Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-13 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, April 13, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas are available at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512) Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. 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. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions and Actions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments STUDY SESSION 2.Study Session Regarding Flagpole and Monument at Hostess House/Veterans Memorial Building/MacArthur Park (27 University Avenue) 3.HRB Discussion of 2022 Work Plan Results and Draft 2023 Work Plan, and Receipt of Submitted CLG Annual Report Covering the 2021‐22 Reporting Period APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 9, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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 Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. 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: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may 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 Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called 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. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833 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 Regular Meeting April 13, 2023 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, April 13, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments STUDY SESSION 2.Study Session Regarding Flagpole and Monument at Hostess House/Veterans Memorial Building/MacArthur Park (27 University Avenue) 3.HRB Discussion of 2022 Work Plan Results and Draft 2023 Work Plan, and Receipt of Submitted CLG Annual Report Covering the 2021‐22 Reporting Period APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 9, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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 Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. 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: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may 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 Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called 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. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833 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.  2 Regular Meeting April 13, 2023 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, April 13, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and AssignmentsSTUDY SESSION2.Study Session Regarding Flagpole and Monument at Hostess House/Veterans MemorialBuilding/MacArthur Park (27 University Avenue)3.HRB Discussion of 2022 Work Plan Results and Draft 2023 Work Plan, and Receipt ofSubmitted CLG Annual Report Covering the 2021‐22 Reporting PeriodAPPROVAL OF MINUTES4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 9, 2023COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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 Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. 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: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may 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 Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called 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. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833 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.  3 Regular Meeting April 13, 2023 Item No. 1. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 13, 2023 Report #: 2303-1198 TITLE Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND Attached is the HRB meeting schedule and attendance record for the calendar year. This is provided for informational purposes. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. No action is required by the HRB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023 HRB Meeting Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 4     Historic Resources Board 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/12/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 1/26/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/09/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/23/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 3/09/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/23/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 4/13/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/25/2023 6:00 PM In-Person Community Meeting 4/27/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 5/11/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/25/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/08/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/22/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/13/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/27/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/10/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/24/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/14/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/28/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/12/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/26/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/09/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/23/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Cancelled - Thanksgiving 12/14/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/28/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Cancelled - Christmas 2023 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A 2023 HRB Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 3 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 13, 2023 Report #: 2304-1240 TITLE Study Session Regarding Flagpole and Monument at Hostess House/Veterans Memorial Building/MacArthur Park (27 University Avenue) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HRB receive presentations from William von Kaenel, Commander from American Legion Palo Alto Post 375, and from Laura Jones, Stanford University Archaeologist and Executive Director, Heritage Services. PROJECT DESCRIPTION There is no project application filed. No recommendation is requested or required. Staff was approached by Stanford University staff to hold a study session with the HRB, and the HRB and staff received communication from an American Legion representative requesting to also present to the HRB. BACKGROUND Staff received a request from both parties to present to the Historic Resources Board regarding the status of the flagpole and monument on the historic property. Mr. Von Kaenel previously addressed the HRB in 20221. 1 HRB March 24, 2022 meeting minutes link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/march-24-2022-minutes.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 3 Flagpole Today Flagpole Dedication Day 10/26/1908 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 3 Flagpole pedestal 27 University Avenue Property ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Study sessions are not subject to environmental review. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - C: Documents submitted by William von Kaenel of American Legion Attachments D – H: Documents submitted by Laura Jones of Stanford University AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     March 20, 2023 Amy French Chief Planning Official Planning and Development Services City of Palo Alto Dear Ms. French: Thanks for the notice of the April 13th Study Session on the Memorial Flagpole. Your letter indicates that details of the meeting’s format will be included in the HRB packet. It states, however, that Stanford’s representative “will provide a presentation” and that other parties “will be able to present”. It would appear that the property owner’s role is primary, and that of all other parties, including Post 375, is secondary and accessory. Post 375 maintains that any HRB study session must address both the property owner’s enjoyment of its rights, and the property’s historical integrity, a public good. This balance ought to be reflected in the presentation format, such that both the property owner and advocates for the public good enjoy equal standing. To Post 375 it seems self-evident that a study session should include full presentations from both sides of an issue, but lest there be any doubt, we will expand upon the rationale in particular detail. ● The HRB’s purpose is to promote the public good of historical integrity that dwells in private property. ● 27 University Avenue features two separate historic structures, the Veterans Memorial Building and the Memorial Flagpole. As both are included on the VMB’s Item 2 Attachment A Letter from William von Kaenel     Packet Pg. 9     Historical Inventory Detail, both are afforded the HRB’s Category 1, and National Register of Historic Places’s protections. ● The Memorial Flagpole was damaged around September 2020; the Study Session is its belated introduction to HRB proceedings. ● Stanford’s office in both the Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code and the National Register is Property Owner. ○ The Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code makes no distinctions among classes of property owners. ■ E.g., The Code is blind to academic titles. ● The property owner’s role in the session is to present the facts of the Memorial Flagpole’s damage, and explain its subsequent treatment. ● What HRB must study is whether this treatment was in accordance with the Historic Preservation Code, and thus served the public good. ○ The property owner cannot evaluate its own Code accordance. ● The Study Session’s presentations must therefore include advocates for the both the private property and the public good. ● Post 375 is supremely qualified to advocate for the Memorial Flagpole’s historic integrity and public good. ○ American Legion Palo Alto Post 375 is the sole surviving organization fulfilling the City of Palo Alto’s to 1919 Community House dedication to public use. As such Post 375 is intrinsic to the property’s historical integrity, as ours is its original, dedicatory and historic public use. ○ As the Memorial Flagpole commemorates Veterans, American Legion Post 375 regards its protection as central to its purpose. ● It was Post 375 who introduced the Memorial Flagpole issue to the HRB, and strongly advised Stanford to seek HRB oversight. Without Post 375’s exertions, the Memorial Flagpole’s dubitable treatment would remain the property owner’s private affair. ○ The Study Session was announced at the March 9th HRB, paraphrased as follows: “we have some interest from Stanford to come and talk about the flagpole and plaque at the Veterans building”. ○ Post 375 first inquired to the HRB about the Memorial Flagpole’s irregular treatment on March 18th, 2022. A year ago. ■ Chair Willis replied that the Memorial Flagpole’s treatment was not in HRB’s purview. Post 375 was undaunted. ○ The report we provided compiles Post 375’s repeated communications with Stanford advising the Memorial Flagpole’s treatment be brought to the HRB. ■ Stanford only contacted the HRB after Post 375 advised it would itself re-introduce the issue to the HRB. Item 2 Attachment A Letter from William von Kaenel     Packet Pg. 10     If the upcoming HRB event is indeed a study session, it will review not only the bare facts of the Memorial Flagpole’s damage and treatment, but assess these in relation to its historical integrity and public good. The property owner cannot address the public good, whereas Post 375 can. Moreover, that there is a Study Session at all owes entirely to Post 375’s initiative. If this Study Session is to accomplish its objective of publicly settling this matter, Post 375’s and the property owner’s standing must be equal. Sincerely, William von Kaenel Commander American Legion Palo Alto Post 375 Item 2 Attachment A Letter from William von Kaenel     Packet Pg. 11     From:William von Kaenel To:French, Amy Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:Fwd: HRB presentation in April Date:Sunday, March 26, 2023 3:08:15 PM Attachments:image009.png image012.png image002.png image004.png image008.png image011.png Reply Format.pdf HRB MFP Study Session.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. French, I’m writing to follow up on a letter Post 375 sent on Monday March 20 which is attached below. The letter seeks to clarify the presentation format and standing of the Post at the HRB study session on April 13 regarding the National Register designated Memorial Flagpole at the Julia Morgan Veterans Memorial Building (VMB). We haven’t yet received acknowledgement that Planning and Development Services has received our letter, and await guidance and an understanding on how to prepare for the April 13 meeting in order to properly present our defense of the Memorial Flagpole that we hold dear. In our letter, Post 375 took pains to fully elaborate on our rationale for equal standing with the property owner in presenting to the HRB. This request for equal standing was necessitated by the specification of other designations to: “Interested parties, stakeholders, and other members of the public”. These each suggest a minor format role incongruous with Post 375’s foundational VMB heritage, instrumental role in these proceedings’ initiation, and provision of a compendious report [attached], whose presentation entails commensurate time. Item 2 Attachment B Email from William von Kaenel     Packet Pg. 12     The Memorial Flagpole’s Damage and Treatment Background In 2020 American Legion Palo Alto Post 375 noted that the Veteran Memorial Building’s (aka Hostess House, Community House, and Julia Morgan Building) Memorial Flagpole was abruptly encased in a plywood enclosure. As this box persisted into 2022, Post 375 sought explanation, and finding the box was the erection of property owner Stanford University, we recommended to Stanford officials that the damage and treatment be submitted to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for review. This matter is now scheduled at the April 13th HRB meeting as a study session. We seek here to brief the HRB on the Memorial Flagpole issue . Post 375 believes that the study session should result in a report on the Memorial Flagpole’s damage and treatment, containing specific findings as to its conformance with Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code. These findings can be adapted as Motions at subsequent meetings. Palo Alto Post 375 and the Veterans Memorial Building (VMB) Post 375’s first task on this HRB matter is to establish its standing in relation to the property’s historical integrity. American Legion Palo Alto Post 375 is the sole surviving organization fulfilling the City of Palo Alto’s to 1919 Community House dedication to public use. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 13     Community House Dedication Plaque, 1919. ● The City of Palo Alto dedicated the Community House on Armistice Day, 1919 as a World War One Memorial whose public use will “perpetuate these ideals of fellowship and service”. ● The American Legion was integral to the Community House’s inception, 1919 dedication and initial public use. ○ Post 52 held meetings at the Community House in November 1919. ○ In 1920, Post 52 erected the VMB flagpole. ● Founded in 1930, Post 375 was a 1937 organizer of the United Veterans Council of Palo Alto (UVCOPA). ● In 1938 Palo Alto provided UVCOPA the Community House lease , and renamed it the Veterans’ Building. ● In 1953, UVCOPA and Palo Alto dedicated the Servicemen and Servicewomen Memorial on the Memorial Flagpole platform. ● At its 1976 dedication as California Historical Landmark No. 895, the property was renamed the Veterans Memorial Building, which remains its official name. ● In 1981, Palo Alto provided UVCOPA the use of the 2,500 square foot Veterans Area. ● In 1999, Stanford assumed the VMB lease from Palo Alto, with “all of its obligations”, and continued provision of the Veterans Area. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 14     ○ Post 375 has enjoyed the use of the Veterans Area for our monthly meetings to the present day, thereby fulfilling 104 continuous years of the building’s dedicatory public use. ● Whether or not the City of Palo Alto still proudly upholds the Community House’s 1919 Dedication, or has revoked it by neglect, the founding dedication is integral to the property’s history, to which Post 375’s continued use is living testament. Post 375’s use of the VMB in its Veterans Area is intrinsic to the VMB’s historical integrity, as ours is the property’s original, dedicatory and historic public use, fulfilling both Palo Alto and national historic property criteria. ● Palo Alto’s Criteria for Designation in the Historical Inventory. ○ The structure or site is particularly representative of… a way of life important to the city, state or nation. ○ The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare. ● The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Standards for Preservation. ○ “A property will be used as it was historically”. Without the Veterans Area and Post 375’s use, the VMB becomes merely a commercial property with an assortment of plaques. As the sole public civic organization invested in the Veterans Memorial Building (VMB), Post 375’s considers the VMB’s preservation and protection to be its special mission. So too, as a patriotic Veterans association, Post 375 has a particular interest in the sanctity of VMB’s many monuments and memorials. Post 375 demonstrated this interest by researching the VMB’s memorial dedications, and at its March 2022 HRB Oral Communication inquiring if the HRB considered the VMB’s memorial dedications to constitute Criteria for Historical Inventory designation. Post 375 eagerly anticipates HRB’s looking into it and trying to get to us with what they know. History of the Memorial Flagpole 27 University Avenue boasts two separate historic structures, the VMB and the Memorial Flagpole. Both are included on the VMB’s Historical Inventory Detail. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 15     Veterans Memorial Building Memorial Flagpole The Memorial Flagpole was originally located on “The Circle”, representing Palo Alto to all that passed through or exited from Palo Alto Station. The exact origins of the large bronze base have remained obscure. The earliest definite photograph we’ve found is from the visit of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 16     President Theodore Roosevelt speech at Palo Alto Depot, May 12, 1903. Note Memorial Flagpole on the right. University Circle with Memorial Flagpole; undated but early. Another photograph is undated, but car free, and thus early. Seen here also in 1905 and 1906. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 17     University Circle 1905 From Palo Alto’s 1894 founding, it had a tall flagpole. The Town Flag of Palo Alto is often referenced in 1890’s newspapers, e.g., the 1898 The Palo Alto Times reported that “the … the beautiful flag that is the Pride of Palo Alto, floated to the breeze on Admission Day”. A frustratingly low resolution 1898 photograph appears to show the Memorial Flagpole base behind a carriage. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 18     Outline of Memorial Flagpole? Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 19     Outline appears to match Ultimately, I failed to find the founding origins of the Memorial Flagpole’s bronze base. That’s left as a prize for later researchers. Palo Alto had a Memorial Flagpole dedication ceremony in1906. In 1908, the Native Sons of the Golden West funded and erected an enormous 205 foot redwood flagpole, which the City of Palo Alto dedicated (thus the “Memorial Flagpole, 1908”). Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 20     Native Sons of the Golden West at the dedication of the flag pole, 1908. Flag Pole Dedication at the Circle, 1908 The Memorial Flagpole can be seen at The Circle here in 1918, 1930, 1938, 1939 and 1940. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 21     The Circle, featuring Memorial Flagpole, 1930s. With the 1939-41 construction of the University Avenue Underpass, the Memorial Flagpole was moved in 1941, as seen here, to the VMB grounds. Palo Alto’s massive 1941 parade for the Underpass opening culminated in front of the Memorial Flagpole on the VMB grounds. University Ave Underpass Opening Celebration, 1941 There it supplanted the VMB’s original flagpole, erected in 1920 by the American Legion. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 22     Caretaker Charles Olaine poses in front of Community House, 1920s. Flagpole erected by American Legion Post 52. The Memorial Flagpole at the Veterans Building, seen here in 1941, was monumental in height, and has been shortened several times, such as in 1957. Monumental Memorial Flagpole, 1941. It contributed to Palo Alto’s civic life. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 23     Flag Raising at the Veterans Building With its former lease holders, the City of Palo Alto and UVCOPA, the Memorial Flagpole was professionally maintained. VMB Custodian and Palo Alto Public Works employee performing work on the Memorial Flagpole (1978) Prior to conducting this research, we did not know the Memorial Flagpole’s proud Palo Alto history as a civic shrine and landmark, its historical towering height a similitude of El Palo Alto. There’s no explanatory placards onsite, and it’s barely mentioned on local history websites. To the many who pass it while hurrying to transit it’s merely a hunk of Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 24     bronze. Properly treated, the Memorial Flagpole has great potential to again adorn and edify. It’s important to note that one of the base’s four plaques commemorates Grand Army of the Republic Veterans of the Civil War. 1861 – 1865 McKinley Post Number 187 Dept. of Calif. And Nev. Grand Army of the Republic Veterans of the Civil War Organized in Palo Alto January 21st 1905 There are at this date fourteen living members whose average age is seventy-five years. This plaque was dedicated and placed in position on Decoration Day May 30th 1918 GAR plaque, dismounted Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 25     . Damage to the Memorial Flagpole, mid-2020. Post 375 maintains the Memorial Flagpole’s flag display, as seen here on Google Street view, January 2020, prior to its damage. Google Street View prior to damage Post 375 noted that at some point in mid-2020 the Memorial Flagpole developed a plywood enclosure. There was neither public or private notice, and the signage was anonymous. Note commercial signage on a Veterans Memorial Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 26     Plywood box enclosing Memorial Flagpole Post 375 inquired with public officials, including the HRB, as to the unlabeled box’s provenance. Chair Willis replied that it is not the kind of thing the HRB was used to dealing with. Palo Alto Historian Steve Staiger directed us to Director of Stanford Heritage Service s, Professor Laura Jones, who we wrote. She replied: Laura Jones <ljones@stanford.edu> Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 7:58 PM To: Ray Powell <rayrich90@yahoo.com>, Ramsey F. Shuayto <rshuayto@stanford.edu>, Steve.Staiger@cityofpaloalto.org <Steve.Staiger@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: The Hostess House War and Veterans Memorial Good evening The base of the flagpole was repeatedly damaged by copper thieves and the plaques were in danger of loss as well. We had the plaques carefully dismounted, and the base secured, and I have the plaques secured at my archaeology lab on campus. Stanford’s Real Estate office manages the property now, having recently received it back from the City of Palo Alto. I’ve copied Ramsey Shuayto here - he is the real estate manager. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 27     Ramsey and I understand and respect the significance of the flagpole and the memorial plaques. It is very helpful to have a connection to the Veterans Council to consult with regarding repairs. I’m sure Ramsey will follow up about this — in the meantime my staff and I would be happy to show you the plaques if you’d like to see them. Laura Post 375 was relieved to find the Memorial Flagpole was receiving professional treatment, and took Stanford up on a chance to inspect the plaques. We assured HRB Chair Willis that Post 375 was engaged with Stanford on this issue. Stanford provided Post 375 with photographs of the damaged flagpole pri or to its enclosure. Unfortunately, the date and time are removed from the EXIF files. It shows the strip around the plaque perimeter has been pried(?) off. Damage is on the side of the Daughters of the Golden West plaque, away from the street, facing th e VMB. Undated crime scene photograph, prior to construction of enclosure. Damage on side facing VMB. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 28     Detail of damage to copper trim Damaged Sheet in the Stanford Archeology Lab Post 375 Engagement with Stanford and Palo Alto. Subsequently, Post 375 engaged with the HRB on VMB memorials, with both Stanford and Palo Alto officials on the successful Palo Alto-Stanford Veterans Recognition Event at the Veterans Memorial Building, where we read a VMB Preservation Resolution. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 29     Veterans Day Recognition Event flyer Veterans Day Recognition Event at the VMB Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 30     National coverage from the American Legion Post 375 strove to prove the VMB’s value to Stanford, with various initiatives: ● Researching the Community House’s origins, to find that Stanford played a predominant role. ● Pitched a VMB restoration as a project attractive for Stanford Development. ● Engaged with Stanford student Veteran and alumni groups, offering the Veterans Area as a Stanford resource. ● Touted the VMB as a common interest and nexus between Palo Alto and Stanford (see Veterans Day Recognition Event above). ● Post 375 participated in Stanford Veterans commemorations. Our efforts to generate any VMB preservation interest among Stanford officials fell flat. We were advised not to bother, Stanford had no development interest, and was instead waiting for the VMB’s fate to be determined by regional land use initiatives. Post 375’s Concerns As Post 375 became more deeply involved with the Memorial Flagpole damage and treatment, our concern for its historical integrity mounted. We will seek here to provide the basis for this view. Stanford officials have never provided evidence, forensics, rationale or expert opinion to attribute the flagpole’s damage to “copper thieves”. These officials’ professional Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 31     expertise is in anthropology and property management, not forensics or law enforcement. The credibility of their assertions rests entirely on institutional authority. Common sense calls the copper theft explanation into question. ● The copper theft explanation was never offered publicly at the time, but only when asked, privately, two years later. ● The Memorial Flagpole had perdured outside fo r 117 years without copper theft. ● Bronze/copper abounds nearby unmolested, as well as about Palo Alto and Stanford. ● Web searches reveal few nationwide incidences of memorial copper theft. ● Scrap copper isn’t lucrative. Even a heavy bronze plaque would return less than $30. The copper trim section that’s missing would yield much less. ● The price of copper in mid-2020 was at four-year lows. ● The photographs of the damage hardly prove the criminal intent was extraction. ● Laws protecting public monuments are severe, exactly to fend against such petty larceny. In the context of what we found to be an unconvincing copper theft explanation, Post 375 had growing concerns that the vaguely described undocumented damage incident was not reported to the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. We asked on different occasions about the failure to report the Memorial Flagpole’s costly physical damage, but no official even attempted to explain to us why this was not done. It seemed circular: Since officials deemed the damage was due to petty larceny copper theft, law enforcement involvement wasn’t warranted. But it’s law enforcement that determines the crime, not the property owner. And the ramifications were hardly petty. Here’s the basis for Post 375’s concern. ● Although the Memorial Flagpole was “repeatedly” damaged, sufficient for repair estimates of $60,000, Stanford’s property managers never once reported the crime. ● Stanford officials, whose expertise isn’t crime, volunteered it was pointless to even investigate, citing that “the flagpole has no cameras”. ○ Cameras can be seen trained on the flagpole atop the VMB, the damage was on the side facing the VMB, and all three cameras have a clear view. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 32     Cameras atop VMB Cameras with clear view of Memorial Flagpole ● Responses to Post 375 requests for basic information such as the crime dates(s) have been unforthcoming. ○ EXIF Date and Time stripped from the crime scene photograph files. ● Stanford officials’ inexpert assertions that copper theft is unsolvable, unpreventable and rampant are used as justification for the proposal (to Post 375, not the HRB) of a lower standard repair treatment using ersatz material. This seemed to apply a property owner’s private interest to a public matter. ● Stanford officials reportedly recommended to Palo Alto officials that the Memorial Flagpole’s repair treatment should include the removal of its four (undamaged) plaques from their historic public display, and their relegation to a museum. ○ To Post 375, it appeared inconsistent with historical preservation standards to treat the copper trim damage on one side with four undamaged plaques’ removal. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 33     ○ Nowhere in historic preservation codes are such historic integrity determinations left to the judgment of the land title holder. ● Stanford officials suggested to Post 375 that the Memorial Flagpole’s repair treatment was conditional on the outcome of regional land usage initiatives. ○ Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code does not cite regional land usage initiatives. To Post 375, it does not make sense for a property owner to minimize its legal remedies for criminal property damage. Asserting that the Memorial Flagpole’s damage was copper theft brings it below the level of prosecution. By simply reporting to law enforcement, the property owner avails itself of protection and possible compensation. The damage appears to meet the standard for California Penal Code § 594: Vandalism, punishable by a one year imprisonment, and, as the damage is estimated at $60,000, compensable by a $50,000 fine. To Post 375, a public report of the crime would seem indispensable for a property owner’s insurance, tax, and public reporting purposes. It made no sense that professional property managers would fail to report the Memorial Flagpole’s serious damage to law enforcement. Even more troubling to Post 375 has been its impression that the VMB’s listing in the National Register of Historic Places subjects the property owner and the local historic Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 34     agency to Federal Historic Preservation Laws and U.S. Criminal Code protecting veterans memorials. Perhaps our American Legion perspective lends us greater cognizance of the Federal interest in providing legal protections for National Register of Historic Places properties, as these are the public good not just of the municipality, but the nation. Similarly, veterans memorials are protected by severe U.S. Criminal Law penalties because honoring veterans’ service is inherently a national interest. The Federal Government stands ready to potentially provide justice for the injury the Memorial Flagpole’s damage did to the national public good, but that justice was denied by the crime’s failure to be reported. That said, Post 375 is no Federal law expert, except to know that compliance is the determination of public authorities and not the property owner. The Federal laws of concern here are: ● The failure to report the Memorial Flagpole’s willful defacement to any public agency denied the VMB the justice of 18 U.S. Code § 1865 - National Park Service. ● Failure to report the Monument’s original criminal injury, delaying repairs, and constructing an unauthorized structure removing the monument from public Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 35     display for three years might be viewed as compounding the monument’s injury without obtaining permission from any government agency, and a possible violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1866 - Historic, archeologic, or prehistoric items and antiquities. ● Failing to report to any public agency the willful injury of the Memorial Flagpole which commemorates the service of persons in the U.S. armed forces potentially denies veterans the rigorous justice of 18 U.S. Code § 1369 - Destruction of Veterans’ Memorials. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 36     The difference with 18 U.S. Code § 1369 is that it’s a Federal felony, which under § 4. Misprision of felony obligates those aware of its commission to report to law enforcement. While Misprision of felony is rarely prosecuted, and only under very specific conditions, its existence as a law is enough to inform any discussion of whether the damage to the Memorial Flagpole veteran’s monument should have been reported. Post 375 has no legal expertise, we can only research the laws and see what might apply. Maybe we are way off base. To us, however, it seems th at the injury to the Memorial Flagpole ought to definitely have been reported. The easy and only way to Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 37     allay legitimate concerns is to publicly report the 2020 injury and unauthorized treatment is for the HRB to retrospectively review the Memorial Flagpole’s damage and treatment. This is necessary now, because it never was submitted to the HRB. Conformance with Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code The original damage to the Memorial Flagpole was not reported to law enforcement. In lieu of repairs, the subsequent treatment consisted of erection of an expedient plywood enclosure, which has persisted for at least 2-1/2 years. During this time, Post 375 was privately advised of repair plans, which to our knowledge consisted only of obtaining repair estimates to Department of Interior standards that were deemed too costly. No repair work has been performed, and no application made for Historic Project Review. The Historic Preservation Code intends to thwart demolition by neglect, and for this reason requires property owners to keep exterior features free of structural defects through prompt corrections. Prompt isn’t specified, but 2-1/2 years likely isn’t. 16.49.080 Maintenance of historic structures in the downtown area. The owner, lessee or other person legally in possession of a historic structure … shall comply with all applicable codes, laws and regulations governing the maintenance of property. Additionally, it is the intent of this section to preserve from deliberate or inadvertent neglect the exterior features of buildings designated as significant. All such buildings shall be preserved against such decay and deterioration, and shall remain free from structural defects through prompt corrections… Regulatory delay cannot be the reason for dilatory repairs. The treatment was not submitted for Historic Project Review, as the Preservation Code would seem to require. 16.49.050 Exterior alteration of historic structures. (a) Review Process. All applications for a building permit for exterior alteration to any… significant building…shall be reviewed as follows: (2) … the proposed alterations should not adversely affect: (A) The exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical, architectural or aesthetic value of the building and its site… To Post 375 it appears that the lack of prompt repairs and failur e to obtain Historic Project Review is askance the Palo Alto Historical Preservation Code. If Post 375 thinks this, others might too, and if this impression is mistaken it would be unfair to the parties involved. It is imperative that HRB make a retrospe ctive determination as to Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 38     whether the Memorial Flagpole’s treatment was in accordance with the Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code. Post 375 urges the Memorial Flagpole repair to undergo Historic Project Review. The more deeply Post 375 engaged with Mem orial Flagpole issues, the more convinced we became of the need for public HRB oversight. Accordingly, Post 375 urged Stanford officials to report the Memorial Flagpole’s damage and Stanford’s repair plan to the Palo Alto Historical Resources Board (HRB), as per requirements of the Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code. In reply, mention is made of Secretary of the Interior standards, but of not the Palo Alto HRB. We replied, returning to the HRB issue, and relating that the VMB had been discussed at the HRB as being in Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. A further reminder in January elicited a brief reply not mentioning the HRB, however, soon a Zoom meeting with Post 375 and Stanford’s VMB property manager was arranged. In advance of the Zoom meeting, Post 375 offered to inform the HRB of the Memorial Flagpole issue, inviting Stanford’s participation. At our friendly, cordial and candid Zoom meeting Post 375 discussed many of the issues in this paper. Happily, Stanford responded, informing us that they’ll bring the Memorial Flagpole issue to the HRB, which is now scheduled for April 13 as a study session, which this paper addresses. Post 375 ponders Stanford’s VMB strategy. Post 375 started its engagement of the Memorial Flagpole issue optimistic that it would be resolved in a manner consistent with an august institution’s ownership of a National Register of Historic Places property. This optimism faded, however, and Post 375 officers, some of whom are Stanford alumni, were perplexed as to Stanford’s seeming indifference to its own property’s condition and historical integrity. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 39     What first necessitated Post 375’s plumbing of Stanford’s VMB motivations was the existential threat posed by Stanford’s peremptory 2021 action of awarding the Veterans’ Area lease to the restaurant. This resulted in the stripping of Post 375’s and East Palo Alto Post 472’s decorations from the Veterans Area, limiting its use to the pleasure of the restaurant, and essentially ending the VMB’s 102 -year history of dedicatory public use. All this to the unequivocal detriment of the public good, the VMB’s historical integrity, and to Post 375 The VMB’s preservation may be a priority for many in the community, but for Post 375 it is a matter of survival. We had to gain a clear-eyed understanding our landlord’s motivation, and fight to protect every element of the VMB’s historical integrity, which includes our VMB heritage. Post 375 dedicating the Serviceman and Servicewomen Memorial, 1953. The Palo Alto Transit Center pitch to relocate the VMB. In Post 375’s struggle to preserve veterans’ VMB access, we noticed Stanford’s repeated and determined attempts to densely develop the entire 4.5 acre Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC) parcel (requiring the VMB’s relocation) with high-rise buildings. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 40     ● In 2012, Stanford obtained preliminary approval for a high-rise project, but it was defeated, assisted by objections from the Historical Resources Board. ● In 2014, Stanford proposed a research park. ● In 2021 Stanford offered regional and municipal agencies the 4.5 acre parcel to accommodate a 137-foot, 530-unit block tower apartment. Post 375 began to suspect that Stanford’s VMB historical integrity indifference served a larger strategic design. These suspicions found further support in our viewing a Zoom video of Stanford’s September 16, 2021 presentation to the Palo Alto Housing Element ad hoc Committee. Stanford Lands, Buildings & Real Estate (LBRE) officials waxed enthusiastic over the development potential of the 4.5 acre Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC), 1.08 acres of which is the VMB parcel. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 41     LBRE officials limited mention of PATC harboring an Historic building (MacArthur Park) to a bullet point, and thus left implicit that this option requires relocation of a National Register of Historic Places building. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 42     LBRE presenters lauded PATC as the ideal location for a parking-deprived, height- restriction-shattering 137 foot, 530 unit tower block apartment. LBRE officials touted Stanford’s Four Foundational Pillars, which support 17 Guiding Principles. Historical Preservation not included. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 43     LBRE presenters averred that there are many levers to development that can be pushed or pulled along the way to encourage housing. …Overarching development requirements and processes will be an impediment to getting housing built. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 44     Post 375’s interpretation is that: ● The Stanford Board of Trustees has decided that development of the PATC takes priority over preservation of the National Register of Historic Places VMB. ○ LBRE officials dutifully implement Trustees’ policy. ● PATC development requires vigorous Stanford initiatives (levers to development that can be pushed and pulled). ● Historic Preservation is an overarching development requirement and process that exemplifies an impediment to getting housing built. ● The Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code and National Register of Historic Places regulations that protect the VMB impede the PATC development’s economic feasibility, and are thus barriers to be removed. In Post 375’s view, the reduction of Historic Preservation to a barrier and impediment to the State-prioritized good of housing is an invitation for officials to extend the push and pull of development levers past conventional boundaries. In other words, historic preservation is a speed bump on the road to housing to either drive over or around. With the Memorial Flagpole’s unexpected 2020 damage, LBRE officials were abruptly confronted with an imposing HRB oversight speed bump, forcing a decision to either report damage to the Sheriff’s, and drive over the speed bump, or not report, and drive around it. Fatefully, the latter was chosen. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 45     HRB and the National Register of Historic Places. The Veterans Memorial Building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Stanford’s holds the fee simple title to 27 University Avenue, and its role is the Owner, to which I will often refer to it here. Properties shall not be included in the National Register over the objection of the property owner. §302105. Owner participation in nomination process b) When Property Shall Not Be Included on National Register or Designated as National Historic Landmark.—If the owner of any privately owned property… object to inclusion or designation, the property shall not be included on the National Register or designated as a National Historic Landmark until the objection is withdrawn . In 1976 when the VMB was listed, the owner Stanford lodged no objection. In 1999 Stanford freely obtained the VMB Lease from Palo Alto, with “all of its obligations”. If 47 years later, the Owner now finds being a National Register property owner inconvenient, that’s a problem entirely of its own making. In 1976 Stanford committed itself as a National Register Owner; changed circumstances now are no license to use its institutional power as a lever to spoil the building’s historical integrity while lobbying for its relocation and National Register deletion. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 46     The VMB’s Owner explicitly seeks its property’s relocation, which is antithetical to the National Register’s purpose. There’s no strong rationale for relocation. There are a multitude of feasible alternatives to the VMB’s relocation; for example, develop 3.5 acres of the PATC, and leave the VMB’s one acre alone. Without successful application to the National Park Service (NPS) prior to the move, relocation of the VMB would result in its automatic deletion from the National Register. The pre-approval process for National Register retention upon relocation is arduous, and in the VMB’s case the prospects are poor. It’s probable tha t the VMB would lose its National Register listing, an outcome authored entirely by the Owner. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 47     Stanford’s leveraging of its owner role to achieve Register deletion isn’t limited to lobbying for Relocation; it at best expends no effort to preserve the VMB’s historical integrity, instead acting at every opportunity as if seeking to achieve the Grounds for National Register removal. The Owner’s diffidence to the VMB’s historical integrity is seen in the Memorial Flagpole damage incident, which is the Owner’s manifest (and perhaps legal) duty, first to report to law enforcement, and then submit for HRB review. The Provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) are carried out not by the NPS, but by the State Historic Preservation Program, delegated by California to the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 48     It’s the HRB’s duty to determine if its National Register property owners are acting within the NHPA’s provisions. Failure to report to local authorities thereby also eludes National Register review. Should the potentially flaunted Federal laws cited above ever draw NPS’s scrutiny to the Memorial Flagpole matter, the HRB’s proceedings will figure in the probe. It would seem prudent for the HRB’s proceedings to document that for three years the Owner’s Flagpole treatment was unreported and unauthorized, lest the HRB share in adverse Federal findings. The April 13th Study Session. The 2020 damage to the Memorial Flagpole will first enter HRB proceedings April 13th as a Study Session, which presumably may lead to becoming a regular agenda item with motions. This is a complex case, with much to consider. The important aspects for HRB’s consideration, however, are simple: ● Post 375 has strong standing in matters of the VMB’s historical integrity. ○ Unique among the involved parties, to Post 375 the VMB’s preservation is existential. ● The Memorial Flagpole has its own historic significance, is included on the VMB’s Historical Inventory Detail, and enjoys the property’s historic p rotections. ● In 2020 the Memorial Flagpole sustained criminal damage estimated to exceed $10,000, that the Owner did not report to the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department. ○ While not a legal duty, the reporting of serious vandalism of a National Register listed property to law enforcement is strongly advisable. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 49     ○ If 18 U.S. Code § 1369 - Destruction of Veterans’ Memorials applies, reporting may have been a legal duty. ● Neither the Memorial Flagpole’s damage nor its irregular treatment was submitted to the HRB. ○ Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code requires that owners submit treatment plans for Historical Project Review. ● The Memorial Flagpole did not receive prompt correction of structural defects the Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code requires of Category One owners. ● The VMB’s listing in the National Register of Historic Places renders the Memorial Flagpole’s damage a Federal matter, which introduces the HRB , and the City of Palo Alto, to Federal liability. ● Active lobbying for VMB relocation (triggering National Register deletion), calls into question the Owner’s commitment to fulfillment of the National Register duties that it freely undertook. The VMB and Stanford are the Historic Inventory’s most prominent property and property owner, respectively. Stakeholders will note well and long remember what the HRB does here. Closure of the Flagpole issue with an off-record study session will constitute the HRB’s retrospective endorsement of the Memorial Flagpole’s damage having been kept a private matter. The dubitable aspects of its treatment detailed above will be established as new HRB standards, and pose Federal oversight liabilities. Post 375 recommends that the Study Session include a report that retrospectively reviews the conformance of the Memorial Flagpole’s damage , reporting and treatment to the Palo Alto Historic Preservation Code. At a subsequent HRB meeting, the report’s findings can be adapted as motions, so that the HRB proceedings will not be silent on such a momentous issue. Item 2 Attachment C HRB MFP Study Session     Packet Pg. 50     The Palo Alto Flagpole: From the Circle to the Hostess House Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 51     Raising of the 206-foot flagpole at the Circle in 1908 before the plinth was placed around the base. Note the standing platform on the lower section of the pole. Palo Alto Trustee William Dean asked the local chapter of the fraternal organization Native Sons of the Golden West (NSGW) to raise funds to buy a town flagpole in 1907. TIMELINE: 1908 NSGW Flagpole at University Circle Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 52     Dedication Day of the Palo Alto flagpole at the Circle: October 26, 1908. No plaques had been made for the plinth yet. TIMELINE: 1908 NSGW Flagpole at University Circle Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 53     In addition to the NSGW, the Native Daughters of the Golden West, the Grand Army of the Republic and the California Pioneers of Santa Clara County agreed to each provide a plaque for the plinth. The Native Sons of the Golden West at the flagpole dedication, wearing their ceremonial sashes. TIMELINE: 1908 NSGW Flagpole at University Circle Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 54     The Palo Alto Flagpole held pride of place at the Circle, standing on a corner of University Avenue. Cadets marched past the pole in 1918, after America joined in fighting WWI. TIMELINE: Circa 1918 NSGW Flagpole at University Circle Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 55     The YWCA Hostess House at Camp Fremont in Menlo Park was designed by master architect Julia Morgan in the Bay Tradition style. It was used between 1918 and 1919 to provide entertainment to the soldiers but, more importantly, provided aid to both soldiers and their families in numerous ways. TIMELINE: 1918 Hostess House at Camp Fremont, Menlo Park Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 56     The town of Palo Alto paid $1 to own the Hostess House, valued at $20,000 at the time. Moved in pieces to its current site in Palo Alto in mid-1919, it was used as a municipal community center from 1919 until 1935 or 1936. *Stanford University is the landowner; Stanford leased El Camino Park to the City of Palo Alto in 1915 The new Community Center opened on Armistice Day, November 11, 1919. TIMELINE: 1919 Hostess House moved to El Camino Park, Palo Alto*Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 57     Mr. Archibald, who moved the structure, bought the new flagpole. Members of the new veterans group, Palo Alto-Stanford Fremont Post 52 of the American Legion, paid for the flag and volunteered their time and labor in raising the pole sometime between June 10, 1920 and July 16, 1920. New landscaping surrounded the flagpole. TIMELINE: 1920 Hostess House receives flagpole from American Legion Post 52 Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 58     American Legion Flagpole at the Hostess House NSGW Flagpole at the Circle Between 1920 and 1941 there were multiple flagpoles: the NSGW pole at the Circle and the American Legion pole at the Hostess House (Community Center). Two additional flagpoles were mounted on the front of the Hostess House. TIMELINE: 1920 –1941 Multiple flagpoles Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 59     The Hostess House flagpole ca. 1932-1941. The Community Center program moved to the Lucie Stern Theater and Community Center on Middlefield and a local veterans’ group leased the building from 1937-1976. TIMELINE: 1932 –1941 American Legion Flagpole at Hostess House Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 60     Construction of the new underpass began in 1940 (below). The Palo Alto flagpole moved from the Circle to the Hostess House (Veterans Building) in 1941 (right). TIMELINE: 1941 NSGW flagpole relocated from University Circle to Hostess House Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 61     The 206-foot Palo Alto flagpole and plinth in front of the Hostess House (Veterans Building) and across from the new train depot. Dedication Day: March 8, 1941. Although it was reported in the newspaper the flagpole suffered from dry rot, it was still moved from its original site to the Hostess House in 1941. TIMELINE: 1941 NSGW flagpole dedicated at Hostess House Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 62     The Palo Alto Fire Department shortened the flagpole in 1957. TIMELINE: 1957 NSGW flagpole shortened Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 63     This undated photo of the empty plinth suggests a new flagpole, different from the original NSGW flagpole, was purchased at some point after 1966. The existing flagpole is metal (the NSGW flagpole was constructed of wood) and has no standing platform. TIMELINE: After 1966 NSGW flagpole replaced A veteran gazes upward at the NSGW flagpole in 1966. Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 64     In 1974 the Palo Alto City Manager announced the building would be razed once the Veterans’ lease expired in 1976. Interest rose in saving the building. PAHA volunteers organized to nominate the property and the former Hostess House became a California Registered Historical Landmark in 1976. TIMELINE: 1974-76 Demolition proposal by City leads to listing as a landmark and on National Register Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 65     The YWCA Hostess House was nominated for the National Register of Historic Places in 1975. It was found significant for being the only surviving WWI training camp structure in California, a distinguished example of the Bay Region architectural style by Julia Morgan, and the first community center building in the US established by a municipality in 1976. TIMELINE: 1976 Hostess House listed on National Register of Historic Places Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 66     The flagpole and plinth in 2007. In 1979 a contractor optioned a lease for the Hostess House from the City of Palo Alto, renovated it, and sold the lease to the owner of a restaurant named MacArthur Park in 1981. Veterans’ groups continue to use meeting room. The City of Palo Alto ended its management of Hostess House in 1999. The restaurant lease is now managed by Stanford University. TIMELINE: 1979-81 Hostess House rehabilitated and leased to MacArthur Park restaurantItem 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 67     TIMELINE: 2021 NSGW Flagpole base vandalized by copper thieves, Stanford boxed the base to prevent further damage Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 68     TIMELINE: 2021 NSGW Flagpole plaques removed for storage Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 69     National Register of Historic Places: Hostess House Period of significance: 1918 - 1936 Historical Resource Status: Hostess House is significant at national and state level Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 70     California Historical Landmark: Hostess House California Historical Landmarks (Landmarks) are buildings, sites, features, or events that are of statewide significance. Historical Resource Status: Hostess House is significant at national and state level Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 71     California Point of Historical Interest: First Community Center and Palo Alto’s City Flagpole California Points of Historical Interest (Points) are buildings, sites, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance. Historical Resource Status: NSGW Flagpole is significant at local level Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 72     Palo Alto Historical Resources Inventory: Hostess House, Memorial Flag Pole as “Related Feature” Historical Resource Status: NSGW Flagpole is significant at local level Item 2 Attachment D Flagpole Timeline and Historic Resource Status     Packet Pg. 73     Copper Thefts | Federal Bureau of Investigation Copper Thefts Intelligence Assessment (Unclassified) Prepared by the FBI Criminal Intelligence Section September 15, 2008 Scope Note The assessment highlights copper theft and its impact on US critical infrastructure. Copper thefts are occurring throughout the United States and are perpetrated by individuals and organized groups motivated by quick profits and a variety of vulnerable targets. Information for the assessment was developed through May 2008 from the following sources: FBI Open sources Source and Confidence Statement Reporting relative to the impact of copper thefts on US critical infrastructure was derived from the FBI and open sources. The FBI has high confidence that the FBI source reporting used to prepare the assessment is reliable. The FBI also has high confidence in the reliability of information derived from open-source reporting. Key Judgments Transformer Transformers contain approximately 50 lbs. of copper with the potential Item 2 Attachment E Copper Thefts Article     Packet Pg. 74     to yield $200 for copper thieves and if stolen, result in thousands of dollars in damages, replacement costs, and environmental clean-up. Copper thieves are threatening US critical infrastructure by targeting electrical sub-stations, cellular towers, telephone land lines, railroads, water wells, construction sites, and vacant homes for lucrative profits. The theft of copper from these targets disrupts the flow of electricity, telecommunications, transportation, water supply, heating, and security and emergency services and presents a risk to both public safety and national security.1 Copper thieves are typically individuals or organized groups who operate independently or in loose association with each other and commit thefts in conjunction with fencing activities and the sale of contraband. Organized groups of drug addicts, gang members, and metal thieves are conducting large scale thefts from electric utilities, warehouses, foreclosed or vacant properties, and oil well sites for tens of thousands of dollars in illicit proceeds per month. 2 The demand for copper from developing nations such as China and India is creating a robust international copper trade. Copper thieves are exploiting this demand and the resulting price surge by stealing and selling the metal for high profits to recyclers across the United States. As the global supply of copper continues to tighten, the market for illicit copper will likely increase. 3 Copper Thefts Threaten US Critical Infrastructure Copper thieves are threatening US critical infrastructure by targeting electrical substations, cellular towers, telephone land lines, railroads, water wells, construction sites, and vacant homes for lucrative profits. Copper thefts from these targets have increased since 2006; and they are currently disrupting the flow of electricity, telecommunications, transportation, water supply, heating, and security and emergency services, and present a risk to both public safety and national security. According to open-source reporting, on 4 April 2008, five tornado warning sirens in the Jackson, Mississippi, area did not warn residents of an approaching tornado because copper thieves had stripped the sirens of copper wiring, thus rendering them inoperable. According to open-source reporting, on 20 March 2008, nearly 4,000 residents in Polk County, Florida, were left without power after copper wire was stripped from an active transformer at a Tampa Electric Company (TECO) power facility. Monetary losses to TECO were approximately $500,000. According to agricultural industry reporting, as of March 2007, farmers in Pinal County, Arizona , were experiencing a copper theft epidemic as perpetrators stripped copper from their water irrigation wells and pumps resulting in the loss of crops and high replacement costs. Pinal County’s Item 2 Attachment E Copper Thefts Article     Packet Pg. 75     infrastructure loss due to copper theft was $10 million. Criminal Groups Involved in Copper Thefts Sawzall Sawzalls, bolt cutters, wire cutters, and various hand tools are used in the commission of copper theft. Copper thieves are typically individuals or organized groups who operate independently or in loose association with each other and commit thefts in conjunction with fencing activities and the sale of contraband. Organized groups of drug addicts, gang members, and metal thieves are conducting large scale thefts from electric utilities, warehouses, foreclosed and vacant properties, and oil well sites for tens of thousands of dollars in illicit proceeds per month. According to open sources, as recently as April 2008, highly organized theft rings specializing in copper theft from houses and warehouses were operating in Minneapolis, Minnesota. These rings or gangs hit several houses per day, yielding more than $20,000 in profits per month. The targets were most often foreclosed homes.4 Open-source reporting from March 2008 indicates that an organized copper theft ring used the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s foreclosure lists to pinpoint targets in Cleveland, Ohio. Perpetrators had 200 pounds of stolen copper in their van, road maps, and tools. Three additional perpetrators were found to be using the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s list of mortgage and bank foreclosures to target residences in Cleveland, South Euclid, Cleveland Heights, and other cities in Ohio.5 Global Demand Increasing China , India, and other developing nations are driving the demand for raw materials such as copper and creating a robust international trade. Copper thieves are receiving cash from recyclers who often fill orders for commercial scrap dealers. Recycled copper flows from these dealers to smelters, mills, foundries, ingot makers, powder plants, and other industries to be re-used in the United States or for supplying the international raw materials demand. As the global supply of copper continues to tighten, the market for illicit copper will likely increase. Copper Wire Item 2 Attachment E Copper Thefts Article     Packet Pg. 76     Copper wire containing insulation is often transported to burn sites where the insulation is burned off in a steel drum leaving behind just the copper wire. Open-source reporting from February 2007 indicates that the global copper supply tightened due to a landslide at the Freeport-McMoran Copper and Cold mine in Grasberg, Indonesia in October 2003 and a worker’s strike at the El Abra copper mine in Clama, Chile in November 2004. These events contributed to copper production shortfalls and led to an increase in recycling, which in turn created a market for copper.6 Open-source reporting from October 2006 indicated that the demand for copper from China increased substantially due to the construction of facilities for the 2008 Olympics.7 Open-source reporting indicated that from January 2001 to March 2008, the price of copper increased more than 500 percent.8 This has prompted unscrupulous and sometimes unwitting independent and commercial scrap metal dealers to pay record prices for copper, regardless of its origin, making the material a more attractive target for theft. Outlook The global demand for copper, combined with the economic and home foreclosure crisis, is creating numerous opportunities for copper-theft perpetrators to exploit copper-rich targets. Organized copper theft rings may increasingly target vacant or foreclosed homes as they are a lucrative source of unattended copper inventory. Current economic conditions, such as the rising cost of gasoline, food, and consumer goods, the declining housing market, the ease through which copper is exchanged for cash, and the lack of a significant deterrent effect, make it likely that copper thefts will remain a lucrative financial resource for criminals. Industry officials have taken some countermeasures to address the copper theft problem. These include the installment of physical and technological security measures, increased collaboration among the various industry sectors, and the development of law enforcement partnerships.9 Many states are also taking countermeasures by enacting or enhancing legislation regulating the scrap industry––to include increased recordkeeping and penalties for copper theft and noncompliant scrap Item 2 Attachment E Copper Thefts Article     Packet Pg. 77     dealers. However, there are limited resources available to enforce these laws, and a very small percentage of perpetrators are arrested and convicted. Additionally, as copper thefts are typically addressed as misdemeanors, those individuals convicted pay relatively low fines and serve short prison terms. This intelligence assessment was prepared by the Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI. 1 WAPT.com, “Copper Thieves Silence Tornado Siren,” 8 April 2008, available at www.wapt.com. 2 The Orlando Sentinel, “Theft Causes Power Outage,” 21 March 2008, available at www.orlandosentinel.com. 3 Murphree, Julie. “Copper Theft in Arizona at Epidemic Levels,” Arizona Farm Bureau: Arizona Agriculture, March 2007, Vol. 60, No. 3, available at www.azfb.org. 4 Tevlin, Jon. “The New Underground Currency,” StarTribune.com, 12 April 2008, available at www.msnbc.msn.com. 5 The Plain Dealer, “Copper Theft Ring Worked From Foreclosure Lists, Cleveland Heights Police Say,” 28 March 2008, available at www.cleveland.com. 6 According to an extensive study sponsored by the Chief Security Officer web site (www.csoonline.org) – Scott Berinato, “Copper Theft: The Metal Theft Epidemic,”1 February 2007, http://www.csoonline.com/read/020107/fea_metal.html. 7 Xinhau News Agency. “Bejing to Spend More on Infrastructure for Olympics,” CHINA.ORG.CN, 9, October, 2006, available at www.china.org.cn. 8 NYMEX Daily Spot Settlement Price, http://www.nymex.com (accessed on 9 March 2008). 9 US Attorney Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council Meetings with industry and law enforcement 25 April 2008 and 29 July 2008; LexisNexis; (U) Hassan, Anita. “Jackson Lee Says She Will Introduce Legislation That Enlists Help of FBI,” The Houston Chronicle, 6 September 2008. Item 2 Attachment E Copper Thefts Article     Packet Pg. 78     Vandals, thieves hit new low by targeting monuments — Merced County Times The Merced County Times Item 2 Attachment F Damage to Historic Monuments Article     Packet Pg. 79     By YANIRA LEDEZMA & JONATHAN WHITAKER Suspected vandals and/or thieves have stolen several bronze and brass plaques and signage from monuments on city property in Merced over the past three months — and restoring the damage is proving to be costly. Apart from causing frustration among those community leaders who are making weekly cleanup efforts to beautify the city — such as Mayor Matthew Serratto and his team of volunteers — city officials estimate the cost to replace the plaques and signage will be more than $40,000. To make matters worse, some of the materials are on back order, and there’s no clear timeline on when the monuments will be restored. In late April, the plaque at the base of the Steven Stayner monument at Applegate Park was stolen. It told the story of Stayner’s 1972 abduction in Merced and his heroic act of saving 5-year-old Timmy White and himself from captivity with a child molester. Also at Applegate Park, a Blue Star tribute to the U.S. Armed Forces was taken from the U.S. flag pole area. This theft was quite a feat considering the location is protected by a tall metal fence with spikes at the top that would be difficult to climb and cross over. “What’s next?” one Times reader commented. “The names on the war memorial at Courthouse Park?” Meanwhile, near the G Street Underpass, most of the golden letters that spell “Merced” were taken along with a city seal embedded in a monument that sits above the sidewalk along the northbound lanes. On the railroad bridge of the underpass itself, a 2011 dedication plaque with the names of local leaders who worked on the $18 million underpass project was also stolen, along with a few other ornamental markers on the structure. The dedication plaque was stolen right underneath a sign that Item 2 Attachment F Damage to Historic Monuments Article     Packet Pg. 80     reads: “Warning: Under Video Surveillance”. Nevertheless, the Merced Police Department has not made any arrests in the thefts and no suspects have been named, according to city officials. Some suspect the theft and damage were caused by lawbreakers looking for copper-laced metals that can be exchanged for cash at scrapyards and recycling centers. The Stayner plaque theft also occurred after the worldwide release of the Hulu documentary TV series about the Stayner family story, raising speculation that it might have been stolen to be sold on the black market. Established in 1964, Mid-Valley Publications (MVP) is an employee-owned group of five weekly community newspapers in Merced and Stanislaus counties. With the Merced County Times, Atwater- Winton Times, Hilmar Times, Waterford News, Hughson Chronicle—Denair Dispatch, we are one of the longest-standing publishers of local newspapers within these two counties. Mid-Valley Publications offers a variety of important services including providing relevant and positive news, community announcements, local and national display advertisement creation and publication, classified advertisements, legal notice publications, obituaries, and other important event announcements. Mid-Valley Publications was founded by John Derby, who retired in 2004 as Publisher, though he continues to provide a guiding hand in daily operations of the company. We’d love to hear from you! Please contact us at 209.358.5311 or email our staff for more information or to obtain a subscription for our newspapers. Comments Item 2 Attachment F Damage to Historic Monuments Article     Packet Pg. 81     Historic wrongs on a pedestal: Ugly past doesn’t vanish when the artwork does Charles Desmarais Most Popular Photo of Charles Desmarais Feb. 27, 2018Updated: Feb. 27, 2018 12:40 p.m. 1of2Pioneer Monument on Fulton St on Monday, August 21, 2017 in San Francisco, Calif.Amy Osborne / Special to The Chronicle 2017 Item 2 Attachment G Plaques of Historical Wrongs Article     Packet Pg. 82     Memorial sculpture is not like other art. It is a constrained category, conservative by its nature. The very name carries with it the idea of memory; its purpose is to anchor us to the past. The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission voted last week to approve the removal of a Civic Center sculpture that has held a prominent position in the city for well more than a century. In the coming months, the San Francisco Arts Commission is expected to finalize the decision, spending $160,000 to $200,000 to hoist from its pedestal a work called “Early Days,” which depicts the subjugation of a stripped-bare American Indian by heavily clad military and religious pioneers. The move is a response to complaints about what all agree is a racist image, and I get it: Who wants to confront every day a reminder of the horrid things that were done to win for us our privileged lives? BEST OFFER OF THE YEAR: 6 Months of Access for Only 99¢! 6 MONTHS FOR 99¢ From The Chronicle’s report, it is clear that last week’s decision was not taken lightly. As one official said, “We’re a historical preservation commission ... not a historical revision commission.” Item 2 Attachment G Plaques of Historical Wrongs Article     Packet Pg. 83     Pioneer Monument on Fulton St on Monday, August 21, 2017 in San Francisco, Calif.Amy Osborne/Special To The Chronicle In the end, however, the vote was unanimous, as it had to be in this moment of frustration and impotence in arenas that matter essentially to living human beings. If our elected leaders won’t make Item 2 Attachment G Plaques of Historical Wrongs Article     Packet Pg. 84     our world safe and they refuse to ensure that it is sane, our appointed local commissioners can at least make a symbolic gesture to represent San Francisco residents’ better nature. One striking feature of the argument to remove “Early Days” — and, by extension, other monuments across the U.S. that embody evils once assumed to be divinely granted rights — is its recognition of the tremendous power of art. Most of us ignore public sculpture, especially of the bronze, memorial sort. It’s like the hallway chair that once belonged to Grandmother but is never sat upon, or the picture of the founder as you enter headquarters: Its utility is in its mere presence, in the fact that exists. We trust in its inherent authority; we take note of it only in its absence. There is no rationale for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to haul away a bit of useless furniture from a public square unless you grant its unseen power as a talisman. Desperate, we erase “Early Days,” the cold, hard object, hoping to squelch a moral fire so fierce we cannot stand its proximity. Item 2 Attachment G Plaques of Historical Wrongs Article     Packet Pg. 85     The donor panel of the Haus der Kunst, torn from the wall by American soldiers after World War !!, now prominently displayed.Wilfried Petzi/Haus der Kunst Others have found ways to come to terms with pasts they despise. Some years ago I came across a twisted bronze plaque, casually leaning against the wall of a corridor in the Haus der Kunst, a distinguished contemporary art museum in Munich. It was torn at the corners, looking something like a tacked-up poster roughly pulled from the wall. The director told me that he had found the item gathering dust in basement storage. The museum had been built in the Nazi era to glorify German art; its site and its architect were personally selected by Adolf Hitler. After World War II, the American military used the building as an officers’ club, at which time the tablet had been pried from its anchor bolts. The plaque honored project donors, most of them prominent Nazis. Now that the building had returned to a public function, the director had ordered it brought up into public view so that visitors would keep in mind the dark history of the institution, even as they reveled in the current prosperity of their country and their museum. There are other examples of attempts to preserve what a culture might wish to forget. Moscow and some other cities in the former Soviet Union created sculpture gardens — effectively graveyards — to which they have relegated Soviet-era monuments. In a park in Budapest, Hungary, a grand stairway leads up to a kind of altar, atop which is a brick plinth. There, disembodied, stands “Stalin’s Boots,” all that remains of a statue dismantled by what is said to have been an army of 200,000 citizens in revolt. Item 2 Attachment G Plaques of Historical Wrongs Article     Packet Pg. 86     Stalin's boots by Akos EleodPremium UIG/Getty Images/Universal Images Group These are ways that other societies seek to move from guilt and grief to self-knowledge and a kind of social-psychological health. To leave the past behind, not by forgetting but by accepting responsibility for it. To delve into the history of the “Early Days” sculpture, and of the cultural milieu from which it was born, is to dive into the cesspool that is the worst of San Francisco’s past. In 1894, when the sculpture was dedicated as part of a larger “Pioneer Monument,” public art was a big deal. A photograph in the Preservation Commission staff report shows hundreds gathered for the unveiling, with elaborate bunting and perhaps two dozen American flags hung about. “This monument shall lend luster to the memories of the founders of this commonwealth, and give lasting renown to the name of the Native Son who designed it,” a speaker at the unveiling said. The Native Sons of the Golden West, founded in 1875, erected monuments throughout California in the 19th century, and “Pioneer Monument” patron James Lick and sculptor Frank Happersberger embraced the movement. Native Sons activities were driven by civic pride and a love of history, but there was also a darker aspect. The organization comprised “only the sons of those sturdy pioneers who arrived on this coast prior to the admission of California as a state.” One early leader was the man who delivered that laudatory dedication speech, a journalist-turned-politician named Willard B. Farwell. The same Farwell published in 1885 a patently racist book detailing what, in a cruelly parallel choice of Item 2 Attachment G Plaques of Historical Wrongs Article     Packet Pg. 87     adjectives, he called the “native vices” of Chinese immigrants. A later Native Sons president once explained, “California was given by God to a white people, and with God’s strength we want to keep it as He gave it to us.” The monuments were a part of that plan. The Arts Commission did try valiantly in the mid-1990s to provide some context for “Pioneer Monument.” It called together an exhaustively diverse advisory panel to compose a plaque describing the travails of American Indians in California, once Europeans began to settle here. The 150-word marker still stands at the site. Unsurprisingly, the text’s brittle, didactic tone is no match for the lurid drama of the “Early Days” sculpture. Nor could it be. The effort pitched bureaucratic prose against art. Both preach, but only one stirs passion. Which brings us back to the futile action taken by the Preservation Commission last week. The effort 20 years ago to somehow explain the inexcusable was doomed from the start. And today, we will not cure a malignancy that still infects us by the simple act of erasure. No wound heals without leaving a scar; no crime is solved without examining the evidence. The reason those displacements of German and Soviet monuments so powerfully rebuke the beliefs of their original builders is that they commemorate an ultimate victory in a war of ideals. The disgraced sculptures remain as the proof of that. We, on the other hand, are still in the thick of the battle. Charles Desmarais is The San Francisco Chronicle’s art critic. Email: cdesmarais@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @Artguy1 Item 2 Attachment G Plaques of Historical Wrongs Article     Packet Pg. 88     An Overview of the Plaques Donated by the Native Sons of the Golden West ; What they represent, why they should be removed, and how they hurt our community KatieAnn Nguyen West County World, March 14, 2022 (West County High School, Sonoma) To be able to go to school and to have it as a safe space for you, it is a privilege that most overlook. We take for granted the little things that we have, but sometimes those little things are so much bigger for another. Sometimes the things we take for granted are the same things that others are trying so hard to attain. It has recently been brought to the attention of many at this campus that the plaques in the front entrance of West County High School and the entrance of the big gym were donated by a white supremacist and nationalist group. The Native Sons of the Golden West (NSGW), the group that had donated the plaques to the school, is a group that works towards preserving the history of California. They are quoted to have said that “California was given by God to a white people, and with God’s strength we want to keep it as He gave it to us.” What this means is that during their history, the group perceived preserving the history of California as keeping it as a state for “a white people,” excluding all ethnic minorities, most evidently Japanese Americans. Item 2 Attachment H Native Sons Article     Packet Pg. 89     The Native Sons of the Golden West did an excellent job of preserving the state for “a white people” by playing a leading role in California’s anti-Japanese activism during the prewar decades. They were a group that approved a resolution to exclude all “orientals” from California. For them, they were simply taking on the white man’s burden, the idea that white men were the ones responsible for “liberating, educating, and civilizing” indigenous people. For Japanese Americans and other ethnic minorities, it was outright hate and discrimination. Even when the Immigration Act of 1924 was enacted, an act that prohibited emigration from Asia and set a limit to the number of Asian immigrants in the United States, NSGW continued their anti- Japanese activism. During WWII, Japanese Americans faced an onslaught of inaccurate information being spread about them from NSGW to further push them into isolation and exclusion. The information spread had the intent of inciting more fear from Americans and continuing to stigmatize Japanese Americans even more. In addition, NSGW led efforts during the 1940s to remove Japanese Americans’ citizenship statuses, though these efforts were unsuccessful. They continued in their efforts to limit Japanese Americans’ role in society and community rights as a whole. Both of the plaques at the school read: THIS BUILDING DEDICATED TO TRUTH~LIBERTY ~TOLERATION~ BY THE NATIVE SONS OF THE GOLDEN WEST The plaque at the front entrance of the school was donated on December 5th, 1935 and the plaque at the entrance of the big gym was donated on December 12th, 1954. At first glance, it may seem that the plaques promote ideals that are beneficial for the campus, however taking into account their history at the time of the plaques’ installation, are these ideals truly the ones that we honor today? What truth did they want us to honor? And was it one that aligned with the group’s goal of preserving the history of California for “a white people”? When they say toleration, what exactly did they mean? Toleration of a specific ethnic group? As in tolerating that ethnic group as they worked towards removing their citizenship status? If these were truly the ideals that went into the installation of these plaques, how can we ignore them when it directly rejects and discriminates against students and staff at this campus? While people hold the argument that the group has changed from their racist past and that we can’t place 21st century ideals on things from the past, that doesn’t mean that these plaques stop hurting people. Yes, groups can change. We have seen that with highly honorable groups today such as the Item 2 Attachment H Native Sons Article     Packet Pg. 90     American Red Cross who in the 1970s had prohibited men who had sex with men from donating blood, Margaret Sanger who created Planned Parenthood on the basis of eugenics, or Henry Ford and his anti-Semitic views. We know that groups can change their ideals and beliefs, we have seen that happen. However, the Native Sons of the Golden West have never specifically apologized for their racist actions, neither have they offered reparations. In addition, when viewing photos of their group membership, there is a majority of white members. If they had truly apologized for their actions, why is there a lack of diversity within their members? Has the group truly moved on from their racist past? The plaques given by the Native Sons of the Golden West that are cemented in the front of this school and big gym serve as a form of reminder of these actions and it hurts being reminded everyday of that discrimination. I will not lie, it’s hard being an Asian American on this campus. As a group, we’re such a small minority; there’s a lack of resources, a lack of opportunities, a lack of connections, and like all minorities, we’re simply trapped. These plaques, seeing them and knowing their history, it feels oppressive seeing them every morning as I enter the main building. If the group that donated these very plaques were openly racist towards Asian Americans, then, as an Asian American, how can I begin to feel welcome at this school? How can I feel welcome walking the hallways of a building that honors a white supremacist group that specifically targeted my ethnicity? How can I feel welcome going to school and knowing that the plaques, with their history, remain? How can I feel welcome when there is a permanent, cemented plaque that represents outright discrimination? How can I feel welcome on this campus as an ethnic minority? To simply say to ignore them, to remain ignorant of their history, to say that there are bigger issues on campus than getting rid of the plaques, to say that it doesn’t matter, that hurts. At the very least, the plaques and their racist history should be addressed. At the very least, ethnic minorities on campus should be respected. At the very least, people should know and be aware. Maybe removing the plaques is not enough to change the racism on this campus or change the school culture. However, it is a step, and we should at least try. Because the racism on this campus cannot continue to be ignored, it cannot continue to be brushed aside as it has been, it cannot continue. The racism on this campus has affected all ethnic minorities. For me personally, at the very beginning of this school year, I met a student who was talking about getting haircuts from a Chinese hairdresser. They decided it’d be funny to talk in a fake Chinese accent, to fully detail their story about the hairdresser who messed up their haircut. What I remember is the sound of their fake broken English, high pitched voice, their jeering tone, their mockery. Stories like these, they remain ignored. How can you tell me to ignore it and that it’ll simply go away? How can you tell me to ignore it when I can still remember the way they sounded with their fake Chinese accent? How can you tell me to ignore the Item 2 Attachment H Native Sons Article     Packet Pg. 91     plaques when the discrimination by the Native Sons of the Golden West still haunts this campus? We like to think that our community is not built on these foundations, and we like to choose to be ignorant of uncomfortable issues. However, we cannot continue to remain blind to these injustices or this outright discrimination. For many, there is no option of simply remaining blind, there is no option of just ignoring it. Even right here in Sebastopol, we have seen anti-Japanese sentiments with the attempted burning of the Enmanji Buddhist Temple. We have seen the discrimination right here in our very own community. You cannot bury the past and you cannot simply ignore it. It is through acknowledging our history, our flawed beginnings, our foundations of discrimination, that we’ll be able to move forward. Only by learning about our history and interacting with it will we be able to take the next step towards a brighter future for everyone. I implore you, not as a writer to their audience, but as an Asian American on this campus, to please acknowledge the history of these plaques, to acknowledge their racist past. I implore you to take a look at the racist actions in our community and our campus, and make an effort to put a stop to them. I implore you to push for the removal of these plaques. I implore you to respect the ethnic minorities on this campus. Most of all, I implore you to help make West County High School a safe space for all. Item 2 Attachment H Native Sons Article     Packet Pg. 92     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 5 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 13, 2023 Report #: 2304-1241 TITLE HRB Discussion of 2022 Work Plan Results and Draft 2023 Work Plan, and Receipt of Submitted CLG Annual Report Covering the 2021-22 Reporting Period RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide comments about results of the adopted 2022-23 HRB work plan (Attachment A) 2. Review and provide comments on the draft 2023-24 HRB work plan (Attachment B) 3. Review CLG responsibilities (Attachment C) and Receive CLG Annual Report for October 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022 (Attachment D) BACKGROUND HRB Work Plans On November 30, 2020, the City Council adopted a new City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook (can be found online).[1] The Handbook included the need for a Work Plan that would be approved by the City Council, as described below. •The HRB is expected to prepare an annual work plan by the 2nd quarter each calendar year •The work plan should include information on equity in the work •City Council will review the work plan and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting •The work plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan, metrics of community involvement in meetings and activities included in the commission’s work •If new issues arise during the year, the work plan should be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval 2022-23 Work Plan On March 10, 2022, the HRB adopted its 2022-23 Work Plan. This was submitted to the City Council with the work plans of other boards and commissions in the Council packet of June 1, Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 93     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 5 2022. The work plan from 2022-2023 is attached to this report (Attachment A). The work plan notes impacts, timelines, resources needed, measures of success, and indicates priority (high or lower). The work plan established five projects/goals for 2022: (1) Review alterations to Historic Resources (2) Implement Comp Plan Policy L7.2 (3) Implement Comp Plan Policy L7.1.1 (4) Outreach, incentives, and work program development (5) Mills Act program The HRB is invited to provide comments on past year work plan ‘results’, the ‘equity in the work’, community involvement, and activities from April 2022 through April 2023. The time period of the plan March 11, 2022, through April 13, 2023, included 14 regular HRB meetings. Relevant comments regarding the 22-23 plan can be noted the 2023-24 work plan that will be forwarded to Council. Annual CLG Report The City of Palo Alto is a Certified Local Government (CLG). Responsibilities of a CLG are described in Attachment C. The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) collects information related to how the CLG program is working. The National Parks Service (NPS) collects “products” - information such as the number of properties designated. The OHP sends these reports to the NPS on behalf of the CLGs. Filing the CLG annual report allows local governments to qualify for OHP grants. Palo Alto currently has a small grant from OHP from 2022, used to offset consultant costs. CLGs are required to file the Annual Report documentation for the 2021-22 reporting period, due March 31, 2023. In order to compete for the 2022-2023 CLG grant cycle, OHP must have received the City’s completed Annual Report prior to the grant application deadline of May 13, 2022. DISCUSSION Review of Current Work Plan Attachment A to this report is the current work plan, extending from March 11, 2022, through April 13, 2023, during which time the HRB held 14 regular HRB meetings. The community meeting on April 25, 2023, will be the first meeting of the next work plan period that will begin April 14, 2023. Staff considers Goals 1 and 2 of the 2022-23 plan to be generally successful, and ongoing activities, and therefore these are included in the 2023-24 plan. Staff has not yet revised the Review Bulletin from 2016, noted as an objective within Goal 1. Staff intends to bring this forward in the coming months. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 94     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 5 Goal 3 is underway. In 2022, staff prepared a request for proposal, obtained and reviewed proposals, and selected a consultant. In February 2023, the contract was signed and staff, consultants and the HRB kicked off the historic inventory update project. The reconnaissance phase is underway as the team will verify the eligible historic resources the week of April 10th. The outreach effort also has begun with webpage development1, mailing of initial letters to owners of eligible properties, and scheduling of the first community meeting on April 25th. The nominations process will be underway thereafter, with HRB meetings scheduled to provide recommendations to City Council. This item continues to be shown on the 2023-24 work plan since work will continue past July 2023. Goal 4, to ‘Improve outreach, review incentives, develop work program’ began in 2022 as the HRB discussed improvements to outreach materials, and members of the HRB began drafting an outreach letter about the benefits of owning a historic resource. The letter was modified to become the letter staff recently sent to owners of eligible resources, as part of the historic resources reconnaissance/nominations project. This goal continues as an ongoing activity in the 2023-2024 work plan. The outreach that is underway for the inventory update will be supplemented with highlights of existing incentives for rehabilitation. Goal 5 encouraged progress in establishing a tailored Mills Act program. The September 2021 staff report[2] included the draft tailored program outline for HRB review and comment. The HRB has expressed interest in bringing a pilot program concept to City Council, envisioned to have an associated historic property suitable for the benefits of the Mills Act. Staff and the HRB did not make progress on Goal 5 during the current workplan period; therefore, it is noted in the 2023- 2024 work plan. Work Plan for 2023-24 Attachment B to this report is the draft work plan (for upcoming period April 14, 2023, through spring 2024). This will be submitted in May 2023 to the City Clerk for a report to Council regarding board and commission work plans. Staff has adjusted the 2022-23 Work Plan goals for use in the 23-24 draft work plan for the HRB’s review. All items were carried forward, with a few changes to descriptions and timelines. The City obtained a nominal grant from OHP in 2022 to offset consultant costs. Staff will prepare a summary report to OHP to show how these funds were spent (related to the Goal 3 project). Council Priorities The HRB Work Plan does not need to cite or refer to the Council’s published priorities. These are shown below for information only. The Council recently reconfirmed its priorities for 2023, which include: 1. Economic Recovery & Transition 1 Webpage link for inventory update project: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/2023-Reconnaissance-Survey Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 95     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 5 2. Climate Change & Natural Environment - Protection & Adaptation 3. Housing for Social & Economic Balance 4. Community Health & Safety. The Council adopted objectives for each priority that may be viewed online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/content/public/departments/city-clerk/city- council/citycouncil-priorities/february-2023-status-update.pdf Other HRB Projects/Objectives to Consider Prior topics the HRB considered in prior years that were not included in the 2022-23 work plan (due to the pressing need to pursue Goal 3, Comprehensive Plan Policy L7.1.1 implementation) or unaccomplished objectives included: •Development of New Historic Districts •System to store information on lost resources The HRB may wish to again discuss adding these goals to the 2023-24 work plan. (1] Handbook: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/palo-alto-boards-commissions-and- committees-handbook_final_adopted_november-2020.pdf [2] Link to September 2021 staff report with Mills Act draft program outline https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources- board/2021/hrb-9.9-retreat.pdf 2021-22 CLG Report Submitted to OHP Staff prepared the CLG Annual Report (Attachment D) for October 2021 through September 2022 as well as a cover memo. Attachment C describes a CLG responsibilities. The cover memo noted that Palo Alto’s program is primarily an incentive-based historic preservation and public outreach program, assisted by a qualified historic preservation consultant(s). It briefly highlighted actions related to historic preservation during the reporting period, including: •15 HRB meetings during the 21-22 reporting period •Continued implementation of Comprehensive Plan policy (L7.2); this study of 23 properties between the last CLG report 3/2021 and the end of reporting period 9/2022 resulted in two properties found eligible for California Register of Historical Resources. •Work toward securing a consultant to help launch the Historic Inventory update ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project is not subject to review according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, no CEQA review has been performed. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 96     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2022-23 HRB Work Plan Attachment B: Draft 2023-24 Work Plan Attachment C: Requirements for CLG Attachment D: CLG Annual Report for 2021-22 AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 97     Board/Commission Name 2022-2023 Workplan Overview Date approved by HRB:3/10/2022 Staff Liaison: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Lead Department: Planning and Development Services About the Commission Palo Alto, a Certified Local Government (CLG), is responsible to identify, evaluate, register, and preserve historic properties within its jurisdiction and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns into local planning and decision-making processes.Staff prepares an annual CLG report of the activities and submits these to the State Office of Historic Preservation. This HRB Work Plan covers May 2022 - April 2023. The HRB is 7 members (no vacancies currently) with terms of 3 years, staggered per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.27.020. Residency is only required for one member: owner/occupant of a category 1 or 2 historic structure, or of a structure in a historic district. HRB webpage:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions/Historic-Resources-Board. PDS historic preservation webpages: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation Current Commissioners •Caroline Wills (Chair) •Christian Pease (Vice Chair) •5 other members: David Bower, Margaret Wimmer, Gogo Heinrich, Mike Makinen, Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz Mission Statement Per Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27 Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties, HRB purview is: (a) Render advice and guidance to a property owner upon the owner's application for alteration of any historic singlefamily or duplex building in the downtown area and any such building designated as significant elsewhere in the city (b) Inform the ARB of the historical and/or architectural significance of historic commercial and multiple-family structures in the downtown area and any such buildings designated as significant elsewhere in the City that are under review by the ARB. Submit recommendations to the ARB regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures (c) Recommend to the council the designation of additional buildings and districts as historic. Research available information and add historical information to the inventory sheets of historic structures/sites. This inventory is maintained in the department of planning and development services. (d) Perform such other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the HRB by the City Council. Prior Year Accomplishments The City submitted the CLG report for the October 2019 through September 2020 reporting period by the deadline in 2021. During the 20-21 work plan period, from June 2021 through April 14, 2022, the HRB met nine times in public hearings. The HRB reviewed and provided recommendations for exterior alterations of historic resources. The staff and preservation consultant continued to implement policy L7.2 as an ongoing activity. In Fall 2021, the HRB learned about recently adopted state legislation and partnered with staff to propose initiation of Comprehensive Plan program L7.1.1 during several HRB public hearings including the January 27, 2022 HRB retreat and March 10. Item 3 Attachment A 2022-23 HRB Work Plan     Packet Pg. 98     Historic Resources Board 2022-2023 Workplan PURPOSE STATEMENT:The Board/Commission's goals and purposes (purview) are set in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27 Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties PROJECT/GOAL 1 : ONGOING GOAL 1: Review alterations to historic resources. Review and provide recommendations on exterior alterations to historic resources in the Downtown (including SOFA) and on exterior alterations to Significant buildings (Inventory categories 1 and 2, and in Historic Districts) outside Downtown; Support owner-initiated inventory nominations and category upgrades; Update Review Bulletin previously approved by the HRB for use in October 2016, but which now needs adjustment. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED HRB's purview includes review of exterior alterations, support inventory category upgrades, and make nominations to our local inventory. Review of and clarifications to update the 2016 Review Bulletin will benefit the community's understanding of how the City reviews alterations to historic resources. Ongoing - historic reviews and category upgrades are performed pursuant to PAMC 16.49; Consideration of bulletin changes will be taken up by the HRB during the first quarter of the workplan. Bulletin will support outreach. Staff, the city's qualified historic preservation consultant, and the HRB review alterations and category upgrades to certain historic resources. Staff and the HRB will partner in the Bulletin update effort. Listed historic resources undergoing exterior alterations subject to HRB review presented to the HRB. Bulletin updated and posted to the City's historic preservation program webpages so homeowners can better understand impacts of being on the Inventory. Yes. PAMC 16.49 sets forth which resources shall be reviewed by the HRB. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS PRIORITY DISCUSSION COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Review of alteration projects is high priority as primary work of the HRB per PAMC 16.49.Bulletin revisions are a medium priority - clarifications would help staff and the community.N/A Item 3 Attachment A 2022-23 HRB Work Plan     Packet Pg. 99     PROJECT/GOALS 2:ONGOING GOAL 2: Support implementation of Comp Plan Policy 7.2. Continue to support Policy L7.2 implementation (prepare historic evaluations to determine eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and associated tracking). BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Continuing Policy L7.2 implementation allows the City to learn historic status of buildings prior to major changes or proposed demolitions. Policy 7.2 is ongoing activity; property owners request historic evaluations. Policy L7.2: Case by case evaluations funded by property owners. Policy 7.2: City gradually finds properties previously unevaluated to be either ineligible or eligible for California Register. Certified Local Government activities - evaluate properties for historic status and nominate properties for listing on local inventory PROJECT/GOAL 2 PRIORITY:PRIORITY DISCUSSION COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE High priority for the HRB to implement Comprehensive Plan policies related to historic resources; G2 Policy 7.2 began implementation in early 2018.N/A PROJECT/GOAL 3: NEW GOAL 3: Launch implementation of Policy L7.1.1. March 21, 2022, Council directed staff to "work with the HRB to review the approximately 165 properties deemed eligible previously and make recommendations for listing on the City's local inventory in accordance with the process set forth in PAMC 16.49 and collaborate with the HRB for community engagement." BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED The impact of a Policy 7.1.1 launch is community engagement regarding values of preservation. Previously prepared forms will assist HRB, Council to consider nominations to our local inventory; listed properties gain access to existing preservation incentives. Policy L7.1.1 implementation will begin with outreach to owners of historic properties. Staff will begin following consultant contract execution (no deadline/no grant funding has been requested for this effort to date). Policy L7.1.1: Qualified historic preservation consultant needed to ascertain whether previously eligible properties remain and retain integrity. Consultant assistance needed to help staff with outreach and reports to the HRB and Council. Policy 7.1.1: City makes strides toward addiing new properties on its local Inventory, as well as updating current listings. More owners have access to existing incentives for historic resources. Certified Local Government activities - evaluate properties for historic status and nominate properties for listing on local inventory HIGH PRIORITY PRIORITY DISCUSSION COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Implementation of Policy L7.1.1 has not begun. Local Inventory placement of properties previously found eligible for the National and California Registers became a priority followig passage of State legislation. N/A Item 3 Attachment A 2022-23 HRB Work Plan     Packet Pg. 100     PROJECT/GOAL 4: ONGOING GOAL 4: Improve outreach, review incentives, and develop work program for the next year. Review and recommend improvements to outreach materials regarding the program, including incentives for rehabilitation. With work program development, consider implementing additional historic preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan, such as L7.1.2: Reassess Historic Preservation Ordinance BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Outreach and incentives review will help the community understand benefits to historic designation. Reviewing and reassessing PAMC 16.49 (Policy L7.1.2) could enable Council to consider/make decisions regarding the City's program. Outreach materials improvements are contemplated for the first half of the work program year. Reassessment of the ordinance could begin during the second half of the work program year unless other projects/goals are unfinished. Staff is working to fill current planning vacancies. HRB Staff Liaison will seek assistance from on-call preservation consultant. Outreach materials updated and posted. Work program developed for following year. Ordinance evaluation completed and presented to City Council. Comp Plan Policy L7.1.2 HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Outreach materials improvement.Reassessing PAMC 16.49 N/A PROJECT/GOAL 5:ONGOING GOAL: Tailored Mills Act Program discussion. Finalize outreach approach and bring forward program report to City Council BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED A tailored program can be a real incentive to historic preservation and result in rehabilitation of significant resources. This is targeted as a third quarter activity, unless other projects/goals are unfinished. HRB Ad Hoc committee worked on a draft of a tailored Mills Act program. Additional work to consider a pilot program outreach approach would require staff time and consultant assistance. A report is sent to Council describing a Tailored Mills Act program. N/A (many CLGs in California have Mills Act Programs) HIGH PRIORITY PRIORITY DISCUSSION COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Finish the work previously drafted - Ad Hoc Committee effort This project might benefit the Inventory update. Board would like Council feedback.N/A Item 3 Attachment A 2022-23 HRB Work Plan     Packet Pg. 101     Board/Commission Name 2022-2023 Workplan Overview Date approved by HRB:4/13/2023 Staff Liaison: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Lead Department: Planning and Development Services About the Commission Palo Alto, a Certified Local Government (CLG), is responsible to identify, evaluate, register, and preserve historic properties within its jurisdiction and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns into local planning and decision-making processes.Staff prepares an annual CLG report of the activities and submits these to the State Office of Historic Preservation. This HRB Work Plan covers May 2022 - April 2023. The HRB is 7 members (no vacancies currently) with terms of 3 years, staggered per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.27.020. Residency is only required for one member: owner/occupant of a category 1 or 2 historic structure, or of a structure in a historic district. HRB webpage:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions/Historic-Resources-Board. PDS historic preservation webpages: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation Current Commissioners •Caroline Wills (Chair) •Christian Pease (Vice Chair) •Margaret Wimmer, Gogo Heinrich, Mike Makinen, Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Samantha Rohman Mission Statement Per Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27 Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties, HRB purview is: (a) Render advice and guidance to a property owner upon the owner's application for alteration of any historic singlefamily or duplex building in the downtown area and any such building designated as significant elsewhere in the city (b) Inform the ARB of the historical and/or architectural significance of historic commercial and multiple-family structures in the downtown area and any such buildings designated as significant elsewhere in the City that are under review by the ARB. Submit recommendations to the ARB regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures (c) Recommend to the council the designation of additional buildings and districts as historic. Research available information and add historical information to the inventory sheets of historic structures/sites. This inventory is maintained in the department of planning and development services. (d) Perform such other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the HRB by the City Council. Prior Year Accomplishments The City submitted the CLG report for October 2020 through September 2021 reporting period by the deadline in 2022. During the 22-23 work plan period, from March 11, 2022 through April 13, 2023, the HRB met 14 times in public hearings. The HRB reviewed and provided recommendations for exterior alterations of historic resources. The staff and preservation consultant continued to implement policy L7.2 as an ongoing activity. Implementation of Comprehensive Plan program L7.1.1 began with a procurement process in 2022 and launch in early 2023. Item 3 Attachment B Draft 2023-24 Work Plan     Packet Pg. 102     Historic Resources Board 2023-20324 Work Plan PURPOSE STATEMENT:The Board/Commission's goals and purposes (purview) are set in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27 Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties PROJECT/GOAL 1 : ONGOING GOAL 1: Review alterations to historic resources. Review and provide recommendations on exterior alterations to historic resources in the Downtown (including SOFA) and on exterior alterations to Significant buildings (Inventory categories 1 and 2, and in Historic Districts) outside Downtown; Support owner-initiated inventory nominations and category upgrades; Update Review Bulletin previously approved by the HRB for use in October 2016, but which now needs adjustment. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED HRB's purview includes review of exterior alterations, support inventory category upgrades, and make nominations to our local inventory. Review of and clarifications to update the 2016 Review Bulletin will benefit the community's understanding of how the City reviews alterations to historic resources. Ongoing - historic reviews and category upgrades are performed pursuant to PAMC 16.49; Consideration of bulletin changes will be completed by the HRB during the first quarter of the work plan. Bulletin will support outreach. Staff, the city's qualified historic preservation consultant, and the HRB review alterations and category upgrades to certain historic resources. Staff and the HRB will partner in the Bulletin update effort. Listed historic resources undergoing exterior alterations subject to HRB review presented to the HRB. Bulletin updated and posted to the City's historic preservation program webpages so homeowners can better understand impacts of being on the Inventory. Yes. PAMC 16.49 sets forth which resources shall be reviewed by the HRB. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS PRIORITY DISCUSSION COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Review of alteration projects is high priority as primary work of the HRB per PAMC 16.49.Bulletin revisions are a medium priority - clarifications would help staff and the community.N/A Item 3 Attachment B Draft 2023-24 Work Plan     Packet Pg. 103     PROJECT/GOALS 2:ONGOING GOAL 2: Support implementation of Comp Plan Policy 7.2. Continue to support Policy L7.2 implementation (prepare historic evaluations to determine eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and associated tracking). BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Continuing Policy L7.2 implementation allows the City to learn historic status of buildings prior to major changes or proposed demolitions. Policy 7.2 is ongoing activity; property owners request historic evaluations. Policy L7.2: Case by case evaluations funded by property owners. Policy 7.2: City gradually finds properties previously unevaluated to be either ineligible or eligible for California Register. Certified Local Government activities - evaluate properties for historic status and nominate properties for listing on local inventory PROJECT/GOAL 2 PRIORITY:PRIORITY DISCUSSION COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE High priority for the HRB to implement Comprehensive Plan policies related to historic resources; G2 Policy 7.2 began implementation in early 2018.N/A PROJECT/GOAL 3: GOAL 3: Continue implementation of Policy L7.1.1. March 21, 2022, Council directed staff to "work with the HRB to review the approximately 165 properties deemed eligible previously and make recommendations for listing on the City's local inventory in accordance with the process set forth in PAMC 16.49 and collaborate with the HRB for community engagement." The project kicked off in February 2023. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED The impact of a Policy 7.1.1 implementation is community engagement regarding values of preservation. Previously prepared forms will assist HRB, Council to consider nominations to our local inventory; listed properties gain access to existing preservation incentives. Policy L7.1.1 implementation was preceded by securing funding and request for proposal (procurement) process resulting in a contract in February 2023. Project is now underway and is anticipated to be completed in 2023. Policy L7.1.1: Qualified historic preservation consultant contract to determine whether previously eligible properties remain and retain integrity. Consultant assistance is helping staff with outreach and reports to the HRB and Council. Policy 7.1.1: City makes strides toward addiing new properties on its local Inventory, as well as updating current listings. More owners have access to existing incentives for historic resources. Certified Local Government activities - evaluate properties for historic status and nominate properties for listing on local inventory HIGH PRIORITY PRIORITY DISCUSSION COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Implementation of Policy L7.1.1 began in February 2023. Local Inventory placement of properties previously found eligible for the National and California Registers became a priority following passage of State legislation. The procurement process was protracted in 2022. The project is anticipated to extend through the end of 2023.N/A Item 3 Attachment B Draft 2023-24 Work Plan     Packet Pg. 104     PROJECT/GOAL 4: ONGOING GOAL 4: Improve outreach, review incentives, and develop work program for the next year. Review and recommend improvements to outreach materials regarding the program, including incentives for rehabilitation. With work program development, consider implementing additional historic preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan, such as L7.1.2: Reassess Historic Preservation Ordinance BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Outreach and incentives review will help the community understand benefits to historic designation. Reviewing and reassessing PAMC 16.49 (Policy L7.1.2) could enable Council to consider/make decisions regarding the City's program. Outreach materials improvements are contemplated during the first quarter of the work program year. Reassessment of the ordinance could begin during the second quarter of the work program year as the Goal 3 project is underway. Staff is working to fill current planning vacancies. HRB Staff Liaison will seek assistance from on-call preservation consultant. Outreach materials updated and posted. Work program developed for following year. Ordinance evaluation completed and presented to City Council. Comp Plan Policy L7.1.2 HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Outreach materials improvement.Reassessing PAMC 16.49 N/A PROJECT/GOAL 5:ONGOING GOAL: Tailored Mills Act Program discussion. Finalize outreach approach and bring forward program report to City Council BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED A tailored program can be a real incentive to historic preservation and result in rehabilitation of significant resources. This is targeted as a third quarter activity, following progress on Goals 3 and 4. HRB Ad Hoc committee worked on a draft of a tailored Mills Act program. Additional work to consider a pilot program outreach approach would require staff time and consultant assistance. A report is sent to Council describing a Tailored Mills Act program. N/A (many CLGs in California have Mills Act Programs) HIGH PRIORITY PRIORITY DISCUSSION COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Finish the work previously drafted - Ad Hoc Committee effort and prapare a report to City Council. This project might benefit the Inventory update. Board would like Council feedback. The Board is seeking an ideal example property as part of the pilot program.N/A Item 3 Attachment B Draft 2023-24 Work Plan     Packet Pg. 105     Requirements (Excerpt from Appendix G, Certified Local Government Application and Procedures, August 1999, pp 41-47.) Local governments may be certified to participate in the CLG program by complying with the following requirements: I Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties: A. State enabling legislation provides for local jurisdictions to enact appropriate historic preservation legislation. California Government Code Sections 65850, 25373, and 37361 enable city and county legislative bodies to provide for “the protection, enhancement; perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value.” B. Local governments must adopt local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to enforce the designation and protection of historic and archeological resources. C. The local legislation shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). D. The CLG will adopt a historic preservation plan or a historic preservation element for the local jurisdiction's General Plan, as authorized by the California Government Code, prior to or upon applying for a CLG grant. E. The CLG commission will participate in the environmental review of specific federally sponsored projects, such as community development programs involving HUD Block Grant funds unless it is determined by OHP that the necessary expertise is not available to the local government. The CLG will establish programmatic agreements with the state agreeing to ensure compliance with Section 106 provisions of the NHPA. F. The CLG commission will participate in the environment review of local projects in accordance with the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commission may review and comment on permit actions affecting significant listed historic properties and other resources eligible for listing, in accordance with local ordinance requirements and with CEQA. Procedural guidelines should include standards for demolition stays, design review criteria, anti-neglect requirements, and appeal strategies. II Establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by local law: A. The commission shall include a minimum membership of five (5) individuals with all members having demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation. B. At least two (2) Commission members are encouraged to be appointed from among professionals in the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural Item 3 Attachment C Requirements for CLG     Packet Pg. 106     history, planning, pre-historic and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, and landscape architecture or related disciplines, such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization, or cultural geography, to the extent that such professionals are available in the community. Commission membership may also include lay members who have demonstrated special interests, competence, experience, or knowledge in historic preservation. C. A local government may be certified without the minimum number or types of disciplines established in state procedures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the state that it has made a reasonable effort to fill those positions, or that some alternative composition of the commission best meets the needs of the protection of historic properties in the local community. D. Commission members shall be appointed by the chief elected local official, city council, or board of supervisors consistent with the provisions of the preservation ordinance. The appointing authority shall make interim appointments to fill unexpired terms in the event of vacancies occurring during the term of members of the commission. The appointing authority shall also act within sixty (60) days to fill a vacancy. Terms of office of the commission members shall be according to the local preservation ordinance. E. The commission shall meet at least four times a year, with meetings held in a public place, advertised in advance, and open to the public, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq.) for open meetings. Written minutes of commission meetings shall be kept on file, available for public inspection, and submitted to the state as a part of the CLG Annual Report. F. Each commission member is required to attend at least one informational or educational meeting, seminar, workshop, or conference per year that pertains directly to the work and functions of the commission and would be approvable by the state. The CLG Regional Workshops sponsored by the OHP are important sources of information. The annual State Historic Preservation Conference generally provides special sessions devoted to the issues, objectives, and responsibilities of commissions. Commissions may also bring in professionals to provide training on site. G. An annual report of the activities of the commission shall be submitted to the state at the end of each calendar year. The reports shall include, but not be limited to, such information as narrative summary of accomplishments, summaries of new and corrected survey activities, number of properties designated under local ordinance in relation to inventory for community, summaries of National Register applications reviewed, summaries of historical contexts prepared, number of federal tax certifications reviewed, number of properties on which design review was held, number of properties on which environmental project reviews were conducted, property owners of Mills Act contracts approved, summarization of local preservation activities, list of local landmark designations, description of public education activities, lists of commission members and resumes, list of staff and resumes, detailed listing of commission and staff training received, commission attendance 2 Item 3 Attachment C Requirements for CLG     Packet Pg. 107     records, summary of changes in preservation laws, summary of adoption or updates of historic preservation plan or historic preservation element of your community's General Plan, commission meeting minutes and agendas, and other pertinent activities performed by the commission. III Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties: The CLG shall be responsible for organizing, developing, and administering an inventory of cultural resources within the entire spatial jurisdiction of the CLG. A. The commission shall develop procedures for conducting an inventory of culture resources. Survey activities shall be coordinated with and complementary to the state program to ensure that survey results produced by the CLG will be readily integrated into the statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning process. 1. The CLG shall be responsible for overseeing the compiling, recording, and updating of inventory information on cultural resources within its jurisdiction. The information shall be based on comprehensive surveys conducted in conformance with state survey standards and procedures. Surveys completed prior to the certification of a local government may be re-evaluated in accordance with state standards and may be submitted for inclusion in the State database. 2. As part of any ongoing survey effort, procedural requirements must allow for periodic update of survey results as buildings gain maturity and as new areas are incorporated or annexed by the CLG. 3. The commission must adopt state guidelines for conducting its inventory of historic properties. State-approved inventory forms (DPR-523, A-L) and the OHP's Instructions For Recording Historical Resources shall be used to facilitate integration into the state electronic data system and for statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning purposes. Dimitri software is available for the DPR 523 forms. 4. Standards for the evaluation of properties must be consistent with the National Register of Historic Places criteria. A. The commission shall establish internal procedures to facilitate the use of survey results in the planning process by the CLG officials and departments. The commission shall submit survey results to the local government for adoption, then forward to OHP. Copies of the survey should be on deposit at the local planning department, building and safety office, public works department, and redevelopment agency. Libraries, colleges, and historical societies should also receive copies. OHP will make copies available for the appropriate “California Historical Resources Information System” regional center. See IV(A)(2) below for public access requirements. IV Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program: A The CLG shall provide opportunities for public participation in all responsibilities delegated to the CLG, in accordance with appropriate regulations, standards, and guidelines. 3 Item 3 Attachment C Requirements for CLG     Packet Pg. 108     1. Public participation shall be fully encouraged at local commission meetings. Commission meetings shall be open to the public, with published agenda and minutes in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq.) for open meetings. The published agenda shall be mailed in advance of meetings to individuals and citizen organizations interested in the commission’s activities. 2. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the performance of the historic survey program at all levels of responsibility to identify and inventory significant cultural resources in the jurisdiction of the CLG. The public can serve as volunteers to assist in the survey effort. Survey results shall be of public record and on file at a public institution, except in the case of sensitive resources, e.g., archeological sites subject to vandalism. 3. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the nomination process for the National Register of Historic Places program. The CLG shall invite comments from the general public regarding National Register nominations. 4. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in all public hearings on projects related to CEQA and Section 106 processes. V Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to the CLG: A. The CLG shall prepare a comprehensive local historic preservation plan which would identify preservation missions, goals, and priorities. The plan would also establish preservation strategies, programs, and time schedules. B. The CLG will participate in the review and comment on historic preservation certification applications for tax incentives. The CLG and state may establish procedures for implementation of the investment tax credit program at the local level in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation. C. Each CLG must have a local historic preservation plan prior to or upon becoming a CLG before any additional grant applications will be considered. The state shall monitor and evaluate the performance of the CLG for consistency with the identification, evaluation, and preservation priorities of the comprehensive state historic preservation planning process. 1. Annual Review of CLGs: The State shall conduct an annual review of CLGs to assure that each government continues to meet the minimal requirements and is satisfactorily performing its responsibilities. As part of this review, the state shall examine the annual reports submitted by the CLGs, records of the administration of funds allocated from the HPF, and other documents as necessary. The CLG shall make these records available to the state. A more thorough review and site visit to the Certified Local Government will occur at least once every three (3) years. 2. Procedures for Decertification: If the state evaluation indicates that the CLG no longer meets the minimal requirements or that in any other way a CLG's performance is not 4 Item 3 Attachment C Requirements for CLG     Packet Pg. 109     satisfactory, the state shall document that assessment and recommend to the local government steps to bring its performance up to a satisfactory level. The CLG shall have a period of not less than 30 nor more than 180 days to implement improvements; If the state determines that sufficient improvement has not occurred, the state shall decertify the local government, citing specific reasons for the decertification. Performance shall be deemed unsatisfactory if one or more of the following conditions exist or is applicable: a) the commission fails to perform its delegated responsibilities within established time periods; b) the CLG fails to coordinate its responsibilities with the state; c) the commission substantially fails to maintain consistency of its design review decisions with the Secretary's Standards for Historic Preservation; d) the CLG fails to maintain a qualified historic preservation review commission membership; e) the CLG fails to enforce the provisions of the local preservation ordinance; f) the CLG fails to enforce its CEQA and Section 106 responsibilities; g) the CLG fails to adequately survey historical resources in its jurisdiction; and h) the CLG fails to comply adequately with proper fiscal management of HPF grants in accordance with the National Register Programs Guideline, OMB Circular A-128, and 43 CFR 12. 3. Decertification Appeal: If the state recommends decertification, the local government may appeal to the NPS. The NPS has 45 days to respond to the appeal. 4. Decertification Without Prejudice: CLGs may petition the OHP to be decertified voluntarily and without prejudice. 5. Financial Assistance Close-out: The state shall conduct financial assistance close-out procedures pursuant to the National Register Program Guideline when a local government is decertified. VI The CLG shall assume certain responsibilities for reviewing and recommending properties within its jurisdiction to the National Register of Historic Places. A. The SHPO shall have the sole responsibility of nominating National Register properties directly to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). B. The CLG shall establish local procedures for the National Register nomination process consistent with the requirements in the NHPA, Section 101(c)(2). 1. Before a property within the jurisdiction of a CLG may be considered by the state to be nominated to the National Register, the state shall notify the owner, the applicable chief elected local official, and the local historic preservation commission. The commission, after reasonable opportunity for public comment, shall prepare a report as to whether or not such property, in its opinion, meets the criteria of the National Register. Within sixty (60) days of notice from the state, the chief elected local official shall transmit the report of the commission and his/her recommendation to the state. After receipt of such report and recommendation, or if no such report and recommendation are received within sixty (60) days, the state 5 Item 3 Attachment C Requirements for CLG     Packet Pg. 110     shall process the National Register nomination. The state may expedite such process with the concurrence of the CLG. 2. If both the commission and the chief elected local official recommend that a property not be nominated to the National Register, the state shall take no further action, unless within thirty (30) days of the receipt of such recommendation by the state, an appeal is filed with the state. If such an appeal is filed, the state shall follow the procedure for making a nomination pursuant to Section 101(a). Any report and recommendations made under this section shall be included with any nomination submitted by the state to the Secretary. VII By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG. Local governments may be certified to participate in specific program activities under Programmatic Agreements. A. The CLG may develop educational programs promoting historic preservation at the local level such as, but not limited to, sponsorship of preservation workshops, publication of preservation information, organizing preservation fairs, conducting walking tours, preparing preservation curricula for schools, etc. B. Commission members may act in an advisory capacity to other officials and departments within the local government and act as a liaison on behalf of the CLG to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation issues at the local level. C. The CLG may participate in the Mills Act program or other economic incentive programs to provide property-tax relief for owners of historic properties. D. The CLG may participate in the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act for issuance of tax-exempt industrial development bonds, providing that the commission shall serve as a part of the required citizen advisory board. E. The CLG may assume certain responsibilities of recommending National Register of Historic Places properties, identified in the CLG jurisdiction, directly to the State Historical Resources Commission. F. By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG. 6 Item 3 Attachment C Requirements for CLG     Packet Pg. 111     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 1 Complete Se Name of CLG City of Palo Alto Report Prepared by: Amy French Date of commission/board review: April 13, 2023 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION I. Enforce Appropriate State or Local Legislation for the Designation and Protection of Historic Properties. A. Preservation Laws 1. What amendments or revisions, if any, are you considering to the certified ordinance? Please forward drafts or proposals., either as part of this report or under separate cover. REMINDER: Pursuant to the CLG Agreement, OHP must have the opportunity to review and comment on ordinance changes prior to adoption. Changes that do not meet the CLG requirements could affect certification status. Palo Alto did not change preservation laws during the reporting period. 2.Provide an electronic link to your ordinance or appropriate section(s) of the municipal/zoning code. PAMC 16.49 link: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-74404 B. New Local Landmark Designations (Comprehensive list of properties/districts designated during the reporting. INSTRUCTIONS: This a Word form with expanding text fields and check boxes. It will probably open as Read-Only. Save it to your computer before you begin entering data. This form can be saved and reopened. Because this is a WORD form, it will behave generally like a regular Word document except that the font, size, and color are set by the text field. •Start typing where indicated to provide the requested information. •Click on the check box to mark either yes or no. •To enter more than one item in a particular text box, just insert an extra line (Enter) between the items. Save completed form and email as an attachment to info.calshpo@parks.ca.gov. You can also convert it to a PDF and send as an email attachment. Use the Acrobat tab in WORD and select Create and Attach to Email. You can then attach the required documents to that email. If the attachments are too large (greater than10mb total), you will need to send them in a second or third email. Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 112     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 2 1. During the reporting period, October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2022, what properties/districts have been locally designated? REMINDER: Pursuant to California Government Code § 27288.2, “the county recorder shall record a certified resolution establishing an historical resources designation issued by the State Historical Resources Commission or a local agency, or unit thereof.” 2. What properties/districts have been de-designated this past year? For districts, include the total number of resource contributors? Property Name/Address Date Removed Reason None Click or tap here to enter text.Click or tap here to enter text. C. Historic Preservation Element/Plan 1. Do you address historic preservation in your general plan?☐ No ☐ Yes, in a separate historic preservation element. ☒ Yes, it is included in another element. (Land Use) Provide an electronic link to the historic preservation section(s) of the General Plan or to the separate historic preservation element. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/file-migration/historic/long-range- planning/resources/2030-comp-plan-2-land-use-june-21.pdf D. Review Responsibilities 1. Who takes responsibility for design review or Certificates of Appropriateness? ☐ All projects subject to design review go the commission. ☒ Some projects are reviewed at the staff level without commission review. What is the threshold between staff-only review and full-commission review?Minor alterations versus major alterations. Per PAMC 16.49.050 (a)(1) item (B), the HRB reviews single-family and duplex residences which are historic structures/sites in the Downtown area or which are significant Property Name/Address Date Designated If a district, number of contributors Date Recorded by County Recorder None Type here.Type here.Type here. Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 113     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 3 buildings elsewhere in the city and “Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory.” Per item (C) the planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to guidelines which the HRB may adopt. Minor exterior alterations are those alterations which the director of planning and development services or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings.” Staff is assisted in all reviews of projects set forth in PAMC 16.49.050 item (a) by professional historic preservation consulting firms to perform Secretary of Interior’s Standards reviews (building permits and discretionary reviews). The HRB reviews projects in Professorville and Ramona districts and supports the Architectural Review Board in reviewing projects in the Downtown and Significant properties (local inventory Categories 1 and 2) that are not single family homes or duplexes where they exist outside the Downtown. 2. California Environmental Quality Act •What is the role of historic preservation staff and commission in providing input to CEQA documents prepared for or by the local government? The Chief Planning Official and planning staff are involved in scoping and reviewing administrative draft CEQA documents involving historical resources, and related technical reports including Historic Resource Evaluations (HRE) and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SIS) reports. Generally, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is not involved in the development of draft environmental documents. However, staff seeks historic preservation consultant assistance for CEQA documents for major Architectural Review projects that include properties listed on the local historic inventory or determined California Register Eligible. What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing CEQA documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? Draft CEQA documents are made available for public review, including by HRB members. In addition, staff and/or other City bodies may refer draft CEQA documents and/or related technical reports to the HRB for review and comment. The HRB’s role is advisory. In some cases, staff conducts a hearing at the HRB for public review of Environmental Impact Reports for properties containing listed historic resources 3. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act •What is the role of the staff and commission in providing input to Section 106 documents prepared for or by; the local government? The Chief Planning Official, with consultant assistance, and/or HRB provide input to Section 106 documents as requested •What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing Section 106 documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? The Chief Planning Official, with consultant assistance, and/or HRB review Section 106 documents as requested Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 114     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 4 II. Establish an Adequate and Qualified Historic Preservation Review Commission by State or Local Legislation. A. Commission Membership Attach resumes and Statement of Professional Qualifications forms for all members. 1. If you do not have two qualified professionals on your commission, explain why the professional qualifications have not been met and how professional expertise is otherwise being provided. NA 2. If all positions are not currently filled, why is there a vacancy, and when will the position be filled? NA B. Staff to the Commission/CLG staff 1. Is the staff to your commission the same as your CLG coordinator? ☒ Yes ☐ No If not, who serves as staff? Click or tap here to enter text. 2. If the position(s) is not currently filled, why is there a vacancy? Type here. Name Professional Discipline Date Appointed Date Term Ends Email Address David Bower 12/15/23 Construction 11/1/16 4/10/23 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz Museum Conservator 12/13/21; 4/10/23 3/31/26 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Michael Makinen Engineering/Historian 12/15/17 3/31/24 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Margaret Wimmer Architecture and Design 12/15/17 3/31/24 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Christian Pease Architecture/Analytics 12/15/17; 4/10/23 3/31/26 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Caroline Willis Architecture 3/1/21 3/31/24 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Gogo Heinrich Architecture 3/1/21 3/31/24 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 115     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 5 Attach resumes and Statement of Professional Qualifications forms for staff. C. Attendance Record Please complete attendance chart for each commissioner and staff member. Commissions are required to meet four times a year, at a minimum. If you haven’t met at least four times, explain why not. D. Training Received Indicate what training each commissioner and staff member has received. Remember it is a CLG requirement that all commissioners and staff to the commission attend at least one training program relevant to your commission each year. It is up to the CLG to determine the relevancy of the training. Name/Title Discipline Dept. Affiliation Email Address Amy French Planning Chief Planning Official amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Commissioner/Staff Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar x2 Apr x2 May x2 Jun Jul Aug Sep David Bower ☒☐☒☒☒☒☒☐☐☒☒☐ Alisa Eageston-Cieslevicz ☐☐☐☒☒☒☒☒☐☒☒☒ Michael Makinen ☒☐☒☒☒☒☒☒☐☐☒☒ Margaret Wimmer ☒☐☒☒☒☒☒☒☐☒☒☒ Christian Pease ☒☐☒☒☒☒☒☒☐☒☒☒ Caroline Willis ☒☐☒☒☒☒☒☒☐☒☒☒ Gogo Heinrich ☒☐☒☒☒☒☒☒☐☒☒☒ Amy French ☒☐☒☒☒☒☒☒☐☒☒☒ Type here.☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐ Type here.☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐ Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 116     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 6 Commissioner/Staff Name Training Title & Description (including method presentation, e.g., webinar, workshop) Duration of Training Training Provider Date Christian Pease ‘California State Housing Laws and Preservation Planning’ Hybrid Public Meetings 3 hours 2 hours CPF City of Palo Alto 2/16/23 12/13/22 David Bower Hybrid Public Meetings 2 hours City of Palo Alto 12/13/22 Caroline Willis “Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program” “Social Media Strategies for Historic Preservation Commissions” 6 hours (2 HSW cred) 1.5 hours NAPC 10/21/21 & 10/22/21, 11/17/21 Margaret Wimmer Stanford Historical Society Preservation Workshop Hybrid Public Meetings 2 hours 2 hours Stanford Historical Society City of Palo Alto 5/13/22 12/13/22 Michael Makinen Tool Kit for Historic Homes 2 hours CPF 5/12/22 Gogo Heinrich Hybrid Public Meetings 2 hours City of Palo Alto 12/13/22 Alisa Eagleston-Ceislevicz Technology Toolkit 2 hours CPF 6/9/22 Amy French California State Housing Laws and Conservation Planning Land Use Law Update Hybrid Public Meetings Leading Transformative Change 3 hours 1 hour 2 hours 2.5 hours CPF APA City of Palo Alto APA 2/16/23 10/13/21 2/10/22 2/16/22 III. Maintain a System for the Survey and Inventory of Properties that Furthers the Purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 117     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 7 A. Historical Contexts: initiated, researched, or developed in the reporting year (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: California CLG procedures require CLGs to submit survey results, including historic contexts, to OHP. (If you have not done so, submit an electronic copy or link if available online with this report.) Context Name Description How it is Being Used Date Submitted to OHP NA Click or tap here to enter text.Click or tap here to enter text.Click or tap here to enter text. B. New Surveys or Survey Updates (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: The evaluation of a single property is not a survey. Also, material changes to a property that is included in a survey, is not a change to the survey and should not be reported here. How are you using the survey data? To ensure no demolition permits are issued before properties are studied for Cal Register eligibility. When properties are determined California Register Eligible via these ongoing surveys, a discretionary review application for modification/demolition is deemed not exempt from CEQA review and building is retained unless SOC with EIR. When Non-California Register Eligible determination, building demolition, substantial remodel is possible. Survey Area Context Based- yes/no Level: Reconnaissance or Intensive Acreage # of Properties Surveyed Date Completed Date Submitted to OHP Citywide ongoing surveys per Comp Plan Policy L7.2; found two CRHR eligible properties of 23 properties studied between March 2021 and Sept 2022 no Reconnaissance NA 23 properties studied 3/2021 through 9/2022 Through end of reporting period Two CRHR Eligible property DPRs submitted with this CLG Report Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 118     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 8 IV. Provide for Adequate Public Participation in the Local Historic Preservation Program A. Public Education What public outreach, training, or publications programs has the CLG undertaken? How were the commissioners and staff involved? Please provide an electronic link to all publications or other products not previously provided to OHP. Item or Event Description Date Update of webpages including incentives and the National Register eligible properties list; most recently (and this will be reported in our next CLG report) we added a page on the reconnaissance survey/inventory update project information https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departmen ts/Planning-Development- Services/Historic-Preservation/2023- Reconnaissance-Survey https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Historic-Preservation https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Preservation- Incentives https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/historic-preservation/evaluation-tables- clipped-from-1998-2000-survey.pdf Updates to webpages occurred during the reporting period ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ANNUAL PRODUCTS REPORTS FOR CLGS NOTE: OHP will forward this information to NPS on your behalf.CLG Inventory Program During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2021) how many historic properties did your local government add to the CLG inventory? This is the total number of historic properties and contributors to districts (or your best estimate of the number) added to your inventory from all programs, local, state, and Federal, during the reporting year. These might include National Register, California Register, California Historic Landmarks, locally funded surveys, CLG surveys, and local designations. Program area Number of Properties added City of Palo Alto Two properties found California Register eligible during reporting period Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 119     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 9 A. Local Register (i.e., Local Landmarks and Historic Districts) Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) did you have a local register program to create local landmarks and/or local districts (or a similar list of designations) created by local law?☒Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been added to your register or designated from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022? Two added to list of CRHR eligible properties C. Local Tax Incentives Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) did you have a Local Tax Incentives Program, such as the Mills Act? ☐ Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many properties have been added to this program from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022? 0 Name of Program Number of Properties Added During 2021-2022 Total Number of Properties Benefiting From Program Mills Act 0 1 D. Local “bricks and mortar” grants/loan program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) did you have a local government historic preservation grant and/or loan program for rehabilitating/restoring historic properties? ☐Yes ☒No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022? Type here. Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Type here.Type here. E. Design Review/Local Regulatory Program Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 120     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 10 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) did your local government have a historic preservation regulatory law(s) (e.g., an ordinance) authorizing Commission and/or staff review of local government projects or impacts on historic properties? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many historic properties did your local government review for compliance with your local government’s historic preservation regulatory law(s) from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021? Not counted – we have our historic preservation consultant review building permits modifying historic properties, for SISR compliance F. Local Property Acquisition Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021--September 30, 2022) did you have a local program to acquire (or help to acquire) historic properties in whole or in part through purchase, donation, or other means? ☐Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 NA Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Type here.Type here. IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM CLG REQUIREMENTS, OHP IS INTERESTED IN YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THE RECENT CAMP TRAINING •Did anyone from your local government participate in the free CAMP training opportunities in Fall 2021? No •Whether or not you were able to take advantage of any of the CAMP trainings in 2021, would you like to see OHP to provide free additional CAMPs in the future? Not sure •What are your top three topics for future training? XII Attachments (electronic) ☒ Resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for all commission members/alternatives and staff (Links and attached) Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 121     Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021through September 30, 2022) 11 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Caroline-Willis https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Christian-Pease https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Gogo-Heinrich https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Michael-Makinen https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Margaret-Wimmer https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Alisa-Eagleston-Cieslewicz ☒ Minutes from commission meetings (links) 10/28/21: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-01.27.2022-minutes- from-10.28.2021.pdf 12/9/21: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-01.27.2022-minutes-from- 12.09.2021.pdf 1/27/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/hrb-03.10.2022-minutes- january-27-2022.pdf 2/24/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-03.24.2022-minutes- february-24-2022.pdf 3/10/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-03-10-2022-minutes.pdf 3/24/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/march-24-2022-minutes.pdf 4/14/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/april-14-2022-minutes.pdf 4/28/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-07.14.2022-minutes- 04.28.22.pdf 5/12/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-07.14.2022-minutes- 05.12.22.pdf 5/26/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-07.14.2022-minutes- 05.26.22.pdf 7/14/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-08.25.2022-minutes- 07.14.2022.pdf 8/25/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-10.13.2022-minutes- 08.25.2022.pdf 9/22/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-11.10.2022-minutes- 09.22.22.pdf ☐ Drafts of proposed changes to the ordinance (NA) ☐ Drafts of proposed changes to the General Plan (NA) ☐ Public outreach publications (NA) Email to: info.calshpo@parks.ca.gov Item 3 Attachment D CLG Annual Report for 2021-22     Packet Pg. 122     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 13, 2023 Report #: 2304-1245 TITLE Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 9, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s): •March 9, 2023 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: HRB 3.09 Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 123     City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Caroline Willis; Board Members David Bower, Gogo Heinrich, Margaret Wimmer and Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz Absent: Vice Chair Christian Pease and Board Member Michael Makinen Public Comment Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Ms. French noted that the next meeting is planned for April 13th. There is interest from Stanford to come and talk about the Veterans flagpole and plaque at MacArthur Park, at the former Veteran’s Building. The inventory update will be on the agenda for this meeting as well. She asked that anyone not able to attend on the 13th let her know. Study Session Action Items 2. Review and Adoption of Historic Resources Board By-Laws to Address Remote/Virtual Meeting Attendance Ms. French gave an overview of the HRB By-Laws which were last updated in January of 2017. Last November, new by-laws were discussed to address the expiration of the statewide emergency. AB2449 is in now effect which allows for hybrid meetings to continue, but with certain restrictions. The Brown Act also applies. The Board Members were invited to a training session in December of 2022. Exceptions under AB361 no longer apply, and a new section, 6.2, in the HRB By-Laws states that “Boardmembers may attend remotely to the extent permitted by law.” The Planning and Transportation Commission adopted this policy last November. Relating to the Brown Act, remote attendance is permitted as long as the Board Member’s location is posted in notices and agendas; the agenda is posted at each remote location and each location is open to the public; and at least a quorum of the board members participates from within locations within the boundaries of the city. There is no restriction on how many times this can happen. In the event of emergency circumstances, if someone at the last minute is sick or has extenuating circumstances that were not posted in advance, they may attend remotely under AB2449. This exception cannot be used for more that three consecutive months, or more than 20 percent of regular meetings in a calendar year, which is about four meetings. Board Member Bower asked whether they are being asked to approved Attachment B or A. Ms. French clarified that Attachment A is the recommendation, a single sentence. Board Member Bower supported this, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: March 9, 2023 Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom 8:30 A.M. Item 4 Attachment A- HRB 3 09 Minutes     Packet Pg. 124     City of Palo Alto Page 2 and felt that Attachment B asks for things that he did not feel Boardmembers could reasonably provide. In Section 6.2, Attachment B, paragraph 4, it states, “A Boardmember attending remotely must ensure that there is a quorum of the Board participating in person.” He asked how a Boardmember could assure this without polling every other board member. Also, there is an advance written notice in paragraph 3.F. which requires notification to the Board Secretary 12 days in advance if they were not going to attend, and that is often not possible, aside from emergency circumstances. He felt this puts a burden on Boardmembers, and he would not support Attachment B. Chair Willis also supported Attachment A, the single sentence, but wondered, with Board Member Makinen in mind, if there would be leeway for special circumstances. She expressed a desire to be supportive and wondered if a conversation with the City Attorney could be warranted to request a single exception. She also felt they should keep in mind that, while they are used to attending remotely, the aim is to have in- person meetings again, and that Boardmembers should be in person when they can. Chair Willis and Ms. French affirmed Boardmember Wimmer’s choice to attend the current meeting remotely since she was not feeling well. Ms. French explained that when they know where Boardmember Makinen is participating from there is no limit to the numbers of meetings that can be posted in a such a way. Motion by Board Member Bower to approve Addendum A, paragraph 6.2 of the HRB By-Laws allowing for Boardmembers to attend remotely to the extent permitted by law. Seconded by Board Member Eagleston- Cieslewicz, the motion carried (5-0) by roll call vote. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October 13, 2022 Board Member Heinrich moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2022, meeting. Seconded by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, the motion carried (4-0-1) by voice vote. 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of February 9, 2023 Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2023, meeting. Seconded by Board Member Heinrich, the motion carried (5-0) by voice vote. Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Board Member Bower commented that one of the PAST Heritage Board Members has written a book about Birge Clark. This is the 100th anniversary of the opening of his architectural practice in Palo Alto. PAST will present Council Members and the City Clerk with copies so that they are familiar with the substantial achievements that his architectural work in Palo Alto has made toward historic buildings, including the President Hotel and the former University Art Building on the corner of Hamilton and Ramona. Several buildings in the Ramona Historic District block are also Birge Clark buildings. Board Member Bower noted that there are also many residences in the city, so it is a significant year for architecture in Palo Alto. It is the first year that a significant number of residential buildings were built following WWI. Board Member Bower inquired about the status of the Fry’s development project. Board Member Heinrich said she had mentioned Birge Clark at the February meeting, when they had discussed doing a proclamation. She wondered about that status of the proclamation. Chair Willis said they talked about it before the meeting, and she will talk to the City Clerk regarding who might be the best person to write it and support it with Council. Board Member Heinrich said the Birge Clark book was being passed around among the Board Members and she wondered who had it currently. She hoped that everyone could see it. Board Member Bower noted that it is also available at Bell’s Books for purchase, and it contains an impressive amount of information. Ms. French commented that it would be worth the City having a copy of it as well, and perhaps she could bring it to display at the next meeting. It was noted that Board Member Bower will remain on the Board until a new Board Member is appointed. Item 4 Attachment A- HRB 3 09 Minutes     Packet Pg. 125     City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. French reported on the inventory update project. Staff and the consultants met a couple weeks ago and proceeded with the contract. They talked through some of the details. There will be an optional task within the contract to include the commercial properties that are on the National Register eligible list, along with the residential properties. They will be looking back to the 1970s to determine Category 1 and 2 homes. There will be a study session, a community meeting, probably an evening meeting. The target date is April 25th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. She encouraged Board Member Bower to attend regardless of his status as an HRB member. The meeting will possibly be held in the Community Room, if available, which would allow for a live feed for those unable to attend in person. Th meeting will introduce the project. It will be publicized on a webpage for the project. The consultant helping Page and Turnbull and Ms. French – Isabel Castellano – will be helping digitize and scan the original black and white photographs and DPR forms from the 2000 survey. They will then be uploaded to a webpage for all to reference, showing documentation such as “before” and “after” photos. There will also be at least four meetings with the HRB, which will involve going through the list of remaining properties, discussion of their integrity and their appropriate category, et cetera. Chair Willis expressed that it will feel good to get the project going. She shared that she was at the 1550 Cowper Building again with the potential new owners. The sale is not finalized, but she thinks it will happen, and the buyer is talking about preserving all of the structures and making it a community resource and perhaps holding annual concerts on the property to bring people in. He is interested in a historic district. Chair Willis commented that this could be the best Mills Act they could possibly dream up – five units of housing, a de Lamos property, near Gamble, central to Old Palo Alto. She encouraged the Board to push for this project. She didn’t think they would need to wait until the property changes hands, and she advocated trying a sample Mills Act for this particular property. She said the buyer is interested in this and is interested in a historic district as there are two adjacent Pedro de Lamos properties on Churchill. One may change hands soon. She felt the Board should not miss this opportunity. Ms. French asked if the Chair wanted her to agendize the Mills Act for this. Chair Willis stated she would, and she would like the potential new owner to be invited, as he would be interested in hearing about the possibilities. She said this would be a positive for preservation and as they go through the inventory update, they need to make sure people understand that the Board values all of their historic properties and that the City is willing to make some allowances. Ms. French reminded the Board that they did have a subcommittee for the Mills Act, including one who is soon to no longer be on the Board. They might want to revisit the subcommittee as far as follow-up. If the Board wanted to, for example, write a letter in support of this pilot project and select a certain address, this might be the type of thing that the subcommittee could take on. This could happen before the April 13th meeting. At least one volunteer would need to be on the subcommittee to continue the work beyond March. Chair Willis asked Board Member Wimmer and Board Member Bower if they were willing to take this on. Board Member Bower agreed for as long as he is on the Board and can participate. Chair Willis suggested he could still be a citizen member, and perhaps the new Board Member would be interested. Ms. French said if anyone else on the Board is interested, there could be a third member on the subcommittee as it is often nice to have three people. Board Member Wimmer recalled that they had originally started with three members on the subcommittee, and she felt this was a good number. Chair Willis reiterated that it is a perfect opportunity to get this going, adding it could be a legacy for Board Member Bower. Adjournment Motion by Board Member Heinrich to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Bower, the motion carried unanimously by voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 a.m. Item 4 Attachment A- HRB 3 09 Minutes     Packet Pg. 126