency Ordinance will deal with a “deconstruction loophole” created in 2020 which has caused some problems for staff in trying to retain homes in a process of rehabilitation when they want to deconstruct the home. Board Member Bower clarified that this means demolition. Ms. French said it is no longer called demolition, but a mandatory deconstruction. She explained that because of the way Title 18 code is written, which was not amended when Chapter 5.24 was amended, it leaves them in a bind because previously an applicant had to get their building permit for a single story home before a demolition permit was issued. Now, because of the way the code is written, people are doing the demolition before they get an approved one-story home. Board Member Bower said it is a semantic difference but with the same result. It leaves staff without the ability to slow down the process in order to determine whether the property is California Register eligible. Regarding the 6th cycle of the Housing Element Update, Ms. French reported that the Housing Element Working Group is in the process of identifying sites which might support the development of up to 6,086 units. An appeal on this number was turned down by the ABAG group, so the City is in the process of trying to find sites to enable developers to come forward and develop housing units. This is proceeding through an Ad Hoc Committee involving Council Members who will meet on November 9th. The Planning Commission will be receiving an update on the site selection process on November 10th, and on November 4th there will be a Housing Element Working Group meeting. Regarding the HRB, she said when the lists are generated the age of a property does factor into putting it on the list, but not in a good way for preservation, but rather in the sense that it is older, possibly not well- maintained, making it subject to being redeveloped in the near future. The process involves trying to catch the ones that show up which are on the deemed eligible list and get them removed from the list of sites. 4.a Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Page 5 She said the unevaluated, potentially eligible from the parcel reports dating earlier than 1948 will be kept on the list of sites, because they have not been found eligible and are not on the inventory. Ms. French said the work plan submitted by the HRB back in June may need a request to Council to adjust it in order to implement the new Comprehensive Plan policy, L7.1.1 She said when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2017 the Council had noted this as a “routine” task, but it is not routine to nominate deemed-eligible properties to the local inventory. She felt the Ad Hoc committee could be helpful, along with their consultant, to recommend whether properties that are National Register Eligible and California Register Eligible are Category 1 or Category 2. Under Chapter 16.49 there is a process for the HRB to nominate and Council to review a package of nominated properties. Outreach to the property owners would be necessary, and they would then be subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. That outreach is not currently resourced, so the Ad Hoc Committee would be needed to help with this. Ms. French suggested talking about future work plans at the retreat. She said there is a medium-term priority of re-assessing the Historic Preservation Ordinance which is old and does not protect Category 3’s or 4’s outside of Professorville or downtown. There is also no section in the Ordinance which asks to remove resources from the inventory, and there is no recognition of properties deemed eligible. She said looking at what medium-term means, it would be five to ten years from the date of the Comprehensive Plan. Between 2022 and 2027 would the timeframe when the Council thought this would occur. Ms. French reiterated the question of “What is routine implementation?” She said updating the inventory to include resources that are eligible is a Comprehensive Plan program. Since it is identified as routine, they provide updates on their Comprehensive Plan implementation as an annual requirement of the State. The effort to update the inventory has not been started, but SB 9 necessitates that work begin on this program soon, though it is not routine work. Ms. French explained that Chapter 5.24, which changed in 2020, makes Category 3 and 4 resources more vulnerable, because the property owners say they are going to do deconstruction, and the loophole in the Code allows them to take out a demolition permit and not have an approved single family home. Currently, before 5.24 was changed, the only thing that had to happen for people to remove Category 3 or 4 outside of Professorville was to come in with a one-story home plan, building permit, which is not a discretionary process. Now with SB 9, they are faced with people coming in with ministerial permits for duplexes and lot splits. Again, in that case the Category 3’s and 4’s are protected because they are on the local inventory list. She shared that 345 Coleridge, a Category 3 property, will be coming down. Board Member Bower asked Ms. French in regard to lot splits and duplexes – two different activities – if the SB 9 ordinance would allow any lot to be split into two separate lots. Also, he wondered if this suggested that without splitting the lot, two different residences could be built. Ms. French responded that of the two aspects of SB, one is to allow lot splits into equal-sized frontages and lots in order to increase housing. The other is to develop duplexes on R-1 properties. All R-1 and RE properties in Palo Alto will be subject to the new law in January. Board Member Bower asked if any size lots, for example, a 3000-square foot lot – could be subdivided. Ms. French said there is a minimum lot size, but it is very small. Board Member Bower was curious what the threshold is. He thought the bill might be an incentive for a number of people who are uncomfortable about historic designations to rethink that, because it would help them preserve at least their property although, they would probably not develop their property, so it might be a moot point if what they really want is for the people next to them to protect their property so they don’t end up living next to a four- unit building or a duplex. Ms. French acknowledged it’s a little scary but there are some additional conditions that apply. One is that it prohibits demolition of more the 25 percent of exterior walls of an existing structure unless the local ordinance allows greater demolition, or if the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. So, there are things related to tenancy and ownership that do make a difference. Vice Chair Pease asked what the maximum number of units would be that could be built on a split lot, including ADUs and junior ADUs. Ms. French said her understanding was if the lot is split then a duplex can be built on each of those lots. Her understanding was that if a lot was split, there could be a duplex or an ADU, although the question is if there is a single family home and an ADU, if a junior ADU could be added, and she thought this was the case, with the caveat that she is not an expert on the subject and all the information on this. Vice Chair Pease acknowledged he has been trying to follow this, and it is difficult, but at minimum if a person was willing to tear down an existing home, the lot could be split into two, and four units – two duplexes – could be built. Ms. French felt this was correct. 4.a Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Wimmer thought there was a rule from years ago in which Palo Alto would no longer allow flag lots. So this would create all sorts of flag lots by dividing one property into two, because of need for access to the back house by a ten-foot driveway. She asked if there was any way to increase the need for parking so that those trying to divide 150-foot-deep lot by 50, with setbacks of 20 feet, along with the lot depth, she figured the buildable area depth for each property would be 35 feet, making tiny houses if they have to have parking and access to the back one. Ms. French said new flag lots are not allowed in the R1 zone, so SB 9 would call for equal frontage lots, so not forcing them to have flag lots. Board Member Wimmer said then two 25-foot lots would result, of which there are many in College Terrace – a nightmare for designing suitable housing, resulting in units that look like trailers. Ms. French said item 12 of SB 9 – in the Planning Commission staff report for October 13th – specifies that both newly-created parcels must be at least 1,200 square feet unless the City adopts a small minimum lot size by ordinance. Board Member Wimmer thought one thing they had going for them was that maybe dividing these lots up would render them very challenging to design and maybe that is when their IR process kicks in. “Just say no to single wides.” Ms. French replied that the IR process is a discretionary process, and they are not allowed to have a discretionary process with an SB 9 project. This is why part of the extreme effort right now is to figure out how to make objective standards that are basically zoning development standards that do not require discretionary review. Board Member Wimmer wondered about increasing the ability for neighbors to comment, as there is always a neighbor in the neighborhood who objects to a project. She admitted this idea may not make sense, but she advocated finding some way to avoid these units. Ms. French responded that the lot splits under SB 9 are not allowed to be discretionary or CEQA processes. So the requirement for neighbor notification would have to be a local requirement and it would not be part of a discretionary review process. Notification certainly, and people could object, but she didn’t know what effect that would have because it’s not an appealable discretionary process. She reiterated it is a very complex situation that couldn’t be solved there. She just wanted them to be aware and that the HRB could consider putting this request onto the work plan and having Council see the readiness of the HRB to at least try to protect these deemed-eligible properties and see what they are trying to create for objective standards. Board Member Bower asked if his understanding was correct that with this complex bill, the HRB could recommend to the Council, at least initially, to capture Category 3 and 4 buildings into the ordinance, which is what she was recommending. Ms. French replied that, ironically, SB 9 projects are not allowed on any property listed, so since Category 3’s and 4’s are listed on their inventory, they are protected from SB 9 projects. What they are not protected from is new single family, single story homes that wish to demolish the Category 3 or 4 buildings. Board Member Bower responded that in that sense, that is not changed. It has always been the case. Ms. French replied to it has always been the case, but it has become more apparent because of the deconstruction loophole that does not allow time to evaluate them. Board Member Bower said then that is what the HRB could recommend to the Council, Ms. French said this is the rationale for asking Council to amend the HRB work plan to have an Ad Hoc Committee working to come back to the HRB with all deemed-eligible properties and assign them a Category 1 or 2 inventory status, which would go to Council as a package, so the Council could decide whether to put them on the inventory or not. This is why she would like to see the HRB make this a priority on their work plan. Chair Willis thought people would start doing some educational programs, and she asked if those come by Ms. French, that she would alert the HRB so they could become more educated on what this all might mean. Ms. French reported that there is now something called Planning Collaborative, which is like San Mateo County’s 21 Elements, a firm that is analyzing the bills and will be issuing some documents which will help cities. The Urgency Ordinance will be followed by a more in-depth ordinance for which they can take some time to work with other Boards and Commissions. Currently, the Urgency Ordinance is on a path to go straight to the Council because of the timeline. Vice Chair Pease asked if anyone knows if SB 9 addresses protected species of trees or the recent decision of the Council to protect some of the canopy on lots, based on the size of the trees. His understanding was they cannot just remove some of these from properties. Ms. French said she watched that Council meeting, and that is not yet a law, but rather an indication by Council of what they want to do. The ordinance will be coming back in the spring of next year. Vice Chair Pease thought native trees were currently protected. Ms. French said only Redwoods, Coast Live Oaks and Valley Oaks are protected over a certain size. Vice Chair Pease asked if that would be nullified by the new law. Ms. French was not sure on this. She did not remember seeing anything about trees. She reiterated that they all have a lot of unanswered questions. 4.a Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Attorneys would be working on the ordinance and they have been focusing free time on trying to understand and develop ways to help the City with this. Chair Willis invited further comments and questions on the presentation. Hearing none, she closed the item. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Willis said she hoped all of the committees would take their tasks seriously and come to the retreat with concrete knowledge when they get together, and can move forward next year. Board Member Wimmer asked if Vice Chair Pease wanted to talk about his part on the agenda. Vice Chair Pease said his one comment would be to urge people to consider virtual preservation. Based on these laws, he thought they may be looking at a stochastic level of change in the community over the next decade, and it would be nice to document that. He remembered as a child being driven to the Western Addition in what was the Fillmore District in Japantown in San Francisco, where they tore down block after block of some of the most interesting Victorian buildings for what was then redevelopment, and none of that was captured. The said there are many good things that they need resources for that they don’t have. He felt that if a couple thousand places were to be torn down over the next decade that it would be nice to not just entirely lose what was there in terms of the history. Board Member Wimmer suggested maybe implementing a requirement to photo document and/or do an architectural drawing of existing buildings. Vice Chair Pease said for all he knew that was illegal under these bills if it imposes a cost upon the owner or developer. He thought it was an incredible opportunity to document a huge change for the historic record and to not lose everything because some of the blocks in these areas may look entirely different a decade from now. He would like to find a practical, low-cost and consistent way to do that. Board Member Bower shared that when he came on the Board in 2007, that was a discussion that the Board had and did not move forward with, partly because one of the members who had relationships with the developers, said one had commented that all he had to do was document the building, and then he could tear it down. It was seen by some members as an incentive or a facilitator to developers who wanted to get rid of properties so they could develop them. He thought Vice Chair Pease had a good idea but he wondered whether it might in some way have that perverse impact. Vice Chair Pease felt that that logic flies in the face of what they are hearing, and have been hearing, about these bills, because there is not going to be any choice. Board Member Bower agreed but was wondering how it would be done. Vice Chair Pease said that is the question he was trying to address. He referenced the old Secretary of the Interior’s standard for this type of documentation, which was too complicated and expensive and overkill for what he was trying to describe. He thought that, since that conversation took place, the logic has completely turned on its head now by this new reality, and it is another reason to look at this potential process. Chair Willis wondered if they could go to the Historic Association and see if they could form a team that might help them develop the idea further and help with the project. Ms. French added it would be nice for someone with more than an iPhone which is what she uses to take photos. Vice Chair Pease said the trick would be finding a reasonable standard, bigger than an iPhone – although in a decade an iPhone may take a very good photo. He advocated coming up with something simple and consistent in which people could be certified easily with an information sheet, before the historic properties are all gone and they’re left with archives of Google street views as the only record of what those neighborhoods looked like prior to these changes taking place. He said if there is time at the retreat, he would like to discuss this further. Chair Willis thought as they went through the three elements, they could see how this would fit in. Adjournment Vice Chair Pease moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Board Member Heinrich, the motion carried, 6-0, by voice vote. 4.a Packet Pg. 31 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 13935) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/27/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes December 9, 2021 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of December 9, 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): • December 9, 2021 Attachments: • Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes December 9, 2021 (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Caroline Willis, Vice Chair Christian Pease; Board Members, Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, Gogo Heinrich, and David Bower Absent: Oral Communications 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic Resources Board During COVID-19 State of Emergency. Ms. French explained that citywide boards and commissions are adopting resolutions so that they can continue meeting remotely. Since there is still a threat from the pandemic, the Council had directed the resolutions be adopted to be consistent with State law; therefore, a motion and approval of the Resolution shown in the packet would be needed. Motion by Vice Chair Pease to adopt the Resolution. Seconded by Board Member Bower, the motion carried, 6-0, by roll call vote. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions The minutes of the October 28, 2021 minutes will be available for approval at the next meeting. City Official Reports 2. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments Chair Willis noted that the schedule is only published through the end of 2021, with this being the last meeting. There will be a retreat in January. The second meeting in January will be on the 27th. There will not be a meeting on the second Thursday in January; however, starting in February, the Board will meet twice monthly. She asked the Board members to put the meetings for 2022 on their calendars, and plan on accomplishing some things, although she added there may be a conflict with one of the meetings in December 2022. Board Member Heinrich advised that she has a conflict with the date of the retreat. She has a scheduled vacation planned from the 20th through the 31st. She asked if the Board is meeting on the 6th or the 13th for the retreat. Chair Willis was hesitant to deviate from the second and fourth Thursday but said she would keep in mind that Board Member Heinrich will be out of town. Ms. French said the first February meeting is February 10th. If they wanted to have a Zoom meeting on the 27th and then wait for an in-person retreat on February 10th, that would be acceptable to staff. She thought that in February it would be possible to meet in person; however, it was not certain. Board Member Bower had a conflict with February 10th and would not be able to join online as he will have no internet service. Chair Willis polled the Board on who was available on January 27th. Board Member Heinrich clarified that she could attend a Zoom meeting on the 27th. The Board decided upon a hybrid meeting on January 27th, which will be the only meeting in January. Chair Willis encouraged Board members to try to plan to be available for future HRB meetings. Chair Willis said the only meetings she knows of that they are cancelling in 2022 are the first and the last. 3. Update on SB 9 Urgency Ordinance and Discussion of Topics for 2022 Historic Resources Board Retreat. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: December 9, 2021 Virtual Teleconference Meeting 8:30 A.M. 5.a Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. French updated the Board on the Urgency Ordinance which the Council adopted on December 6th and which is now in effect, implementing SB 9, enabling ministerial lot splits and duplex development in non- historic single-family zones in Palo Alto. SB 9 does not affect Professorville or any other historic district. Ms. French said there was a loophole created in 2020 that allowed deconstruction of a home prior to issuance of a building permit. Requiring a building permit, plans and review in conjunction with demolition had previously allowed a process where they did not lose homes or housing units. The loophole was plugged with the Ordinance adoption. Ms. French shared the Council’s motions in this regard. Ms. French explained that SB 9 has an effect on historic resources, because it’s a ministerial process now on resources deemed eligible for National or California Register that are not actually listed. The Mayor’s comments on Monday as well as a motion requesting staff to return to Council with the information necessary to update the city’s inventory. Ms. French shared the motions. The interim ordinance will probably come back to Council in January to do a longer-range implementation. Within the motion was acknowledgment of the Eichler Guidelines as well as information necessary to update the Historic Registry. They will return to Council with a number of items. Staff put much effort into converting the individual review guidelines for two-story homes into objective design standards for SB 9 projects, so there are now some great standards in place that are objective, and not a discretionary review. She shared a link to the report. Board Member Bower asked about the statement that “homes may be demolished without evaluations” under “The Way it Will Be.” Ms. French said this deconstruction loophole had been fixed. The loophole was that people could come in and submit a demolition permit because it was called “deconstruction,” and they would miss the opportunity to review the replacement home. Typically, when people come through with a two-story home it is a discretionary review, subject to CEQA, so there is an opportunity to require an evaluation of the home to ensure that it is not a California Register-eligible home. When discretion is taken away under SB 9 there is not an opportunity to stop the demolition of an eligible resource. They do have the opportunity to stop the demolition of a listed resource, which includes everything on the inventory, or the State or National Register. Board Member Bower asked for clarification that a home that could potentially be registered, under this New Emergency Ordinance, could actually be demolished. Ms. French said yes, starting Monday. Vice Chair Pease asked what the “IR process” referred to. Ms. French responded that this is the Individual Review Guidelines and Individual Review Program. They call it a crosswalk in that there is a crosswalk from the IR Guidelines to the objective standards, and there are specific standards for Eichler tracts as well as non-Eichler tracts. Ms. French opened the discussion on retreat topics. Chair Willis felt it was of great importance to get the potentially eligible structures onto the inventory. She has looked at the DPR forms for them, and there is a huge variety. She suggested that the Board explore how to get those on the inventory the most quickly. She felt they should all be called Category 4 to start, and they should work on getting on the inventory, and then do any updates they want to do from there. Ms. French asked if she meant to refer to ones that are eligible based on study. She said potentially eligibles are basically unevaluated properties dating back before 1948. Eligibles are identified by the Dames and Moore survey of 1998 to 2000 as National Register- eligible. The ones identified since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted at the end of 2017 as eligible for the California Register are also considered eligible. She said the “potentially eligible” are basically the windshield survey – the unevaluated resources that might be eligible but haven’t been studied further. Chair Willis asked about the ones determined to be eligible for the National Register in which the work is already done. She felt these would be the most expedient to act on, so at they are protected. She felt that at every meeting they should evaluate five to ten properties to see if they should be put on the inventory. For right now, she thought they should work on getting those that have been determined eligible onto the inventory. Since the work has been done, she didn’t understand why it would be a difficult process. Ms. French said in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 1649 there is a nomination process involving a recommendation from the HRB and Council. There would be outreach to the property owners, because being eligible is not the same thing as being subject to the Municipal Code, the ordinance that has some protection for at least Categories 1 and 2, and less for Categories 3 and 4, unless they are in Professorville or Downtown. Ms. French said they have reached out to their consultant and received an estimate for the work, which was estimated in the tens of thousands because of the multiple hearings with HRB and Council preparing the documentation. Some were evaluated in 1998 and need to be verified for integrity and other efforts. She said they’ve heard from the Mayor that there is interest, but they need to have information about it and technical direction on the work. She said the HRB could do some sort of straw poll or some kind of 5.a Packet Pg. 34 City of Palo Alto Page 3 message, because this is a Comprehensive Plan program that has not been started, to upgrade the eligibles to the actual inventory that is subject to the ordinance. She thought it would be something that Chair Willis could coordinate with perhaps a memo, a straw poll, and they could report back to the Council, and be authorized to commence the work. Board Member Wimmer said there is a new requirement that she recently experienced. She did a project in College Terrace which was deemed potentially eligible on the parcel report. She has had projects that have had that listing for years, and it did not trigger any extra work. They simply acknowledged it, but recently the City has been requiring an extra step. When there is a project deemed potentially eligible, it cannot just be bypassed. They had to hire a consultant, Page and Turnbull, to send someone out to look at and review the property to determine if it was truly eligible. In this case the existing house was deemed not to be historic or didn’t have anything to qualify it. She said the step is there as a safeguard. For all the houses that have been added to the list that was done in 1998, if anyone wants to alter them, they now have to go through the step to ensure that they’re altering something potentially historic. Even though it is an extra step and expense to the owner, at least that measure is in place now, which is helping. She said if a property on the list of potentially eligibles comes up where someone wants to alter it, the City does want them to take a closer look at it. Ms. French said Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2 is the one that says if someone is looking to demolish a building, they have to first find out if it is California Register-eligible. This is what is different since January 2018. She reports on those to the Board each year and they are sent off to the State as actually eligible, rather than potentially, which is basically unevaluated. Vice Chair Pease asked if that still applies after January 1st or if the implementation of the new law changes that in any way. Ms. French said the new law has the ministerial process, whereas, prior to December 6th, there was a discretionary process for putting in these duplexes or buildings. Now it cannot be subject to CEQA, and that is why it is a fairly urgent matter to get the eligible resources for both State and National uploaded on an inventory of properties actually listed on a register, the easiest of which is the City’s Register, which is what they call their inventory, Categories 1 through 4. The Categories 3 and 4 are not really protected if it is not an SB 9, unless they are in Professorville or Downtown. She summarized that they do not necessarily have a great Historic Preservation Ordinance. There has been agreement on this for a number of years, and it needs to be re- looked at. Chair Willis asked if, under SB 9, because the 3’s and 4’s are on the inventory and are historic properties, they are exempt from SB 9. Ms. French said that was correct because they are listed. The SB 9 projects have protection from those in either historic districts or properties actually listed somewhere – local, state or national. If someone comes in with a single-story home, there’s no protection for the 3’s and 4’s Board Member Bower said, if under SB 9 a historic property is exempt, but the housing for the properties immediately adjacent to an historic property are not, in all HRB reviews of potential changes outside of historic districts, they consider context of any changes. So according to his understanding, someone could come right next to the Squire House and put in a four-unit apartment building, and not be touched by this. Ms. French responded that there is a variety of permutations and combinations of SB 9 but if what’s next door to the Squire House is not on a local, state or national register, it could be torn down and an SB 9 project could replace it. Chair Willis said this is one reason she is very interested in the mapping. Several potential historic districts were identified when they did the survey, and she felt they need to go back and evaluate those. A small historic property without much buffer zone will be impacted, so she is feeling pressure. Ms. French reiterated that the silver lining is the individual review guidelines for the SB 9 projects now have the crosswalk that basically allows them to do an individual review – including privacy, massing, streetscape and other items, so it’s not just a building permit without requirements and there is the option if people don’t meet the objective standards that they can go through the individual review process, so there is some manner of protection that looks at streetscape and massing and privacy. Board Member Bower commented that he was distressed to see that the Emergency Ordinance requires that garage doors basically match in style and materials the entry doors. He said this is a disaster in an Eichler zone, or any Eichler house, because Eichlers intentionally use siding across the garage doors to diminish their impact. He said since this is an interim Emergency Ordinance, there should be some language that allows Eichler buildings to be exempt from that. He said he didn’t know where that comes from and what the intent is, or why a garage door needs to look like an entry door. Ms. French agreed with this comment and said it was tricky to hustle to come up with the objective standards. With the discretionary 5.a Packet Pg. 35 City of Palo Alto Page 4 review there are conversations that happen during that process, and there is more flexibility, but trying to come up with objective standards, writing something that will help to not have very egregious garage doors was the attempt. She also stated that the Council did move to have them come back with guidelines related to the Eichler Design Guidelines to include in the objective standards in the next round. She said they can fix that issue for Eichler tracts and can tweak other ones that passed within the Urgency Ordinance. Chair Willis returned the discussion to the retreat, saying there are many things they need to approach, and she felt they need some logical system to do it. She felt it would be good to have a shared semi-private website with which to work on the inventory, not only the Board, but also volunteers. She mentioned outreach to property owners that is needed, and a standard for digital preservation. She said she did not find the DPR forms very reader-friendly. She suggested looking at something else and looking at getting the current inventory and soon-to-be-enlarged inventory on the web, so that the information is available to people. She thought being able to go online and read about houses in Palo Alto, whether your own or one you’re thinking of buying and its history would make it much easier for people coming into the community from outside to understand why this has value. She reiterated there are so many things, and so broad, she did not want to get bogged down and overwhelmed. She wondered if there was a way to make the work manageable. Ms. French responded that there may be potential issues with having a private full-Board sharing, although if there is a subcommittee that may be acceptable in view of the Brown Act. Chair Willis replied that the DPR she looked at is bulky to send around and it would be nice if they just had access to those on the web. If they recruited people to help with the research to see if they’re still standing or been significantly changed, it would be nice to have some sort of tracking tool, not necessarily a decision-making process. Ms. French said if they were to use the City’s website and have a place on the website for subcommittee efforts, they could upload things under that if they wanted to publish some things. She added in regard to the DPR forms, the reason they are used is because if someone wanted to send their own DPR to the State to get listed - so that they could get advantages of tax credits, for example – then it’s in the form that the State accepts and is the industry standard for those things. Chair Willis said she has high expectations for some future Historic Palo Alto webpage, and she would like to see much more photographic documentations. She would like to see the DPRs attached but would also like to see a two-page summary of sorts with one or two pictures that is a kind of entry, and if more information is needed, it would be great to have that as well. Board Member Bower said there is the PAST website that has a huge photographic component to it, and they have talked about the City linking that information to their website. Ms. French said the City website does have a link to PAST and constantly upon being asked they send out the DPRs, emailed, and also the link to the PAST website that has color photos. It is the same information as on the DPR forms. Chair Willis said she was aware of this but would like to see the HRB take ownership of that. Board Member Bower offered to go back and give an update on the Mills Act. He said he has discussed this with Board Member Wimmer and he thinks it is actually, with a few editorial changes, ready for the Board to consider. It is a complicated strategy to get something such as this articulated in a way that answers all the stakeholders’ questions, but he felt instead of waiting for the perfect document, they just need to move forward. The big hurdle will not be creating the document, because that is mostly done. It is, instead, getting the Council to believe that this is a worthwhile thing to adopt in the current environment of no money and no staff for historic resources. He said this could be a separate meeting topic, or a topic for the retreat, although he wasn’t sure there would be time to do it at the retreat, as his experience with retreats is they get about one-and-a-half subjects addressed and then the time is gone. The retreats tend to drift in terms of focus, although they haven’t had one in so long he wasn’t sure it would look like. Chair Willis said that was what she was trying to connect with some kind of enabler. She felt they the Board really needed to set priorities, for 2022 at least, and then perhaps beyond that. Someone who knew how to move through the process of the meeting would be very helpful. Board Member Bower likened it to a “herding cats” issue. He felt the Mills Act is a good topic for a regular Board meeting, with some tweaking by Ms. French, who has the original document, which could be distributed to the Board members to review before a meeting and move forward on it. Ms. French remarked that she thought she already distributed it to the entire Board electronically in a prior HRB packet, although it might be in the retreat staff report in the queue for January. Vice Chair Pease said she did send it and he remembered looking it over. He asked if she might consider re-sending it, and she was happy to. Board Member Bower added that the editing that 5.a Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Page 5 he and Board Member Wimmer discussed would be more valuable in a newer document, rather than taking the original and having to pencil it in. He said it’s not much but was defining the terms a little better. Ms. French advised that each subcommittee is welcome to reach out and contact her and provide if there is a way to email her something or have a Zoom call with her to walk through the version that she did send out and let her know what the Board is thinking. She said PDFs are editable so they could do that. Board Member Bower said he would scan this and share it with Chair Willis and confirm that the changes they are interested in pursuing, and then they could send it to her prior to scheduling a meeting. Chair Willis proposed scheduled the item for February 24th. Chair Willis asked about progress on the mapping process. Vice Chair Pease said he put together a “trial balloon” proposal, but it was dependent on having a meeting with Mr. Rivera to try to understand what is possible in terms of integrating some databases. They were not able to do that. Other ideas that came up included a poster and different ways of creating visual aids, short-term doable projects, things that could be completed in advance. He said he would still like to understand what is technically possible with all the sources that are out there, but they were not able to put this together yet. Board Member Makinen commented on his position on creating a poster. He felt it was beyond their capabilities as an HRB working group, and he recommended that they create a statement of work and go out to a professional organization like Page and Turnbull or Architectural Resources Group and have the poster made. He said he was involved in creating a poster at Moffett Field, and it is an enormous undertaking that needs to be done professionally. He felt it was unrealistic to try to do this as an HRB volunteer group. Vice Chair Pease said he didn’t mean to minimize the work. He felt the direction he was getting from the Chair was the idea of having an end goal and set of objectives and then trying to define a way to get started that was doable. There were other discussions relating to the idea of outreach and tools to enable them to better reach out to and educate the public about the value of historic resources. Board Member Makinen recommended on the poster project that they write the statement of work, but they are in no way equipped to do it as a volunteer group. Board Member Heinrich said she was waiting to see what they were going to come up with the City Council’s information. She thought if they could do an overlay of the Housing Element’s potential sites map with all of the historic sites, especially the Categories 1 and 2 and then having a special listing of ones they need to study right away, it would be an easy way to get started. Chair Willis said that they need to contact the person in the City who knows how to do the mapping. She asked Ms. French to help enable this. Ms. French replied that she has connected the Board to Roland Rivera in the past and can reach out to him again in this regard. She suggested having a meeting after the holidays. She added regarding the City’s processes, there are processes for allocating funds, going through Purchasing, contracting with consultants, which have to be factored into timelines, getting authorization to use resources, defining the scope, et cetera, for using consultant help. Chair Willis asked if learning how to use the map would require a consultant. Vice Chair Pease said they were not able within the timeframe to get everyone coordinated for a meeting with Mr. Roland. He thought this was the best path in the digital world, which was the direction he had understood the goal to be. Ms. French will let Mr. Roland know that they are still interested in meeting to talk through the technical side of creating the layers as discussed. Vice Chair Pease will send his ideas to Ms. French and Chair Willis again. Chair Willis suggested, since the mapping will not be available by the retreat to help focus in on how to move forward as an enabling tool, to look at where to pursue historic districts and focus on which of the properties have been determined to be potentially eligible for a register. Vice Chair Pease said they were dealing with the urgency around the new State law and responding to that, but it is useful to have a roadmap to know where they are going and what the objectives are, for him to understand what is possible and have a person who is an expert to answer questions, because it is hard to take a guess at it. He wondered how to work out something for the retreat where they can come to consensus on how to balance the urgency of the new laws with what might be low-hanging fruit to get started without having at least a basic idea of where they are trying to go over time. He said trying to keep from being overwhelmed doesn’t mean they have to cut off ideas, goals or plans by assuming there are no resources to support them before scoping out the resources. Chair Willis said her biggest ambition for the retreat would now be to develop a serious work plan and back it up with either the details of how to get there, or the long-range work plan. She felt it is clear that the inventory is where they need to start since they have made a commitment to maintain an inventory. Given 5.a Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Page 6 the fact that they have all this information that has been sitting in a file box for 20 years, she did not feel they had maintained an inventory, so for her that was their first priority. She suggested the goal of the retreat be to define their work program and discuss how to get the properties that have been determined to be eligible for the National Register on the inventory. Vice Chair Pease agreed with this goal. He felt it would tie into the other things, and he would like to figure out a way to get a simple-as-possible set of points that they all agree to that would help them organize their thoughts and begin to prioritize the next step might be. Chair Willis asked him to suggest the first point. Vice Chair Pease responded that looking at the inventory to define whether that means public outreach, standards, et cetera. The Mills Act provides a potential incentive if reaching out to homeowners. Board Member Wimmer agreed that many of the conceptual goals they want to accomplish require not only their time, staff time, and probably funds to pour into the project. She said it’s great to come up with the good ideas that they all want to achieve, but they have to pace themselves. She said that all the years she has been on the Board, they had made minor milestone steps toward their goals, but she didn’t know if they would be able to race to any finish line. She thought identifying and continuing to refine the goals they already have would be an achievement unto itself. Also, along with each goal, they would need to define what it means. For example, updating the inventory. It is one thing to add residents to a list and have an ongoing list of potentially eligible houses, but in order for them to graduate from a list to an actually eligible resources they would have to hire someone like Page and Turnbull, and there is a cost for them to go out and thoroughly look at the resources and do the research to determine if one house is something that can actually be a Category 1 – 4. Board Member Bower commented that Debbie Shepherd had pursued getting her house listed on a register. She contacted Page and Turnbull and they were happy to do it, but the fee would have been $15,000. He said it is a huge expenditure and for most people probably out of reach. He wondered if there was a way that the City could simplify the process to get houses listed as Category 1 – 4. Ms. French noted she had reached out to their consultant and gotten an estimate of somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 to simply look at the deemed eligible – not the potentially eligible. She clarified that there were 10 homes found eligible for the California Register that were formerly potentially eligible, or unevaluated, since 2018. There were many more found not eligible. Page and Turnbull had given an estimate and talked about the steps – how many HRB meetings, how many Council meetings, what kind of outreach, et cetera. Ms. French said she could see it being even higher, but any consultant’s efforts would include looking at the Department of Park and Recreation (DPRs) state forms that have already been prepared for all of those deemed eligible. They would visit each site, see if the house is still there and has integrity, and have a report on just those, the 165, and those that have been found eligible since the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. French said that is doable, with authorization to proceed with the project, to take staff resources, do an RFP if needed, et cetera. Board Member Bower commented that one thing the HRB could do is drive-by verification that the buildings are still there. PAST does this every year for their Centennial Awards where Board members go out, split up the city, the list of potential houses, and walk or drive by to see if they exist. He said half of them don’t exist. The other problem PAST has is that they are using census and permit data, which is not very reliable, and some of the addresses are actually different. The address of the original building sometimes doesn’t exist. He said it is complicated, but it is something, and if they just want to cross off the addresses that don’t have a property on them, it would be something they could do as a subcommittee. Vice Chair Pease said Google Street View is an alternative to actually physically going out and doing this. They are reasonably kept up in an area like this. He felt at the end of the day, their responsibility is to get something back to the Council so they can act on it and make a decision. The question is how to get there sooner rather than later, how much detail is required for them to do that and perhaps an expectation that it will be iterative with them as well. He suggested that something is fairly straightforward be presented to them first; they will respond to it; and then the Board would have guidance. The urgency is correct. They want to get something tangible done this year. If they could create a larger context and then reduce it to a very manageable document and request, go through the correct channels to get it in front of the Council, and get a result back from them, whatever it is, they will know a lot more about where they really stand. Chair Willis said this is one of her questions. She has become familiar with the 165 properties eligible for the National Register. A couple of them are owned by the City, and she wondered if that could be where they start. The notification process would be fairly expedient. She noted the Water Tower building and the 5.a Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Pumping Station as examples and advocated approaching the City as soon as possible with this type of low hanging fruit. Ms. French shared that the next time work plans would be due from Boards and Commissions would be April. She suggested this is an opportunity to work this out. If the Board did not modify this year’s work plan due to SB 9, she said April would be the next opportunity to move ahead with the Comprehensive Plan program. Chair Willis asked if Ms. French thought they should wait until April, and Ms. French replied there is simply an opportunity to adjust the current work plan, and/or to focus on getting the information as per Mayor Dubois’ note to find to what it would take to get the information about this project. If they need to look into submitting a grant to help with the project because it exceeds the initial output, there are all sorts of things related to that. Every May the Office of Historic Preservation has a grant program that they could potentially look into for some of this. She thought defining the scope and elevating this on the work plan ahead of other things would be something for the Board to consider, either at the retreat or in some other manner. Chair Willis wondered if they asked Council to put the properties that have been deemed eligible for the National Register onto their inventory as Category 4’s what kind of outreach would be necessary to property owners. Ms. French said that would be part of what they would have to look at. Just following the Chapter 16.49 about the nominations process as per the Code, it doesn’t specify how the outreach occurs. There may be some skittish property owners, who knowing what they are doing is causing a property to be subject to the Municipal Code where previously it was not, they would need to have thorough conversations with, probably best done on a one-to-one basis with each property owner. Board Member Bower said when they were developing the Professorville Design Guidelines and particularly the Eichler Guidelines there was a substantial group of people in the Eichler areas that pushed back very hard on any designation of historic notoriety, which astounded him. They continued as a Board at the time to encourage people to recognize the advantages of being considered an historic property. One resident in particular wrote him many times, telling him how wrong he was about historic designation, with examples from New York City that were 20 years old. He said it is a very, very touchy subject with some residents and he didn’t know how to overcome that. He anticipated, if they were to ask somebody to be listed or designated in any way, it could trigger some unpleasant experiences. Vice Chair Pease said there is a historic district which is all Eichler, so they were able to accomplish this. He agreed the outreach process is dicey. Board Member Bower added that the process was pretty simple and would have benefitted the Eichler tracts, of which there are many in Palo Alto. He was dumbfounded by the pushback, even to recognize Eichlers as an architectural style. Ms. French agreed with this and said she was very much involved in that. They have gotten awards for their Eichler Guidelines, yet there was pushback. People didn’t even want to have them attached to the individual review program for two-story homes and didn’t even want that to be a mandatory use of those Guidelines. She said in Palo Alto everything is voluntary when it comes to historic. Chair Willis asked how onerous it is to be on the inventory at this point. If the Council decided to put the 165 properties on the Palo Alto historic inventory, as Category 4’s, how onerous would that be for any property owner? Board Member Bower said he has had a direct experience with one property owner who said, “If you put my property on any historic register, I’ll sue the City.” He said it was irrational and sad. They weren’t even considering it, but because he was Chair, they found him and were very adamant about it, and it was a big deal to them. Ms. French said somebody who might want to do an SB 9 project would not want to have their house on the inventory, because the act of being on a register of any kind – local, state or national – they are not able to pursue an SB 9 project. Chair Willis said at this early stage it seemed unlikely that anybody would actually own a property that they specifically bought to do an SB 9 on. She thought from that point of view they would be better doing it sooner rather than later, because later people might have actually purchased properties assuming they could use SB 9. Board Member Bower thought they should move forward, do what they’re going to do, and if somebody pushes back then they would just pull them off the list. There is no advantage to butting heads with anybody who doesn’t want to be part of it. Ms. French said there is an advantage as far as if they are not doing an SB 9 project and they want to come forward with a two-story home. That is still a discretionary process. It becomes ministerial with multiple units. 5.a Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Wimmer thought there was a big component of property owners who see a historic listing of their property as inhibiting them from doing anything, and they see it as a negative thing. She thought it would be great to create some incentive for these people so that they would want to have a historic listing. The Mills Act was one thing. They would have to come up with a big campaign to say how great it is to have a historic house in Palo Alto and how it is a badge of honor. She felt it is a psychological thing that people see it as a deterrent and not as asset, although she doesn’t know where this attitude comes from. She thought it was because if they ever want to do anything they have to jump through so many more hoops and pay so much more money, and they see it as an obstacle or a hinderance. She wished they could reprogram them, or say, “Hey, this is something you should take pride in,” but said the only way she could see doing it is to incentivize it somehow. She wished peoples’ attitudes were different, because it is really the core of what Palo Alto is. Driving through Palo Alto now and seeing these beautiful old homes creates a historic fabric and creates a sense of place and preservation that what makes communities so desirable, and Palo Alto is one of the most desirable communities to be in. She wished that they could change the narrative for these people, and instead of them viewing it as a horrible thing, they should want to achieve that. They should want to have their house on a list. Board Member Wimmer felt the way to incentivize would be the Mills Act. The only other way was if they wanted to do anything, such as waive their fees. She said they have to create some incentive. Ms. French responded that they do have an incentive for Categories 1 through 4 for additional floor area above the maximum. There is an incentive that exists that allows subdivision of a property if they have an historic resource on one of the properties that would remain after the subdivision. With ADUs, folks can now put an 800-square-foot ADU above their maximum FAR on any kind of property, so that may be something that encourages retention of the existing home. She said she sees emails daily for people that want to buy properties in Palo Alto, and the first thing they ask is, “Can I tear it down?” because there are people that don’t want to move into somebody else’s old house. Vice Chair Pease said conventional wisdom for many folks is that their home is their largest asset, and they don’t want to have somebody control that asset in a way that they perceive is going to be detrimental to them in that regard. He observed that the Mayor has asked what it is going to take to get this done, and asked how the Board can respond to that and how to provide that back to the Council and see what they have to say, and at the same time move forward with something positive in the face of SB 9 to at least encourage the preservation of historic homes. Chair Willis said she thought she could round up ten properties on the list that want to be on the inventory. If she recruits ten property owners and they add a couple of City properties on that list and they go to Council with it and get the homeowners to make a request that they be added to the inventory, and maybe if other people see that happening, it would make their entrance easier. Vice Chair Pease wondered if she could ask them, or if she already knew why they are positive in that regard. Chair Willis said she got one herself, and she is positive. She said it is a great old house that she would hate to see torn down. She and her kids love it. Vice Chair Pease said until the law is in effect they don’t know how the prospect of somebody coming and offering to buy your house for even more than a house costs in Palo Alto now for development under the rights they have under this law will reveal itself over time. It would be nice to understand what would make folks favorable to having their property listed. If there were ten folks willing to talk with them, he would be interested in having those conversations. Board Member Wimmer thought it was a good idea to have a small group of people willing to be interviewed or have a conversation with them, perhaps a small group representing the greater community of people who do have potentially historic homes. She liked what Chair Willis was saying about finding a small sample group to start with and learn from. Vice Chair Pease added that they can begin to build a focus group that makes things more understandable to people who are more reactive. He said he is very interested to hear why someone would forego what many may consider to be a potential financial incentive in order to protect a property they own and live in. He thought that getting a group of first-movers together was a great idea. He advocated creating a success and deriving a way of answering the question of what it takes to get this done. Rather than doing it in a heated community meeting, do it quietly in a way that motivates people when they see both sides of the coin. Ms. French had an idea that, because they do have people that currently own listed Categories 1 through 4 properties, and there may be people that have already gained the bonus floor area, et cetera, that they may be willing to share why they like being on the City’s inventory. Chair Willis asked Ms. French to help her put together a list of such people that she could reach out to. 5.a Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Willis thought they would benefit from a strong organizational hand to help get some things done, so if anyone had ideas for her, to please let her know. Ms. French thought one thing that might be helpful was to look at the topics on the retreat list and winnow them down to perhaps two or three topics. Board Member Wimmer said it sounds like Chair Willis was hoping to have even more frequent meetings, and thought that having even one a month could be dedicated to one of the retreat items. For example, the first meeting of the month could be reserved for their topics of interest. A whole meeting could be dedicated to the Mills Act, for example. Instead of being overwhelmed with so many different talking points, they could pick just one topic for each meeting. She appreciated the open conversation they were currently having and felt the Board needs these to specifically talk about things like the inventory. She suggested that a retreat seems very official, and they could instead just pick one topic per meeting, throw out ideas, learn together about the topic and review where they are at with it. What progress has been made? What progress do they want to make? She said Board Member Bower and she spent a long time on the Mills Act, and they still need to re-evaluate what they have accomplished, where they are at, what they are trying to do. Since there are new people on the Board, she advocated focusing on one thing at each meeting. Board Member Heinrich like the idea of focusing each meeting on a special topic, so that they can all study what that topic is, as opposed to trying to hit everything at once and not getting anything done. Vice Chair Pease agreed and said many of the cancellations in the last year were because there were no properties to evaluate. He said they could be spending the time differently and he also found the conversation very useful. Board Member Wimmer added they can connect and educate themselves and bring the new Board members up to speed, but even for herself, she has to be reminded. She said maybe they could even have two meetings on one project. Board Member Bower also agreed with this notion. He wondered what the status was on finding a seventh Board member. Ms. French provided an update, reporting that Monday, the 13th, the Council was set to appoint someone to that seat. Vice Chair Pease thought they had found a couple things that could be done in the short term that could be very useful, such as interviewing people that Ms. French could connect them to who live in historic homes and on why they had them listed, as well as Chair Willis’ contacts that are open to this. He also thought they could also test some simple things, like whether Street View would be good enough to check on whether a structure is still there by each person taking perhaps five places on the list and going onto the maps and looking and then driving there to see if they are accurate. It would be spending a couple hours to get a flavor for whether its possible. If so, it makes parsing out the work much easier. Board Member Bower commented that PAST covered the entire city to find the 100-year centennial houses during the pandemic last year just by parsing it out to the board members, so it was a very good idea. He also thought Street View would be a great place to start. If there is no building to see, it would obviously require a visit, but most houses can easily be seen on it. Vice Chair Pease remarked that Chair Willis is correct in that they all want to get something done and build on what they do, not just react to someone occasionally coming in and requesting or who is being required to have a review. At the same time, he felt Board Member Wimmer’s comments about dialog might help them be much more productive. Chair Willis liked the idea of having meetings focused on specific topics, aside from projects bring to the Board. She said the History Museum has been on her mind lately. She thought it would be useful to have somebody from their Board come and talk to them. The Roth Building would benefit the HRB as well as the History Museum inasmuch as it could be a great symbol of preservation in Palo Alto if it wasn’t so decayed. She felt there were other topics like that, such as a meeting where ten homeowners come and talk to them about their experience. She said Los Altos History Museum did that with five properties, which she thought were all Mills Act properties. The owners did inspiring presentations. She said it might also get other people interested in their meetings and build interest in preservation in Palo Alto. Regarding the list of potential retreat topics, she asked to look at the list again and narrow down what they want to discuss at the retreat and what they would like to put on future agendas. Ms. French shared the list with the Board. Chair Willis advocated item 2, stated as “Develop a work program.” She said her priority has become developing a work plan for 2022, and she felt this item could be developed collectively. Vice Chair Pease suggested using number five, “Survey Update,” as the framework for the goals. In other words, all the goals were built around advancing the survey update, given the new laws and the urgency created 5.a Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Page 10 by them. Chair Willis added that they could incorporate the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to that. She said she would rather not get hung up on outreach but could be a topic they could have a special meeting on. Vice Chair Pease said with the new law and what the Council has said, all the other items orbit around it. Board Member Wimmer reiterated that the list is daunting, and they could spend a year on just one item, and focusing on one thing at a time would help. Chair Willis asked Ms. French to remove item number three to talk about at the second meeting in February. She said they could delay the item pertaining to virtual presentation. She advocated deleting HRB outreach. Board Member Wimmer suggested reviewing the Historic Preservation Ordinance Chapter 16.49, not trying to change it but re-familiarizing themselves with it. Not trying to revolutionize it but just re-familiarizeing themselves with it as a group and discussing it and maybe identifying areas that could potentially be improved upon. Also, there is the Historic Building Code which is something completely different, when a house is under construction there are some exemptions and things that are considered incentives, in that if you have a historic house and you are remodeling it, you are exempt from certain Code requirements. Becoming familiar with this code along with the Ordinance and become familiar with it would be great training for all of the Board members. Chair Willis suggested a presentation on the Historic Building Code at another meeting because it is a big topic and something they should be familiar with. Board Member Wimmer said it is a small chapter in the Building Code and she has an isolated PDF of it she could share. She didn’t think they all needed to be experts on it, but just know that it exists. [Board Member Bower left the meeting and Board Member Heinrich had technical difficulties barring further participation in the meeting] Vice Chair Pease thought that could be a component within the framework of the inventory issue. The urgency is around the inventory. If the goal is to get to the Council around how to do this, it might be one of the most effective avenues. Board Member Wimmer wondered if this, therefore, was to be their most important subject. Vice Chair Pease said if they came up with a plan around the inventory from the retreat, it seems productive to him. Chair Willis wanted to see them come up with a work plan very focused on not only updating the inventory with the properties they already have documented, but also a system for moving forward. When there are 50 years’ worth of properties, their inventory is more than 40 years old since being updated. There needs to be a system in place to add to it systematically. She advocated, first, doing a work plan, and second, coming up with steps towards updating the inventory. Board Member Wimmer agreed, and Board Member Makinen felt they were on the right track, getting the list thinned down to a more reasonable level. Vice Chair Pease said in the context of coming up with a way to do the inventory, it’s a better way to focus. If somebody were to present it to the Council, they want to be able to answer their questions and be able to know what they are speaking to. He still felt there should be one topic, the inventory, and everything else that fits under that, and this would be the context of the conversation and decision-making process at the retreat. Board Member Wimmer like the format. He said this is a step towards how to get this done. At the end of the day, the Council decides where the resources go, how the money is spent, what the priorities are, not them, so for the amount of effort they have to put in to have the best return. Chair Willis felt with planning they could get some things done. She was optimistic that they made progress through the discussion. Ms. French thought they had made strides. Vice Chair Pease asked her professional opinion on their thoughts on how to proceed. Ms. French definitely supports the HRB as one of the tasks of her job and she thought having the digestible one topic per meeting was good, but she felt like she has been asking the HRB to focus on the SB 9 and the fact that they already have a Comprehensive Plan program that they haven’t begun. HRB is appointed by the Council. Council gives direction and reviews the work plan. The work plan they have, and placement on the inventory of the eligible properties is not on their work plan. There is an opportunity in April to add it to the work plan and an opportunity before April to report back to the Mayor and Council what it takes, what the process is, the outreach, et cetera, so she thought it was worthy of elevating, because it has gotten noticed by the Mayor. Vice Chair Pease said clearly SB 9 and the response to it is a huge urgent issue for the City. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be people out there trying to identify potential properties for additional housing that could be built under the terms of this law, so even though it is not in the current work plan, if it’s urgent enough, he wondered if it called for them to rise to the occasion and do what is important. Ms. French said sure and the adoption and presentation to Council of the work plan back in June and July, so now the work plan can 5.a Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Page 11 be updated, so someone could craft something with her help and send it to Council. Since it has been requested having it go with information about what it takes, because that’s been requested of them. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcement Ms. French offered a reminder that oral communications is part of every meeting, although there were no members of the public who wished to speak at that time. Adjournment Vice Chair Pease moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Board Member Wimmer, the motion carried, 5-0, by voice vote. 5.a Packet Pg. 43