HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-24 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 24, 2023
Council Chambers & Hybrid
8:30 AM
Boardmember Michael Makinen Remote Call‐In Location:851 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA
94301
Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the
option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety
while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to
participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and
participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if
attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas are
available at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)
Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
hrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the
City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject
line.
Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as
present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to
fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members
agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for
all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions and
Actions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,
the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three
(3) minutes per speaker.
2.Review Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report
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 Regular Meeting August 24, 2023
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, August 24, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMBoardmember Michael Makinen Remote Call‐In Location:851 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA94301Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,
the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three
(3) minutes per speaker.
2.Review Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report
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 Regular Meeting August 24, 2023
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, August 24, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMBoardmember Michael Makinen Remote Call‐In Location:851 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA94301Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.Review Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey ReportAPPROVAL 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 Regular Meeting August 24, 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: August 24, 2023
Report #: 2308-1889
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 Makinen
8/10/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Canceled
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 Pease
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 2
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: August 24, 2023
Report #: 2308-1923
TITLE
Review Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the HRB receive and discuss the draft survey report prepared by the City’s
consultant. The report corrects the count of ‘demolished’ and ‘present’ buildings. The staff
presentation will discuss next steps of the project.
DISCUSSION
One area for discussion is methodology for selecting which category on the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory. Palo Alto Municipal Code has descriptions for Categories 1 through 4. Staff is
currently in discussion with the consultant regarding what could be included in each category.
The HRB may wish to provide input into this discussion
Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These
buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific
architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These
buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall
appearance of the building is in its original character.
This could include architect-designed buildings under Category 1. Can include prominent
builders and architects previously identified in Dames & Moore (Leslie I. Nichols, William
F. Klay, Charles K. Sumner, etc.) Few, if any, buildings will be Category 1 due to the
‘national/state’ importance threshold.
Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works
of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic
development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior
modifications, but the original character is retained.
Good examples of a style or a rare building type (airplane bungalow, 2-story box type, or
cottage courts, etc.). All associations with a significant person could be included as
Category 2. Most buildings will end up as Category 2.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 2
Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural
style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or
other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to
the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details,
or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
Modest buildings that have also been altered (still have good integrity but maybe not
excellent integrity) or are associated with a general trend in Palo Alto (i.e. illustrating
densification, or “an important period of growth.” Lower integrity will distinguish
between 3 and 4.
Note that currently there is no category that can accept cultural associations/significance or
intangible history. This appears to be an area that could be targeted for future work by the
HRB.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report
Attachment B: Table 5
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 7
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2023 HISTORIC RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
[22306]
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
August 9, 2023
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 8
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL August 9, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Description of Survey Area ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Exclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
II. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................ 4
National Register of Historic Places ................................................................................................................................ 4
California Register of Historic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 5
Palo Alto Historic Inventory ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Indentification of Historical Resources in Palo Alto.................................................................................................. 7
III. SURVEY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................11
Background Materials and Preparation ......................................................................................................................11
Fulcrum Mobile Survey Application and Fieldwork ................................................................................................11
Additional Research .............................................................................................................................................................12
IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................13
Historic Integrity and Historic Significance ................................................................................................................13
Determining a Loss of Historic Integrity .................................................................................................................13
Properties For Which No Determination Was Made .........................................................................................15
Properties that Retain their Historic Integrity ......................................................................................................15
V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................................16
VI. REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................................22
VII. APPENDIX A ..........................................................................................................................................................................23
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 9
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 1 August 9, 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
In March 2022, Palo Alto’s City Council directed City Planning Division staff to work with the City’s
Historic Resources Board (HRB) to review the list of properties that were previously deemed eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in the 1997-2001 Palo Alto
Historical Survey Update.1 When these properties were deemed eligible for listing in the National
Register, they were not listed on the local Palo Alto Historic Inventory and therefore do not benefit
from either the protections or the incentives that are available to locally listed properties. The goal in
undertaking the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey is two-fold: first, to update the known list of historic
properties to reflect their current status of eligibility as historic resources—taking into account that
changes have likely occurred to the built environment in the last 22 years—and second, to list those
properties that remain eligible historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. In addition to
the 154 properties identified in the 1997-2001 Survey, 13 additional properties that were previously
found eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) in
Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) reports were also reviewed for continued historic significance.
The analysis of the ongoing significance and historic integrity of these 167 properties will be the first
step in updating the city’s formal list of known historic resources. These 167 properties make up the
“2023 Reconnaissance Survey.”
Page & Turnbull was hired to define the survey methodology and complete the survey fieldwork in
2023. As part of the survey process, public outreach with property owners was initiated and will
continue to occur through public meetings. The listing of potential properties will ultimately be
undertaken through the public hearing process of the Historic Resources Board and City Council.
This Survey Report presents Page & Turnbull’s initial findings on whether the 167 identified historic
properties retain their historic significance and integrity, and therefore continue to be eligible for the
National Register or California Register. The Survey Report includes an overview of past efforts to
identify and document historic resources in Palo Alto, and presents the methodology used to survey
and assess the 167 properties in the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey. This survey report, through
additional collaboration with City Staff and continued public outreach to property owners and local
stakeholders, will provide the basis of the recommendations that are ultimately made to the Historic
Resources Board for the listing of additional properties to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.
DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA
The 167 properties that were surveyed are scattered throughout the city limits of the City of Palo
Alto. Some geographical groupings are visible in areas of Downtown Palo Alto and University South,
1 Dames & Moore, Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, City of Palo Alto, February 2001.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 10
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 2 August 9, 2023
as well as the Seale Addition / Old Palo Alto, Crescent Park, and College Terrace, as these locations
are where many of the earliest buildings were constructed in modern Palo Alto.
Figure 1: Map of survey properties included in 2023 Reconnaissance Survey. Red pins are the locations of the
154 properties previously identified as eligible for the National Register. Blue pins are the locations of the 13
properties that have been identified as individually eligible for the California Register. Base map: Google Maps;
Data provided by Page & Turnbull.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 11
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 3 August 9, 2023
EXCLUSIONS
The 1997-2001 Palo Alto Historical Survey Update identified 165 total properties as eligible for the
National Register. However, 11 of these properties were previously listed in the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory and are therefore excluded from this surv ey. Similarly, while 16 total properties have been
identified through Historic Resource Evaluation reports as eligible for the California Register, three
(3) of those properties had previously been identified and listed on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory
as Category 3 or Category 4 buildings. As the purpose of the survey is to assess continued eligibility
of properties that were previously identified (but not listed) in a qualified historic register, these 14
properties, which have previously been listed to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory , were not included
in the survey. A list of the properties that were excluded is contained in Appendix A.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 12
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 4 August 9, 2023
II. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
The following sections briefly describe the evaluation framework of the National Register and
California Register as these evaluation frameworks form the basis of the previous historic resource
findings of the properties to be reviewed, and describe the framework of the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory, including its criteria for designation and historic categories. Additional context on how the
Palo Alto Historic I nventory was created in 1979 and how the identification of historic resources has
been undertaken in the years since, follows.
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The National Register is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The
National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures,
sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or
cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age
are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance
(listed below) and if they retain sufficient historic integrity to express that significance.2
In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, a resource
must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
• Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
• Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that
possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose
components lack individual distinction; and
• Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
The National Register evaluative criteria were used for the determination of eligibility of the
properties identified in the 1997-2001 Survey. The criteria used were Criteria A, B, and C, as Criterion
2 National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation (rev. 2002); refer also to California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistant Series #7:
How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historic Resources (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing,
September 4, 2001), 11.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 13
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 5 August 9, 2023
D (Information Potential) primarily relates to archaeology and requires more significant research of
features that may not be visible to the naked eye. For this reason, Criterion D is typically excluded
from historic resources surveys, such as the 1997-2001 Survey.
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
The California Register is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical
resources in the state of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a
number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are
automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California
Register by local governments, private organizations, or private citizens. The evaluative criteria used
by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the
National Park Service for the National Register.
In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant
under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States.
• Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to
local, California, or national history.
• Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess
high artistic values.
• Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the
potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area,
California, or the nation.3
The California Register evaluative criteria were used by qualified historic preservation professionals
to determine the significance of the 13 properties that have been identified as historic resources
since 2010.
3 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #7, 11.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 14
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 6 August 9, 2023
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY
The Palo Alto Historic Inventory is the official list of sites, structures, and districts designated by the
Palo Alto City Council as possessing significant historic and/or architectural value related to the City
of Palo Alto. The Inventory, which was originally adopted in 1979 through the findings of the 1979
Historic Survey, is a qualified local register defined in the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 16.49.040) that formally recognizes historic resources.4 The presence of a
Historic Preservation Ordinance allows the City to provide financial incentives to owners of historic
properties and provide guidance through Planning Review procedures for the long-term treatment
of those historic resources. The Inventory primarily consists of a list of properties identified in 1979
but is intended to be a living document that is added to over time.
An individual or group may propose designating a historic structure, site or district to the Inventory
according to the procedure found in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Properties nominated for
designation are reviewed by Palo Alto’s Historic Resource Board (HRB), who issue a recommendation
for listing to the City Council. The City Council then votes on the nomination and, if approved, the
property is then listed in the Inventory.
The following six Criteria for Designation, along with the definitions of historic categories and
districts in Section 16.49.020, are used to designate historic structures, sites, and districts to the
Inventory :
• The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in
the city, state or nation;
• The structure or is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life
important to the city, state or nation;
• The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now
rare;
• The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is
now rare;
• The architect or building was important;
• The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural
design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.5
4 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. Accessed June 2, 2023,
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-74404
5 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. Subsection 020: Definitions.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 15
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 7 August 9, 2023
Once a resource is determined to meet the Criteria for Designation, it is assigned a historic category,
consisting of a number from 1 to 4. The historic categories, defined below, determine the level of
significance of a resource and define the level of change that can be made to a resource. The
categories are:
Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance.
These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples
of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in
the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such
minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.
Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are
meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural
style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major
building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is
retained.
Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an
architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale,
materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had
extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate
additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced
in asbestos or stucco.6
INDENTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PALO ALTO
1979 HISTORICAL SURVEY
The first historical survey of Palo Alto was undertaken in 1979 and resulted in the publication of the
Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto: Inventory and Report, by Historic
Environment Consultants.7 This 1979 Report included approximately 500 properties located in and
near the historic core of Palo Alto. These properties included many of the most notable examples of
architectural styles prior to 1940, the work of important individual designers, and examples of rare
or unusual property types, as well as structures associated with important events in the history of
the city, state, and/or the nation. The findings of the 1979 report were adopted by the City of Palo
Alto in 1979 as the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.
6 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. Subsection 020: Definitions.
7 Historic Environment Consultants, Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto: Inventory and Report, City of
Palo Alto, February 1979. Available online at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-
services/historic-preservation/1979-inventory-and-report.pdf
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 16
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 8 August 9, 2023
DAMES & MOORE SU RVEY UPDATE, 1999-2001
Between 1997 and 2001, a comprehensive update to the 1979 Historic Inventory was undertaken by
the historic preservation firm Dames & Moore.8 The goal of this update was to identify additional
properties in Palo Alto that were eligible for listing on the National Register.9 This effort began with a
reconnaissance survey of approximately 6,600 properties constructed prior to 1948. The
reconnaissance survey produced two Study Priority lists. Approximately 600 properties were
identified as Study Priority 1, indicating they appeared individually eligible for listing in the National
Register under Criterion C (Architecture) at the local level of significance. Approximately 2,700
properties were identified as Study Priority 2, representing those properties that did not appear to
be individually eligible for the National Register under Criterion C but retained high integrity and
may be eligible for listing on the California Register for their local significance.
The reconnaissance survey was followed by an intensive-level survey of all Study Priority 1 and 2
properties. Historic research was conducted on the owners, architects/builders, and past uses of the
Study Priority 1 properties. Research also informed the preparation of historic context statements to
identify any potential significant associations of Study Priority 2 properties. These historic context
statement topics included local property types, significant historical themes, and prolific architects
and builders.
In January 1999, Dames & Moore prepared an interim findings report that listed preliminary
evaluations for those properties that appeared eligible for listing in the National Register and
California Register. There were 291 properties that were found potentially eligible as individual
resources to both the National Register and California Register, and an additional 1,789 properties
were found potentially eligible for listing in the California Register only. The survey update effort
concluded with California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms prepared for the
291 properties that initially appeared eligible for listing in the National Register. Of the 291
properties, 165 were ultimately found to be eligible for listing in the National Register. The resulting
165 DPR 523 forms were submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation. Because the
survey focused on determining National Register eligibility, the project did not finalize the
preliminary evaluations regarding potential California Register eligibility.
The 165 properties found eligible for listing in the National Register in 2001, formed the basis of the
properties surveyed for the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey. 154 of these properties were included
8 Dames & Moore, Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, City of Palo Alto, February 2001.
9 This section outlining the methodology used for the 1997-2001 Survey is summarized from Dames & Moore, Final Survey
Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, City of Palo Alto, February 2001.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 17
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 9 August 9, 2023
within the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey, while 11 properties—which have previously been listed to
the Historic Inventory—were excluded 10. The 11 properties that were excluded are listed in
Appendix A.
IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES SINCE 2001
Since the completion of the Dames & Moore Survey effort in 2001, historic resources have been
identified on a property -by-property basis at the request of property owners who plan to sell a
property or significantly modify the exterior of a building, or as part of a CEQA analysis for a
proposed discretionary review project. These Historic Resource Evaluations (HREs) are completed by
qualified historic preservation professionals.
The City of Palo Alto has requested that Historic Resource Evaluations be completed for buildings
over 50 years of age (the standard age-threshold for evaluation for historic significance) when
projects are proposed that will undergo discretionary review by the Planning Division. Since
December 2017, the City has also had HREs prepared by qualified firms when property owners
intend to sell a property called out as “potentially eligible” in the 1997-2001 Survey, or contemplate
significant exterior modifications of properties built before 1948 and shown as “potentially eligible”
but not fully evaluated in the 1997-2001 Survey.11 These historic evaluations determine whether a
property is a historic resource that is individually eligible for listing in the California Register. Not all
properties that are reviewed are ultimately found to possess historic significance.
Since 2010, 13 properties have been identified as historic resources that are individually eligible for
the California Register. These properties are listed in Table 1, on the following page.
10 While the 1997-2001 Survey generally eliminated properties that were previously listed in the Historic Inventory from
additional study, the 11 properties listed in Appendix A were studied and found potentially eligible for the National Register
as part of the 1997-2001 Survey. It is unclear if these properties were included in error. As they are already listed in the
Historic Inventory—the ultimate goal for the other properties in the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey—they have been removed
from the list of properties surveyed in the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey.
11 The 1948 cut-off date was established within the 1997-2001 Survey methodology. “The survey update addressed all
properties 50 years old or older, and since the survey began in 1997, this included those properties built in 1947 or earlier.
Another reason this survey update was limited to addressing properties built in 1947 or earlier was because the number of
buildings built annually increased dramatically beginning in 1948, and for reasons of time and money, the City made the
decision to limit this survey to the estimated 6,600 properties built in 1947 or earlier.” Refer to Dames & Moore, Final Survey
Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, City of Palo Alto, February 2001, p. 2-1.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 18
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 10 August 9, 2023
TABLE 1: PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS ELIGIBLE FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER
Address APN Year built Use California Register
Criteria of Significance
518-526 Bryant Street 120-26-061 1929-1935 Commercial Criterion 3 (Architecture)
885 College Avenue 137-02-002 1927 Residential Criterion 3 (Architecture)
759 Homer Avenue 003-32-033 1929 Residential Criterion 3 (Architecture)
1145 Lincoln Avenue 003-19-059 1946 Residential Criterion 3 (Architecture)
980 Middlefield Road 120-05-077 1951 Commercial Criterion 3 (Architecture)
340 Portage Avenue 132-38-071 1918-1949 Industrial Criterion 1 (Events)
788 San Antonio Road 147-03-041 1953-2002 Commercial Criterion 1 (Events)
550 Santa Rita Avenue 124-04-035 1936 Residential Criterion 3 (Architecture)
2340 Tasso Street 124-11-011 1933 Residential Criterion 3 (Architecture)
525 University Avenue 120-03-069 1966-1976 Office Criteria 2 (Persons) and 3
(Architecture)
546 Washington Avenue 124-04-021 1926 Residential Criterion 3 (Architecture)
1027 Waverley Street 120-18-027 1923 Residential Criterion 3 (Architecture)
2140 Yale Street 137-01-133 1908 Residential Criterion 3 (Architecture)
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 19
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 11 August 9, 2023
III. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND MATERIALS AND PREPARATION
Prior to undertaking fieldwork, Page & Turnbull received documentation from the City of Palo Alto
that was produced as part of the 1997-2001 Survey. These materials included State of California
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) historic survey forms for each property that included an
Individual Record (DPR 523A) form containing a photograph and description, and a Building,
Structure, and Object (DPR 523B) form containing the evaluation and finding of significance.
In addition, a data set that contained the addresses, Assessor Parcel Number (APN), and year built
(according to Santa Clara County Assessor’s records) for each property to be surveyed, was supplied
to Page & Turnbull by City Staff. This data set was used as the basis of a survey application that was
created for data collection in the field.
FULCRUM MOBILE SURVEY APPLICATION AND FIELDWORK
Page & Turnbull created a customized mobile survey application using the online platform Fulcrum
to conduct survey fieldwork and to collect and organize data.12 Fulcrum is a highly adaptable cloud-
based application that allows users to design a mobile application to collect data, including text and
photographs, that is geo-located and can be exported in the form of spreadsheets, Geographic
Information System (GIS) shapefiles, and PDF reports.
Page & Turnbull imported the baseline data supplied by the City of Palo Alto into Fulcrum to develop
the survey application. For the 154 properties that were surveyed in 1997-2001, Page & Turnbull
staff imported additional background information collected from the 2001 DPR 532A and 523B
forms. This background data included a date of construction, original architect, significant
resident/owner, identified criteria for significance, and any additional notes that might assist the
surveyor while in the field. For example, relevant notes could include a request to look for an
associated building on the property (such as a garage or converted barn), or to identify whether a
particular cladding material (such as stucco with embedded abalone shells) was extant.
For the 13 properties identified as California Register-eligible, the additional fields that were added
to the custom Fulcrum application included the identified criterion of significance and year built, as
provided in the Historic Resource Evaluation report for each property.
12 Fulcrum, accessed online March 1, 2023, https://www.fulcrumapp.com/.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 20
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 12 August 9, 2023
Page & Turnbull designed the survey application to record photographs taken in the field, and to
record several text fields, including whether the building was present, altered, or demolished;
whether any alterations had taken place since the building was last evaluated; and whether the
building appeared to retain its historic integrity. The survey was completed in the field on
smartphones using the highest quality image settings for photographs.
In addition to the summary findings presented in this Survey Report (refer to Table 5), the data
collected in Fulcrum has been transmitted to the City of Palo Alto in the form of an Excel
spreadsheet of consolidated survey data and findings.
Fieldwork was completed in April 2023 by architectural historians at Page & Turnbull, Inc. who meet
or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Professional Qualifications in Architectural
History and/or History.
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
As a reconnaissance survey, properties are intended to be assessed primarily through visual
inspection, and surveyors are not expected to undertake additional research. However, if visual
inspection led to additional questions regarding possible changes to the property since it was last
photographed, a note was made by the surveyor to conduct brief additional research to confirm
initial findings. In most cases, this research was limited to reviewing available Google Maps
Streetview photography (which provides snapshots since 2008 in most areas of Palo Alto), aerial
photography (that can show changes to a building’s footprint or massing), and a deeper review of
previous documentation (DPR forms or HRE reports, respectively). In one case, a review of recent
permits was necessary to confirm an initial finding, and in a rare case, a property owner supplied
additional information to the project team for consideration.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 21
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 13 August 9, 2023
IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
HISTORIC INTEGRITY AND HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
Historic significance and integrity are two interrelated concepts that provide the foundation for
identifying historic resources. It is important to note that age alone does not equate to historic
significance or historic integrity. Within the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey, all properties to be
surveyed had previously been evaluated for historic significance and historic integrity. For the
purposes of this survey, Page & Turnbull did not assess historic significance, but instead assessed
whether changes that may have occurred to the building or structures would have resulted in a loss
of integrity , thereby impeding a property’s ability to express its historic significance. The following
section discusses how a property was determined to have lost its historic integrity due to alterations
or demolition.
Determining a Loss of Historic Integrity
Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. National Register Bulletin 15:
How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation defines the seven aspects of historic integrity
as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.13 These seven aspects
of integrity are used to evaluate a threshold at which a resource retains or loses its historic integrity .
Evaluators of potential historic resources look closely at characteristics such as massing, roof forms,
fenestration patterns, cladding and window materials, and neighborhood surroundings when
evaluating a property’s historic integrity.
During the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey, observations regarding alterations or demolition of a
property were recorded in the survey application. In cases of demolition, historic integrity was lost.
Of the properties identified in the 2001 survey, 11 have been demolished; and of those identified
since 2010, one property has been demolished and another property will be demolished shortly ;
these 13 total properties are listed in Table 2. Properties identified in 2001 are listed first and then
organized alphabetically by street name, followed by properties identified since 2010.
TABLE 2: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED PROPERTIES THAT HAVE SINCE BEEN DEMOLISHED
Address APN Use Identified in 2001
or Since 2010?
806 Bryant Street [not listed] Residential 2001
840 Bryant Street 120-28-109 Residential 2001
846 Bryant Street 120-28-109 Residential 2001
Continued on next page
13 National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (rev. 2002).
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 22
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 14 August 9, 2023
Address APN Use Identified in 2001
or Since 2010?
1382 California Avenue 137-05-025 Residential 2001
560 Chaucer Street 003-05-016 Residential 2001
660 Coleridge Avenue 124-02-010 Residential 2001
1157 Hamilton Avenue 003-07-025 Residential 2001
778 Melville Avenue 003-44-016 Residential 2001
943 Scott Street 120-17-113 Residential 2001
1935 Webster Street 124-03-072 Residential 2001
488 W Charleston Road 132-46-072 Residential 2001
788 San Antonio Road* 147-03-041 Commercial 2020
1027 Waverley Street 120-18-027 Residential 2018
*Demolition has been approved and is pending
When alterations are made in-kind, no loss of integrity occurs. However, significant replacement of,
or alteration to, historic features and materials can cause an overall loss of historic character that
impacts many of the seven elements of integrity , including design, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association; and leads to an overall loss of historic integrity. Three (3) buildings, listed in Table 3,
were identified to have had significant material replacement or alterations that impacted the overall
design and character of each building, such that they do not appear to remain eligible for the
National Register or California Register.
TABLE 3: PROPERTIES THAT HAVE LOST INTEGRITY THROUGH ALTERATIONS
Address APN Use Notes
Identified in
2001 or Since
2010?
1032 College Avenue 137-03-031 Residential
Significant changes and material
replacement have changed the
character of the building.
2001
669 Everett Avenue 120-02-017 Residential
Second floor addition and significant
material replacement that removed
distinctive vernacular elements.
2001
925 Roble Ridge
Road 137-17-026 Residential
Lack of visibility from public right-of-
way; aerial photographs and permits
show that residence has been altered
through multiple additions.
2001
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 23
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 15 August 9, 2023
Properties For Which N o Determination Was Made
Some properties were unable to be assessed at the time of the survey. These properties were either
currently under construction, or were recently damaged; these three (3) properties are listed in
Table 4. In the case of the two (2) properties currently under construction, a determination should
be made once the work is complete. For the damaged property, once a project is proposed—
whether it consists of a demolition or a rehabilitation to repair the damage—a determination can be
made as to whether the building will retain its historic integrity.
TABLE 4: PROPERTIES WHERE NO DETERMINATION WAS MADE REGARDING INTEGRITY
Address APN Use Notes
Identified
in 2001 or
Since 2010?
321 California Avenue 124-33-001 Commercial Ongoing construction 2001
1082 College Avenue 137-03-036 Residential Ongoing construction 2001
211 Middlefield Road 003-01-035 Residential Building damaged by fallen tree in
2023 during winter storms 14 2001
Properties that Retain their Historic Integrity
The remaining 148 surveyed properties were determined to have retained their historic integrity to a
sufficient degree to continue to express their historic significance. These properties are listed in
Table 5, in the following section.
14 “Winds knock down trees, disrupt power ,” Palo Alto Daily Post (online), Accessed April 24, 2023,
https://padailypost.com/2023/03/14/winds-knock-down-trees-disrupt-power/
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 24
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 16 August 9, 2023
V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Page & Turnbull surveyed and evaluated 167 properties in t he 2023 Reconnaissance Survey. Of
these properties only three (3) were not awarded a final evaluation due to either ongoing
construction or damage. As stated previously, 13 properties were found to have been demolished,
and three (3) 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 148 properties were reviewed and found to
retain their historic significance and integrity . These 148 properties thereby retain their eligibility for
listing in either the National Register or California Register. Table 5, beginning on the following page,
summarizes these survey findings. This table is organized first by eligibility status, and then by street
name in alphabetical order. An excel file with these findings has also been provided to the City of
Palo Alto.
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 25
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 17 August 9, 2023
TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY FINDINGS
Address Historic Name APN Year Built
(estimated) Use National Register or
California Register?
Significance
Criteria Integrity? Status Retains
Eligibility?
1032 College Avenue 137-03-031 1900 Residential National Register C No Altered No
669 Everett Avenue 120-02-017 1925 Residential National Register C No Altered No
925 Roble Ridge Road 137-17-026 1927 Residential National Register A, B No Altered No
806 Bryant Street [not listed] [not listed] Residential National Register A, C No Demolished No
840 Bryant Street 120-28-109 [not listed] Residential National Register A No Demolished No
846 Bryant Street 120-28-109 [not listed] Residential National Register A, C No Demolished No
1382 California Avenue 137-05-025 2002 Residential National Register C No Demolished No
560 Chaucer Street 003-05-016 1935 Residential National Register B, C No Demolished No
660 Coleridge Avenue 124-02-010 2019 Residential National Register A, C No Demolished No
1157 Hamilton Avenue 003-07-025 2015 Residential National Register C No Demolished No
778 Melville Avenue 003-44-016 2002 Residential National Register A, C No Demolished No
788 San Antonio Road 147-03-041 1953-2002 Commercial California Register 1 No Demolished [pending] No
943 Scott Street 120-17-113 2011 Residential National Register A, B, C No Demolished No
1027 Waverley Street 120-18-027 [not listed] Residential California Register 3 No Demolished No
1935 Webster Street 124-03-072 2014 Residential National Register C No Demolished No
488 W Charleston Road 132-46-072 2011 Residential National Register A No Demolished No
321 California Avenue 124-33-001 1938 Commercial National Register A, C N/A No Finding [under construction] N/A
1082 College Avenue 137-03-036 1906 Residential National Register A N/A No Finding [under construction] N/A
211 Middlefield Road 003-01-035 1915 Residential National Register B N/A No Finding [damaged] N/A
471 Addison Avenue 120-17-055 1904 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
201 Alma Street 120-25-060 0 Other National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1101 Alma Street 120-30-044 1895 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
Alma Street [Railroad Bridge] [n/a] [not listed] Other National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
2230 Amherst Street 137-07-062 1904 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
695 Arastradero Road Alta Mesa Cemetery 167-04-001 0 Other National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
2264 Bowdoin Street 137-07-004 1908 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
162 Bryant Street 120-24-038 1912 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
518-526 Bryant Street 120-26-061 1929-1935 Commercial California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
541 Bryant Street 120-15-091 1947 Commercial National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
635 Bryant Street 120-16-035 1900 Commercial National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
904 Bryant Street [previously
802-804 Bryant Street] 120-28-105 2001 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present [building was relocated
ca. 2001] Yes
2160 Bryant Street 124-19-076 1925 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
336 Byron Street 120-02-085 1900 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
518 Byron Street 120-03-055 1905 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
2277 Byron Street 124-05-024 1934 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
421 California Avenue 124-33-020 1928 Commercial National Register C Yes Present Yes
1590 California Avenue 137-05-066 1912 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
Item 2
Attachment A Survey Report
Packet Pg. 26
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 18 August 9, 2023
Address Historic Name APN Year Built
(estimated) Use National Register or
California Register?
Significance
Criteria Integrity? Status Retains
Eligibility?
555 Center Drive 003-10-016 1933 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
471 Channing Avenue 120-17-090 1996 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
669 Channing Avenue 120-05-014 1898 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
751 Channing Avenue 003-32-060 1905 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
545 Chaucer Street 003-07-046 1931 Residential National Register B Yes Present Yes
538 Churchill Avenue 124-01-006 1921 Residential National Register A Yes Present Yes
380 Coleridge Avenue 124-08-021 1931 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
418 Coleridge Avenue 124-08-068 1923 Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present Yes
509 Coleridge Avenue 124-01-019 1926 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
537 Coleridge Avenue 124-01-018 1918 Residential National Register B Yes Present Yes
570 Coleridge Avenue 124-02-004 1931 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
643 College Avenue 137-01-102 1904 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
885 College Avenue 137-02-002 1927 Residential California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
2025 Columbia Street 137-06-040 1937 Residential National Register B Yes Present Yes
2115 Cornell Street 137-02-042 1924 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
2127 Cornell Street 137-02-041 1924 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
252 Cowper Street 120-14-024 1900 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
330 Cowper Street 120-14-059 1903 Residential National Register A Yes Present Yes
820 Cowper Street 120-17-011 1903 Residential National Register A Yes Present Yes
904 Cowper Street 120-17-049 1906 Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present Yes
1535 Cowper Street 124-01-020 1926 Residential National Register A, B Yes Present Yes
1620 Cowper Street 124-08-085 1932 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1965 Cowper Street 124-06-010 1931 Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present Yes
2005 Cowper Street 124-06-008 1931 Residential National Register B Yes Present Yes
2150 Cowper Street 124-10-005 1936 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
2175 Cowper Street 124-04-019 1928 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
50 Crescent Drive 003-09-028 1930 Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present Yes
75 Crescent Drive 003-09-006 1928 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1275 Dana Avenue 003-20-022 1938 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
2601 East Bayshore Road Federal Telegraph Company -
Marsh Station 008-04-001 [not listed] Infrastructure National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
541 E Crescent Drive 003-10-025 1928 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
1401 Edgewood Drive 003-11-066 1938 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
1451 Edgewood Drive 003-11-027 1929 Residential National Register B Yes Present Yes
1474 Edgewood Drive 003-11-041 1935 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
1485 Edgewood Dr Drive 003-11-022 1937 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
2171 El Camino Real St. Aloysius Church 124-31-081 [not listed] Religious National Register C Yes Present Yes
311 El Carmelo Avenue 132-19-056 1895 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
Embarcadero Road [Underpass] [n/a] [not listed] Other National Register A Yes Present Yes
Item 2
Attachment A Survey Report
Packet Pg. 27
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 19 August 9, 2023
Address Historic Name APN Year Built
(estimated) Use National Register or
California Register?
Significance
Criteria Integrity? Status Retains
Eligibility?
212 Emerson Street 120-25-033 1912 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
731 Emerson Street 120-27-071 1903 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
945-949 Emerson Street 120-28-079 1905 Mixed National Register A Yes Present Yes
1215 Emerson Street 124-12-016 1906 Residential National Register B Yes Present Yes
1464 Emerson Street 124-16-033 1937 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
482 Everett Avenue 120-14-057 1896 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
332 Forest Avenue 120-16-038 1925 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
446 Forest Avenue 120-16-043 1992 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
555 Forest Avenue 120-04-031 1940 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
939 Forest Avenue 003-04-036 1912 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
1001 Fulton Street 003-33-037 1921 Residential National Register A, B Yes Present Yes
1011 Fulton Street 003-33-036 1912 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1726 Fulton Street 003-58-033 1934 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
365 Guinda Street 003-03-053 1910 Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present Yes
381 Guinda Street 003-03-007 1910 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
551-555 Hale Street 003-05-021 1939 Residential National Register A, B Yes Present Yes
132 Hamilton Avenue 120-27-003 1924 Commercial National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
755 Hamilton Avenue 003-02-033 1918 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
855 Hamilton Avenue 003-03-033 1915 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
925 Hamilton Avenue 003-04-022 1909 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
951 Hamilton Avenue 003-04-021 1908 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
972 Hamilton Avenue 003-04-073 1927 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
975 Hamilton Avenue 003-04-019 1910 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1407 Hamilton Avenue 003-11-012 1934 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
1423 Hamilton Avenue 003-11-009 1933 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
1452 Hamilton Avenue 003-23-014 1936 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
2131 Harvard Street 137-03-066 1906 Residential National Register B Yes Present Yes
365 Hawthorne Avenue 120-12-061 1905 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
375 Hawthorne Avenue 120-12-016 1903 Residential National Register A, B Yes Present Yes
544 Hawthorne Avenue 120-02-002 1957 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
317 High Street 120-25-104 1905 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
323 High Street 120-25-103 1905 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
334 High Street 120-25-107 1901 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
342 High Street 120-25-108 1902 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
260 Homer Avenue Cardinal French Laundry 120-28-118 [not listed] Commercial National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
469 Homer Avenue 120-16-051 1908 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
680 Homer Avenue 120-05-010 1904 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
759 Homer Avenue 003-32-033 1929 Residential California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
175 Island Drive 003-11-005 1936 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
Item 2
Attachment A Survey Report
Packet Pg. 28
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 20 August 9, 2023
Address Historic Name APN Year Built
(estimated) Use National Register or
California Register?
Significance
Criteria Integrity? Status Retains
Eligibility?
230 Kellogg Avenue 124-16-012 1916 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
270 Kellogg Avenue 124-16-017 1909 Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present Yes
360 Kellogg Avenue 124-07-043 1919 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
559 Kingsley Avenue 120-06-071 1918 Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present Yes
437 Kipling Street 120-15-020 1902 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
815 Kipling Street 120-17-023 1900 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
817 Kipling Street 120-17-022 1908 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
825 Kipling Street 120-17-021 1898 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
832 Kipling Street 120-17-025 1890 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
630 Lincoln Avenue 120-06-033 1905 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1145 Lincoln Avenue 003-19-059 1946 Residential California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
2931 Louis Road 127-40-024 1914 Residential National Register A Yes Present Yes
411 Lytton Avenue 120-14-076 1900 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1511 Madrono Avenue 124-24-005 1928 Residential National Register B Yes Present Yes
419 Maple Street 003-06-038 1929 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
218 Middlefield Rd 120-02-012 1905 Residential National Register A Yes Present Yes
980 Middlefield Road 120-05-077 1951 Commercial California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
1990 Newell Road 003-57-060 1939 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
[no address] [Cistern and Pump House] [n/a] [not listed] Other National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
426 Palo Alto Avenue 120-09-059 1902 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1757 Park Boulevard 124-25-039 1904 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
340 Portage Avenue 132-38-071 1918-1949 Industrial California Register 1 Yes Present Yes
211 Quarry Road 142-04-019 1931 Other National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
245 Ramona Street 120-25-012 1908 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
955 Roble Ridge Road 137-17-006 1927 Residential National Register A, B Yes Present Yes
435 Santa Rita Avenue 124-09-013 1936 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
550 Santa Rita Avenue 124-04-035 1936 Residential California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
1247 Stanford Avenue 137-06-009 1900 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
2340 Tasso Street 124-11-011 1933 Residential California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
University Avenue [Underpass] [n/a] [not listed] Other National Register A Yes Present Yes
525 University Avenue 120-03-069 1966-1976 Office California Register 2; 3 Yes Present Yes
1056 University Avenue 003-05-026 1927 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1341 University Avenue 003-06-020 1924 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
1570 University Avenue 003-08-006 1931 Residential National Register B, C Yes Present Yes
546 Washington Avenue 124-04-021 1926 Residential California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
311 Waverley Street 120-14-050 1910 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
313 Waverley Street 120-14-083 1902 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
324 Waverly Street 120-14-086 1902 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
333 Waverley Street 120-14-080 1910 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
Item 2
Attachment A Survey Report
Packet Pg. 29
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 21 August 9, 2023
Address Historic Name APN Year Built
(estimated) Use National Register or
California Register?
Significance
Criteria Integrity? Status Retains
Eligibility?
385 Waverley Street 120-14-078 1916 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
720 Waverley Street 120-16-061 1912 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
845 Waverley Street 120-17-030 1966 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
947 Waverley Street 120-17-060 1903 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
959 Waverley Street 120-17-059 1904 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1545 Waverley Street 124-07-026 1908 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
251 Webster Street 120-02-032 1904 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
530 Webster Street 120-03-059 1927 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
619 Webster Street 120-04-025 1904 Residential National Register A Yes Present Yes
719 Webster Street 120-04-112 1903 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1235 Webster Street 120-07-037 1905 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
1345 Webster Street 120-07-076 1906 Residential National Register A, C Yes Present Yes
2280 Webster Street 124-05-053 1935 Residential National Register C Yes Present Yes
2140 Yale Street 137-01-133 1908 Residential California Register 3 Yes Present Yes
Item 2
Attachment A Survey Report
Packet Pg. 30
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 22 August 9, 2023
VI. REFERENCES
California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a
Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California Office of
State Publishing, September 4, 2001.
Dames & Moore. Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000.
Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. February 2001.
Historic Environment Consultants, Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto:
Inventory and Report, City of Palo Alto, February 1979. Available online at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/pub lic/planning-amp-development -
services/historic-preservation/1979-inventory-and-report.pdf
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation . Revised 2002.
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. Accessed June 2, 2023,
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0 -0-0-74404
“Winds knock down trees, disrupt power,” Palo Alto Daily Post (online), Accessed April 24, 2023,
https://padailypost.com/2023/03/14/winds-knock-down-trees -disrupt -power/
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 31
Survey Report 2023 Reconnaissance Survey
Project Number 22306 Palo Alto, California
PAGE & TURNBULL 23 August 9, 2023
VII. APPENDIX A
PROPERTIES EXCLUDED FROM THE 2023 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
The following list of 14 properties were excluded from the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey as they have
previously been listed to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Eleven properties were identified in the
1997-2001 Survey as eligible for listing in the National Register but were already listed on the Palo
Alto Historic Inventory . The remaining three (3) properties were found individually eligible for listing
in the California Register through evaluation by qualified preservation professionals after being
listed to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.15
The following properties were identified as eligible for the National Register in the 1997-2001 Survey
but had already been listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. The category under which each
property was listed is shown in parentheses:
• 730 Bryant Street (Category 3)
• 1570 Cowper Steet (Category 2)
• 63 Crescent Drive (Category 3)
• 2560 Embarcadero Road (Category 1)
• 611-623 Emerson Street (Category 2)
• 1055 Forest Avenue (Category 4)
• 900 High Street (Category 2)
• 1795 Park Boulev ard (Category 3)
• 425 Tasso Street (Category 2)
• 121 Waverley Street (Category 4)
• 650 Waverley Street (Category 2)
Identified as eligible for the California Register through individual property evaluations since 2010,
with listed Palo Alto Historic Inventory category in parentheses:
• 359 Embarcadero Road (Category 3)
• 751-761 Everett Avenue (Category 4)
• 235 Hamilton Avenue (Category 3)
15 Historic Resource Evaluations are completed to meet the regulatory requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Item 2
Attachment A Survey
Report
Packet Pg. 32
Address Historic Name APN Year Built (estimated)
1032 College Avenue 137-03-031 1900
669 Everett Avenue 120-02-017 1925
925 Roble Ridge Road 137-17-026 1927
806 Bryant Street [not listed][not listed]
840 Bryant Street 120-28-109 [not listed]
846 Bryant Street 120-28-109 [not listed]
1382 California Avenue 137-05-025 2002
560 Chaucer Street 003-05-016 1935
660 Coleridge Avenue 124-02-010 2019
1157 Hamilton Avenue 003-07-025 2015
778 Melville Avenue 003-44-016 2002
788 San Antonio Road 147-03-041 1953-2002
943 Scott Street 120-17-113 2011
1027 Waverley Street 120-18-027 [not listed]
1935 Webster Street 124-03-072 2014
488 W Charleston Road 132-46-072 2011
321 California Avenue 124-33-001 1938
1082 College Avenue 137-03-036 1906
211 Middlefield Road 003-01-035 1915
471 Addison Avenue 120-17-055 1904
201 Alma Street 120-25-060 0
1101 Alma Street 120-30-044 1895
Alma Street [Railroad Bridge][n/a][not listed]
2230 Amherst Street 137-07-062 1904
695 Arastradero Road Alta Mesa Cemetery 167-04-001 0
2264 Bowdoin Street 137-07-004 1908
162 Bryant Street 120-24-038 1912
518-526 Bryant Street 120-26-061 1929-1935
541 Bryant Street 120-15-091 1947
635 Bryant Street 120-16-035 1900
904 Bryant Street [previously 802-804 Bryant Street]120-28-105 2001
2160 Bryant Street 124-19-076 1925
336 Byron Street 120-02-085 1900
518 Byron Street 120-03-055 1905
2277 Byron Street 124-05-024 1934
421 California Avenue 124-33-020 1928
1590 California Avenue 137-05-066 1912
555 Center Drive 003-10-016 1933
471 Channing Avenue 120-17-090 1996
669 Channing Avenue 120-05-014 1898
751 Channing Avenue 003-32-060 1905
545 Chaucer Street 003-07-046 1931
538 Churchill Avenue 124-01-006 1921
380 Coleridge Avenue 124-08-021 1931
418 Coleridge Avenue 124-08-068 1923
509 Coleridge Avenue 124-01-019 1926
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 33
537 Coleridge Avenue 124-01-018 1918
570 Coleridge Avenue 124-02-004 1931
643 College Avenue 137-01-102 1904
885 College Avenue 137-02-002 1927
2025 Columbia Street 137-06-040 1937
2115 Cornell Street 137-02-042 1924
2127 Cornell Street 137-02-041 1924
252 Cowper Street 120-14-024 1900
330 Cowper Street 120-14-059 1903
820 Cowper Street 120-17-011 1903
904 Cowper Street 120-17-049 1906
1535 Cowper Street 124-01-020 1926
1620 Cowper Street 124-08-085 1932
1965 Cowper Street 124-06-010 1931
2005 Cowper Street 124-06-008 1931
2150 Cowper Street 124-10-005 1936
2175 Cowper Street 124-04-019 1928
50 Crescent Drive 003-09-028 1930
75 Crescent Drive 003-09-006 1928
1275 Dana Avenue 003-20-022 1938
2601 East Bayshore Road Federal Telegraph Company - Marsh Station 008-04-001 [not listed]
541 E Crescent Drive 003-10-025 1928
1401 Edgewood Drive 003-11-066 1938
1451 Edgewood Drive 003-11-027 1929
1474 Edgewood Drive 003-11-041 1935
1485 Edgewood Dr Drive 003-11-022 1937
2171 El Camino Real St. Aloysius Church 124-31-081 [not listed]
311 El Carmelo Avenue 132-19-056 1895
Embarcadero Road [Underpass][n/a][not listed]
212 Emerson Street 120-25-033 1912
731 Emerson Street 120-27-071 1903
945-949 Emerson Street 120-28-079 1905
1215 Emerson Street 124-12-016 1906
1464 Emerson Street 124-16-033 1937
482 Everett Avenue 120-14-057 1896
332 Forest Avenue 120-16-038 1925
446 Forest Avenue 120-16-043 1992
555 Forest Avenue 120-04-031 1940
939 Forest Avenue 003-04-036 1912
1001 Fulton Street 003-33-037 1921
1011 Fulton Street 003-33-036 1912
1726 Fulton Street 003-58-033 1934
365 Guinda Street 003-03-053 1910
381 Guinda Street 003-03-007 1910
551-555 Hale Street 003-05-021 1939
132 Hamilton Avenue 120-27-003 1924
755 Hamilton Avenue 003-02-033 1918
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 34
855 Hamilton Avenue 003-03-033 1915
925 Hamilton Avenue 003-04-022 1909
951 Hamilton Avenue 003-04-021 1908
972 Hamilton Avenue 003-04-073 1927
975 Hamilton Avenue 003-04-019 1910
1407 Hamilton Avenue 003-11-012 1934
1423 Hamilton Avenue 003-11-009 1933
1452 Hamilton Avenue 003-23-014 1936
2131 Harvard Street 137-03-066 1906
365 Hawthorne Avenue 120-12-061 1905
375 Hawthorne Avenue 120-12-016 1903
544 Hawthorne Avenue 120-02-002 1957
317 High Street 120-25-104 1905
323 High Street 120-25-103 1905
334 High Street 120-25-107 1901
342 High Street 120-25-108 1902
260 Homer Avenue Cardinal French Laundry 120-28-118 [not listed]
469 Homer Avenue 120-16-051 1908
680 Homer Avenue 120-05-010 1904
759 Homer Avenue 003-32-033 1929
175 Island Drive 003-11-005 1936
230 Kellogg Avenue 124-16-012 1916
270 Kellogg Avenue 124-16-017 1909
360 Kellogg Avenue 124-07-043 1919
559 Kingsley Avenue 120-06-071 1918
437 Kipling Street 120-15-020 1902
815 Kipling Street 120-17-023 1900
817 Kipling Street 120-17-022 1908
825 Kipling Street 120-17-021 1898
832 Kipling Street 120-17-025 1890
630 Lincoln Avenue 120-06-033 1905
1145 Lincoln Avenue 003-19-059 1946
2931 Louis Road 127-40-024 1914
411 Lytton Avenue 120-14-076 1900
1511 Madrono Avenue 124-24-005 1928
419 Maple Street 003-06-038 1929
218 Middlefield Rd 120-02-012 1905
980 Middlefield Road 120-05-077 1951
1990 Newell Road 003-57-060 1939
[no address][Cistern and Pump House][n/a][not listed]
426 Palo Alto Avenue 120-09-059 1902
1757 Park Boulevard 124-25-039 1904
340 Portage Avenue 132-38-071 1918-1949
211 Quarry Road 142-04-019 1931
245 Ramona Street 120-25-012 1908
955 Roble Ridge Road 137-17-006 1927
435 Santa Rita Avenue 124-09-013 1936
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 35
550 Santa Rita Avenue 124-04-035 1936
1247 Stanford Avenue 137-06-009 1900
2340 Tasso Street 124-11-011 1933
University Avenue [Underpass][n/a][not listed]
525 University Avenue 120-03-069 1966-1976
1056 University Avenue 003-05-026 1927
1341 University Avenue 003-06-020 1924
1570 University Avenue 003-08-006 1931
546 Washington Avenue 124-04-021 1926
311 Waverley Street 120-14-050 1910
313 Waverley Street 120-14-083 1902
324 Waverly Street 120-14-086 1902
333 Waverley Street 120-14-080 1910
385 Waverley Street 120-14-078 1916
720 Waverley Street 120-16-061 1912
845 Waverley Street 120-17-030 1966
947 Waverley Street 120-17-060 1903
959 Waverley Street 120-17-059 1904
1545 Waverley Street 124-07-026 1908
251 Webster Street 120-02-032 1904
530 Webster Street 120-03-059 1927
619 Webster Street 120-04-025 1904
719 Webster Street 120-04-112 1903
1235 Webster Street 120-07-037 1905
1345 Webster Street 120-07-076 1906
2280 Webster Street 124-05-053 1935
2140 Yale Street 137-01-133 1908
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 36
Use National Register or California Register?Significance Criteria Integrity?Status
Residential National Register C No Altered
Residential National Register C No Altered
Residential National Register A, B No Altered
Residential National Register A, C No Demolished
Residential National Register A No Demolished
Residential National Register A, C No Demolished
Residential National Register C No Demolished
Residential National Register B, C No Demolished
Residential National Register A, C No Demolished
Residential National Register C No Demolished
Residential National Register A, C No Demolished
Commercial California Register 1 No Demolished [pending]
Residential National Register A, B, C No Demolished
Residential California Register 3 No Demolished
Residential National Register C No Demolished
Residential National Register A No Demolished
Commercial National Register A, C N/A No Finding [under construction]
Residential National Register A N/A No Finding [under construction]
Residential National Register B N/A No Finding [damaged]
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Other National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Other National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Other National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Commercial California Register 3 Yes Present
Commercial National Register A, C Yes Present
Commercial National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present - building was relocated ca. 2001
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Commercial National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B Yes Present
Residential National Register A Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 37
Residential National Register B Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential California Register 3 Yes Present
Residential National Register B Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A Yes Present
Residential National Register A Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Infrastructure National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Religious National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Other National Register A Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Mixed National Register A Yes Present
Residential National Register B Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B Yes Present
Commercial National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 38
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register B Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Commercial National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential California Register 3 Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential California Register 3 Yes Present
Residential National Register A Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register B Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A Yes Present
Commercial California Register 3 Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Other National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Industrial California Register 1 Yes Present
Other National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, B Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 39
Residential California Register 3 Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential California Register 3 Yes Present
Other National Register A Yes Present
Office California Register 2; 3 Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register B, C Yes Present
Residential California Register 3 Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register A, C Yes Present
Residential National Register C Yes Present
Residential California Register 3 Yes Present
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 40
Retains Eligibility?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 41
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 42
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 43
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Item 2
Attachment B Table 5
Packet Pg. 44
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. 45
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. 46
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. 47
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. 48
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. 49
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. 50
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. 51
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. 52
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. 53
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. 54
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. 55
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. 56
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. 57
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. 58
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. 59
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. 60
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. 61