HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-28 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
Regular Meeting
Friday, July 28, 2023
Community Meeting Room & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Historic Resources Board 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
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
2.Historic Resources Board Evening Retreat Items for July 28, 2023
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 8, 2023
4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 22, 2023
BOARD MEMBER 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 Board.
You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to
the agenda item and time limit allotted.
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 Special Meeting July 28, 2023
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingFriday, July 28, 2023Community Meeting Room & Hybrid5:30 PMHistoric Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. 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
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
2.Historic Resources Board Evening Retreat Items for July 28, 2023
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 8, 2023
4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 22, 2023
BOARD MEMBER 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 Board.
You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to
the agenda item and time limit allotted.
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 Special Meeting July 28, 2023
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingFriday, July 28, 2023Community Meeting Room & Hybrid5:30 PMHistoric Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. 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 AssignmentsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Historic Resources Board Evening Retreat Items for July 28, 2023APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 8, 20234.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 22, 2023BOARD MEMBER 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 Board.
You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to
the agenda item and time limit allotted.
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 Special Meeting July 28, 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: July 28, 2023
Report #: 2306-1703
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 7
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Special Meeting Date: July 28, 2023
Report #: 2307-1778
TITLE
Historic Resources Board Evening Retreat Items for July 28, 2023 in City Hall Community Room
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the HRB conduct its retreat on the topic items previously planned as noted in
the agenda. The retreat was advertised as a special meeting to cover the potential topics cited
herein, but each item's start time is only suggested and may be modified.
Note that:
•Retreats include oral communication from members of the public on any item not on the
agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
•Members of the public may also speak to agenda items during the discussion of each item,
including during the final open session item.
AGENDA
On June 22, 2023, the HRB established the potential retreat topics as follows:
(1) Overview of 2023 Historic Reconnaissance Survey (after oral communications)
(2) Discussion of Existing Inventory Review and Consideration of Future Survey of
Properties 50-75 years old (6:00)
(3) Mills Act Program (6:20)
(4) Outreach (6:45)
(5) Housekeeping Items (7:15)
(6) Open Session (7:30)
BACKGROUND FOR DISCUSSION ITEMS
Staff has provided background content for the first four retreat agenda items. The fifth item is to
enable discussion of items HRB members believe are important to board functions, operations
and protocols. The open session is intended for general matters the board wishes to discuss that
were not previously noticed on the agenda, but no action may be taken.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 7
1. Overview of 2023 Historic Reconnaissance Survey
(a) Administrative draft received June 19, 2023 will soon be finalized and posted on the project
webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/2023-
Reconnaissance-Survey.
(b) List of properties previously found eligible for National Register in 2001 is on this page:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/historic-preservation/evaluation-tables-
clipped-from-1998-2000-survey.pdf
(c) Webpage about the 2023 survey project notes next steps and links to documents:
(d) Brief overview of administrative draft:
•165 properties found eligible for the National Register (NRHP) in 2001 and recorded in the Study Priority 1
list formed the basis of the properties surveyed for the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey.
•154 of these properties were included within the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey; 11 of these properties—
which have been listed to the Historic Inventory —were excluded.
•Since 2010, 13 properties have been identified as historic resources that are individually eligible for the
California Register (CRHR)
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 7
Item No. 2. Page 3 of 7
•167 properties surveyed and evaluated in the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey. Of these only four were not
awarded a final evaluation due to either ongoing construction, damage, or an inability to adequately view
the property from the public right-of-way.
•14 properties were found to have been demolished; two properties were found to have been altered
enough to result in a loss of historic integrity and are thus no longer eligible historic resources.
•The remaining 147 properties reviewed and found to retain their historic significance and integrity and
thus their eligibility for listing in either the NRHP or CRHR
(e) Next Steps: prepare letters and set date for second Community Meeting. Video of first
community meeting captured on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CST-anoDAKw
2. Discussion of Existing Inventory Review and Consideration of Future Survey of Properties
50-75 years old
(a)Existing inventory properties have changed, some have been demolished; consider
evaluation to determine integrity/category relevant to existing inventory (look at existence
and cat 3 and 4’s); explore partnership with PAST. The City’s webpage has the list of
properties on the inventory: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-
services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/city-historic-inventory-list.pdf
(b)Access to inventory forms: Public can’t see inventory forms on city website (just on PAST
webpages)
(c)Next survey: Properties built after 1947 until 1973 are in the range to be studied (3 decades
of modern era properties needing reconnaissance); prepare for a four-year project.
Compare to Dames and Moore survey that began in 1997 and was completed in 2001:
o Survey goal - identify additional properties eligible for National Register (NRHP)
o Reconnaissance 6,600 properties built before 1947 - two Study Priority lists
▪Study Priority 1 (SP1): 600 properties appeared individually eligible (IE)
for NRHP under Criterion C (Architecture) at the local level of significance.
▪Study Priority 2 (SP2): 2,700 properties that did not appear to be IE NRHP
under Criterion C but retained high integrity and were thought may be
eligible for listing on the California Register (CRHR) for local significance.
o Intensive-level survey of all SP1 and SP2 properties
o SP1: Historic research conducted (owners, architects/builders, past uses)
o Preparation of historic context statements to i.d. any potential significant
associations of SP2 properties; Topics included local property types,
significant historical themes, and prolific architects and builders.
o The interim findings report listed preliminary evaluations of NRHP and CRHR
eligibility of SP1 and SP2 properties. 291 properties were found potentially
eligible as individual resources to the NRPR and CRHR. An additional 1,789
properties were found potentially eligible for CRHR only. The survey update
effort concluded with California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523
forms prepared for those 291 properties that initially appeared NRHP eligible
o Of the 291 properties, 165 were ultimately found NRHP eligible
(d) Considerations: Council direction and authorization needed for next survey, hiring a historic
preservation planner, budget, consultants, and volunteers; consider applying for CLG grant
(Modern Era Context Statement).
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 8
Item No. 2. Page 4 of 7
3. Mills Act Program
(a) Past HRB packets included the most recent version of the Mills Act Pilot Program. The
document is attached to this report for reference during the retreat.
(b) HRB’s 23-24 workplan goal 5 shows the third quarter targeted to finalize the Tailored Mills
Act Program outreach approach and bring forward a program report to City Council.
4. Outreach
(a) Materials: Boardmember Rohman has assessed outreach materials and considered a plan
and methods for community outreach including partnering with PAST.
(b) Realtors: Engaging the real estate community including speaking at SLVAR events
(c) Project Reviews: See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-
Preservation/Project-Review; PAMC Chapter 16.49
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/overview#JD_Chapter16.49
(d) Review Bulletin (outdated) HRB approved in 2016, history/issues discussed 6/22/23:
(i) update to reflect Comprehensive Plan policy L7.2 and note the meaning of potentially
eligible in parcel reports
(ii) discuss Eichler Tracts – these are shown in Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design
Guidelines that Council adopted April 2, 2018: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-
amp-development-services/eichler-neighood-design-guidelines/2018-04-02_palo-alto-eichler-design-
guidelines_adopted-design-guidelines.pdf
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 9
Item No. 2. Page 5 of 7
The map on page 16 of the Guidelines shows the two National Register Eichler tracts:
•Adopted Eichler guidelines are housed in the current planning section where applicants
are directed to find forms and guidelines to assist them plan remodels etc
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Ordinances-Maps-
Guidelines-Standards
•Greenmeadow National Historic District nomination and history viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Historic-
Districts/Greenmeadow-Historic-District
•Green Gables National Historic District nomination and history viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Historic-
Districts/Green-Gables-Historic-District
(iii) recognize local districts vs. national districts
Professorville Guidelines www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-
services/current-planning/final-professorville-design-guidelines-11-3-2016.pdf Page 13 of these guidelines
shows a map indicating the local district and smaller national district within the local
district.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 10
Item No. 2. Page 6 of 7
(iv) Consider review categories given above; the outdated bulletin divides into two;
staff will prepare a presentation to enable real-time modifications brainstorming
o Group A resources: Inventory Category 1’s and 2’s citywide and Categories 3’s
and 4’s in the Downtown, located in Historic Districts, Professorville or Ramona
Street, not including the Eichler Districts (not individually determined). Group A
resources need to be reviewed pursuant to Secretary of the Interior standards
for discretionary applications such as individual review, two-story home review,
variances, home improvements exceptions, et cetera, and architectural review if
not a single-family home. If there are impacts from non-minor alterations that
are not compatible with SOIS, the application is referred to the HRB for review
and comment.
o Group B resources: Inventory Categories 3 and 4, located outside of the
Downtown and Professorville. Some are listed on the National and State
registers. One question is whether there are some listed there that are not on
the inventory.
o Evaluations are not done for interested buyers, only for property owners, who
have to pay for the evaluation, and staff deals directly with the consultant. Once
a property is determined California Register eligible, it is then considered a
Group B resource. If it is not determined eligible, the ‘potentially eligible’ note is
removed from the system and replaced with ‘found ineligible’ as it is not
considered a resource.
5. Housekeeping Items
(a) HRB meetings
(i) Venue: Consider the Community Meeting Room for evening meetings?
(ii) Time: Consider evening meetings once per month or possibly per quarter?
(b) Work Plan targets/goals review (staff slide)
(c) Receive slides regarding prior draft ordinance for future item on PAMC 16.49
ATTACHMENTS
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 11
Item No. 2. Page 7 of 7
Attachment A: Tailored Mills Act Program Document
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 12
MILLS ACT
TAILORED PROGRAM OUTLINE
January
2018 Prepared by the City of Palo Alto & the Historic Resources Board
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 13
1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................2
Tailored Program Summary......................................................................................................................2
Role of the Applicant ................................................................................................................................3
Role of Planning Department....................................................................................................................3
Role of Historic Resources Board..............................................................................................................3
Role of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office............................................................................................3
Role of California Office of Historic Preservation .....................................................................................3
Mills Act State Policy ....................................................................................................................................4
State Criteria for Eligibility........................................................................................................................4
State Contract Requirements ...................................................................................................................4
Proposed Local Mills Act Policy ...................................................................................................................5
Local Mills Act Criteria for Eligibility .........................................................................................................5
Local Mills Act Program Regulations.........................................................................................................5
Term Limitations.................................................................................................................................5
Tax Redirection Limitations.................................................................................................................5
Property Value Limitations..................................................................................................................5
Ranking System...................................................................................................................................6
Cancellation Penalty............................................................................................................................6
Fees.....................................................................................................................................................6
Submittal Date ....................................................................................................................................6
Local Mills Act Contract Requirements.....................................................................................................7
HRB Review.........................................................................................................................................7
Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan.................................................................................................7
Eligible Work ..................................................................................................................................7
Ineligible Work...............................................................................................................................8
Tax Redirection ...................................................................................................................................8
Property Inspection.............................................................................................................................8
Application Checklist ....................................................................................................................................9
Figure 1. Mills Act Contract Timeline............................................................................................................6
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 14
2
INTRODUCTION
Enacted by the State of California in 1972, the Mills Act grants participating local governments
the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively
participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving
property tax relief (CGC 12.50280-50290, CRTC 1.9.439-439.4). It is the “single most important
economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified
historic buildings by private property owners.”1
An important feature of the Mills Act program is its flexibility. Although the State has certain
requirements that must be included in all individual Mills Act policies, the program allows
jurisdictions to develop additional requirements to insure that unique local goals and needs are
met. By implementing a tailored Mills Act program in Palo Alto, with finely tuned eligibility
criteria and contract requirements, the City can both incentive the thoughtful preservation of
our shared heritage and wisely address the community’s priorities and needs. Tailored
programs have been successfully adopted in other California cities that have similar
complications like high property values and schools supported by Basic Aid.2
Tailored Program Summary
The Tailored Mills Act Program for Palo Alto will be program, where all tax relief received by a
property owner will be reinvested in the rehabilitation, preservation or restoration of the
historic property. Work will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
and will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards). Mills Act contracts
will be open to all property types but will be limited in length, the maximum being 15 years. For
educational purposes, property owners will be required to fund, with tax redirection, and
display an interpretive panel along the public right of way that is visible to the public. The Mills
Act program is voluntary and requires owner consent.
COMMUNITY P RIORITIES AND NEEDS ADDRESSED BY THE TAILORED MILLS ACT PROGRAM
1. contributes to Affordable Housing
3. safeguards a Sense of Place
5. fosters Civic Pride
7. protects Palo Alto’s History
9. provides Preservation Incentive
2. encourages Seismic Safety
4. promotes Heritage Tourism
6. preserves Neighborhood Character
8. supports Environmentally Conscious
Development
1 California Office of Historic Preservation, “Mills Act Program,” http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412.
2 Other nearby communities with successful Mills Act programs includes Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Saratoga, Los Altos,
San Jose and Campbell. Cities that have both basic aid school districts and Mills Act program include Beverley Hills, Campbell,
Los Altos and Saratoga.
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 15
3
Role of the Applicant
The Applicant is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property during the
duration of the Mills Act contract and must follow the approved Rehabilitation and
Maintenance plan. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining appropriate documents,
signatures and recordation attachments as well as associated fees prior to work and successful
contract recordation.
Role of the Planning Department
The Planning Department oversees all Mills Act applications and monitors existing Mills Act
properties. The Historic Preservation Planner will work with property owners to complete their
applications and develop rehabilitation and maintenance plans that are specific to each
property. The Planning Department will keep the applicant(s) informed throughout the year, as
the application moves forward through HRB review, City Council and the Assessor’s Office.
Once a Mills Act contract is entered into, all subsequent work on the property during the
duration of the contract will require staff approval which includes compliance with the
Standards.
Role of the Historic Resources Board
The HRB will first hold a hearing to consider a recommendation to City Council whether to
approve, modify or deny the initial Mills Act application. Once a Mills Act contract is entered
into, all subsequent work on the property during the duration of the contract will require staff
approval. If staff determines proposed work does not comply with the Standards, staff will
refer the application to the HRB.
Role of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office
The role of the Assessor’s Office is to locate and accurately assess all taxable property Palo Alto
and also serve as the county’s official record-keeper of documents such as deeds, liens, maps
and property contracts. In a Mills Act Historical Property contract, the Assessor’s Office assesses
qualified properties based on a state prescribed approach and records the fully executed
contract. All Mills Act properties will receive an initial valuation during the application process
and will be assessed annually by the January 1st lien date and in subsequent years, as required
by state law. The State Board of Equalization has strict guidelines the assessor must follow in
order to value Mills Act properties (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 439.2).
Role of the California Office of Historic Preservation
OHP provides Mills Act information to local governments and uses information provided by
local governments to maintain a list of communities participating in the Mills Act program as
well as copies of Mills Act ordinances, resolutions, and contracts that have been adopted. OHP
does not participate in the contract negotiations, is not a signatory to the contract and has no
authority over the administration of the Mills Act program.
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 16
4
MILLS ACT STATE POLICY
Effective March 7, 1973, Chapter 1442 of the Statutes of 1972 (also known as the Mills Act)
added sections 50280 through 50289 to the Government Code to allow an owner of qualified
historical property to enter into a preservation contract with local government. When property
is placed under such a contract, the owner agrees to restore the property if necessary, maintain
its historic character, and use it in a manner compatible with its historic characteristics.
State Criteria for Eligibility
As set forth in California’s Government Code 50280.1, a property is eligible for the Mills Act as
follows: “Qualified historical property” for purposes of this article, means privately owned
property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
(b) Listed in any state, city, county or city and county official register of historical or
architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks.
State Contract Requirements
As set forth by California Government code 50281, the following requirements must be
included in the language of any Mills Act contract:
(a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years.
(b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:
(1) For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary,
to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and
regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks
and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code.
(2) For the periodic examinations of the interior and exterior of the premises by
the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board
of Equalization as may be necessary to determine the owner’s compliance
with the contract.
(3) For it to be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of all successors in interest
of the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and
obligations under the contract as the original owner who entered into the
contract.
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 17
5
PROPOSED LOCAL MILLS ACT POLICY
The proposed Tailored Mills Act Program must include all the State contract requirements
above. In addition, staff is proposing to include the following more restrictive criteria to balance
historic preservation with the significant competing goals of the community, which is allowed
under the State’s Mills Act program.
Local Mills Act Criteria for Eligibility
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local modifications of the term “qualified
historical property” which will be defined as any property that meets any of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal
Regulations;
(b) Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources;
(c) Listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as Category 1 through 4, as defined in Section
16.49.020 of PAMC (b); or
(d) Contributing to a Local Historic District, as defined in Section 16.49.020 of PAMC (c).
Local Mills Act Program Regulations
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local regulations, which do not invalidate
State requirements:
(a) Term Limitations: Mills Act Contracts will have a minimum term of ten years and a
maximum term of 15 years. This is accomplished by the City issuing a notice of
nonrenewal in the 5th year of the agreement, after which the remaining 10-year
term of the contract occurs before the agreement formally terminates. During the
10 year phase-out period, the property tax benefits enjoyed by the Mills Act
property gradually decrease until they reach the full regularly assessed value of the
property at the end of the final year (Figure 1).
(b) Tax Redirection Limitations: A limit will be set on the total tax redirection that can be
associated with Mills Act properties. Program impact on City revenues will be
limited to $150,000/year, to be adjusted annually in amount equivalent to the
percent change of the overall assessed valuation of the City for the previous year,
excluding those properties that have been issued a notice of nonrenewal.
(c) Property Value Limitations: A limit will be set on total property value that would be
eligible for Mills Act contract. Pre-contract assessed valuation limits will be
$5,000,000 or less for residential and $10,000,000 or less for commercial.3
3 To be adjusted for inflation
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 18
6
Figure 1. Mills Act Contract Timeline
(c) Ranking System: A ranking system will be employed by the HRB when reviewing Mills
Act applications that is based on community priorities and needs and utilizes the
criteria listed below. Staff considers that the scope of the required rehabilitation
plan will ensure that all applications for a Mills Act will bestow a major public benefit
on the community by extensively rehabilitating and maintaining historic properties.
Public access to private homes is not a requirement. A higher ranking will be given
to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act contract:
▪Will result in more affordable housing units;
▪Will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition,
deterioration, abandonment and/or general neglect;
▪Will result in the greatest number of improvements to the historic property,
resulting in the greatest benefit to the public.
(d) Cancellation Penalty: Noncompliance with the provisions of a Mills Act contract will
result in either legal action against the owner or contract cancellation. A contract
may be cancelled if the City determines that the owner has breached any of the
conditions of the contract or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point
that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historical property. The contract
may also be canceled it is determined that the owner has failed to restore or
rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in the contract. No contract shall
be canceled until property owner has been properly noticed and a public hearing is
held. If the contract is cancelled, the owner must pay a penalty of 12.5% of the
market value of the property at the time of cancellation, per state law.4 The
cancellation fee shall be paid to the City Tax Collector at such time and in such
manner as the City shall prescribe.
(e) Fees: Initial permit and planning fees will be waived for Mills Act participants. There
will be no application fee for submitting a Mills Act contract application but a one-
time activation fee of $250 will be required if the contract is selected and initiated.
4 California Government Code, Article 12, Section 50286
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 19
7
(f) Submittal Date: Applications will only be accepted and approved during the month
of June in any given year in order to allow sufficient time for the City and Assessor’s
Office to determine the cumulative financial impact, to record contracts prior to
January 1st in any given year and to reduce the cost of processing applications.
Local Mills Act Contract Requirements
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local additions to the State’s contract
requirements:
(a)HRB Review: All Mills Act applications, including rehabilitation and maintenance
plans and subsequent work, will be reviewed and approved by the Historic
Resources Board.
(b)Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plans: A rehabilitation and maintenance plan will
be required to be submitted for attachment to the Mills Act contract. All work
performed must conform to the rules and regulations of the California Office of
Historic Preservation, including compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and the State Historic Building Code. The rehabilitation plan must include
restoration of the identified character defining features of the property and the
removal or compatible replacement of incompatible alterations. The rehabilitation
plan can include exterior and interior work that has been pre-approved. Qualified
rehabilitation and restoration work that commenced up to two years before the
establishment of the contract may be indicated on the ten-year rehabilitation plan.
An annual report detailing the rehabilitation and restoration work performed during
the past year along with the overall cost of the work performed will also be
required. In general, work that is directly related to the repair or improvement of
structural and architectural features of the historic building will qualify. Examples of
eligible and ineligible work include but are not limited to:
Eligible Work
▪Seismic upgrading
▪Foundation repair
▪Re-roofing and downspout restoration
▪Exterior siding and trim repair and restoration
▪Historic windows repair and restoration
▪Paint exterior
▪Removal of inappropriate additions and construction
▪Plumbing system upgrades
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 20
8
▪Electrical system upgrades
▪Original door, hardware and other features restoration
▪Front iron fencing restoration
▪Chimney stabilization
▪Consulting/Professional fees (limit this?)
▪Repair and restoration of original interior features (like original built-ins
and woodwork) must get HRB approval to be considered eligible
▪HVAC systems (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)
▪Solar panels must be essential to the operation or maintenance of the
rehabilitated historic building and must get HRB approval to be
considered eligible5
Ineligible Work
▪New construction and additions
▪Landscaping
▪Homeowner labor
▪Acquisition/furnishing costs
▪Parking lot
(c)Tax Redirection: All tax savings must be redirected into rehabilitation work for the
property and the anticipated construction must be equal to or greater than tax
savings.
(d)Property Inspection: The property will be inspected annually/ every two years/
dependent on work proposed by the Historic Preservation Planner (accompanied by
the Building Official if necessary) to determine compliance with the Mills Act
contract and approved Rehabilitation and Maintenance plan.
(e)Educational Component: For educational purposes, property owners will be required
to fund, with tax redirection, and display an interpretive panel along the public right
of way that is visible to the community. The panel will include information on the
history and architectural merit of the home for the public to enjoy. The property will
also be used for exterior home tours at the discretion of the City and other
promotional material with proper notification.
5 See National Park Service, Historic Tax Credit Qualified Expenses explanation on solar panels. Generally, HVAC
features are included as eligible cost so the function and purpose of a renewable energy system will determine if
it is an eligible expense. Systems that produce electricity to back feed the power grid may not qualify
(https://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/before-apply/qualified-expenses.htm).
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 21
9
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Item 2
Attachment A Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 22
Item No. 3. 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: July 28, 2023
Report #: 2307-1761
TITLE
Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 8, 2023
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
BACKGROUND
Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):
•June 8, 2023
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: HRB 6.08 Minutes
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 23
City of Palo Alto Page 1
``
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz; Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Gogo
Heinrich, and Margaret Wimmer
Absent: Board Members Caroline Willis, Christian Pease, and Michael Makinen
Public Comment
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
Study Session
2. Study Session to Review the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Sheldon Ah-Sing, Principal Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Draft North Ventura Coordinated
Area Plan. He explained that City Council initiated the process for a coordinated area plan for the North
Ventura area back in November of 2017. Goals and objectives were established, along with consultants
and staff. The Plan is community-based, with community involvement. The City Council appointed members
to the working group which has met and discussed components of the plan, leading to alternatives that
were presented to the PTC. The PTC recommended alternatives for their endorsement of a preferred plan
in January of 2022. Since then staff has worked with their consultant to develop a draft plan. Further
refinements of the endorsement from the Council were established late last year. Along the timeframe
there have been other projects in the plan area submitted, “pipeline projects,” which are not subject to the
plan until it becomes adopted. Projects afterwards would be subject to the plan.
Mr. Ah-Sing explained the objectives of the study session, including receiving feedback on the draft
document as it relates to historical resources. Community workshops have been held, numerous working
group meetings, stakeholder group meetings, online surveys, meetings with previous decision-makers,
including City Council, the Historic Resources Board, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Ah-Sing shared six items which need to be incorporated into the Plan, including location of proposed
land use designations; proposed public and private improvements; development of regulations, Public
Works projects; site design and architectural standards and criteria for private development; determination
of the economic feasibility of the Plan; and environmental review with maximum extent feasible tiering
from the Comprehensive Plan. The Draft Plan is substantially consistent with goals adopted from the
Council. There were also adopted objectives that the working group, staff and consultant followed when
preparing the document, including using a data-driven approach; inclusion of meaningful community
engagement; creating a comprehensive user-friendly document and implementation; determining economic
feasibility; providing a guide and strategy for staff and decision-makers; and compliance with California
Environmental Quality Act.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: June 8, 2023
Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom
8:30 A.M.
Item 3
HRB 06 08 2023 draft
minutes
Packet Pg. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The NVCAP Plan Area includes 60 acres bounded by Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road to the north; El
Camino Real to the west; Lambert Avenue to the south; and the Caltrain rail corridor to the east. There are
mixed uses including established single-family neighborhoods; El Camino Real, a commercial corridor;
industrial and office. Notable sites in the Plan area include the Matadero Creek channel and the buildings
associated with the Cannery. The Council-endorsed plan, preferred alternative, includes a 20-year period
build-out; 530 dwelling units; greater densities along El Camino Real and Park Blvd and no minimum or
maximum parking because of the adjacency to the Caltrain Station. They are also looking at moving the
concrete channel and widening the corridor as well as adaptive reuse of the cannery building.
Mr. Ah-Sing explained that the NVCAP represents a rare opportunity within the City of Palo Alto to plan
proactively for transit-oriented, mixed use, mixed income, and a walkable neighborhood. Components of
the plan include Chapter 1, describing background of the area; Chapter 2 describing the framework and
vision for the area; Chapter 3 to 6 are the meat of the document that include the design standards to be
applied. This includes the public realm, streets, parks and open space and building standards. Chapter 7
describes the implementation of the plan.
Mr. Ah-Sing stated that they expect a lot of transition in this area from the existing commercial that would
be reduced and replaced overall with more residential. There would be some new, limited office spaces,
maximum 5,000 square-feet. Existing uses would be grandfathered, so that as the market turns over, the
vision would come to fruition. Parcels currently zoned commercial will become mixed use zoning or
residential. The Plan anticipates 530 additional units at buildout.
Mr. Ah-Sing brought the Historic Resources aspect more into focus, stating that the NVCAP does support
the adaptive reuse of the cannery building that would be consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards
for treatment of historic properties. Currently, there is some office and some vacancy, but as the market
would allow, they would expect this to be turned over to residential or perhaps other commercial. Additional
analysis would be required to determine the feasibility based on the proposed use.
An implementation action is included in the plan, that within the first year after adoption of the Plan, there
would be exploration of initiation of the California or National Register, or local inventory as appropriate as
determined by the Council, for the cannery and the Ash office building, the two sites previously identified
as being eligible for historic designation.
Allowable building heights in the Plan range from two to five stories, slightly higher along El Camino Real
as well as Park, and an affordable housing site is identified across from the cannery, on Portage Avenue,
the private drive adjacent to the cannery could also be a site that could also go up to five stories. A minimum
of 15-foot ceiling heights would be expected for the ground floor in mixed use buildings to allow for more
commercial space and amenity space. That height would expect to transition lower to lower-density
residential areas. Regarding environmental review, adoption of the plan would require a supplemental EIR
that tiers from the Comprehensive Plan EIR. A notice of preparation was released in March, 2023. The next
step is to release a public draft of the Supplemental EIR for public comment for a period of 45 days.
Mr. Ah-Sing noted that study sessions were held with the PTC and the ARB last week. Follow-up will be
done on zoning components. The PTC is identified as a recommending body, and they are seeking feedback
from the ARB and the HRB for the PTC to consider. The Draft EIR will be released for public review. All of
the feedback will be collected and developed into a final NVCAP document and EIR, request a
recommendation from the Planning Commission, followed by Council adoption in the fall of 2023.
Mr. Ah-Sing recognized that there are guidelines and standards throughout the Plan, it does make sense
that in Chapter 2, a subsection has been added about historic resources weighing in a little more than in
the past, to set forth the context. Mr. Ah-Sing noted that staff was seeking HRB feedback on the Draft Plan
as it relates to historic resources.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments from the public. There were no public comments.
Board Member Heinrich asked if the Sobrato project has been superimposed onto the NVCAP showing the
housing that they are proposing versus the housing being recommended. Mr. Ah-Sing responded that he
is familiar with their plan and was part of the City’s negotiating team early on. At that time he had the
backdrop of the NVCAP in the back of his mind and tried to bring those ideas forward as much as possible..
Item 3
HRB 06 08 2023 draft
minutes
Packet Pg. 25
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Board Member Heinrich asked if the Draft NVCAP would be updated to show plans already in the pipeline.
Mr. Ah-Sing replied that the idea with the NVCAP is that it is a community-based plan, so they need to
show the preferred plan that the Council had endorsed, while understanding that there will be plans or
projects that come through even after adoption of the Plan, and it is not the intent to update the document
in that way.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said it looks like there are higher-density or modifications proposed to the size
of the cannery building. She asked if this was part of the adaptive reuse. She wondered what the boundaries
of the cannery building use are as far as the plan is concerned. Mr. Ah-Sing stated that the Council’s
direction was to have an adaptive reuse. There wasn’t a specific submittal that would show something
otherwise, but it would need to be consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards. The intent is that
the footprint would be the same. Looking at the character-defining features, the walls, et cetera, would
have to remain the same. The roof, other than the monitor roofs, are probably not as defined so there may
be some possibilities for sunroofs or something to get light in, but the intent was not to expand the footprint
at all.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted her appreciation that the Plan includes listing of the structure at the
outset.
Board Member Wimmer asked if the plan in the packet is the preferred plan. Mr. Ah-Sing confirmed that
was correct. Board Member Wimmer referred to packet page 55 and stated there are interesting notes
about energy efficient buildings, green stormwater infrastructure, enhanced urban forest, celebrating
history, community open space. She asked if other portions of the preferred plan other than what is already
in place, the residential area, would eventually transition into something more in keeping with the overall
plan. Mr. Ah-Sing responded that the Plan indicates more of what could be the case 20 years from now.
Board Member Wimmer thought then that there may eventually be other applications that come to the
City. She asked if Sobrato owns the property or just owns the rights to develop the property. Mr. Ah-Sing
replied that Sobrato owns about 15 to 16 acres, including the Cannery, the big parking lot of which the
creek is a portion, the Audi building, the sliver going out to Lambert behind the cannery. He thought that
the part they do not own includes the gym, which is an option for them to purchase.
Board Member Wimmer asked if Sobrato is aware of the City’s preferred plan and hoped that they are being
respectful of that. Mr. Ah-Sing noted that this is true and that one of the Sobrato group is in the working
group, and they are familiar with the NVCAP plan.
Board Member Rohman asked about the community feedback and the sentiment of the community
garnered from the meetings. Mr. Ah-Sing noted that he wasn’t involved with that aspect of the project, but
when they went to the Council as recently as last year some people wanted more units, some people
wanted less. They did not want office. Opinions were quite varied, and it was unlikely that they could make
everyone happy.
Board Member Rohman asked about comments with respect to the historic resources. Mr. Ah-Sing asked
one of their staff members to respond to this. Chitra Moitra replied that there was mixed feeling about the
cannery building, but on the whole people generally preferred to maintain the outward structure of the
building and the adaptive reuse of the building.
Board Member Wimmer referred to packet page 63 and asked what “active edge” refers to along Oregon
Expressway and possibly Park. Mr. Ah-Sing explained that active edge has to do with more of a pedestrian-
oriented types of uses on the ground floor. It could be retail or other types of service-oriented uses. In
residential cases, it could be amenity or recreational space on the ground floor. Along El Camino Real it’s
more likely there would be spaces there, so there is more of a requirement there. In other areas it is
encouraged.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the majority of this is in “encouraged active edge,” or “acquired active
edge.” Mr. Ah-Sing responded it is “encouraged.” Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if there has been
discussion about whether the historic designation of the site would include the cannery building proper or
also the Ash Street office building. Mr. Ah-Sing thought it included both.
Item 3
HRB 06 08 2023 draft
minutes
Packet Pg. 26
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Board Member Heinrich asked about the Portage Avenue woonerf and if there is any example of this
currently in Palo Alto. Ms. French responded that there is a woonerf at the main Rinconada Library which
extends between the Art Center, between the Community Garden and the Library.
Board Member Heinrich wondered if there would be a soft introduction to the community about the use of
the woonerf. Ms. French thought that as development occurs and woonerfs occur, there will be opportunity
to help educate the public on how to use it. Mr. Ah-Sing said the hope was that the design would help
people learn how to use it. Ms. French encouraged Board Members to visit the woonerf behind the Library,
as it is a nice example. She wasn’t aware of studies about how such a space is used, but she imagined it
would be used more by pedestrians as opposed to vehicles.
Board Member Wimmer asked what consideration or impact is coming from the Caltrain and the possible
future high-speed rail that has been discussed over recent years since the property borders the Caltrain
tracks. Mr. Ah-Sing noted that CEQA would be the tool for that and would definitely be part of the
evaluation.
Board Member Wimmer asked about the individual property owners highlighted in the report and when
they go to sell their property. She wondered what the impact on them would be, living in this environment
of development around them, if there might be a type of eminent domain that would occur. Mr. Ah-Sing
said there would be no eminent domain. For properties on Pepper and Olive, for the most part the Plan
expects those to remain as is. Perhaps at the peripheries as they abut the properties along El Camino Real,
they are sensitive to the transition of future buildings and height, but the rest would likely remain the same.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited further questions or comments.
Board Member Wimmer commented that the packets are interesting, and she wished she had more time
to read them, but during the meeting and after the presentation, the packet acquires more meaning. She
loved the old historic photographs and their value in the packets.
Board Member Heinrich appreciated the fact that the designation for the cannery and other buildings will
be considered by Sobrato in the future for their inclusion in the federal, state and local registers.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked what was needed following the discussion. Ms. French advised that this
is the HRB’s opportunity to comment on the project. Mr. Ah-Sing added that the EIR will be published in
late summer, and anyone can respond to that. There may be opportunity, when they go to the Council, if
any representative from the Board would want to attend that meeting, it may be something to work out.
Ms. French noted that she will send Board members the link to the EIR once it is published. As individuals,
they can review it. Comments are welcome. The next process after the Draft EIR would be a Final EIR
where comments and questions and correspondence would be addressed in the final EIR. As Liaison to the
HRB, Ms. French said she is happy to keep Board Members apprised of when it is going to various
commissions, such as Planning Commission, for their recommendation to Council on the plan. There can
also be an opportunity for representation from the HRB at the Planning and Transportation Commission as
well.
Approval of Minutes
3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 11, 2023.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments/changes to the minutes.
Motion by Board Member Wimmer to approve the draft minutes of May 11, 2023. Seconded by Board
Member Rohman.
Since Board Member Heinrich needed to abstain, there was not a quorum, and approval of the May 11,
2023, minutes will be deferred until the next meeting.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas
Ms. French announced the next meeting will be June 22nd. She is preparing a report regarding the Review
Bulletin to facilitate discussion and understanding about the current permit processes related to historic
resources. Topics for the retreat could also be on the agenda, looking at a Friday evening as opposed to a
Saturday for the convenience of many Board members as well as recording of the meeting and participation
Item 3
HRB 06 08 2023 draft
minutes
Packet Pg. 27
City of Palo Alto Page 5
by all Board members and staff. A target date is July 28th. She asked for an indication from the Board
members present, all of which felt that this date would work. If this works with the remaining members,
the regular meeting date the prior day would be cancelled. For the July 14th, the Chair will be absent, so it
may be cancelled as well. Ms. French asked the other Board members to let her know their thoughts on
vacating this date.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz felt that agendizing the discussion of retreat topics was a good idea.
Board Member Wimmer commented that she was on California Avenue the day before, where they are
painting murals in the middle of the street intersections. One is being painted this week, and she thought
there would be a dedication on Friday evening. She remarked that this is a woonerf happening on California
Avenue. There is no parking on the streets, and it is more dining and open public use. One big semi-
permanent street mural was painted in the intersection. It will eventually wear off as people walk over it.
She found it very interesting. Ms. French said there were opportunities to provide feedback on the user
experience. She thought there was a QR code with which to provide comments to the group studying the
idea.
Board Member Heinrich announced there will be another PAST tour on Saturday of the Birge Clark buildings
on Stanford Campus at 10:00. Information is available on their website.
Adjournment
Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Heinrich, the motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 a.m.
Item 3
HRB 06 08 2023 draft
minutes
Packet Pg. 28
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: July 28, 2023
Report #: 2307-1762
TITLE
Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 22, 2023
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
BACKGROUND
Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):
•June 22, 2023
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: HRB 6.22 Minutes
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 29
City of Palo Alto Page 1
``
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz; Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Gogo
Heinrich, Christian Pease, Caroline Willis and Margaret Wimmer
Absent: Board Member Michael Makinen [planned absence]
Public Comment
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
Ms. French noted that the July meetings of the 13th and the 27th will be cancelled. The retreat is planned
for Friday evening, the 28th, to be held in the Community Meeting Room at 5:00. Dinner will be provided
for the Board members. Agenda items will begin promptly at 5:30. The public will be welcome to offer oral
communications. Ms. French shared that Board Member Makinen will be trying to attend the retreat. This
date and time was agreeable to the Board members.
2. Discussion and Refinement of Topics for HRB Retreat
Ms. French posted the previously-discussed suggestions for retreat topics. She added that an initial draft
on the inventory update process was received the previous day. The four potential retreat topics previously
discussed included status of the inventory update; Mills Act Program; updates to the review process
Bulletin; and outreach. Regarding the Inventory Update, completion is planned for 2023. Starting in
September there will be meetings which will involve this project, working towards getting cover letters
together, and a fall community meeting. Of the 167 properties checked, 14 properties have been found to
be demolished and two were altered enough to result in a loss of integrity and are no longer eligible. The
remaining 147 properties were found to retain historic significance and integrity and their eligibility for
listing. The HRB will be discussing categories for the Local Inventory and nominations and discussions with
property owners.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments from the Board members.
Board Member Willis remarked that she is disturbed that inventory update discussions include only the
property surveys from 2000. She felt it needed to be expanded to look at the last 20 years and to look at
the original inventory to bring it in line with what they are hoping to accomplish going forward when adding
properties to the inventory. She felt there is potential for misunderstanding if the assignment of categories
in the original is not aligned with what they are looking at in the new properties. If new properties are
being looked at as 1’s and 2’s, she said they should look at 3’s and 4’s in the existing inventory, many of
which are more than 100 years old. She advocated for setting a timeframe or a plan for updating the
current inventory in three ways. One, adding properties that have already been surveyed. Another is looking
again at current inventory. She would also like to in see investigation into how to get this information online
and more accessible. She felt they should look at properties that have become eligible in the last 23 years
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: June 22, 2023
Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom
8:30 A.M.
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 30
City of Palo Alto Page 2
since the previous survey was done. She hoped they could get a clearer grip on their work plan at the
retreat and noted that these items are all critical to having a current historic inventory.
Board Member Wimmer commented that they were also going to look at their public outreach efforts and
discuss the data collected in the first meeting.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz agreed they should discuss takeaways from the community meeting and how
to use those communications going forward and how to better work with the community in talking about
historic structures.
Board Member Willis wondered if they should invite someone from the PAST Board or the Historical Society,
people that might be able to help them with public outreach.
Board Member Rohman agreed that they could bring resources in to help, and it would be important to
partner with them going forward. She said she is doing an assessment of current outreach materials and
suggested that they should talk about the previous public meeting in April and propose methods for
community outreach, including partnering with PAST. From a subcommittee point of view she is not ready
to engage with those partners until there is a plan or proposal for going forward; however, this is what she
hopes to do once they have a clearer plan.
Board Member Heinrich proposed meeting with PAST after the retreat and said she is happy to reach out
to them since she is on their Board as well.
Board Member Rohman noted that one of the things she hopes to learn at the retreat is which Board
Members have contacts with which resources in order to corral all of their resources.
Board Member Heinrich thought they needed to engage the real estate community since they seem to be
providing misinformation to owners. She said each time she’s gone to an open house for an older home,
they tell people that they are making sure the home is not on the historic register, and everyone is happy
about this.
Board Member Rohman said this topic was discussed at the pre-meeting on Monday, about engaging the
real estate community in responsible ways as much as possible. She noted that is fantastic that Ms. French
had been invited to speak to them. She suggested perhaps tapping Lydia [Council Member Kou?] to get
her help and thoughts on partnering better with that community.
Ms. French responded to this, stating that she will be speaking to SLVAR, Silicon Valley Association of
Realtors. She welcomed anyone who would like to partner with her in presenting to them. She said they
have a large part in communicating to buyers and need to have more accurate information to share with
them.
Board Member Rohman was interested in partnering with Ms. French in presenting and stated that there is
a real estate company out of L.A., a historically-minded agency that has great ideas, examples, resources.
She would be happy to reach out to them as well in planning a presentation.
Board Member Willis said that she was willing to do some pre-work and organize information on the total
picture of the inventory update, aside from the most recent survey.
Board Member Wimmer was willing to do some work on the Mills Act prior to the retreat.
Board Member Rohman said she would have some slides and an informal presentation to guide the
discussion and invited anyone else to prepare something as well. She asked if there would be a screen
available.
Ms. French responded that there were two big screens to share PowerPoints, et cetera.
Board Member Rohman noted that the updates to the Review Process Bulletin go along with outreach since
it is community-facing.
Board Member Willis advocated for a general discussion of the meetings and noted, for example, she would
like to hold the meetings to the Community Room as it seems like it would be a better venue.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said she would appreciate some discussion about generalities, such as meeting
time. She has wondered if incorporating evening meetings more frequently might engage members of the
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 31
City of Palo Alto Page 3
community who aren’t able to come during regular business hours, and would welcome some discussion
to explore whether this might be desirable or feasible. She also wondered about having a certain amount
of time devoted to an “open session,” of people sharing ideas that may not fit well with the formal discussion
topics.
Study Session
3. Study Session to Discuss Existing Permit Review Processes for Historic Resources Related
to the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan Policies
Ms. French presented the 2016 Bulletin, which was originally approved by the Historic Resources Board. It
was published, and in December of 2017, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan Update, which
included a number Historic Preservation policies, including Policy L7.2, which has been the reason, since
2018, that they have been individually assessing properties in which demolition is planned or a property is
being sold. Staff has been involved in evaluating such properties based on Policy L7.2. The Bulletin became
out of date and has not been updated, and it was withdrawn from the webpage due to some inaccuracies
in it. Currently, as the Inventory Update is in progress, it is a good time to look at the policy and make
some changes. Initially the conclusion was that there were Group A and Group B types of projects for
review based on what needed to be reviewed and by what method.
Group A resources included Category 1’s and 2’s based on the Ordinance. Category 1’s and 2’s and
Categories 3’s and 4’s in the Downtown, located in Historic Districts, Professorville or Ramona Street, not
including the Eichler Districts. Group A resources would need to be reviewed pursuant to Secretary of the
Interior standards. This includes discretionary applications such as individual review, two-story home
review, variances, home improvements exceptions, et cetera, and architectural review if not a single-family
home. If there are impacts from non-minor alterations that are not compatible with SOIS, then the
application is referred to the HRB for review and comment. Ms. French shared the process of review. The
planner reviews a property for consistency. If it is inconsistent or exceeds the scope of minor alteration,
then it is referred to the HRB. Previous discussion involved the definition of minor and major alterations.
There are FAQs on the webpage which answer these questions, such as when they need review by the
HRB, or not.
Group B resources are listed as Categories 3 and 4, located outside of the Downtown and Professorville.
Some are listed on the National and State registers. One question is whether there are some listed there
that are not on the inventory. There are also those that have been listed as eligible. These are the 165
found eligible that were not covered by the Ordinance. The current project is to place them on the formal
Local Inventory.
Ms. French shared the question of when to do the historic resource evaluations. This is something new
since the Comprehensive Plan became based on Policy L7.2. Evaluations are not done for interested buyers,
only for property owners, who have to pay for the evaluation, and staff deals directly with the consultant.
Once a property is determined California Register eligible, it is then considered a Group B resource. If it is
not determined eligible it is taken off of the system and it is not considered a resource.
The question of what minor changes are is one of the FAQs on the webpage. The webpages were updated
during the time when there was a qualified professional on staff, Emily Vance, and they have not been
changed since then. Ms. French said this is a gray area – the extent to which a historic resource can be
modified and still call it minor versus major. There is the activity of reviewing for Secretary of the Interior
standards compliance. On-call consultants are used to help staff make these determinations.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited public comment on Ms. French’s presentation.
Dennis Backlund addressed the Board, stating that he was the Historic Preservation Planner for the Planning
Department from 2000 to 2014. He said he did the staff report for all of the projects and concluded the
reports by presenting to the Historic Resources Board recommended findings on how the details of the
project, particularly any changes to be made to the property, complied with the Secretary of the Interior
standards. Mr. Backlund said he was always concerned to be fully detailed on exactly why something did
or did not comply with the standards so that the Board would be assisted in knowing how to proceed with
the project. Mr. Backlund referenced a meeting held on May 14, 2020. The subject was proposed changes
to one of Palo Alto’s most important and dramatic historic resources, the President Hotel on University
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 32
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Avenue. This was the largest building, the largest design, ever done by iconic architect, Birge Clark. The
building has survived more or less intact. Mr. Backlund said that the HRB, when conducting the meeting
May 14, 2020, did very good things. Board Member Wimmer brought up the question of preserving the
historic tile at the base of the building which he believes was instrumental in getting it preserved because
the applicant was thinking of replacing all of it to make it match the sidewalk. Mr. Backlund said that Birge
Clark presented variety rather than uniformity. He said that he has been grateful to Board Member Wimmer
for preservation of the tile. He presented a booklet to be given to the Board. One page has a picture of the
President Hotel with the most dramatic historic feature on the façade, the upper balcony. It is stained a
brown stained wood. The applicant had proposed to change that, yet it was in original condition. According
to the Secretary’s standards a historic feature that has not been altered should not be changed. There was
a moment in the meeting when something occurred, when the applicant said that they proposed to enhance
the stained brown balcony by painting it a shade of black, which was a major change. This was never
painted. The applicant decided since the brand color of their company, AJ Capitol, is navy blue that they
would like to stamp their brand color on the President. They proposed navy blue for all wood elements on
the building. It was brought back to a Board subcommittee, and it was approved. Mr. Backlund stated that
the final motion by the HRB was that the changes were found to be compliant with the Secretary’s
standards. There was no comment in the motion on how the project and changes being made complied
with the standards, simply the statement that they did. There was never any comment when the applicant
stated they wanted to change the colors. Mr. Backlund’s recommendation for Board processes is that first
it is clearly identified what style is being dealt with, and what the character-defining features are. That style
is gone from the Hotel, and he received comments from a number people who were disappointed and felt
that it was no longer truly a Spanish Colonial Revival building. He recommended that the Board discuss
how to prevent something like this from happening again.
Board Member Willis expressed that it was nice to see him and thanked him for his comments.
Board Member Wimmer acknowledged Mr. Backlund and all his years of time and effort. She said he was
missed in the Chamber, along with his knowledge and the tremendous job he did on the Board. She missed
his stories and remembrance of history. Regarding the project that he referenced, she thought that the
review had gone, though she personally had a problem with changing the colors. She remembered meeting
the applicant onsite and not liking the color scheme at all and that more appropriate colors were
recommended. She remembered Board Member Heinrich recommending that they keep the color
mahogany. The applicant did not listen to their advice because they are a discretionary board and can’t
mandate that their recommendations be followed. Board Member Wimmer said this is a problem for the
Board. Since they are discretionary, she wondered how can they be impactful enough that applicants will
follow their recommendations, since they cannot legally enforce them. She agreed that they should discuss
ways in which the Board can be more impactful. She recalled that the subcommittee had met the applicant
onsite and there was no documentation of the discussion or minutes recorded.
With no other comments to be heard, Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved on to discussion of the Bulletin.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz initiated discussion of revisions to the Bulletin. She felt it would be important to
include some language about the Eichler Historic Districts, since they fall into an interesting category unto
themselves.
Ms. French commented on the two Eichler Districts. One, the Green Meadow District, has a single-story
overlay zoning on it, which they do not see the individual review discretionary process for the entire large
district. Discretionary review projects do not come through the City. Projects that require someone’s
approval on following the Guidelines and making findings is the one way they have access to talk with
people about historic preservation and the Eichler Guidelines. They can talk with people at the building
permit process, but that process is a ministerial process, and they cannot put conditions on them. As long
as they meet the zoning development standards, such as height, setback, et cetera, they can be approved
at a building permit level.
Ms. French said staff is helped in the Green Meadow area because they have Architectural Control
Committee with a couple of architects that people are supposed to talk with when they plan to change their
home or build a new home. She said the Green Gables Eichler District, which is a National Register District,
does not have a similar committee so there has been some erosion there, more so than in Green Meadow.
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto Page 5
She remarked that the Eichler District has contributors and non-contributors. Contributors are those that
really make it a historic district and add significance. This is also true in Professorville. There are many
Eichler tracts in Palo Alto, with 2,500 Eichler homes – the largest concentration anywhere. But there are
only two historic districts. For the rest of them, use of the Eichler Guidelines is encouraged but there isn’t
a special level of protection.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if there is a special level of protection for a contributor within an Eichler
District as things are currently written.
Ms. French responded that this is correct because people are not coming through with discretionary permits,
and there is not a lot of protection for the homes if there is no discretionary review.
Board Member Willis asked if the Eichler Districts are considered Group A or Group B.
Ms. French replied that the two historic Eichler Districts are considered Group B. This group is listed on the
National Register.
Board Member Willis asked about the wording, “located in one of the city’s locally designated historic
districts.”
Ms. French clarified that it is not locally designated.
Board Member Willis thought this was too subtle for some. She wondered about moving “listed on the
National Register of Historic Places,” to refer to Category A.
Ms. French thought it would come down to evaluating each home individually. She suggested putting this
topic on the retreat agenda to discuss further.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted that there seem to be some misalignments between Local District
designations and National Register designations, and there are some Eichler neighborhoods that are
National Register designated but not locally designated. There is also the inverse of that in Professorville,
where some properties are on the Local Register but are not within the boundaries of the National District.
Ms. French responded that there are two sections of Professorville, one on the National Register and one
on the Local District.
Board Member Willis asked what kind of information they should have before having a discussion on this.
Ms. French said the only information they have for the two National Districts are the nomination forms
which are not highly detailed. They were prepared by volunteers as opposed to a City effort.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the specific boundaries of the districts are available somewhere.
Ms. French thought that they probably were, and she will check on it.
Board Member Willis felt that at a minimum when talking about Group B resources they should distinguish
between properties on the National Register individually and districts on the National Register, as it does
not read well as it currently is. She thought if they just identified National Register Districts it would be
clearer because it is highly unlikely that there are National Register properties that aren’t on their Inventory.
She felt that individual properties that are on the National Register should definitely be Group A and that
they then should distinguish between the districts and the individual properties.
Board Member Rohman asked if changes they made to the Bulletin would have to be approved by the City
Council.
Ms. French responded that the City Council did not approve the document. It was approved for the HRB
for staff use and for the public, so to the extent that there are changes that would make a change to the
ordinance then it would have to be through proposed changes to the City’s Historic Ordinance. The Bulletin
has to be accurate with respect to the Code, Chapter 16.49 of the Municipal Code. It can offer advice and
guidance as well, based on the Eichler and Professorville Guidelines, best practices, but it cannot depart
from what the Code allows.
Board Member Rohman asked if the Group A and Group B designations are part of the Code or not.
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 34
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Ms. French said this was conceived of to help steer people into which review process to go into based on
other factors.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated that the purpose of the Bulletin is to explain the rules to someone who
might like to make an alteration.
Board Member Willis suggested mimicking the language in Group A, “Located in the City’s locally-designated
historic districts – Professorville or Ramona Street – and Group B, where it says, “Nationally registered
historic districts,” and identify Green Gables and Green Gables.
Ms. French drafted these changes and noted there would be additional changes that would have to happen
along with that, because of Professorville having both Local and National Registry, but Board Member Willis’
suggested changes were doable.
Board Member Willis felt if Green Meadow and Green Gables are identified as Nationally Registered Historic
Districts it would be clear.
Ms. French commented that this is the type of work that needs to be done to improve the Bulletin. In its
current form it is too generic and does not capture the precision that is needed.
Board Member Rohman noted a discrepancy in the Bulletin noted on packet page 15. Historic categories
are listed as Category 1, 2, 3 or 4. Category 1 is exceptional. Category 2 is major; 3 or 4 are contributing.
But in bullet C, Historic District, the last sentence says that “all structures and sites within a historic district
are categorized as significant on the Historic Inventory.” But in categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, “significant” is not
a category.
Ms. French pointed to packet page 16 where it says, the definition of “significant building,” item F, means
“any building, group of buildings or site categorized on the Historic Inventory as number 1 or 2, and all
structures within historic districts.”
Board Member Willis said this is another problem with “historic districts.” She assumed this pre-dated
having a local district and the “historic districts” refer to Professorville and Downtown, not Green Meadows
and Green Gables. Therefore, an ordinance update is needed.
Board Member Rohman commented that it is very confusing and if she were trying to figure it out as a
member of the public, it would be a mess.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz thought the confusion was because there are National Registered districts that
are not on the local inventory. Then, outside of the Bulletin there’s the separate question of whether
aligning the districts locally and nationally makes sense, but that seems to be beyond the scope of what
the Bulletin is actually able to cover currently.
Ms. French thought there was a need to take a look at the Eichler Guidelines in concert because there is a
bit of preamble there that could be drawn from because it was a professional study prepared by Page and
Turnbull.
Board Member Willis reiterated her opinion that the ordinance itself it out of date, not just the Bulletin,
when historic districts are addressed, but not local or national.
Ms. French said the Historic Ordinance has not been updated since it was written other than perhaps some
changes in the 70’s which was an effort to update it concert with the last survey. One of the goals in the
HRB’s work plan and in the Comprehensive Plan is to review the Historic Preservation Ordinance for its
effectiveness. It is on their work plan to study the Historic Ordinance and see if it is effective and their
discussion was indicating that it is not effective.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said it also seems like the ordinance in general leans quite heavily on CEQA as
the root through which properties are identified.
Board Member Rohman said she noticed this as well, that CEQA seems to be the forcing function so that
review arises when people decide they want to demolish a property, which is a little backward.
Ms. French thought it relates to past demolitions in Professorville where there had to be an EIR, which is
what drove getting the Process Bulletin together as guidelines for staff, to address what to do when there’s
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 35
City of Palo Alto Page 7
a CEQA impact. She agreed that the Bulletin is focused on whether staff has discretion or not and how to
tease out where to send people. She acknowledged that is confusing for everyone.
Board Member Pease commented that the objective of the Bulletin when it was written was to provide a
key for various points of view to follow a path and determine the historic context of a property. He asked
if that was for more than one audience. Was it for owner/applicants? Builders? The real estate people who
are conveying information? He wanted to understand who all of the audience were. He said there was
obviously a lot of effort put in to make the document compact and more consumable, but based on
comments and his own experience, it actually has the reverse effect because it puts the onus on the
presumably low understanding reader to work through all of the threads.
Ms. French responded that the intent was to have a concise, relatively easy document for anyone to look
at and know what to do, because it identified which group they were in.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said it is better than having to sift through the Code on your own. Having an
updated Bulletin available to people is a useful thing, but if the underlying ordinance is confusing it limits
what the Bulletin can do.
Board Member Rohman said she didn’t find a lot of glaring problems except for the National Register versus
Local Register points with the document on pages 12 and 13. She thought this was fairly straightforward.
As a member of the public you would identify which group you are in, then go to the flow chart to see what
that means for you. She thought it was more the actual ordinance that is confusing and out of date. She
wanted to clarify that when talking about the Bulletin they’re referring to packet pages 12 and 13. She
asked where the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 16.49, is available to the public.
Ms. French noted that it is online and in the Development Center.
Board Member Rohman asked if the Bulletin information is based off of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. French said this is correct.
Board Member Willis asked about page 18, referring to timelines being made within 20 days of receipt of
the proposal.
Ms. French replied that this page is referring to when someone wants to designate their site.
Board Member Willis said there are also other short-term timelines included. Item 2, “within 20 days of
receipt of the proposal,” she wondered if this has fallen by the wayside. She felt there was enough to make
a case for updating the ordinance to be functional.
Ms. French noted, the reference to Item 2, when they are in the process of being designated and they are
proposing to modify the structure is when the 20 days is relevant. They don’t have that situation in her
experience because people do not come forward to say they want to designate their property.
Board Member Willis wondered if this might ever happen if they added the additional 140-some properties.
Ms. French said that after the community meeting and outreach and hearing from the property owners
themselves, they can check to see if there are permits on file for them and have conversations with them.
The HRB can then nominate and provide recommendations to Council, and Council makes the decision.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz thought in theory that section could be triggered by the current inventory project
depending on what is already in the pipeline for some of the properties.
Ms. French said once there comes a proposal for designation that is not just the consultant’s report. It is
when the HRB makes a nomination and recommends to City Council. If there is also a realization that there
is a project underway that is going to significantly impact the resource, then that particular property would
be sent to the Council within 20 days presumably.
Board Member Willis questioned the statement, packet page 17, Section 4, “This inventory is maintained
in the Department of Planning, Community Environment,” and asked what kind of state their inventory is
in, what their maintenance level is.
Ms. French said they have binders that they maintain in their physical spaces which are available if anyone
asks. There is also the system that has the Parcel Report so that people can independently online query an
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto Page 8
address and it will inform them as to which category the property is, whether it is found eligible, potentially
eligible, et cetera.
Board Member Willis noted that the original inventory is not online except for a list of those properties.
Ms. French said the inventory list of addresses is online and a link to PAST, which maintains color pictures
and individual pages that have the entire contents of the inventory form.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited additional comments about the Bulletin. She summarized that there are
two sets of thoughts, one about the Bulletin itself and its clarity and also a question of how well the
ordinance is working. Some of those things are outside of the scope of the Bulletin as it is written.
Board Member Rohman pointed to packet page 10, has the ordinance been updated since it was put into
place? It says the current version of it is from 1980, so it’s probably due for an update. She doesn’t find as
much problem with the Bulletin itself as with the Ordinance itself.
Ms. French noted on page 11, there was a paragraph about the last time an attempt was made to update
the ordinance. There was an interim ordinance that was in effect at the same time as the survey, then
there was a proposal for a permanent change to the ordinance that seemed to be changing the key piece.
In the current ordinance, it is permitted to designate properties without the consent of the owner; whereas,
in this ordinance back around 1998 it indicated that only the property owner could nominate a home to the
Register. This is a big difference that bears discussing. Right now they are in a process in which the HRB
could nominate and the owner could refuse, and it is up to the Council to decide.
Board Member Willis asked if there is information on the last recommendations for the ordinance update.
Ms. French said she has not found or sent the report that had a recommendation for changes. She found
the discussion about what happened with the proposed update in a staff file describing that time period.
She offered to hunt and find out more about the draft ordinance.
Board Member Willis advocated for finding these proposals as a starting point for them to look at modifying
the ordinance.
Board Member Pease felt there was instability and that ordinances do not change very rapidly, and they
have to work with what they have. He said a key and an explanation works for most people. He suggested
it would be good for buyers, real estate agents and others to at least pinpoint what area they are in in a
simple way and go and find the basic information to narrow down the amount of work they have to do get
to where they have questions and can get responses to them. It would be helpful if information like that
could be handed out by real estate agents. If you’re in a historic district where there’s inconsistencies, what
are they? It would narrow down the anxiety level and the lack of clarity and facilitate things a little more
quickly.
Board Member Wimmer commented that just because they have an online parcel report system which tells
things like if you’re in a flood zone, establishes your FAR, your lot coverage, etc., it does also have a line
about whether the property is historic or not. Perhaps that is where some of this information could be
included. For each property it could say, “You’re a Category A resource.”
Ms. French agreed that it does tell which category the property is in and says “deemed eligible” if it is one
of the 165, and it does say “potentially eligible” if it appeared on a windshield survey from 1998 and did
not go any further.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the data states if a property is found to be ineligible.
Ms. French responded that it will say, “found ineligible” when Page and Turnbull recently did a study.
Reports of “found ineligible” are not brought to the HRB every time because people are making decisions
about buying a property. However, every year in the CLG report a list of “found eligible” or “found ineligible”
is included.
Board Member Wimmer noted that they do at least have a safety net in terms of people being able to look
up a property if they know they’re on a potential list, so it is really up to the buyer or the current homeowner
to further investigate what that means for their specific and unique property.
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Board Member Pease asked if that is the best, most robust, most up-to-date, and accessible source to
figure this out if someone has the parcel number.
Ms. French said it is the source that people who are either owners, buyers or realtors can go in and find
out if they can add any square footage, what is the square footage, what is the site size, is it in a flood
zone, is it historic?
Board Member Pease said he didn’t want to have more than one Bulletin, but it seemed like if there was
just a two-page instruction about how to do that it would help people figure out more quickly whether they
have any issue.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz suggested that perhaps the Bulletin could point people to the resource where
they could look up their home. “If you would like to look up your property, please go to…”
Board Member Pease said especially if they had a very simple pointer to it with the steps of what to look
for and a summary of what it might mean. Not providing specific property information but giving people
the context that they want.
Board Member Rohman pointed out that the top of the Bulletin does say, “For information on the specific
property, please review the parcel report.” She agreed that that was a good place for realtors and
homeowners to begin. She said the parcel report should not be foreign to anyone in real estate. So when
realtors act surprised, she wonders if they did the research.
Ms. French stated that the most common question she gets is from a realtor or a buyer asking, “What does
this mean, potentially eligible?” so they’ve opened up the parcel report, seen that it’s potentially eligible
and they want to know what that means. The Bulletin, which was done before the Comprehensive Plan
change, potentially eligible properties were just gone, basically. Now there is something that they have
because of the Comprehensive Plan policy to study those.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if she sees the Bulletin as something that might be helpful to just send
to people if it includes a discussion of potentially eligible, since that’s what people see on the parcel report,
Ms. French said yes, they have an email that they have to write. The email can be something that talks
about the 7.2 policy that requires that they study this if they’re thinking of demolishing it, and this is the
process. They ask their consultant to give an estimate of time and cost. They prepare an invoice and send
it to the property owner, and then they come back and pay, or not.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said it sounded like they have suggested a few modifications to the Bulletin and
she wondered if staff could create draft.
Ms. French said her intent was to bring to the retreat a report and strike and underline suggestions for the
Board to discuss one by one. She felt they would probably not spend a lot of time on the Bulletin, because
of the large number of items for the retreat.
Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 11, 2023.
Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to approve the May 11, 2023 minutes as corrected. Seconded by
Board Member Pease, the motion carried, (5-0-1).
5. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 25, 2023
Motion by Board Member Willis to approve the minutes of the May 25, 2023. Seconded by Board Member
Heinrich, the motion carried unanimously.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas
Board Member Heinrich reported that there was no PAST meeting in June. There will be a meeting in July.
The walking tours will resume in the fall.
Board Member Willis asked if staff would put together an agenda for the retreat, or if they needed any help
putting together an agenda.
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Ms. French responded that it will be what was posted with the changes.
Board Member Willis asked that the page be emailed to the Board Members so that they can focus on their
presentation pieces.
Ms. French said it will be published with the packet for July 28th, and she will send the slide prepared today,
modified as discussed. She invited Board Members to send her any comments individually.
Board Member Pease wondered if they could allocate time to the items since there are quite a few of them.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz thought that was a good idea.
Board Member Willis wondered if they should talk about it briefly.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz advocated taking a guess at it before circulating the agenda.
Ms. French asked that they email her individually with any comments, ideas or concerns after the slide is
circulated.
Board Member Willis asked that Ms. French send out the ordinance proposal when she finds it.
Adjournment
Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Willis, the motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 a.m.
Item 4
Attachment A HRB 6.22
Minutes
Packet Pg. 39