HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-22 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
Regular Meeting
Thursday, June 22, 2023
Council Chambers & Hybrid
8:30 AM
Boardmember Christian Pease Remote Call‐In Location: 1834 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA
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 Board 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 Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
2.Discussion and Refinement of Topics for HRB Retreat
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Study Session to Discuss Existing Permit Review Processes for Historic Resources
Related to the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan Policies
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 11, 2023
5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 25, 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 Board, 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 Board, 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 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 June 22, 2023
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, June 22, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMBoardmember Christian Pease Remote Call‐In Location: 1834 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CAPursuant 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 Board 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 Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
2.Discussion and Refinement of Topics for HRB Retreat
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Study Session to Discuss Existing Permit Review Processes for Historic Resources
Related to the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan Policies
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 11, 2023
5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 25, 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 Board, 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 Board, 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 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 June 22, 2023
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, June 22, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMBoardmember Christian Pease Remote Call‐In Location: 1834 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CAPursuant 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 Board 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 Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments2.Discussion and Refinement of Topics for HRB RetreatSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Study Session to Discuss Existing Permit Review Processes for Historic ResourcesRelated to the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan PoliciesAPPROVAL OF MINUTES4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 11, 20235.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 25, 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 Board, 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 Board, 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 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 June 22, 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: June 22, 2023
Report #: 2306-1615
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 it 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 Hybrid Community Meeting
4/27/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
5/11/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Heinrich
5/25/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
6/08/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Willis, Makinen
6/22/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Makinen
7/13/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Eagleston-Cieslewicz
7/27/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
7/28/2023 5:30 PM Hybrid Retreat
8/10/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
8/24/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/14/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rohman
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 Cancelled Thanksgiving
12/14/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/28/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid 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 1
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: June 22, 2023
Report #: 2306-1655
TITLE
Discussion and Refinement of Topics for HRB Retreat
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the HRB review the potential discussion topics for a retreat tentatively
scheduled for Friday July 28, 2023, beginning at 5 pm or thereafter. Staff will prepare a
presentation to assist the HRB discussion of potential topics. If the HRB members are able to
attend a July 28th retreat, this meeting date would replace the regular HRB meeting date of July
27th.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
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: June 22, 2023
Report #: 2306-1618
TITLE
Study Session to Discuss Existing Permit Review Processes for Historic Resources Related to the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan Policies
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board:
(1) Receive staff’s presentation on the review process for modifications to historic resources
(2) Discuss the outdated review process bulletin the HRB had approved in October 2016 for staff
use and publication
(3) Discuss a timeline for updating the bulletin including discussion at an upcoming HRB retreat
BACKGROUND
The City’s program for historic preservation is dependent upon Comprehensive Plan Policies and
the regulations in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The attached, two-sided bulletin (Historic
Resources and Permit Review Requirements) published in October 2016 (Attachment A) was
removed from the City’s website following Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
December 2017. The bulletin had specific language regarding discretionary reviews and
evaluations related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process.
The bulletin was intended to provide guidance regarding the City’s existing historic preservation
ordinance (Attachment B, Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49) related to ministerial and
discretionary review processes. A range of historic resource types were included in the Group A
and Group B resources noted in the bulletin. The historic types included historic district
resources, individually-listed local inventory category 1, 2, 3, and 4 resources, resources deemed
eligible for the National or California Registers, and resources already listed on those registers.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 7
Item No. 3. Page 2 of 5
The ‘potentially’ eligible resources were not included in Group A or Group B but were briefly
discussed in the bulletin. The Comprehensive Plan adoption in December 2017 included historic
preservation policies that affected how the City handled potentially eligible resources, and the
bulletin requires an update related to these policies prior to re-publication. Staff anticipates the
work of case-by-case evaluations for individual properties and the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
will be described in a revised bulletin.
Comprehensive Plan Historic Preservation Policies
The City Council adopted the current Comprehensive Plan (Plan) at the end of 2017. The Land
Use and Community Design Element of the Plan is viewable at this link:
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/
The historic preservation policies are viewable on pages 47 through 49.
Policy L-7.1 is excerpted below, showing the program L7.1.1 that is currently underway with the
2023 Reconnaissance Survey. Program L7.1.2 is not underway though it appears as a goal for the
upcoming HRB work program year.
Policy L7.2 has been an important tool, enabling staff to require historic evaluations of buildings
noted as potentially eligible in the 1998-2000 survey that are at risk of demolition. Due to Policy
L7.2, staff removed the attached Bulletin from the City’s website. Policy L7.2 states:
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 8
Item No. 3. Page 3 of 5
Policy L7.2 puts the onus on staff to consider whether the property is eligible for listing on the
State or National register prior to issuing demolition or major exterior alteration permits. The
City engages a qualified historic preservation consultant to evaluate and prepare historic
resource evaluation reports (on the State’s forms) directly for the City. The consultant also peer
reviews evaluations prepared by other consultants directly contracted by property owners.
When applicants propose repair, replacement in kind, and minor exterior alterations that do not
alter character-defining features of a building, the City is not obligated (according to Policy L7.2)
to evaluate the building’s eligibility for these historic registers.
2016 Historic Resources and Permit Review Requirements Bulletin
The 2016 bulletin categorized resources into Group A and Group B resources as follows:
Group A Resources
The bulletin describes a “Group A” historic resource as an existing property that is listed in the Palo Alto
Historic Inventory, and which is subject to Historic Resources Board (HRB) review under the City's Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The bulletin notes a “Group A” resource may also be subject to CEQA review and
that “Group A” resources include historic properties that are one or more of the following:
Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 1-2; or
Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 3-4 and located in the Downtown Area;
or
Located in one of the City's locally designated historic districts, Professorville or Ramona
Street.
Group B Resources
The bulletin describes a “Group B” historic resource as an existing property that was previously designated
or formally evaluated, and which may be subject to CEQA review. “Group B” resources are subject to HRB
review if CEQA review indicates that a resource may be impacted. “Group B” resources include historic
properties that are one or more of the following:
Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 3-4 and located outside of the
Downtown Area and local historic districts; or
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 9
Item No. 3. Page 4 of 5
Listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) or the California Register of Historical
Resources (CR); or
Listed in the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update (Dames & Moore, 1997-2000) as NR-eligible
or CR-eligible; or
Previously determined CR-eligible through a development application review procedure.
Evaluation of Unevaluated Properties
The bulletin notes that a property that has not yet been evaluated or designated may qualify as a historic
resource for the purposes of CEQA review. It states that, in the case of a development application being
filed for certain properties which have not yet been evaluated or designated, a Historic Resource
Evaluation (HRE) report to determine CR- eligibility may be required in order to complete a CEQA review.
It notes that the City of Palo Alto may require an HRE report to be completed for an existing property if
the property meets both of the following conditions:
A “discretionary” development application proposes demolition, new construction, new
addition, or other substantial exterior alterations; and
The existing development on the property is more than 45 years old.
As noted, after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2017, with its Policy L7.2, beginning
in 2018 the City has been performing case-by-case evaluations of each ‘potentially eligible’
(unevaluated beyond the windshield survey) property that appeared in the 1998-2000 survey
that didn’t result in an ‘eligible’ or ‘ineligible’ determination at the end of that survey. The City
has continued with evaluations of non-single-family residential properties as part of discretionary
reviews such as the Architectural Review process, within the CEQA reviews.
Staff used qualified consultants to prepare historic resource evaluations, funded by the property
owners who have expressed that they are considering demolition or wish to sell their home and
have asked for a confirmed historic status. The report conclusions are either that the property is
eligible or not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Staff has included
the addresses of properties found CRHR-eligible in the annual Certified Local Government report,
since 2018.
The properties determined eligible through this process will be considered by the HRB for
nominations, along with the properties found eligible in 2000 for the National Register of Historic
Places, for local listing on the City’s historic inventory. Council will make decisions on the
nominations of eligible properties to Palo Alto’s local historic inventory. The community meeting
and subsequent nomination process will proceed following the completion of the first phase of
the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey. The City’s webpage for the project is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-
Preservation/2023-Reconnaissance-Survey
Ordinance and Past Proposed Ordinance Revisions
The City Council approved the current version of PAMC Chapter 16.49 in 1980. The existing
ordinance allows properties to be designated without the consent of the owner. For properties
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 10
Item No. 3. Page 5 of 5
so designated, compliance with regulations is voluntary except that for some homes, demolition
may be delayed (but not prohibited). Staff has not brought forward any proposals for ordinance
revisions since 1998. However, as noted, review of the effectiveness of the existing ordinance
appears as Comprehensive Plan Program L.7.1.2.
Around the time of the last survey (1998-2000), Council was considering amendments to add a
residential incentives chapter to the existing historic preservation ordinance. The draft incentives
were to be associated with alternative zoning regulations and special regulations and options for
homes in floodplain areas and subject to natural disaster. The amendments were also written to
provide for a new Palo Alto Register of Historic Homes based on owner request for listing, where
only the property owner could nominate a home to the Register. The purpose of the proposed
Register was going to be related to regulations guiding how incentives would be applied. The new
Register was going to require owner request for listing and provide for mandatory compliance
with regulations. The new Register was intended to initially list no properties until interested
owners began to nominate their properties.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Review Process Bulletin
Attachment B: Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, Historic Preservation
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 11
Historic Resources & Permit Review Requirements
What is a “Group A” Historic Resource?
A “Group A” historic resource is an existing property that is listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, and which is subject
to Historic Resources Board (HRB) review under the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. A “Group A” resource may
also be subject to CEQA review as explained on the reverse page. “Group A” resources include historic properties that
are one or more of the following:
•Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 1-2; or
•Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 3-4 and located in the Downtown Area; or
•Located in one of the City's locally designated historic districts, Professorville or Ramona Street.
What is a “Group B” Historic Resource?
A “Group B” historic resource is an existing property that was previously designated or formally evaluated, and which
may be subject to CEQA review as explained on the reverse page. “Group B” resources are subject to HRB review if
CEQA review indicates that a resource may be impacted. “Group B” resources include historic properties that are one or
more of the following:
•Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 3-4 and located outside of the Downtown Area and local
historic districts; or
•Listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CR); or
•Listed in the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update (Dames & Moore, 1997-2000) as NR-eligible or CR-eligible; or
•Previously determined CR-eligible through a development application review procedure.
When Does a Property Require Evaluation as a Historic Resource?
A property that has not yet been evaluated or designated may qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA
review. In the case of a development application being filed for certain properties which have not yet been evaluated or
designated, a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report to determine CR-eligibility may be required in order to complete
a CEQA review. The City of Palo Alto may require an HRE report to be completed for an existing property if the property
meets all of the following conditions:
•A “discretionary” development application proposes demolition, new construction, new addition, or other
substantial exterior alterations; and
•The existing development on the property is more than 45 years old; and
•The existing property is not a single-family residence in a Single-Family Residential zone. (A single-family
residence in any non-Single Family Residential zone, or a non-single family residence in any zone, is subject.)
See the reverse page for application review procedures.
Historic resources enrich the quality of life in Palo Alto. They include buildings, structures, sites, and areas of
historical, architectural, and cultural significance. The Planning Department groups historic resources according
to the development application review procedures that apply. Some development projects involving historic
resources are subject to review under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49)
and/or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as explained further below and on the reverse page.
For information on a specific property, please review a Parcel Report for the subject property, available at the
City's website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/parcel.asp, or request a Parcel Report from City
staff at: Development Services, 285 Hamilton Avenue; (650) 329-2496; planner@cityofpaloalto.org.
Item 3
Attachment A 2016
Review Process Bulletin
Packet Pg. 12
APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES
AND PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
(PAMC 16.49) REVIEW PROCEDURES
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) REVIEW PROCEDURES
“GROUP A” HISTORIC RESOURCES
See the reverse page for explanation of properties that qualify as “Group A” Historic Resources.
Route any permit applications for exterior changes
(including ministerial) to the Historic Resources Planner.
The Planner reviews the application for consistency
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation* (“Standards”) and the Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
If the project is inconsistent with the Standards, or it
exceeds the scope of a “minor exterior alteration”
according to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the
Planner refers the application to the HRB.
Route discretionary development applications** for
exterior changes to the Historic Resources Planner.
The Planner reviews the application for consistency
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation* and potential impacts to a historic
resource per CEQA.
If CEQA analysis indicates that there may be a
potential impact to a historic resource, the Planner
refers the application to the HRB.
“GROUP B” HISTORIC RESOURCES
See the reverse page for explanation of properties that qualify as “Group B” Historic Resources.
Not subject to the review procedures in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
(Only “Group A” properties are subject to review under
the Historic Preservation Ordinance. For more
information, see PAMC 16.49.050.)
Route discretionary development applications** for
exterior changes to the Historic Resources Planner.
The Planner reviews the application for consistency
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation* and potential impacts to a historic
resource per CEQA.
If CEQA analysis indicates that there may be a
potential impact to a historic resource, the Planner
refers the application to the HRB.
PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE EVALUATION AS HISTORIC RESOURCES
See the reverse page for explanation of when a property requires evaluation as a historic resource.
Not subject to the review procedures in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
(Only “Group A” properties are subject to review under
the Historic Preservation Ordinance. For more
information, see PAMC 16.49.050.)
Route discretionary development applications** for
demolition, new construction, addition, or substantial
exterior alterations to the Historic Resources Planner.
The Planner determines if a Historic Resource
Evaluation (HRE) report is required in order to conduct
and complete CEQA review. If a property is found to
be eligible for the California Register of Historical
Places, it is reviewed as a “Group B” historic resource.
*The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are found on the National Park Service’s website at:
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm.
**Discretionary development applications include: Architectural Review; Design Enhancement Exception; Home Improvement
Exception; Neighborhood Preservation Exception; Single Family Individual Review; Site and Design Review; Variance.
Item 3
Attachment A 2016
Review Process Bulletin
Packet Pg. 13
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 1 of 11
Chapter 16.49
HISTORIC PRESERVATION*
Sections:
16.49.010 Purpose.
16.49.020 Definitions.
16.49.030 Historic resources board.
16.49.040 Designation of historic structures/sites.
16.49.050 Exterior alteration of historic structures.
16.49.060 Demolition of significant buildings in the downtown area.
16.49.070 Demolition of contributing buildings in the downtown area and significant
buildings other than in the downtown area.
16.49.080 Maintenance of historic structures in the downtown area.
16.49.090 Enforcement.
16.49.100 Severability.
* Editor's Note: Prior ordinance history: Ordinance Nos. 3197, 3243, 3333 and 3523.
16.49.010 Purpose.
It is found that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, districts
and neighborhoods of historical and architectural significance located within the city are of
cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. It is further found that the economic, cultural
and aesthetic standing of this city will be enhanced by respecting the heritage of the city.
The purposes of this chapter are to:
(a) Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those historic structures,
districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Palo
Alto;
(b) Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;
(c) Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts
and neighborhoods;
(d) Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such structures;
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 14
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 2 of 11
(e) Enrich the educational and cultural dimensions of human life by serving aesthetic
as well as material needs and fostering knowledge of the living heritage of the past;
(f) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the city;
(g) Establish special requirements so as to assure the preservation and the
satisfactory maintenance of significant historic structures within the downtown area.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.49.020 Definitions.
Throughout this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Downtown area" means that area of the University Avenue business district
subject to Chapter 18.48 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Code) and
all zones within the geographical boundaries shown on the maps incorporated into Chapter
18.48, including planned community and public facility districts.
(b) "Historic categories" means those categories established to define and categorize
the historic structures/sites on the historic inventory. Those categories are as follows:
Category 1: "Exceptional building" means any building or group of buildings of
preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best architects or an
outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States. An
exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the
overall appearance of the building is in its original character.
Category 2: "Major building" means any building or group of buildings of major regional
importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an
architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major
building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
Category 3 or 4: "Contributing building" means any building or group of buildings which
are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a
neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing
building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such
as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades
resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
(c) "Historic district" means a collection of buildings in a geographically definable area
possessing a significant concentration or continuity of buildings unified by past events, or
aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district should have integrity of design,
setting, materials, workmanship and association. The collective value of a historic district
taken together may be greater than the value of each individual building. All structures/sites
within a historic district are categorized as significant on the historic inventory.
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 15
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 3 of 11
(d) "Historic inventory" means the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and
Architectural Resources Report and Inventory, and the master list of categories for those
structures or sites.
(e) "Historic structure/site" means any structure or site within the city which has been
identified as having historic or architectural significance and has been placed on the historic
inventory of the city of Palo Alto, including structures and sites within categories 1, 2, 3 or 4,
and all structures within historic districts.
(f) "Significant building" means any building, group of buildings or site categorized on
the historic inventory as number one or number two and all structures within historic
districts.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.49.030 Historic resources board.
(a) Composition. The historic resources board shall be composed of seven members
appointed by the city council and serving without pay. Members shall have demonstrated
interest in and knowledge of history, architecture or historic preservation. One member shall
be an owner/occupant of a category 1 or 2 historic structure, or of a structure in a historic
district; three members shall be architects, landscape architects, building designers or other
design professionals and at least one member shall possess academic education or
practical experience in history or a related field.
(b) Terms of Office. Members shall serve for terms of three years and until their
respective successors are appointed. Terms shall be staggered so that three positions are
refilled one year, and four positions are refilled two years later. Commencing on October 21,
1991, there shall be one member whose term expires May 31, 1992, and one member
whose term expires May 31, 1994. Subsequent appointments shall be made for terms of
three years, or until their successors are appointed. Terms of office commence June 1.
(c) Appointment. In filling vacancies on the historic resources board, the following
procedures shall be followed by the city council:
(1) Following notification of vacancy or pending vacancy on the historic resources
board, the city clerk shall advertise the same in a newspaper of general circulation in the
city, including the council agenda digest, two times within two weeks.
(2) Written nominations and applications shall be submitted to the city clerk within one
week of the date of the last notice to be forwarded to the city council for its consideration.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the nomination or application of an incumbent board
member is not submitted to the city clerk within the period specified above, said period shall
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 16
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 4 of 11
be extended for an additional five days during which the city clerk shall accept written
nominations and applications of nonincumbents.
(3) The Palo Alto Historic Association shall be given notice of vacancies on the board
and shall be encouraged to have its members submit applications.
(4) The city council shall review all nominations and applications, and conduct such
interviews as it deems necessary prior to selections.
(5) Final selection and appointment shall be made by the city council at a regular city
council meeting after the period for submittal of nominations and applications has expired.
(d) Organization. The board shall hold meetings twice monthly or at the pleasure of
the chairperson, and shall establish such rules as may be appropriate and necessary for the
orderly conduct of its business. The board shall elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson
from its membership who shall serve in such capacity for terms of one year each. The
chairperson shall preside over meetings of the board, and in the absence or disability of the
chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson.
Four members shall constitute a quorum and decisions of the board shall be determined
by majority vote of those members present at the meeting. Action minutes shall be kept by
the board.
(e) Duties. It is the duty of the historic resources board to:
(1) Render advice and guidance to a property owner upon the owner's application for
alteration of any historic single-family or duplex building in the downtown area and any such
building designated as significant elsewhere in the city.
(2) Inform the architectural review board 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 architectural review board. Submit recommendations to the architectural review board
regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures.
(3) Recommend to the council the designation of additional buildings and districts as
historic.
(4) 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 community environment.
(5) Perform such other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the historic
resources board by the city council.
(Ord. 5018 § 3, 2008: Ord. 4047 §§ 1-3, 1991: Ord. 3876 § 1, 1989: Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 17
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 5 of 11
16.49.040 Designation of historic structures/sites.
(a) Procedure for Designation of Historic Structures/Sites or Districts. Any
individual or group may propose designation as a historic structure/site or district. Such
proposals shall be reviewed by the historic resources board, which will make its
recommendation to the council. Designation of a historic structure/site or district must be
approved by the city council. The procedure for such designation is as follows:
(1) Any proposal for designation shall be filed with the department of planning and
community environment and shall include the following data:
(A) The address and assessor's parcel number of the site or boundaries of the
proposed district;
(B) A description detailing the structure/site or district's special aesthetic, cultural,
architectural, or engineering interest or value of a historic nature;
(C) A description of the historical value of the structure/site or district;
(D) A description of the current condition of and any known threats to the structure/site
or district;
(E) What restoration, if any, would be necessary to return the structure/site or district
to its original appearance;
(F) Sketches, drawings, photographs or other descriptive material;
(G) Other supporting information.
(2) Each proposal shall be considered by the historic resources board at a public
hearing within sixty days of the receipt of the proposal. In any case where an application for
a planning or building permit affecting the exterior of a building is pending concurrently with
a proposal for designation, the recommendation of the historic resources board shall be
made within twenty days of receipt of the proposal.
(3) Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be given at least twelve
days prior to the date of the hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation, or by mail to the applicant, to the owner or owners of the property, and to the
owners of property within three hundred feet of the site.
(4) The historic resources board shall recommend to the city council approval,
disapproval or modification of an application for designation.
(5) The city council may approve, disapprove or modify a recommendation for
designation and, in any case where an application for a planning or building permit is
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 18
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 6 of 11
pending concurrently with the proposal for designation, such decision shall be made within
thirty days of the recommendation, if any, of the historic resources board.
(6) After approval of the designation of a structure/site or district, the city clerk shall
send to the owners of the property so designated, by mail, a letter outlining the basis for
such designation and the regulations which result from such designation. Notice of this
designation shall also be filed in the building department and the department of planning
and community environment files.
(b) Criteria for Designation. The following criteria, along with the definitions of
historic categories and districts in Section 16.49.020, shall be used as criteria for
designating additional historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory:
(1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important
events in the city, state or nation;
(2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of
life important to the city, state or nation;
(3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common,
but is now rare;
(4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once
common, but is now rare;
(5) The architect or building was important;
(6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.49.050 Exterior alteration of historic structures.
(a) Review Process. All applications for a building permit for exterior alteration to any
historic structure/site in the downtown area or a significant building elsewhere in the city,
new construction on a parcel where there is currently a historic structure in the downtown
area or a significant building elsewhere in the city, or such application for construction within
a historic district shall be reviewed as follows:
(1) Review Bodies.
(A) Architectural review approval pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)
is required for any historic structure/site in the downtown area and any significant
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 19
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 7 of 11
structure/site elsewhere in the city, other than single-family and duplex residences. The
architectural review board shall refer applications to the historic resources board for a
recommendation on the proposed alteration of the structure.
(B) The historic resources board shall review applications involving single-family and
duplex residences which are historic structures/sites in the downtown area or which are
significant buildings elsewhere in the city. Compliance of the property owner with the
recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory.
(C) The planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to
guidelines which the historic resources board may adopt. Minor exterior alterations are
those alterations which the director of planning and community environment 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.
(2) Time Limit. Recommendations of the historic resources board on alterations to a
historic single-family or duplex residence shall be rendered within thirty days of the date of
referral by the architectural review board or the chief building official. Failure to provide a
recommendation within the time limit shall cause an application for a commercial or
multiple-family use to be returned to the architectural review board, and a single-family or
duplex application to be forwarded to the chief building official for consideration of issuance
of a building permit.
(b) Standards of Review. In evaluating applications, the review bodies shall consider
the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other
pertinent factors. The prime concern should be the exterior appearance of the building site.
(1) On buildings not in a historical district, the proposed alterations should not
adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value
of the building and its site.
(2) In historic districts, 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; or
(B) The relationship of the building, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its
surroundings, including neighborhood structures;
(C) Appeals. Any interested party may appeal to the city council the decision of the
architectural review board not to recommend approval of an application for a building permit
to alter the exterior of any historic structure in the downtown area, or a significant structure
elsewhere in the city or in a historic district. Such appeal shall be processed in accordance
with Chapter 18.78 (Appeals).
(Ord. 4826 §§ 22, 23, 2004: Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 20
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 8 of 11
16.49.060 Demolition of significant buildings in the downtown area.
(a) Permit and Findings. No permit shall be issued to demolish or cause to be
demolished all or any part of a significant building in the downtown area unless:
(1) The city council determines that under the historic designation, taking into account
the current market value, the value of transferable development rights, and the costs of
rehabilitation to meet the requirements of the building code or other city, state or federal
laws, the property retains no reasonable economic use; or
(2) The chief building official or the fire chief, after consultation, to the extent feasible,
with the department of planning and community environment, determines that an imminent
safety hazard exists and that demolition of the building is the only feasible means to secure
the public safety; or
(3) The city council determines that demolition of the building will not have a
significant effect on the achievement of the purposes of this chapter.
(b) Application for a Permit to Demolish. An application for a permit to demolish
any significant building in the downtown area shall comply with Chapter 16.04 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. In addition to the contents specified under Chapter 16.04, any
application for a permit to demolish a significant building in the downtown area, on the
grounds specified in Section 16.49.060(a)(1), shall contain any appropriate and relevant
economic information which will enable the council to make the necessary determination.
(c) Review of Application.
(1) Historic Resources Board. Applications which are accepted as complete for a
permit to demolish a significant building in the downtown area on the grounds specified in
Section 16.49.060(a)(1) or (3) shall be placed on the agenda of the historic resources board
for hearing and recommendation. If the historic resources board does not act on the
application within thirty days of referral to it, the city council may proceed without a
recommendation from the historic resources board.
(2) City Council Hearing and Decision. Any application for permit to demolish a
significant building in the downtown area on the grounds specified in Section
16.49.060(a)(1) or (3) shall be heard by the city council. Notice shall be given by mailed
notice to all owners of property immediately adjacent to the property that is the subject of
the application, and by publication at least once in a local newspaper of general circulation.
The applicant shall have the burden of establishing that the criteria set forth in Section
16.49.060(a)(1) or (3) has been met. The council may approve, disapprove or approve the
application with conditions, and shall make findings relating its decision to the standards set
forth in Section 16.49.060(a). The decision of the council shall be rendered within thirty
days from the date of the conclusion of the hearing.
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 21
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 9 of 11
(d) Permit to Move a Significant Building in the Downtown Area or in a Historic
District. In reviewing an application for a permit to demolish a significant building in the
downtown area or in a historic district on the grounds specified in Section 16.49.060(a)(1) or
(3), the historic resources board may decide that the building may be moved without
destroying its historic or architectural integrity and importance, and may recommend to the
city council that the demolition permit be denied, but that a permit to relocate be processed,
pursuant to Chapter 16.32 of this code. In that case, the time limits and notice requirements
of Section 16.49.070(c) shall also be applicable.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.49.070 Demolition of contributing buildings in the downtown area and
significant buildings other than in the downtown area.
(a) Application and Moratorium. Any person wishing to demolish a contributing
building in the downtown area or a significant building other than downtown shall file an
application for a demolition permit in accordance with the procedures established by
Chapter 16.04 of this code. With the application, the applicant shall submit one clear
photograph of the front of the building and such other information as may be required by the
chief building official in accordance with the requirements for the demolition permit. A copy
of the application and photograph shall be forwarded to the city council as an information
item in the next council packet. The chief building official may not take action on the
application for sixty days following receipt of a completed application.
(b) Referral to Architectural Review Board or Historical Resources Board. During
the sixty-day moratorium, the chief building official shall refer the application for a permit to
demolish to the architectural review board, in the case of all buildings other than single-
family and duplex residences, for review and recommendation. The architectural review
board shall refer the application to the historic resources board for recommendations on the
historical and/or architectural significance of the building and the appropriate time for the
moratorium. A demolition permit application for a single-family or duplex residence shall be
referred to the historic resources board for recommendation.
(c) Council Action. The architectural review board, the historic resources board, or
any interested person may recommend that the council extend the moratorium. The council
shall agendize such a request and may extend the sixty-day period for a period up to one
year. In the case of an extended moratorium, the council, upon the recommendation of the
historic resources board, may require that appropriate and reasonable public notice of the
availability of the structure be provided by the applicant.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.49.080 Maintenance of historic structures in the downtown area.
The owner, lessee or other person legally in possession of a historic structure in the
downtown area shall comply with all applicable codes, laws and regulations governing the
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 22
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 10 of 11
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
or contributory in the downtown area, and the interior portions thereof when such
maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of the exterior. All such
buildings shall be preserved against such decay and deterioration, and shall remain free
from structural defects through prompt corrections of any of the following defects:
(a) Facades which may fall and injure members of the public or property;
(b) Deteriorated or inadequate foundation, defective or deteriorated flooring or floor
supports, deteriorated walls or other vertical structural supports;
(c) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members
which sag, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration;
(d) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations or
floors, including broken windows or doors;
(e) Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior wall covering, including lack
of paint or other protective covering;
(f) Any fault or defect in the building which renders it not properly watertight or
structurally unsafe.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.49.090 Enforcement.
(a) Unlawful Alteration or Demolition.
(1) Violation - Penalties. It is unlawful for a person or entity to demolish or cause to be
demolished any significant building or portion thereof in the downtown area in violation of
any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person or entity violating these provisions is guilty
of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction of any such violation, such person shall be
punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more
than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(2) Civil Penalty. Any person or entity who demolishes a building or causes a
demolition in violation of the provisions of this chapter may be liable civilly in a sum equal to
the replacement value of the building or an amount in the court's discretion, not to exceed
ten thousand dollars.
(3) Injunctive Relief. The city attorney may maintain an action for injunctive relief to
restrain a violation or cause, where possible, the complete or partial restoration,
reconstruction, or replacement in kind of any building or site demolished, altered or partially
demolished in violation of this chapter.
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 23
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Attachment B PAMC Chapter 16.pdf Page 11 of 11
(4) Restriction on Development. Alteration or demolition of a historic structure in
violation of this chapter shall eliminate the eligibility of the structure's lot for any transfer of
development rights, pursuant to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and such lot, if it is the
site of an unlawfully demolished historic structure from which development rights have been
transferred, shall not be developed in excess of the floor area ratio of the demolished
structure for a period of twenty years from the unlawful demolition. A person or entity may
be relieved of the penalties provided in this section if: (i) the unlawful alteration or demolition
did not constitute a major alteration, as determined by the chief building official, or (ii) as to
an unlawful alteration, the person or entity restores the original distinguishing qualities and
character of the building destroyed or altered. Such restoration must be undertaken
pursuant to a valid building permit issued after a recommendation by the historic resources
board and a finding by the city council that the proposed work will effect adequate
restoration and can be done with a substantial degree of success.
(b) Failure to Abide by Maintenance Regulations.
(1) Abatement. The procedures set forth in Chapter 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code governing unsafe, dangerous or substandard buildings, whether in commercial or
residential use, shall be applicable to any violations of Section 16.49.080.
(2) Misdemeanor. It is unlawful for any person or entity to fail to maintain any building
in the downtown area designated as significant or contributory in violation of Section
16.49.080. Any such violation constitutes a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section
16.49.090(a)(1) above. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be
separately punished. The chief building official and ordinance compliance inspector are
authorized to exercise the authority in California Penal Code Section 836.5 and to issue
citations for violation of Section 16.49.080.
(3) Civil Penalty. Any person or entity who fails to maintain any building in the
downtown area designated as significant or contributory in violation of Section 16.49.080
may be liable civilly in a sum not to exceed one thousand dollars. Each day of violation
constitutes a separate offense for which a penalty may be assessed.
(c) Remedies not Exclusive. The remedies provided by this section are not exclusive.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.49.100 Severability.
If any provision or clause of this chapter is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions
of this chapter, and clauses of this chapter are declared to be severable.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
Item 3
Attachment B PAMC
Chapter 16.49 Historic
Preservation
Packet Pg. 24
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: June 8, 2023
Report #: 2305-1514
TITLE
Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 11, 2023
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
BACKGROUND
Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):
•May 11, 2023
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: HRB 5.11 Minutes
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 25
City of Palo Alto Page 1
``
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Caroline Willis; Vice Chair Christian Pease; Board Members Samantha Rohman,
Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, and Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz
Absent: Board Member Heinrich
Oral Communications
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
Chair Willis will be absent on June 8th. Election of Chair and Vice Chair will take place at the June 22nd
meeting, as well as the Sobrato Project. Chair Willis wanted to pick a date for a retreat. This could be held
in the Community Room; however, Chair preferred to hold it offsite for a more relaxed atmosphere. She
and Ms. French will discuss this. Chair Willis preferred to have the retreat during the summer, perhaps in
July or August. She requested Board Members email her if they have any date restrictions during those
months. Ms. French said a Saturday afternoon may be possible, although she may not be able to attend.
Chair Willis wished to put Mills Act on the agenda. Chair Willis asked if June 22nd would work. Ms. French
will put it on the tentative agenda for June 22nd.
Action Item
2. Review and Adopt 2023-24 HRB Work Plan
Ms. French gave an overview of the work plan. The Annual CLG report, discussed at the last meeting, has
been sent off to the State. The Work Plan needs to be finished and sent to the City Clerk. It will be presented
to the City Council, and they will choose probably two dates for each of the Boards and Commissions to
have a representative attend and engage with the Council. It will be an opportunity to review the Work
Plan and ask questions of the Chair and staff.
Ms. French went over the Work Plan goals presented for adoption.
Goal one is to review alterations to Historic Resources.
Goal two is Implementation of Comp Plan Policy L7.2, which says that before demolition permits are issued,
it must be confirmed that the property is not eligible for the California Register. The Preservation Consultant
prepares a Historic Resource Evaluation, and sometimes eligible resources are discovered. More often, the
ones noted as potentially eligible from 1948 and earlier that didn’t make the cut to National Register usually
come back as not eligible. That result is noted in the GIS system online for the parcel reports. Ms. French
explained that she reports out in the CLG report every year the status of the new HREs.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: May 11, 2023
Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom
8:30 A.M.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 26
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Goal three is to implement Comp Plan Policies L7.1.1, which is the purpose of the current project, the
Inventory Update, focused on the properties from 2000. The project is proceeding, and a community
meeting was held on April 25th.
Outreach, Incentives and Work Program Development is the fourth goal. Although a Mills Act Program is
one of the potential incentives, and they are working on getting it to Council, there is no program right
now. The incentives for Goal 4 could include other incentives. There are some incentives within the Code,
and these could be studied, as well as looking at what other cities are doing for incentives to preservation.
Goal four includes implementing additional policies in the Comp Plan, such as L7.1.2, which is to re-assess
the Historic Preservation Ordinance. This is already in the HRB Work Plan as a possible task or goal.
Goal five is the Mills Act Program.
Ms. French stated that the other part of the Work Plan is to cite the prior year’s accomplishments, which
included the preparation of the report each year to send to the CLG. She noted that the HRB met 15 times
from March of 2022 to the present. As usual, there were exterior alterations for listed properties and
sometimes for eligible projects going through CEQA. These are ongoing accomplishments. Additionally,
there were four study sessions held in the past year – the flagpole, the inventory update, a Pedro De Lamos
property at Cowper, and the approaching outreach program. Action items included the Sobrato/Fry’s
project, the bylaws update, 321 Cal Avenue and 525 University, which was found to be California Register
eligible.
Chair Willis invited comments from the public. There were no public comments.
[Board Member Makinen joined the meeting remotely]
Chair Willis opened discussion of the HRB Work Plan. Regarding the first goal, reviewing alterations, she
shared that she is most concerned about Category 3’s and 4’s. The categories were determined long ago,
and some may be accurate, but others may have might have gained more historic value with more now
known about them. She referenced the Review Bulletin and felt they should have a discussion and
clarification of its wording, particularly regarding the distinction between 1’s, 2’s, 3’s and 4’s.
Ms. French noted that the Review Bulletin was intended to help members of the public and property owners
when they come forward to modify their historic category buildings, to know what the ordinance sets forth
as the process, combined with CEQA. The process depends on what type of project and what inventory
category and is based on the existing ordinance. She offered to speak more about this at the next meeting
and can send materials out on it ahead of time.
Chair Willis suggested that they also look at the ordinance that dictates the information in the Bulletin. Ms.
French will send this out also.
Board Member Wimmer noted that they have previously talked about having this discussion. She asked if
this could be a primary topic for the retreat where they could more freely discuss and throw out ideas and
perhaps craft a proposal to change it or keep as is, but further define it.
Chair Willis agreed with this suggestion.
Ms. French will send out the Bulletin and the Ordinance as well as some artifacts she found about how the
documents were created back in the 1970s, to help explain the history. She suggested that she could also
present about it at a meeting, and then the Boardmembers could think about it and come back at the
retreat to have the discussion.
Board Member Wimmer and Chair Willis supported this idea.
Chair Willis moved on to Goal 2, “Continue to support Comp Plan 7.2 implementation (preparing HRE’s to
determine eligibility for the California Register is demolition is proposed.”
Ms. French pointed out that the wording, “if demolition is proposed,” is included in the policy, but there is
a program in place whereby, not just in the case of demolition, but also if a property owner is going sell a
property or someone is about the buy they property, they will perform an HRE for the property owner. This
is through the City’s consultant, but at the property owner’s expense.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 27
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Willis wondered if they could simply do a windshield survey conducted by the HRB to eliminate some
of the 500 properties listed. She felt that they could conduct some research, do a windshield survey
including a couple of photos of each property as well as make some calls to get a few of them off of the
list.
Board Member Wimmer asked if the 500 properties are considered potentially eligible on their parcel
reports.
Ms. French said these are some that did not move forward when they were looked at by windshield survey
in 1998. Some of the 165 on the Priority 1 list moved forward and were found eligible. Others on the list
moved forward and were found ineligible, and then there were some in which no further research was
done past the windshield survey, and some of them are gone.
Board Member Wimmer said, since they are potentially eligible, if the homeowner wanted to do alterations,
they would have to go through a historic evaluation review, which would result in a professional evaluation
of its historic rating at that point. She asked why the Board would want to review the 500 properties.
Chair Willis said that she would like a list that was positive every time. She said that a list of properties that
are potentially historic seems like somewhat of a negative. It would be better to strongly identify the
properties that are of real interest and not promote an idea that it’s kind of a 50-50 chance that a house is
historic.
Ms. French noted that the ones for which they’ve done HRE’s case-by-case, using a professional, have
come back not eligible for the California register. They do not look at whether they belong on the Local
Register, only the California Register, because that is related to CEQA. Those that have been demolished
can certainly be removed from the list if not already done in the system.
Vice Chair Pease asked if it is difficult to query the system to find out whether a home has been demolished.
Ms. French responded that she has not tried this and would have to work with the tech team to answer
the question.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz wondered if this is potentially an area where another survey might
make sense.
Ms. French wasn’t sure, stating that homes still exist that were on the previous survey. There are no rules
on reporting for the potentially eligible, which includes homes built prior to 1948 which have not been
evaluated.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if that applied to homes which were not eligible at the time of
the last survey based on age, but is now aged in for potential eligibility.
Ms. French said they have narrowly interpreted Comp Plan Policy 7.2 to apply to those that were potentially
eligible in the last survey, built prior to 1948. They have not applied Policy 7.2 to homes that have reached
50 years or older since then.
Board Member Wimmer thought that potentially eligible homes could be one of the categories, perhaps
Category 4, because it collects them into an easily understood category.
Chair Willis suggested putting this on the agenda for the retreat. She felt it might be worth looking at 10
or 12 of these properties. She said she would rather work on the past 20 years since the last survey and
add some properties that are obviously significant to the inventory rather than getting bogged down on
the existing list. However, they should also figure out a way to deal with the existing list. She felt that
making people go through the process does not build goodwill in the community.
Vice Chair Pease asked if there was a way to test whether the system could determine which ones had
been demolished since the list was created.
Ms. French said anyone can enter an address in the parcel report system to see what it says. The list of
potentially eligible homes could be systematically checked in the system, one-by-one, to see what it says
on that parcel report.
Vice Chair Pease wondered if this would have to be done manually, one-by-one.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 28
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Ms. French believed this would be the case. She would have to check with the tech team on this.
Vice Chair Pease felt if there was a way to do this it would be very helpful, as checking 500 one-by-one is
a lot of work.
Ms. French suggested there could perhaps be a subcommittee formed to assist her in bringing forward the
information. There are no pictures for the potentially eligible homes. Having photos of what exists today
would be helpful.
Vice Chair Pease asked again if she would talk to the information systems team since a list does exist on
some system. If 300 of the homes do not exist, it would make a big difference in how they approach the
list.
Ms. French commented that she didn’t not think there would be that many that don’t exist and that it was
more likely that there have been alterations to them between 2000 and 2018 when the policy originated –
Vice Chair Pease asked if alterations would be listed in permits.
Ms. French acknowledged that could be researched as well. Driving by to check and see if there has been
an addition between 2000 and 2018 could yield information that could be compiled and would help inform
a decision if an addition has been done that is not compliant with Secretary of the Interior standards.
Vice Chair Pease asked if it would be possible to ask tech department how big the scope of work for them
would be to do such a search if it’s possible and practical to do.
Ms. French clarified that this would be consistent with Goal 2, to see if they could make inroads into a
broader look, rather than case-by-case. Vice Chair Pease thought if some sort of criteria could be applied
to the list, they could possibly prioritize those and make the Board’s efforts much more focused. Ms. French
said anything is possible if it is included as one of the objectives of the goal. The Council would see this on
the Work Plan, and if resources or money are needed, they will see that and possibly direct staff to do
more than just have the HRB driving around taking pictures. She felt that the HRB would need to vote to
put this on the work plan, to show consensus.
Chair Willis noted that she would like to discuss this at the retreat.
Ms. French said it can be left as is for now and not specifically called out. Chair Willis asked for consensus
on this, whether they want it left the way it is.
Ms. French said the work plan itself cites the policy.
Chair Willis thought they might want to add something like, “general review of current list.”
Board Member Rohman asked if the question was whether to leave the wording “as changes are proposed
reviewing on a case-by-case basis,” or whether they are going to be proactive about reviewing the list. She
felt it would be fine to define this as a priority and for the HRB to call it out so that they can follow up
rather than be reactive.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz when the Work Plan is due. Ms. French stated it would need to be
finished that day. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz thought it made more sense to leave the wording
as is, because crafting something new would be challenging.
Chair Willis noted that they would be doing this work themselves and wouldn’t really need resources.
Ms. French reiterated that it’s easy to drive by and look at the properties.
Chair Willis suggested having a subcommittee to work on making inroads into the list and that it should be
added the retreat agenda, along with reviewing the Bulletin and the supporting materials that Ms. French
would be presenting at the next meeting.
Ms. French said she put this into the work plan as something to do in the first quarter.
Chair Willis noted on Goal 3, Council has 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. This is the project that they are currently working extensively on, and it and it is obviously a
priority.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 29
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Board Member Wimmer commented on the community meeting dates associated with this project.
Ms. French acknowledged this should be shown in accomplishments rather than on upcoming goals.
However, there is another community meeting that will be held for this project.
Board Member Wimmer thought they should also discuss the results of the current community outreach,
as there was some positive support but also some that was not as positive.
Chair Willis thought they could have an update on it and discussion at the retreat. She felt they were doing
great in the implementation of the project.
Board Member Wimmer said it would also be good to review the outcome and feedback from the community
meeting.
Ms. French suggested that community meetings could be the topic, also reviewing what went well, what
improvements could be made for the next one, what the role of the Board is.
Board Member Wimmer felt the Board did not have a big role, as staff and Page and Turnbull directed most
of it, which was good.
Ms. French agreed and thought the next community might be a different type and set of discussions.
Vice Chair Pease wondered if the numbering of the goals indicated their priority or if there was a process
in which they could discuss priority. He felt that an order of priority would drive their approach.
Ms. French said with the plan the priority is indicated, notating which quarter each would be worked on.
Chair Willis asked for comments on Goal 4, “Review incentives and develop a work program for next year.”
Ms. French said it would be important to look at the existing incentives and possibly brainstorm other
incentives. She pointed out that the California tax break just came through so it might be something to
start advocating.
Board Member Rohman asked if the intention is to have a subcommittee for each of the goals, to make
sure there is action taken on each one. She wondered who is analyzing and measuring the level of success.
Vice Chair Pease agreed this is important. If there is another City Council by the time they get this item
done, there will be an entirely different environment.
Board Member Rohman thought agreeing on the “buckets” for the Work Plan is great, but then wondered
if subcommittees within those buckets could assign specific goals and then coming back at the meetings
to update the Board.
Chair Willis supported this suggestion but commented that she has had a hard time getting that going in
the past. She felt everyone buys in at some level, but somehow the cohesion and forward movement
doesn’t always happen. However having a more functional group would be a good goal.
Vice Chair Pease said they just need to be mindful of how much time each of them can actually put into all
of these items. For example, promoting benefits as a part of outreach. They currently don’t have a Mills
Act, and they have no idea when the State might codify one, or the details about it that people will want
to know.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz said in her reading of the proposed state legislation, many
homeowners in Palo Alto may not qualify based on income. One must be below a certain threshold, and it
is lower than the income required to buy the median home in Palo Alto.
Ms. French thought that it may be more for seniors or retired people to take advantage of.
Vice Chair Pease said that then defines the potential audience and constituency for the benefit.
Ms. French said when they had a Historic Planner, they were celebrating certain things, such as Eichler,
and they had some resources for community meetings. She thought it would be nice when something is
under the threshold for the State tax benefit, if they could have a community meeting to help people
understand, and maybe have someone from the State come and present on it, so everyone can learn. She
said she could reach out to the State and ask if they might be able to do this.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 30
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Vice Chair Pease thought it was a good idea, but the current challenge was looking at the inventory. They
need to be able to tell people what is definitely available and can be counted on as far as responsibilities
and benefits. Right now, neither of these things seem like they will be in place in time to do that.
Chair Willis suggested this be a Priority 1, to identify what can be offered to people if they are deemed
historic in the latest round.
Vice Chair Pease said much of it was discussed in the recent outreach meeting, including flag lots, et cetera.
Ms. French said there are things on the web pages which may not be widely known. As suggested for Goal
4, they could discuss what kind of outreach can be done to help the community learn what’s available, and
they could study those incentives as a Board and brainstorm, perhaps looking at other cities.
Board Member Rohman thought they should be taking the list and getting volunteers to spearhead the
programs. She said she signed up to be on the Board to commit a good amount of time to doing the work
outside of the meetings. She said, knowing that they all have jobs and responsibilities, she did not think it
out of the question to ask for commitment to a subcommittee for a certain number of hours per month, to
drive the goals forward.
Chair Willis agreed. She said they needed to go through the five goals, discuss all of them at the retreat,
and focus on how to move forward on them, discussing the priorities and afterwards perhaps dividing into
subcommittees focusing on the highest priorities first.
Board Member Wimmer expressed her wish for a way to change the narrative on the whole historic topic
and try to find out why people do not want to have a historic piece of Palo Alto, to protect it, take care of
it and celebrate it. She felt history is not celebrated in the city at all, and real estate agents may even
discourage buying a historic house. She asked why that narrative couldn’t be changed so that everyone
would want a piece of that history, the history of one of the best cities to live in within the United States.
She suggested a campaign to “Celebrate Palo Alto.,” including such things as the HP garage, Steve Jobs,
the birth of Silicon Valley. The idea should be, “This is cool. You should be part of it.” They could promote
the campaign on their website, with testimonials from people who own historic homes explaining why it is
a great thing. She acknowledged it could be challenging in that people who do own these houses are
private people. However, perhaps other people could get behind such a campaign. Board Member Wimmer
expressed her opinion that the goals are getting them nowhere and that they needed to rethink the whole
topic. She felt they also need to get the City Council behind them, because she is not sure the HRB’s goals
are a priority.
Board Member Rohman added that they should reach out to other historical organizations in Palo Alto to
garner help and support. It needs to be an integrated community outreach program. She noted examples,
such as Pasadena’s Bungalow Heaven program, which is a citywide walking tour of historic homes.
Chair Willis said she will review the PAST spring calendar of walking tours, as she felt this would be a good
start.
Vice Chair Pease suggested talking about this as well at retreat. He agreed with Board Member Rohman’s
comments. The story about tech seems to currently be the one thing that gets peoples’ attention. Other
stories, such as some of the big pop culture figures that started out in the area, seem to garner interest
more than style of building, architectural era, et cetera.
Chair Willis agreed and said what they need is to have a more popular page on their website, perhaps
working with The Weekly, working with PAST and the Historical Association. This could be agendized for
the next meeting and would fit in with the community engagement topic.
Board Member Rohman felt all of the goals were good, but were very large buckets, and they need to drill
down and decide the details of what is involved. Overall, she felt all of the goals were fine.
Ms. French said she could add “Celebrate Palo Alto” into one of the goals. Something like, “working towards
innovating how to tell the story and change the narrative.”
Vice Chair Pease said this would get to the heart of making the Board more relevant.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 31
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Board Member Wimmer noted that although they are all very enthusiastic people on the Board, sometimes
the structure of the system is rigid.
Chair Willis thought historic appreciation has ebbed and flowed in Palo Alto in her time there. There were
times of strong preservation activities, great tours, open houses, et cetera, during some moments, and
then things slowed down. She said it is time for an upswing and they should collect their resources and
make this discussion a framework for their retreat, including the five goals related to that. She felt it would
be goodwill to narrow down the list of priorities and to start working on the last 20 years that have not
been looked at before they are lost.
Chair Willis opened discussion on the last goal – the Mills Act. She said they were close to being able to
present it to Council and she thought if it was agendized for one more meeting they would be able to
finalize it to the point where they can take it to Council. As one of the basics that the State offers, they
should make an effort to get it back on the books a high priority.
Vice Chair Pease whether they should just vote on the Mills Act and put it before the Council directly, or if
they go through staff before that is done. Ms. French responded that the pilot program document in regard
to the Mills Act could be forwarded to the Council along with a staff report that explains the history, and
possibly discusses what other cities do. Other cities are currently talking about things like how many
properties they allow and whether there should be a limit, since there has been discussion about what
impact it may have on schools. The question would be how many would the HRB recommend? And which
categories would be eligible? She thought a full meeting would be needed to discuss these things. She said
she could write a staff report to Council transmitting the program.
Board Member Wimmer noted that Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz owns a historic property which
could be used as a trial.
Ms. French pointed out that there would be a conflict of interest in that, and Board Member Eagleston-
Cieslewicz stated that there is still a question as to what she can participate in.
Board Member Wimmer responded that Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz could still be an advisory
person in regard to tailoring the pilot program.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz agreed, with the caveat that she was allowed to participate. She was
not sure to what degree she could participate at this point.
Ms. French noted that once the Mills Act is agendized, Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz will do what
she is legally advised to do, as per the Attorney’s advice.
Vice Chair Pease referenced a three-page document he was looking at regarding the Mills Act pilot program.
Chair Willis explained that the document included history about the Mills Act, including past reports to
Council, information about when it was dropped, et cetera.
Vice Chair Pease thought that all of the previous steps taken historically seemed to him irrelevant to what
they now put in front of the Council. There is nothing in the history of the program that indicates that it
can get done. His experience has been that anything that comes out of the HRB comes with a
recommendation from the staff. It is what goes to the Council and is what they vote on. However, staff is
short, and everything takes a long time. Consultants must be hired, and it looks like another bottleneck to
him.
Ms. French shared a Mills Act program that was presented back in September of 2021. This was one of the
documents she had sent out to the Board. The January 2018 document was the most recently packaged
document that had changes accepted.
Vice Chair Pease said he had looked at this document previously. The content in red was the output of the
subcommittee that was working on it. He wondered why they couldn’t just submit this now.
Ms. French said she could discuss it with the Director and let him know that the HRB unanimously wants
to send this to Council, as is. Alternately, it could be agendized for discussion with the Council, or a study
session could be scheduled.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 32
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Vice Chair Pease thought it would make sense to have someone else outside of the Board look at what has
been done and make a judgment about it. Then they could hear back about it and review it. His point was
that the work has already been done and he wondered what they are waiting for. He asked Board Member
Wimmer if she would be comfortable at this point for the document to be submitted for review by staff or
someone else.
Board Member Wimmer felt that the committee at the time did get the document to a point where they did
try to bring it to the Council. She pointed out that it is ultimately up to the City Council on whether they
want to adopt it or not. From what she remembered, it stopped there.
Vice Chair Pease said if they considered it, there would probably be some requests to change it. He asked
again, why the document couldn’t be moved out of the Board to somewhere else to see if the system could
begin to do something with it.
Board Member Wimmer suggested it would take a session like a retreat to discuss this. She wanted to
review where they left off to refresh her mind. Or, they could agendize the Mills Act for one of their
meetings. She felt they should receive the past information and review it.
Chair Willis reminded the Board that they are planning to agendize the item for the June 22nd meeting.
Ms. French added that she did send the information from the past work on the Mills Act the previous day,
because it is Goal 5 in the Work Plan and they needed to decide whether or not to keep it there and if so,
what the timing and priority should be for working on it.
Chair Willis said it needed to stay on the Work Plan. It is a question of priorities.
Chair Willis suggested that each Board Member express their opinion on the priorities.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz remarked that a couple of the items are ongoing activities, such as
reviewing exterior alterations, so goal one is the purview of the Board.
Chair Willis noted that reviewing the Bulletin is an action item that should be prioritized. From 2016 it no
longer coordinates with the ordinance. She suggested listing their action items and then prioritizing them.
Ms. French pointed out packet page 10, under Priority Discussion for Goal One, stating, “Bulletin revisions
are a higher priority for Quarter 1 of this Work Plan. Reviewing process clarifications would help staff and
the community.” That box could be used to say which of the objectives for that goal is the highest priority.
Vice Chair Pease felt that the Bulletin, the inventory review, and the public outreach are all inter-related,
as well as the Mills Act, and he wasn’t sure how to separate any of them out and make an intelligent case
for any of them.
Chair Willis wondered then if they should separate out action items instead of priorities.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz wondered if each subcommittee should prioritize their items and then
bring them back to the larger group.
Chair Willis thought the idea was to base subcommittees on projects, so they need to find out what product
they’re looking for to define the subcommittees.
Board Member Wimmer suggested that each Board Member take a goal.
Chair Willis thought that would be fine for the retreat. The Review Bulletin needs to be agendized with staff
putting information together to be voted on. It is a priority but probably doesn’t need a subcommittee.
Ms. French shared the format the City Clerk has given the Board to work with and where the priority for
Goal 1 is shown. She asked if the wording “ongoing” should be tweaked.
Chair Willis said she is fine with the wording, but just wants to get it on an agenda so they can get it done
and get it checked off. She thought it could be on the agenda for the 25th but didn’t know what to expect
for the Sobrato project.
Ms. French said there will be public speakers for that.
Board Member Wimmer added that there will also be elections, so that’s probably enough for one meeting.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Chair Willis then suggested the 22nd, along with the Mills Act.
Ms. French will send out something by email to explain what she is talking about with the Bulletin. She can
make a presentation, without action, if there is time.
Chair Willis noted on Goal 3, she is willing to wait until the retreat. They do need to look at the 500 on the
list as well as the last 20 years, but it’s not a high priority and can be put off until after the retreat. She
didn’t see anything specific that needed to be addressed before the retreat. On Goal 4, outreach, she
thought that Mills Act is its own goal, but it might be a good place for a subcommittee to begin strategizing
about how to do outreach and how they could integrate with PAST and the Historic Association. If there
was subcommittee work done before the retreat it could help set them up for a productive discussion at
the retreat.
Board Member Rohman volunteered to sit on the subcommittee or be the sole member.
Chair Willis said at the moment their interaction with the public is a top priority because it would make
everything go better. Her suggestion was that Mills Act be the one subcommittee they work on at the
moment.
Vice Chair Pease supported this suggestion.
Chair Willis suggested putting Board Member Rohman in charge of forming the subcommittee.
Board Member Rohman wanted to make sure it wasn’t something Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz
wanted to drive.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz was fine with her being in charge.
Chair Willis noted that she can reach out to all of the Board for help and input.
Chair Willis invited any members of the public present to speak. There were no public speakers, or
observers. Chair Willis asked Board Member Makinen if he had any comments.
Ms. French pointed out Goal 5, in the “High Priority” box, it says “Finish the work previously drafted – Ad
Hoc Committee effort and prepare a report to City Council.” She asked for confirmation on the wording.
Chair Willis affirmed it, stating even if they never decide that they never want a Mills Act, they need to at
least get to that point, with it going either up or down. She reiterated agendizing it and thought they had
what they needed with the materials they have. She advocated the idea of giving Council a summary of it
without having to wade through every detail, although the Board Members together do need to wade
through the details and history, and strategize how to sell it, or decide they or not interested in it for their
community.
Ms. French said a vote is needed for the work plan.
The Board voted on approval of the Work Plan as presented. The Plan was approved (6-0) by roll call vote.
Approval of Minutes
3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 13, 2023
The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2023, with a correction, by voice
vote.
Subcommittee Items
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas
Vice Chair Pease asked about the Sobrato project on the next agenda.
Ms. French responded that it is regarding the former Fry’s site.
Ms. French asked if the proclamation regarding Birge Clark could be discussed.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 34
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz explained that she has a draft of a proclamation commemorating the
100th anniversary of Birge Clark’s architectural practice opening in Palo Alto, which she sent to Ms. French.
Chair Willis thought it would be good to run it by PAST. She also was going to look at the book on Birge
Clark and see if there was anything they wanted to add.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz said she could send the draft to a contact for PAST.
Board Member Rohman asked if PAST had plans to do a celebration of some kind.
Chair Willis informed her that they did this at the joint meeting with the Historic Association the past
Sunday. She was disappointed that she wasn’t able to make it to the meeting.
Ms. French shared the draft proclamation on the screen for the Board to read. She said it will likely be in
the Council’s packet for June.
Chair Willis announced that the upcoming Saturday PAST is conducting a downtown Birge Clark tour, she
thought at 10:00. On the 20th they will be doing a Mayfield tour. On May 27th they will do a tour called
“Beyond Professorville.” She said the tours are always very enjoyable and informative.
Adjournment
Motion by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz to adjourn. Seconded by Vice Chair Pease, the motion
carried unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
Item 4
HRB 5.11 Minutes
Packet Pg. 35
Item No. 5. 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: June 22, 2023
Report #: 2306-1662
TITLE
Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 25, 2023
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
BACKGROUND
Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):
•May 25, 2023
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: HRB 5.25 Minutes
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 5
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto Page 1
``
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Caroline Willis; Vice Chair Christian Pease; Board Members Samantha Rohman,
Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, Gogo Heinrich and Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz
Absent:
Oral Communications
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
Discussion of a date for the Board retreat was deferred until after the action item.
Action Items
2. 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: Recommendation on
Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community Zoning application to Allow
Redevelopment of a 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park
Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The Project also includes a
Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map.
Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development
Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR
was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed Development
Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-
Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the
Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.
Claire Raybould presented the project to the Board. Ms. Raybould described the five parcels which would
be combined into a 14.6-acre site. That site would be subdivided into five separate parcels, one of which
would be the Cannery parcel, one containing the existing Ash Office Building, one containing the existing
Audi Building, one that is proposed for 74 new townhomes, and one 3.25-acre site to be dedicated to the
City for purposes of an affordable housing project and a public park.
Ms. Raybould documented for the Board the process leading to this project. In 2019, Fry’s vacated the site.
There are ongoing research and development uses at the facility within the Cannery Building. The Ash
office building and the Audi building also exist today. In September of 2020 Sobrato filed a request for a
zoning text amendment to allow for reuse of the site with any ratio of the allowed nonconforming uses.
There was no formal decision on the project, but the Director did indicate the intent to decline approval of
that request. In November of 2020 Sobrato filed an S.B. 330 pre-application, which was followed by a
formal Architectural Review application for a 91-unit townhome development on a portion of the site. In
2021, staff requested Council interpretation of the Code with respect to nonconforming uses. Council
formed the Ad Hoc Committee in October of 2021. The Committee met from December of 2021 to May of
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: May 25, 2023
Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom
8:30 A.M.
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2022 to negotiate broad terms of the development agreement. In June of 2022 Council held a closed
session and agreed to support the current concept being presented to the HRB. Council asked staff to do
a pre-screening application for the planned community zonings that were proposed in the development
agreement as required by the Code and to daylight the project to the public, kicking off the public process
for the development agreement in August of 2022. At the same time staff was also directed to prepare a
tolling agreement which put the 91-unit townhome development and the continued processing of the
Architectural Review plans on hold while the agreement was processed. The right to continue is vested
under S.B. 330 application if they are unable to complete it in the time allowed under the tolling agreement.
The draft EIR was released for the 91-unit townhome development. The development agreement before
the HRB was analyzed as an alternative in the EIR. One of the key purposes of a Council Ad Hoc Committee
was to look at alternatives, a negotiated alternative, between the City and the applicant. The final EIR
which includes formal responses to comments received on the project was released on May 15, 2023.
Page and Turnbull prepared a Historic Resources Evaluation as part of the NVCAP (North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan) process to determine eligibility of the site for the California Register. This came
before the HRB to confirm their agreement that it is eligible for the California Register. The Cannery building
and the Ash building were identified as eligible under Criterion 1 for events. The site is not listed on the
City’s Local Register. The HRB held a study session in July of 2019 regarding that HRE.
Ms. Raybould summarized the Environmental Impact report and its findings. The demolition of a portion of
the building was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact on a historic resource for the proposed
91-unit project as well as all build alternatives, including the proposed development agreement under
consideration by the HRB. This requires that Council prepare and adopt overriding considerations for the
project when it comes before them. Mitigation measures requiring an interpretive display as well as HABS
Level III documentation are required in the EIR as. However it was found that mitigation measures to
reduce impacts would not reduce the impact to less than a significant level, so it still results in a significant
and unavoidable impact for the proposed project and the alternatives. [
Ms. Raybould refreshed the Board on some of the comments from the HRB study session, including
comments related to the remaining Cannery building and its design. The Board felt the project should try
to follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards where feasible and explain any reasons where the project
deviates. There was interest from the Council Ad Hoc Committee as well as the Board members during the
study session to prioritize the monitor roofs as a key character-defining feature to be preserved. There was
interest in public views and access to the Cannery building from Park Blvd, with some concerns about how
the townhomes block views of that. The proposed development agreement includes a public access
easement over the whole connection from Portage to Park, opening up connection to the public as well as
creating a public park across from the Cannery building.
Ms. Raybould shared some of the comments that were made about the area under the Cannery roofs being
the primary focus. The Sanborn maps from 1925 and 1945 and the present-day visual of the site were
presented. It is unclear which was the original building. The building is made up of a conglomerate of
buildings put together over the years. All of the additions were done during the period of significance, when
the Cannery was active, so are all important aspects and part of the whole of the site, so the conclusion of
the Environmental Impact report was that demolition of 40 percent of the building is a significant and
unavoidable impact. Regardless of retaining the building underneath the monitor roofs alone, it would still
be identified as a significant and unavoidable impact that would not be consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior standards.
Ms. Raybould reminded the Board members of questions that were raised by the HRB about proposed
alternatives to the proposed project, including suggestions that the open space be redesigned and located
around the remaining Cannery building and that the applicant consider repurposing it as an art center or a
recreational center, and asking for further consideration of adaptive reuse of the site. There were a number
of comments along this same line, and formal responses are in the final EIR as to why certain adaptive
reuse, especially for uses other than housing, were not considered or evaluated further. The EIR concludes
that there is no build alternative that would result in anything other than a significant and unavoidable
impact, and there is no way to adaptively reuse the site for housing or any other use that could be done in
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto Page 3
a manner that is consistent with Secretary of the Interior standards and could retain the integrity of the
building.
Ms. Raybould continued that there were comments from the HRB about the interpretive display and public
art. The HRB had asked to maximize the conveyance of Thomas Foon Chew’s life with respect to themes
in the public art and/or interpretive display. Ms. Raybould reported that the applicant has held preliminary
hearings with the Public Art Commission on January 19th and again on May 18th. The applicant has selected
an artist who is highly qualified and has done a number of pieces of commissioned work for jurisdictions.
Ms. Raybould noted that there was interest from Board members to have staff analyze further whether the
Ash Office Building would be individually eligible for the California Register. She pointed out that that
analysis was included in the packet and indicated that the office building would not be individually eligible.
There was also interest in nominating the remaining Cannery to the Local Register and whether the site
would be eligible as a California Historic Landmark. A constraints analysis was prepared by Rincon
Consultants to look into these possibilities. The indication was that the analysis evaluation of the site would
need to be done following construction so that the nomination and determination could be made based on
what is existing at the time of the nomination. Ms. Raybould advised that if there is interest in that they
can explore how to include language in the development agreement that would require them to come back
and do the evaluation and follow up. The applicant is amenable to working with the City to include the
language in the development agreement if there is interest from the Historic Resources Board and Council’s
ultimate determination. Ms. Raybould noted that the recommendation before the Board was to consider
the environmental impact report and mitigation measures and recommend approval of the project. This did
not include the Planned Community Rezoning Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and subdivision map.
Ms. Raybould further explained what was being asked of the HRB. The project is not technically required
to come before the HRB per the Code because it is not listed as a building, but it is a historic resource and
the Council has expressed an interest in hearing the HRB’s position on the project and ways in which the
applicant could respect and integrate aspects of the historic character of the site, through public art,
through the treatment of the remaining building and other aspects. Council desired comments in regard to
treatment of the remaining building and help with meeting the findings for architectural review.
Architectural Review Board finding number two is, “Preserve, respect and integrate existing natural features
that contribute positively to the site and the historic character, including resource of the area when
relevant.”
Ms. Raybould conveyed that one key goal of the Council Ad Hoc was to preserve key aspects of the building
and to recognize the site’s historic significance through its treatment following development.
Recommendations to Council regarding evaluation following completion of construction, such as if there is
interest in having the evaluation done and nominating it to the Local Register or as a California Historic
Landmark. Ms. Raybould noted that public art falls to the purview of the Public Arts Commission, but
welcomed any feedback on the current direction that the applicant is going with the public art.
Chair Willis invited the applicant to speak to the Board.
Evan Sockalosky, Arc Tech, architect for the project, addressed the Board and stated that they had taken
the feedback received from the HRB as well as City staff and the ARB, and he was excited to present the
project to the Board. Matt Davis, Historic Consultant with ARG and Jennifer Eastman, Art Consultant,
accompanied Mr. Sockalosky. Tim Steele and Robert Tersini with Sobrato were also available for specific
questions. Mr. Sockalosky proceeded to present aspects of the project.
The project started as far back as 2011-2012 when Sobrato acquired the property. Five elements came out
of the Ad Hoc Committee: The historic treatment of the Cannery building; the townhomes; providing public
viewing access to the monitor roof structure; dedication of the land, giving the City an opportunity for
affordable housing and a significant public park; and the public art.
Matthew Davis, Historian Principal with Architectural Resources Group (ARG), addressed the Board, stating
that in mid-2022 the Sobrato organization asked ARG to develop a series of preservation design guidelines
specifically focused on the portion of the Cannery building that they plan to retain. Sobrato was aware that
since the building was a light-weight industrial warehouse, bringing it up to code would likely be more
complicated than if they were working with a sturdier building. They also understood that the building had
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto Page 4
been modified repeatedly over time. ARG was asked to help them understand the parameters with respect
to the historic character. ARG representatives visited the site to view current conditions. The HRE report
was reviewed in detail to understand the property’s historic significance and extant character-defining
features. Based on the review, they developed a series of guidelines in six categories.
Mr. Davis reported on ways in which the project has responded to those guidelines. With respect to height
and bulk, maintaining the building’s long linear massing was considered paramount. This meant that any
new construction should remain below the height of the monitor roofs to preserve their prominence.
Maintaining the monitor roofs was an essential driver of the entire approach. New construction, including
new rooftop mechanical will remain at or below the top of the parapet walls along north and south elevations.
The existing condition at the front of the building includes a double height projecting mass sitting in front of
the monitor roof portion. The new construction at these locations is reflective of this historic condition. Much
of the existing building is clad in corrugated metal panels. The west end is board form concrete which will
remain as is, but incompatible cladding materials such as wood siding, brick, or ceramic tile were avoided
in the new construction. Instead, the historic portions of the building will be reclad in corrugated metal
matching the existing ones. New south entries and nearby parking garage will be clad in a corrugated metal
different in color and dimension, to offset it from the historic.
The clerestory windows needing replacement will be replaced with windows similar in scale, profile and
appearance to the original, and new fenestration throughout will be metal with simple surrounds befitting
the industrial character of the property. New entries and canopies are clearly additive while being kept
simple so that they are compatible with and not distracting from the historic portions of the building. There
is an existing precedence for projecting masses at this location. The open character of the interior, including
exposed roof truss and support columns is being carefully retained.
Mr. Davis reported that to satisfy the mitigation measure identified in the project EIR, they are completing
HABS-like documentation for the property, which will include compiling formal photography, architectural
drawings and a concise historical narrative which summarizes background historical information for the
property. It will not be formally submitted to the Library of Congress; however, the documentation is being
completed according to the federal program’s standards. Also, they are in the process of distilling key
historical themes and images, either identified in the HRE or collected through their own research at
repositories including History San Jose and the Alviso Library. This content could serve as the focus of the
interpretive displays being developed for the site. The effort has also included conducting an oral interview
with Thomas Foon Chew’s granddaughter, Gloria Hom, who has provided photos and supporting
information.
Jennifer Easton, Art Consultant, introduced artist, Kyungmi Shin, whose work is characterized by a laying
of both historic and cultural elements, with contemporary materials and thought processes to create blended
ideas and vision regarding a site, it’s people and its cultural importance. Ms. Easton said their selection of
an artist focused on artists who had been looking at the immigration experience and Chinese/Asian history
in the United States as part of their past practices. Kyungmi was the artist who rose, by her experience,
materials, integration into architecture, as well as her thoughtful community outreach and engagement in
her art implementation for public and studio practice.
Ms. Easton shared one of Ms. Shin’s studio installations. The layering of her work illustrated blending of
both European history as well as her own contemporary family history with iconographic Chinese history.
Ms. Shin has started looking at the history of the site. A meeting with the Art Commission has occurred,
and they were excited by the selection of the artist and the opportunities for the artwork at some of the sites.
There was a particular mention of the idea of using mosaic, which they will be exploring. Next steps will
include returning to the Art Commission in late summer/early fall with a conceptual design for their review
and dialogue regarding direction for the project.
Mr. Sockalosky presented further detail on the architecture side of the project. Since last presenting to the
HRB, there has been adjustment and refinement to the design in coordination with ARG, one of which was
focusing on the design with the monitor roof as one of the priorities. Also, understanding the importance of
the interior space and spatial relationships in terms of the historic importance of those structural elements.
They have also further refined materials, making sure that the cladding is more of a replacement in kind,
matching the original. Another key feature taken from comments received is in regard to the loading dock
condition. That side of the project was adjusted to depress the parking and create more of a reference to
the loading dock condition, which improves amenity space, separates it from vehicle parking and creates a
reference back. Mr. Sockalosky conveyed that they are very excited about the artist and are excited about
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 40
City of Palo Alto Page 5
integrating her work into the architecture at an early stage. He noted the importance to all parties involved
of the visibility into the monitor roofs while still maintaining a viable R&D office building. To that end they
have increased windows and doubled the size of the skylight views into the monitor roof area. The 380
Portage board form concrete building, will be left unchanged.
Mr. Sockalosky shared images of the project and what the project looked like when first presented. Through
comments received, they have made significant changes to respond to the historic guidelines and feedback.
The elevated entry references the loading dock condition. The window treatment has been significant
adjusted, with smaller-scale panes of glass. The treatment of the clerestory monitor roof area windows are
replaced in kind, and the form is much more reflective of what will be designed and installed. The south
side of the building will be two-story as it is now, extending all across the south side of the building. The
retail piece is a one-story added development, which was done to help create identity for the retail, and also
to be able to reinforce the monitor roof form along this side which, as it exists now, is hidden by the two-
story element. Transitioning down to a one-story element will give a viable identity for retail and also
celebrate and give additional view into the monitor roof area for the public. A view of the garage panels
illustrated the at-grade conditions with revisions to it including the depressed parking, elevating the entry,
more variation on the garage and material refinements on the Cannery building. A much better amenity
space at grade is created, separating the parking with a space between the buildings. An elevated entry
and the elevated entry loading dock condition creates a transition and focus on the building itself. One key
element was to try to create as much vision into the monitor roof, while respecting the need for a functional
retail space. The square footage in the amount of view has been doubled with two skylights, still allowing
space beyond giving opportunity for retail coming in to utilize the space. Two significantly sized skylights
are angled, which is a reference to the sawtooth that would be common back in the original timeframe,
giving a good view in to the wood truss. All of the wood trusses are existing. A proposed layout of the
ductwork that would go into the space would be respectful of the space in its distribution. Many of the
windows still have smaller openings, and many of these will be replaced in kind. Many were boarded up
during the additions that occurred over the years, but they will be added back, creating an open space for
future R&D space. A view near the office entry shows access to the mezzanine which currently exists and
will be maintained. A view looking at the offices showed the one-story retail space at the end with above
windows looking out at the monitor roof building which can be seen from the retail side, replacing the old
skylights back in their original location while making sure all of the changes and additions are bringing the
building up to Code. Mr. Sockalosky shared that this was one of the critical aspects needed, as well as
respecting the historical nature of the treatment. Life safety, structural and other code issues need to be
brought up to compliance in order to make this a development that can be occupied.
Chair Willis invited comments from the public.
Karen Holman spoke on behalf of herself and others. She acknowledged the difficulty of the HRB’s task.
She shared comments submitted by Monica Arima, whose family has lived in Professorville at 1052 Bryant,
and rebuilt their historic house more than 20-plus years ago. She has been there since 1991 and her
husband since the 1960s. Ms. Arima volunteers and supports historic programs at Stanford University,
including but not limited to the Chinese Railroad Workers’ History Project. She loves preserving history in
any possible way, because history teaches empathy and tolerance and gives opportunity to learn about
others’ past mistakes. It helps us understand the many reason why people may behave the way they do,
helping us become more impartial as decision-makers. With the good of the Chinese population in town,
she feels it is important to include the Chinese-American history in town as much as possible to establish
roots so that many of them can feel at home and accepted. Ms. Arima feels that the current design of the
project destroys a big portion of the historic Cannery and that the structure should be maintained as an
historic site. If not, she feels they should prohibit the project moving forward until the structure is preserved
to qualify it as an historic site in the future. Her thought it that there is only one chance to do it right, and
she urged the Board to support the preservation of the Cannery historic site.
Ms. Holman shared the comments of herself and the others with her. The proposal for the Cannery building
is a nearly 40-percent demolition of a California Registry-eligible resource. She noted that what ought to be
done with any of their resources is not to demolish, obliterate, remove, disregard. Quoting the architectural
critic, Louis Huxtable, she said, “We will probably not be judged by the monuments we build, but by those
we have destroyed.” Ms. Holman suggested that the building and site is a monument to the accomplishment
of Thomas Foon Chew, a Chinese man who was honored by 25,000 people, including elected officials,
when he died in the ‘30’s. Regarding the final EIR, Ms. Holman commented that not every possible
alternative can be considered to eliminate a significant impact, but a feasible one must be evaluated, and
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 41
City of Palo Alto Page 6
she did not see that one has been, in terms of retention of at least enough of the Cannery building to retain
its historic character. The development agreement proposes 75 housing units, but the City burdens the
Cannery building with 281 units. She asked, why not 91 as in the original proposal, or the 75 in the
development agreement? She said the City will have to make a statement of overriding considerations to
find the adequacy of the FEIR. The applicant’s own architect was asked to conceive of an adaptive reuse
of the Cannery building, imposing 281 units. Numerous times at the NVCAP meetings there were requests
for the City to conduct a feasibility study, presumably independent, for reuse of the building. She knew of
no evidence that that ever occurred. One of the project objectives was to develop cohesive development
that respects historic uses at the site. Ms. Holman suggested this plan does not do that, but rather
demolishes the history of the site. One of the comments that she submitted was that there could be a
regional cumulative impact with the removal of the building and the site as a historic resource. The Page
and Turnbull report noted that the building is a rare surviving example of Palo Alto’s and Santa Clara
County’s agricultural past. yet the response in the FEIR was that the Valley of Hearts Delight is not a
designated historic district, and the project area is not with an historic district. Overall, the project involves
impacts to individual historic resources. There will be no significant cumulative impact to similar historic
resources in the region. Ms. Holman said she was baffled by this response. The Page and Turnbull report
states what qualifies as a California Register eligible property as the first, only, last, or most significant of
its type in the state or within a large geographic area or associated with an individual or group having a
profound influence on the history of California. Ms. Homan said, to her, those are statements of why this
project has a regional impact, not just a local impact. In comments regarding adding the street directly in
front of the remnant building, adding a housing project directly in front of the building, responses included,
“analysis unnecessary due to the significant impact that will already be happening on the Cannery building.”
She said this is important because whether or not the Cannery is saved as they are advocating, the remnant
building will be compromised for listing locally due to impacts in response to the proximity of the proposed
townhomes – the mass, scale, location of the affordable housing project near the historic building. She
asked again how that is being analyzed in regard to impact on the remnant building. The response was that
the proposed demolition would result in a significant and unavailable impact. Analysis of whether other
elements of the project align with the Secretary of the Interior Standards is unnecessary because their
conformance to the Standards would be rendered inapplicable due to the material impairment of an historic
resource.
Ms. Holman indicated that they would like to save as much of the Cannery building as possible, but if talking
about only the “remnant,” she believes these are significant impacts to the remnant building, yet they are
being dismissed as not relevant. Ms. Holman shared that at the August 1, 2022, Council presentation there
were slides that presented the project to the community for the first time. One slide said that that remnant
building would be subject to the Secretary of the Interior standards. Yet, at an ARB, not an HRB meeting,
it was asked of the ARB, because the building is losing its historic integrity, should it be subject to the
Secretary of the Interior standards? Slides she reviewed from August of 2022 promised the community that
Secretary of the Interior standards would be applied to the remnant building, and comments were made
regarding repairing, restoring, and replacing in-kind, but she didn’t see that consideration was given to these
things. Ms. Holman also had concerns regarding the PC zoning aspect of the project and lack of
requirements or stipulations in the development agreement for compatibility with the remnant structure,
which needs to satisfy Secretary of the Interior standards, including into the future upon expiration of the
development agreement. Ms. Holman stated that she appreciated staff bringing the project to the HRB even
though it isn’t a requirement, but she wanted the Board to think into the future. If PCs are going to exist,
they need to have stipulations to protect what they want to protect into the future.
Regarding the project’s proposed view of the structural system through a hole in the roof of the retail space,
Ms. Holman expressed her feeling that is somewhat like viewing the world through a hole in a fence. She
mentioned the goal of not displacing people who have long been in a place with new opportunities and not
erasing their culture, legacies, and important histories. She urged the Board to make their opinions clear to
the Council, the ARB and to the staff about what should happen and what could happen with this property
by taking a stand for the man who leaves a legacy in their hands and in the hands of Sobrato and the City.
She concluded by stating that she and her companions mean no disrespect but believe there is a better
way to accomplish the goals of the development agreement and Sobrato’s goals while also respecting the
history and giving it it’s rightful place in the future.
Jeff Levinsky addressed the Board, and unscored what others were saying, that the Cannery and office on
Ash are extraordinary in terms of their significance to Palo Alto and the greater region. Page and Turnbull’s
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 42
City of Palo Alto Page 7
analysis indicates that demolishing almost 40 percent of the Cannery will be catastrophic and defeat the
notion of historic preservation of the site. He said that there is a perception that the City and the Board have
no choice, perhaps due to threat of a lawsuit from the property owner or new state laws. He said he asked
about this, and the answers indicated that the City does have choices. One reason is that the proposed mix
of uses does not comply with zoning laws which allow for no office or R&D use on the site without a lot of
retail as well. If a proposed use is not legal or discretionary, the City does not have to agree to it. Mr.
Levinsky said that neither does the proposal comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The FEIR’s response
to his questions claims that the Comprehensive Plan does not apply to this project but he has spoken to
local experts who helped write that plan, and they emphasize that Comprehensive Plan policies about
preservation, adaptive reuse and encouraging financial strategies to help fund those do apply to this project.
He said the project does not comply with those policies and this is another reason to turn it down. Mr.
Levinsky gave one more reason – there has been no look at creative ways to preserve the entire Cannery.
One approach on page 64 of the FEIR suggests that instead of building a new parking structure north of
the Cannery, put the cars in the 40 percent of the Cannery that was to be demolished. Where the parking
structure was to be built, put more condominiums to make up for the ones that would have been atop the
demolished portion, resulting in lots of condominiums, parking and the Cannery building completely
remaining. He said the FEIR dismissed this, saying, “Modifying the Cannery building to convert it to a
parking use could not be done without modifying the character-defining features of the building.” Mr.
Levinsky said only part of the building would be for parking, with only one opening on the north side large
enough for cars to drive through, which possibly already exists, or once did. The current doors and windows
would not need to change at all, and neither would the roofline, so it would preserve the existing building
and also allow for condominiums. Mr. Levinsky suggested looking at how other cities have preserved
buildings like this and encouraged the ARB, the PTC and the City Council to do this. His opinion was that
there is an incredible, one-of-a-kind, amazing piece of history in their backyard and he hoped they would
not bulldoze it.
Ms. Lotus Yee Fong spoke to the Board, sharing that she is a relocated grandmother from San Francisco,
originally from Albuquerque, New Mexico. She shared of her interest in and journey into Railroad history
and how buildings like the demolished Santa Fe Railroad Station, for example, also had important historical
significance comparable to the historic argument before the HRB, that here are better alternatives. The
railroad opened up the West and contributed to the whole of California history, specifically the Bay Area
and Palo Alto. She referenced the Promontory in Salt Lake City and its historical importance, and quoted
Native American, Floyd Red Crow Westerman’s “We don’t need happy history. We need real history,” and
a book by Palo Alto native, Malcolm Harris, “The History of California, Capitalism and the World.” Ms. Yee
Fong noted that there is a very active Chinese historical cultural project in San Jose, working on what used
to be the Fairmont, and putting together a memorial in what will be called Heinlenville Park in San Jose
Japan Town. Mr. Heinlein was known for helping the Chinese rebuild their history and Thomas Foon Chew
was another contemporary with the Cannery. Ms. Yee Fong said her main point was that the timing is now,
as more history is coming out. The Cannery building could be a very valuable resource, and they could get
the resources to get more land and more housing.
Becky Sanders, Ventura resident, stated that the Cannery is a few blocks from her home, and she has been
active in the movement to explore adaptive reuse of the Cannery to preserve it. She opposed demolishing
any part of the building which would ruin its qualification as a historic site. Ms. Sanders said that several
Venturans were part of the North Venture Coordinated Area Plan working group and there was considerable
interest in adaptive reuse of the building. The group brought forward several scenarios for retention and
reuse of the building, none of which were seriously entertained. She said the project proposal is not what
residents of the community were working toward. The NVCAP working group repeatedly asked the City to
commission an independent feasibility study of adaptive reuse of the Cannery, but their requests went
unanswered. She pointed out that any models for retaining the Cannery building in full have never been
explored. She was shocked and saddened to realize that the independent architect featured in the FEIR to
weigh in on retention of the building is in fact the applicant’s own architect and not one retained by the City.
The work of the applicant and the City staff has been co-mingled, making it difficult to distinguish discreet
boundaries between the two. An independent assessment would help separate the two. She said she is
also the co-author of a letter to the HRB from Palo Alto Neighborhoods, and she was troubled that the letter
was not included in the packet, although she was assured that it was circulated to the Board members. The
preservation of the Cannery is of citywide concern which is why PAN membership voted to send the letter.
Their opinion is that the Cannery is as important to the history of agriculture in the Valley of the Hearts
Delight as David and Lucile’s Packard garage is to the history of Silicon Valley. She said her understanding
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 43
City of Palo Alto Page 8
is that the HRB has discretion, power and authority to advise as they see fit and urged the Board, rather
than supporting demolition, to request an independent feasibility study for protecting the Cannery and its
rich history. She asked that they give due consideration to the Cannery’s significance and afford to it the
protection and respect that Thomas Foon Chew’s canning empire deserves. She affirmed the comment
that history is happening now and they are uncovering new ways of approaching and dealing with troubled,
confusing, passionate and beautiful history. She was excited to think that this could be part of a next page
in Palo Alto’s history.
Yugen Lockhart, 405 Olive Avenue, addressed the Board. He noted that his brother’s house at 411 Olive
Avenue was the sole house on the undeveloped property on Olive behind the Cannery. He has been in the
neighborhood for 45 years and was born in the house he lives in now. His backyard faces the air
conditioners on top of the Cannery building. He affirmed the comments of the previous speakers and felt
they gave good sentiments to the history of the structure. However, he said, much of the structure they are
trying to preserve is pretty ugly. He liked the monitor roof aspect and the idea of keeping that. He thought
it interesting how nebulous the documentation is of what part is historical, what was made originally and
what was made additionally. He wasn’t sure how the original study had taken place to qualify the percentage
of what should be kept. Since the documentation is so undefined, he wondered if they could reassess it
perhaps it could be reduced to a quantity that could maintain the historical aspect, while allowing for
removing some of the more unsightly extensions. He agreed with keeping some of the building, including
the monitor buildings and the old house on Portage. We would like to see the neighborhood develop
cohesively. The NVCAP process is going on, and that was a good start, but even they have not come up
with an ideal plan for the neighborhood. He said individuals along Olive and Pepper are getting inundated
with all of the projects – low-income projects, medium-income projects. Their 25 or so houses will be joined
by two to three thousand residents moving into their two- to three-block radius. Regardless of how much of
the building is kept, the residents are being overwhelmed by the quantities of people and businesses. He
said that the residents understand that things are going to change in their neighborhood. He maintains six
bungalow houses that are all falling apart so he needs to think of his own plans of how to keep them standing
or what he should do with them. The building behind them is in the same state – a rickety old shed. He
does not mind if they put new cladding on the side of it if it matches what is currently there, so that it can
be a habitable structure.
Ms. French interjected into the hearing to announce that a Board member had submitted a just cause
exemption for the meeting. State law on the topic of remote participation for just cause requires that the
Board vote to allow the member to participate for the just cause which, in this case, involved the Board
member being a caretaker.
The vote was taken to allow the remote participation, and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Willis opened the discussion to Board Member questions.
Board Member Heinrich stated she has not followed the project since its inception since she is new to the
Board. She wondered what kind of adaptive reuse studies were done.
Ms. Raybould said she could not speak to the full NVCAP that was referred to, but for the project before
the Board there were two build alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report, as well as the
proposed 91-unit townhome development. So three total development project and alternatives. The 91-unit
townhome development included 91 units in the area of the 74 units before the Board today, as well as the
full public park and affordable housing area City dedication land. There was also an alternative study in the
EIR. The NVCAP looked at a much larger area than just this sight, so they took the preferred alternative
that Council was looking at and studied what that would mean for the site and looked at an adaptive reuse
of a three-story alternative. It included a small townhome development in the area of the public park. They
asked the applicant to provide as part of the final EIR, in response to some of the comments, was to show
what it would look like if they were looking at a single story alternative as well. What they showed made it
clear that any alternative for adaptive reuse of the site for housing will require significant changes to the
building, to provide property light and air, fire safety, building code upgrades, green building code
compliance and that any adaptive reuse of the site for housing is going to result in impacts that would likely
be significant and unavoidable. CEQA does not require looking at every feasible alternative; nor does it
require completion of a plan set for every alternative being explored for the project. They did not look at
alternatives that did not include housing, because they don’t meet most of the basic project objectives.
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 44
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Chair Willis said there was mention of doing a HABS-like survey. She wondered, why not submit it to the
State? This applies to the recent San Antonio one, too.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked, in addition, where the HABS-style survey information would
end up.
Board Member Rohman asked why it won’t be submitted to the Library of Congress if it follows the HABS-
like detailing.
Ms. Raybould referred the question to JulieAnn Murphy, the City’s Historic Consultant.
Ms. Murphy responded that she worked on the EIR and helped develop the EIR mitigations. They
recommended the HABS-like documentation. She noted that there is considerable cost and effort with
preparing a submission to the Library of Congress. Making the materials locally available to the local library
and historic organizations is often seen as more meaningful than those submitted to the Library of
Congress. They also require an intense amount of detail in preparation and creation of measured drawings
in addition to photographs, so they have found that a HABS-like documentation is more meaningful for the
local community than something that meets the requirements of a Library of Congress submission.
Vice Chair Pease divulged that in early March he asked Doria Suma to be introduced to Tim Steele at
Sobrato Corporation. She had met him and worked with him in the NVCAP process. He and Doria were
able to go to Sobrato on March 27th and meet with Tim and Robert Tersini. His objective in meeting with
them was to ask them if the project was approved largely as proposed that there be a much more intensive
documentation of the site than even a HABS-like one as just described, which he felt was completely
inadequate. He felt the need for this document goes well beyond being meaningful for the local community.
He felt that the site and its story are more important than any Birge Clark building in the town, particularly
in the context of what is happening now in history and the re-emergence of history. He said he was asking
them specifically to consider new and emerging and current techniques and technologies that are all coming
from the building industry itself. To make much more comprehensive documentation of this building he
would prefer in its entirety, as it stands now, but at a minimum of the part that is going to be torn down. It
would include using as-built photography techniques as “as-demolished” or “as-constructed” documentation
and also doing the measures previously referred to as too expensive and onerous, by applying LIDAR
technology to measure the spaces inside and out at a high level of accuracy.
Vice Chair Pease also divulged that he was given the report for a separate project – 788 San Antonio Road.
He requested that the HABS-like product be distributed to the Board in advance of the meeting. It was a
blueprint and a precedent for what he was trying to describe. The site was the California Chrysanthemum
Grower’s Association built in the early 50’s. The association is a mutual benefit business group of Japanese-
American immigrants started in the 20’s. The San Antonio project as a site mirrors the Fry’s site – the Chew
site – in many ways, being almost parallel to it but on a much smaller scale. It involves an underrepresented
history and community, a community that, like the Chinese-American community, immigrants were
discriminated in practice and in law, the Japanese Exclusion Act of the 20’s, the Chinese exclusion acts.
They banded together and built an industry which was significant to the entire Bay Area. They were
entrepreneurial like Mr. Chew. They found ways to address the discrimination against them, such as the
inability of their immigrant parents land to grow farming, cultivation products, similar to the Cannery. To do
that, they had to put the names in the titles of the American-born children. They got together to buy and
deal with the American local business community in a fairer way by sourcing things at scale.
Vice Chair Pease said he was referred to a planner to ask questions about why the decision was made to
include the use of laser measurements, which is a first that he knows of. Vice Chair Pease showed the
drawings of the inside, outside, top and bottom done by laser scans. He noted that the building on San
Antonio was also California Register-eligible, but not listed, in another parallel. He wondered why they could
not go beyond as-found photography and measures not defined by the architectural consultant in any detail.
In the original HABS world it was done with tape measures, pencils, and paper. Now it would be possible
to create point clouds of the entire structure so that if and when its integrity is destroyed and 40 percent of
it is demolished from this point forward if that data is protected and made appropriately available to all users
it could be used to create, for example, an interactive interpretive display, of what the building was like, how
massive, it’s features. He also suggested that this site and its history is potentially of national interest, and
education in Palo Alto should include some curriculum around this. Vice Chair Pease shared that growing
up Palo Alto schools, they heard all about many things – Father Serra, David Packard – but he never heard
a word about this. He was in the Cannery building multiple times with his father as a boy and had no idea
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 45
City of Palo Alto Page 10
what it was or where it came from and why it was built and the man that was responsible for it. He suggested
that, beyond HABS-like documentation, if you want younger generations, digital natives, to be interested in
any of it the way it’s being proposed in his understanding will not be particularly interesting. However, if the
data is generated and simple works are created out it in the near term and is made available to the creative
community and the historic community, someone might be able to build a virtual tour of it, which would be
far more interesting to those audiences.
Vice Chair Pease affirmed the public artwork and the artist selected, but felt they should think ahead to
audiences to Palo Alto, in California and beyond, who are part of another generation and who consume
information, data and concepts in a much different way. He noted his request did end up in the document,
in the matrix, in the staff report where it says, “Documentation prior to demolition, at least one Board
member noted that proper documentation of the existing building is a critical part of it being done before its
demolished.” It says that the applicant is considering looking at these technologies, and he would like to
understand more about how that process of consideration is going to work. He felt that should come back
to the Board at some time if it is serious work that is taking place. The process of consideration and looking
into it should be outlined before a decision is made about it.
Chair Willis invited the applicant to address this comment.
Ms. Raybould explained that if this is the interest of the Board then as part of their recommendations to
Council, they can ask for additional things that they think should be included as part of the project. To the
extent that it is agreed upon and moves forward, then it would go before the Council as part of the wording
of the development agreement that any additional specific things that they ask for that they’re agreeing to,
Council in their discretion can reinforce the recommendation of what they would like to see.
Vice Chair Pease said he still didn’t understand why what he was talking about was in the staff report, but
it was not mentioned in the presentation or in the architect’s presentation but was left out entirely. He said
some will do this individually or as a Board, but he wanted this to be discussed.
Mr. Davis responded that since Vice Chair Pease met with Tim and Robert in March, they had been in
touch with him to discuss different alternative ways of capturing data regarding the building in a digital
format, looking at possibilities based on things they have been involved in with other historic properties
either directly with ARG, or through engaging an expert sub-consultant. He mentioned Matterport which is
used on realty websites to do virtual tours of a given property and said there is a Matterport model for a
part of the building already that addresses virtual tour capabilities, so he felt that one option would be to
expand that model to encapsulate the whole building, but there are also other, more technical options as
well, which they are in the process of discussing with Sobrato.
Vice Chair Pease asked how long that process would take.
Mr. Davis responded that the initial priority is to satisfy the requirements of the EIR, so the HABS
documentation takes precedence but the digital documentation once the pathway is agreed upon is not a
time-consuming process. It is a matter of getting whatever cameras are needed onsite for 1 to 3 days of
documentation. Much of the time after that is spent on processing the data that’s been collected.
Vice Chair Pease asked if they would entertain conversations with experts on the current state of the
technology. He said Matterport is one of the early players, but there are a number of others which have
very different capabilities in terms of resolution and all sorts of interesting things happening about standards
in this regard. He felt that if they were going to explore, it would be useful to reach out beyond their own
firm’s expertise and to not assume that what they have is the best available technology and method for
capturing this at the highest level of resolution available today.
Mr. Davis agreed and said that one of the trickiest aspects in this part of the field is that technology is always
changing and advancing so it’s important to stay in the loop.
Vice Chair Pease asked how they would determine whether what they had was adequate or was the
highest level available.
Mr. Davis said he felt they were taking too much time on the issue. He said they have engaged consultants
in the past on very complex digital documentation undertakings at very high-profile historic properties, so
there were other things to focus on today, but he will be in touch with Tim and Robert and in whatever way
is appropriate with Vice Chair Pease directly to make sure they are headed in the right direction. He said
that they are not ingenues in those aspects of document.
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Vice Chair Pease responded that he didn’t think it was too much detail when talking about taking the building
down. Even if it’s not listed it will not be eligible according to all that was said, so he felt it was an important
aspect of the discussion.
Chair Willis agreed it was an important aspect, but felt they needed to make a recommendation to Council
and thought they could incorporate this subject in their recommendations. She asked for discussion on
other aspects of the project they want to bring forward to Council.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz said she was interested in seeing the post construction evaluation
put into the development agreement as was proposed in the presentation. She felt it was important to
evaluate the building post construction for Local listing or California Landmark status.
Board Member Rohman referred to a point raised by several of the speakers, that it does not appear that
the independent analysis of the adaptive reuse was done by an uninterested third party architect. It sounded
like the Sobrato architect evaluated the structure for adaptive reuse and found that for residential it would
need considerable revisions that would make it ineligible for historic register listing.
Ms. Raybould said this was not the case. She said they asked the applicant to prepare a visual of
realistically what a single story might look like to get a sense of what kind of changes might need to occur.
The City prepared the Environmental Impact Report and the analysis with an independent contractor –
Rincon Consultants – to evaluate adaptive use of the site.
Board Member Rohman asked if Rincon is in any way affiliated with Sobrato.
Ms. Raybould stated that they are not and said the City receives payment from Sobrato and hires
independently a third-party contractor.
Chair Willis commented that all are familiar with the need for housing, and she was thankful that they were
getting some. She wished it was responsive to the site in some way, rather than looking like it was cut out
of a set of different plans, but it would be good to have housing. She thought that the parkland would be a
lovely addition, especially in that part of town, and noted that agreeing to do the document was very much
appreciated. She liked many of the changes that were made to the plans. The window adjustment, getting
rid of the angled windows was a great change. She liked the way the back of the building, the parking
garage side, reads with the changes. She wished that the additions on the front of the monitor roof portion
of the building were not so prominent because they read as modern and not as original to any stage of the
building, of which there were many. She said the one-story part doesn’t bother her much but if there was
some way to adjust the two-story section, she finds it very distracting. She said that they need to
acknowledge that their initial historic analysis looked at the whole building, which is a composite of
buildings, but she strongly supported doing a new historic evaluation after the demolition. She felt the
monitor roof portion did not look like it was there on the 1925 survey, but it was definitely there in 1940
before the 1945 survey. It happened within the period of significance and is the strongest visual symbol of
the Cannery. She felt it would be eligible for the National Register and that it provides a strong, symbolic
image of what was there. She would personally prefer if they could mark the boundaries of the original
Cannery building, as it would be an interesting graphic to be able to see the extent to which it did grow.
Chair Willis reiterated that they would get more housing, and she didn’t really see expecting that the whole
composite of building stand as worth dying on the sword for. She thought if they could have one strong
historic element which was obviously a unique, separate entity, it would be a fitting token. She asked the
Board to put together a motion for their recommendation to Council. She suggested that they all agree on
documentation that would be HABS-like, that would be the entire building. She felt they needed to discuss
the park and how to make it accessible. She wondered if they should, as a group, focus more on historic
files as a resource. A second item to focus on would be the monitor roof building portions being added to
the National Register after the demolition and also the post construction analysis and documentation being
done. She felt the HRB could support portions of how they are treating the historic building and could also
support some requests.
Board Member Rohman felt it was an interesting opportunity, considering the project did not have to be
brought before them and thought although a tough issue, it does signify an option for partnership with
developers in the area, She felt they acted in good faith to preserve the integrity of part of the demolition
although she was not happy with the demolition of the other 40 percent. She noted that as a Board they
have to decide if they are preserving the building itself, or the history of the community that it represents.
She felt there is an opportunity with the status applications after the development to recognize the story of
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 47
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Thomas Chew and the Cannery and pay homage to that, because adding resources to the State register,
the National Register, does not have any interpretation or interpretive benefit. It simply adds them so they
are protected. With this, there is an opportunity to tell that story within the community and make that story
known. If the building was preserved as is and added to the Register, it will go on in perpetuity being not a
community landmark and not really having an effective use. She didn’t love the proposition but felt there
were some opportunities.
Board Member Wimmer agreed with Board Member Rohman regarding the spirit of keeping the historic
recognition of the site as what had occurred there. They have looked at the project before and talked at
length about the existing buildings and tried to define what the character-defining features are that lends it
to being a historic site. She also wanted to respect the speakers at the hearing. It is a difficult project in that
sense because their whole spirit of being on the Board is to preserve anything historic in their city. There is
a gray area, and hearing what the speaker had to say, she appreciated all that they represent and how they
feel. But as a Board they are in a hard spot because they are asked by staff to pass the project. Knowing
that, technically, it didn’t even have to come to them, they respect the fact that it was brought to them, so
that the Board can at least contribute their thoughts. Her thought was that the historic process and how
things are reviewed and classified as historic is troubled because the ordinance is not tight enough, not
protective enough. She feels that Board members struggle with this on the projects they review. Ms.
Raybould’s references to “significant and unavoidable impact” are accurate in that there will be those in this
project.
Board Member Wimmer said she relies upon the historic consultants and staff and feels that when a project
gets to this level and to a point where the Board is asked to comment and potentially approve, it’s an 11th
hour moment. People are still speaking against the Board approving it because it doesn’t follow the
ordinance, but if that is the case, then the ordinance is broken and more of a grassroots effort is needed.
Also, it takes a city and an owner like Sobrato trying to be respectful of the historic nature of the site.
However, it also involves development and development rights and the need for housing with many boxes
to check in what the City will allow and what eventually makes financial sense for them. She was glad they
had the chance to discuss this length. Since she is in the architectural field and does historic preservation
projects it’s a very tough building itself because it is a lightweight commercial industrial building and the
nature of the building was always supposed to be a Cannery, industrial. It was not meant for a high quality
level of use. It was more of an industrial workspace, so taking such a building and making it into a Class A
office space or a retail space is a big change of use. She summarized that these projects are difficult, and
they don’t want to lose their resources, but that is the challenge. Her view is that they need to strengthen
their process and their ordinance needs to protect their resources better.
Chair Willis said she wanted to attempt to craft a recommendation to Council. She said, ‘In reviewing this
project the HRB would like to advise Council to request of the applicant HABS-like documentation be
performed for the whole building for the entire structure. An appropriate repository should be established,
and post construction analysis should be conducted of the remaining structure in order to add the monitor
roof building section to the National Register; and the applicant look at additions to and separation from the
monitor roof building in order to enable eligibility for the National Register.”
Vice Chair Pease commented that Sobrato has done a good job and he is impressed by their work with
Thomas Foon Chew’s granddaughter. He felt that they have an opportunity to begin to set a standard for
situations like this, that would be valuable to the community going forward. Whatever their exploratory work
is around their final plan he advocated for them seeking out the most current information and expertise
available, including industry groups that are working on such things, a comprehensive request for proposal.
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz wanted to add that the post construction be evaluated for the Local
listing, California Landmark status and also California Point of Historical Interest status.
Ms. Murphy clarified that the building has not been evaluated for the National Register, only the California
Register. She distinguished the qualifications for National Register and California Register. The criteria
mirror each other, being basically identical. Something can be nominated for just the California Register.
When things are nominated and entered into the National Register, they are also automatically added to
the California Register. So the evaluative framework is essentially the same, except the question of integrity
is a little different between them. The listing processes are distinct.
Chair Willis wanted to try for the National Register and said it needed to be re-analyzed anyway following
the demolition and construction.
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Ms. Raybould asked for clarification from the attorney, Albert Yang, whether the HRB needed to actually
recommend, as the motion doesn’t make a recommendation to approve or deny the project, and she was
unsure it is required to do so. Mr. Yang didn’t believe a recommendation on the project was needed.
The draft of the motion was read:
The HRB advises Council to require HABS-like documentation for the entire Cannery structure and an
appropriate repository be established. A post-construction analysis shall be conducted of the remaining
structure in order to add the monitor roof building section to the National Register, evaluate for Local listing,
California Landmark status, State status and Historic Point of Interest status. The applicant shall look at
additions to and separations from the monitor roof building in order to enable eligibility for the National
Register of Historical Places.
Chair Willis asked if “monitor roof building” is clear because that building, the 340 building as noted on the
plans, is also a compilation of bldgs. She wondered if they needed to be clearer about that. She said she
really only cared about the monitor roof section.
Board Member Rohman remarked that it is Parcel 3 that encompasses the monitor roof section.
Chair Willis said she did not feel the same about the section that does not have the monitor roofs as the
section that does. She wondered about stating “the section of the building with the monitor roofs” instead
of “the monitor roof building.”
Board Member Rohman thought they should take which specific parcel out of the five since that’s the way
it’s drawn up in the plans.
Chair Willis wanted to state that it could be separated right after the monitor roofs in the middle of the
building.
Board Member Rohman said in that case it might not be ultimately not split up for their uses in that way.
The one picture of just the two buildings with the monitor roofs was in the staff report as well as the Sobrato
presentation.
Chair Willis asked that the wording be changed to “the monitor roof section.”
Ms. Raybould noted that the entire Environmental Impact Report concludes that is no longer eligible for the
California Register.
Chair Willis said they are concluding that the entire building is no longer eligible. Since a third of it will be
gone, she agreed with them. However, it has not been analyzed as a separate element.
Ms. Murphy noted that in undertaking an evaluation of a historic resource, they look at the whole building.
She understood the interest in wanting an evaluation of just the portion of the building, but the way that
evaluations are undertaken as guided by National Park Service and the Office of Historic Preservation is
that they look at the whole building. They cannot do an evaluation of just one piece of a building.
Motion by Chair Willis that the HRB advise Council to require HABS-like documentation for the entire
Cannery structure and establish an appropriate repository. Post-construction analysis shall be conducted
of the remaining structure in order to add the monitor roof building section to the National Register, evaluate
for Local listing, California Landmark status, and Historical Point of Interest status. The applicant shall look
at additions to and separations from the monitor roof section of the building in order to enable eligibility for
the National Register of Historic Places.
Vice Chair Pease felt that saying “HABS-like,” doesn’t go far enough. They are already doing that. It needs
to be augmented by the best technology available and practical.
Chair Willis suggested, “HABS-like documentation augmented by the best current documentation.
Ms. French noted this is an amendment suggestion to the motion to state “augmented by the best current
technology available.”
Board Member Rohman suggested that they recommend to Council that they require the developer to
submit it to Library of Congress through the HABS process, instead of HABS-like.
Ms. French asked for second and then there could be tweaking and proposals to the verbiage of the motion
and then the maker of the motion can accept them or not.
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Vice Chair Pease seconded the motion.
Chair Willis said that there are better ways of documenting things now, and HABS is labor intensive and
not necessarily advantageous.
Vice Chair Pease said the proposal is to use HABS as guidance. It will not qualify for HABS as is, he didn’t
believe, because that is behind the curve of what is going on. He was fine with using the guidelines, but it
needs to be augmented with what is now available.
Chair Willis accepted the motion with the addition of “augmented documentation.”
Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz suggested on part two, discussing post-construction evaluation,
rather than to say, “add it to the National Register,” to “Evaluate it for inclusion on the National Register.”
Ms. Raybould added, “Evaluate and nominate.”
Ms. French clarified the amendment and to change wording to, “Post-construction analysis to be conducted
of the remaining structure in order to evaluate it for inclusion and nomination on the monitor roof building
section to the National Register and the other listings.
Chair Willis thought this was fine.
The final motion as amended:
Motion by Chair Willis, seconded by Vice Chair Pease, that the HRB advise Council to require HABS-like
documentation augmented by the best current technology available, using HABS as guidance, for the entire
Cannery structure, and establish an appropriate repository for the information. Two, post construction
analysis to be conducted of the remaining structure in order to evaluate it for inclusion and nomination of
the monitor roof [2:20:04 gap] status. Three, the applicant shall look at additions to and separations from
the monitor roof section of the building in order to enable eligibility for the National Register of Historical
Places.
The motion passed (7-0) by roll call vote.
3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair and Modification of HRB Bylaws with regard to Elections.
Vice Chair Pease moved to nominate Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz for Chair. Seconded by Chair
Willis, the motion carried by voice vote.
Board Member Wimmer moved to nominate Board Member Rohman for Vice Chair. Seconded by Vice Chair
Pease, the motion carried by voice vote.
The Board discussed aligning the Bylaws to align the election cycle with Council’s appointment of new
Board members. The existing bylaws read: “The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected
from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one
year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in January of each year or
as soon thereafter as possible.” The proposed change to the HRB bylaws read: “Elections shall be held in
the first regular meeting in April of each year, or as soon thereafter as possible.”
The Board voted on the modification. The motion carried (7-0) by voice vote.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas
Board Member Heinrich reported that there is a PAST walking tour of Professorville on Saturday at 10:00.
They will meet at Cowper and Melville. More information can be found at the PAST website.
The Board discussed a date for the retreat and whether to aim for a Saturday or a Thursday. It was decided
that Board members will check their calendars and email Mr. French their availability on Saturdays.
The Board members briefly discussed content of the conversations for the retreat, including Mills Act and
community outreach.
The location of the retreat was discussed as well. Ms. French will investigate options for this. Chair Willis
wondered about the possibility of Cubberley.
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 50
City of Palo Alto Page 15
The possibility of early September was discussed as well.
Adjournment
Motion by Vice Chair Pease to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Heinrich, the motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
Item 5
Attachment A-HRB 5.25
Minutes
Packet Pg. 51