The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-03-28 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, March 28, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Boardmember Mike Makinen Remote Call‐In Location:851 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Historic Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o n YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Board member 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. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session: Work Plan and Certified Local Government Report ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.261 Hamilton Avenue: Review and Recommendation of a Request to Update a Property's Individual Palo Alto Historic Inventory Category to Category 2 from Category 3; the Property is Located in the National Register Ramona Street Architectural District APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 11, 2024 5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2024 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 March 28, 2024 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, March 28, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMBoardmember Mike Makinen Remote Call‐In Location:851 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA94301Historic Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Board member 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. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session: Work Plan and Certified Local Government Report ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.261 Hamilton Avenue: Review and Recommendation of a Request to Update a Property's Individual Palo Alto Historic Inventory Category to Category 2 from Category 3; the Property is Located in the National Register Ramona Street Architectural District APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 11, 2024 5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2024 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 March 28, 2024 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, March 28, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMBoardmember Mike Makinen Remote Call‐In Location:851 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA94301Historic Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Board member 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. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session: Work Plan and Certified Local Government Report ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.261 Hamilton Avenue: Review and Recommendation of a Request to Update a Property's Individual Palo Alto Historic Inventory Category to Category 2 from Category 3; the Property is Located in the National Register Ramona Street Architectural District APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 11, 2024 5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2024 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. 3 Regular Meeting March 28, 2024 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, March 28, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMBoardmember Mike Makinen Remote Call‐In Location:851 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA94301Historic Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Board member 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.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and AssignmentsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Study Session: Work Plan and Certified Local Government ReportACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.261 Hamilton Avenue: Review and Recommendation of a Request to Update a Property'sIndividual Palo Alto Historic Inventory Category to Category 2 from Category 3; theProperty is Located in the National Register Ramona Street Architectural DistrictAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 11, 20245.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2024BOARD 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. 4 Regular Meeting March 28, 2024 Item No. 1. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 28, 2024 Report #: 2403-2783 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: 2024 HRB Meeting Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 5 Historic Resources Board 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2024 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 1/25/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/8/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 2/22/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 2/23/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Community Meeting 3/14/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 3/28/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/11/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/25/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/9/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/23/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/13/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/27/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/11/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/25/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/8/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/22/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/12/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/26/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/10/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/24/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/14/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/28/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/12/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/26/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 2024 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2024 HRB Meeting Schedule & Assignments Packet Pg. 6 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 3 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 28, 2024 Report #: 2403-2753 TITLE Study Session: Work Plan and Certified Local Government Report RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) receive staff presentations and: (1) discuss the accomplishments related to goals set in the 2023-24 HRB work plan1 and explore goals for the upcoming work plan for 2024-25 (2) review content for the Certified Local Government (CLG) annual report that staff will prepare and submit to the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) by April 26, 2024 BACKGROUND Each spring, staff is tasked with preparing a work plan and an annual report about the City’s historic preservation program including the HRB’s efforts. These have different timelines – the CLG annual report looks backward to the prior October through September, while the Work Plan includes a look back from the prior May to May and sets the goals for the coming May until the following May. The March 28th discussion is intended to be a study session to begin preparing the draft HRB work plan for 2024-25 and the 2024 CLG annual report. The draft plan and report will be published in the packet for the April 11, 2024 HRB meeting, when staff will ask the HRB to: (1) provide comments on a draft HRB Work Plan for 2024-25 and (2) assist with additional details for the CLG annual report for the October 2022 through September 2023 period, such as HRB member training received. 1 Link (version issue) HRB work plan for 2023-2024: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/hrb-2023-2024-work-plan.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 7 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 3 Work Plan Time Frame and Accuracy The HRB approved the current (through April 2024) HRB Work Plan on May 11, 2023. The version the HRB approved covered activities and goals during the period from May 2023 through May 2024. The version published in the Council report in 2023 and online is in a different format and has some inaccuracies that don’t reflect the final version the HRB voted on. Errors in the first page ‘overview’ section include the prior plan months and members (May 2022 - April 2023, citing a prior board member and not including a current board member who replaced the member in April 2023), and past accomplishments from a prior year. The second page ‘work plan’ verbiage appears to be from an earlier draft. Staff plans to ensure greater accuracy in the 2024-25 Work Plan. Work Plan to Cite Past Accomplishments May to May Typically, the past accomplishments cited in the work plan are from the prior May until May period. Accomplishments include submitting the CLG report by the deadline to enable OHP grant eligibility. Staff has tallied the total number of HRB meetings during the May 2-23 to May 2024 period to list this accomplishment (14 regular HRB meetings, including this meeting and April 11 meeting, and two evening outreach meetings during the period). The CLG annual report requires meeting data, albeit from the October through September time period, and other data. Ongoing activities, such as reviewing alterations and implementing Comprehensive Plan Policy L7.2, have been cited as accomplishments and goals in HRB work plans since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in late 2017. Re-Evaluating Number of Work Plan Goals and Meeting These Goals Whereas citing three goals in board and commission work plans is reasonable, the HRB work plans routinely cite five goals. The first two goals in the HRB work plan/historic program have reflected the ongoing work of the HRB and staff to review exterior alterations to historic resources and prepare evaluations to determine the eligibility of properties for the California Register of Historical Resources (Policy L7.2). These goals could be rephrased as ongoing activities rather than taking up space in the work plan for goals. This would allow the HRB to focus on three goals that could be completed (or not) and can change from year to year. For instance, the 2023-24 HRB work plan goals 3, 4 and 5 are cited below; some completed some not, staff has added to these a note about the current completion status (in italicized text): GOAL 3: Continue implementation of Policy L7.1.1. March 21, 2022, Council directed staff to "work with the HRB to review the approximately 165 properties deemed eligible previously and make recommendations for listing on the City's local inventory in accordance with the process set forth in PAMC 16.49 and collaborate with the HRB for community engagement." The goal verbiage also provided status: “The project kicked off in February 2023 and the first community meeting was held in April 2023.” o Though staff has not yet proceeded to the Council with a report conveying the HRB’s recommendation (a date of April 22nd is targeted), staff and the HRB met the goal to review, make recommendations and collaborate for community engagement over the course of multiple regular HRB meetings and evening Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 8 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 3 community meetings. This goal can be retired for the 2024-25 Work Plan period that commences in May 2024. GOAL 4: Improve outreach, review incentives, and develop work program for the next year. Review and recommend improvements to outreach materials regarding the program, including incentives for rehabilitation. With work program development, consider implementing additional historic preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan, such as L7.1.2: Reassess Historic Preservation Ordinance. o Staff and the HRB worked on outreach materials, reviewed Title 18 zoning code incentives, reviewed the bulletin, and discussed the historic ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49) to some extent, and are now preparing a work program. GOAL 5: Tailored Mills Act Program discussion. Finalize outreach approach and bring forward program report to City Council. The work plan noted that this goal was targeted as a third quarter activity, unless other projects/goals are unfinished. o Because the activities related to Goal 3 have been continuing past the third quarter, Goal 5 was only discussed at regular HRB meetings and can remain on the list of goals for the next work plan. CLG Report Overview Staff calculated the number of meetings held from October 2022 through September 2023 (13 meetings in total). There were eight HRB members during the timeframe, including Board member David Bower as well as his successor, Samantha Rohman, whose first HRB meeting was April 13, 2023. Attachment A is the CLG report staff submitted to OHP by the deadline in 2023. It is always a challenge to recall what trainings or webinars staff and HRB attended during these earlier reporting periods. In the coming weeks, staff will reach out to members to ascertain the dates, hours and session titles of the webinars HRB members attended, to insert into the CLG annual report. Staff will also calculate the number of properties found eligible and ineligible for the California Register of Historical Places to add to the annual report. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023 CLG annual report for October 2022 through September 2023 period AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 9 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) INSTRUCTIONS: This a Word form with expanding text fields and check boxes. It will probably open as Read-Only. Save it to your computer before you begin entering data. This form can be saved and reopened. Because this is a WORD form, it will behave generally like a regular Word document except that the font, size, and color are set by the text field.    Start typing where indicated to provide the requested information. Click on the check box to mark either yes or no. To enter more than one item in a particular text box, just insert an extra line (Enter) between the items. Save completed form and email as an attachment to info.calshpo@parks.ca.gov. You can also convert it to a PDF and send as an email attachment. Use the Acrobat tab in WORD and select Create and Attach to Email. You can then attach the required documents to that email. If the attachments are too large (greater than10mb total), you will need to send them in a second or third email. Name of CLG City of Palo Alto Report Prepared by: Amy French Date of commission/board review: April 13, 2023 Report to HRB on work plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic- resources-board/2023/hrb-4.13-work-plan.pdf and meeting minutes https://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-4132023/ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION I. Enforce Appropriate State or Local Legislation for the Designation and Protection of Historic Properties. A. Preservation Laws 1. What amendments or revisions, if any, are you considering to the certified ordinance? Please forward drafts or proposals., either as part of this report or under separate cover. REMINDER: Pursuant to the CLG Agreement, OHP must have the opportunity to review and comment on ordinance changes prior to adoption. Changes that do not meet the CLG requirements could affect certification status. Palo Alto did not change preservation laws during the reporting period. 2. Provide an electronic link to your ordinance or appropriate section(s) of the municipal/zoning code. PAMC 16.49 link: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-74404 B. New Local Landmark Designations (Comprehensive list of properties/districts designated during the reporting. 1 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 10 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) 1. During the reporting period, October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2022, what properties/districts have been locally designated? Property Name/Address None Date Designated Type here. If a district, number of contributors Type here. Date Recorded by County Recorder Type here. REMINDER: Pursuant to California Government Code § 27288.2, “the county recorder shall record a certified resolution establishing an historical resources designation issued by the State Historical Resources Commission or a local agency, or unit thereof.” 2. What properties/districts have been de-designated this past year? For districts, include the total number of resource contributors? Property Name/Address Date Removed Reason None Click or tap here to enter text.Click or tap here to enter text. C. Historic Preservation Element/Plan 1. Do you address historic preservation in your general plan?☐ No ☒ Yes, it is included in another element. (Land Use)☐ Yes, in a separate historic preservation element. Provide an electronic link to the historic preservation section(s) of the General Plan or to the separate historic preservation element. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/file-migration/historic/long-range- planning/resources/2030-comp-plan-2-land-use-june-21.pdf D. Review Responsibilities 1. Who takes responsibility for design review or Certificates of Appropriateness? ☐ All projects subject to design review go the commission. ☒ Some projects are reviewed at the staff level without commission review. What is the threshold between staff-only review and full-commission review? Minor alterations versus major alterations. Per PAMC 16.49.050 (a)(1) item (B), the HRB reviews single-family and duplex residences which are historic structures/sites in the Downtown area or which are significant 2 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 11 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) buildings elsewhere in the city and “Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory.” Per item (C) the planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to guidelines which the HRB may adopt. Minor exterior alterations are those alterations which the director of planning and development services or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings.” Staff is assisted in all reviews of projects set forth in PAMC 16.49.050 item (a) by professional historic preservation consulting firms to perform Secretary of Interior’s Standards reviews (building permits and discretionary reviews). The HRB reviews projects in Professorville and Ramona districts and supports the Architectural Review Board in reviewing projects in the Downtown and Significant properties (local inventory Categories 1 and 2) that are not single family homes or duplexes where they exist outside the Downtown. 2. California Environmental Quality Act What is the role of historic preservation staff and commission in providing input to CEQA documents prepared for or by the local government? The Chief Planning Official and planning staff are involved in scoping and reviewing administrative draft CEQA documents involving historical resources, and related technical reports including Historic Resource Evaluations (HRE) and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SIS) reports. Generally, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is not involved in the development of draft environmental documents. However, staff seeks historic preservation consultant assistance for CEQA documents for major Architectural Review projects that include properties listed on the local historic inventory or determined California Register Eligible. What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing CEQA documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? Draft CEQA documents are made available for public review, including by HRB members. In addition, staff and/or other City bodies may refer draft CEQA documents and/or related technical reports to the HRB for review and comment. The HRB’s role is advisory. In some cases, staff conducts a hearing at the HRB for public review of Environmental Impact Reports for properties containing listed historic resources 3. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act What is the role of the staff and commission in providing input to Section 106 documents prepared for or by; the local government? The Chief Planning Official, with consultant assistance, and/or HRB provide input to Section 106 documents as requested What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing Section 106 documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? The Chief Planning Official, with consultant assistance, and/or HRB review Section 106 documents as requested 3 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 12 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) II. Establish an Adequate and Qualified Historic Preservation Review Commission by State or Local Legislation. A. Commission Membership Name Professional Discipline Date Appointed Date Term Ends Email Address David Bower 12/15/23 Construction 11/1/16 4/10/23 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz Museum Conservator 12/13/21; 4/10/23 3/31/26 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org Michael Makinen Margaret Wimmer Christian Pease Caroline Willis Engineering/Historian Architecture and Design Architecture/Analytics Architecture 12/15/17 12/15/17 12/15/17; 4/10/23 3/1/21 3/31/24 3/31/24 3/31/26 3/31/24 3/31/24 HRB@cityofpaloalto.org HRB@cityofpaloalto.org HRB@cityofpaloalto.org HRB@cityofpaloalto.org HRB@cityofpaloalto.orgGogo Heinrich Architecture 3/1/21 Attach resumes and Statement of Professional Qualifications forms for all members. 1. If you do not have two qualified professionals on your commission, explain why the professional qualifications have not been met and how professional expertise is otherwise being provided. NA 2. If all positions are not currently filled, why is there a vacancy, and when will the position be filled? NA B. Staff to the Commission/CLG staff 1. Is the staff to your commission the same as your CLG coordinator? ☒ Yes ☐ No tap here to enter text. If not, who serves as staff? Click or 2. If the position(s) is not currently filled, why is there a vacancy? Type here. 4 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 13 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) Attach resumes and Statement of Professional Qualifications forms for staff. Name/Title Amy French Discipline Dept. Affiliation Chief Planning Official Email Address amy.french@cityofpaloalto.orgPlanning C. Attendance Record Please complete attendance chart for each commissioner and staff member. Commissions are required to meet four times a year, at a minimum. If you haven’t met at least four times, explain why not. Commissioner/Staff David Bower Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar x2 ☒ Apr x2 ☒ May x2 Jun Jul Aug Sep ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ Alisa Eageston-Cieslevicz Michael Makinen Margaret Wimmer Christian Pease Caroline Willis ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ Gogo Heinrich Amy French Type here. Type here.☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐ D. Training Received Indicate what training each commissioner and staff member has received. Remember it is a CLG requirement that all commissioners and staff to the commission attend at least one training program relevant to your commission each year. It is up to the CLG to determine the relevancy of the training. 5 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 14 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) Commissioner/Staff Name Training Title & Description (including method Duration of Training Training Provider Date presentation, e.g., webinar, workshop) Christian Pease ‘California State Housing Laws and Preservation Planning’ 3 hours 2 hours 2 hours CPF 2/16/23 (for next reporting period) City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Hybrid Public Meetings Hybrid Public Meetings Fall 2022 Fall 2022David Bower A Realtor & Homeowner's Toolkit for Historic Homes 2 hours CPF 5/12/22 Caroline Willis “Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program” 6 hours (2 HSW cred) 1.5 hours NAPC 10/21/21 & 10/22/21, 11/17/21 “Social Media Strategies for Historic Preservation Commissions” Hybrid Public Meetings Fall 2022 5/13/22 City of Palo Alto Stanford Historical SocietyMargaret Wimmer Michael Makinen Stanford Historical Society Preservation Workshop 2 hours Hybrid Public Meetings Tool Kit for Historic Homes Hybrid Public Meetings "Paul R. Williams, Architect to the Stars", "A peak at Hawaii's Modernist Context" and "Berkeley's Architectural Heritage" 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour City of Palo Alto CPF City of Palo Alto TV show Fall 2022 5/12/22 Fall 2022 2022 2022 2022 CPF Berkeley Heritage Gogo Heinrich Hybrid Public Meetings 2 hours City of Palo Alto Fall 2022 Alisa Eagleston‐Ceislevicz Technology Toolkit 2 hours 2 hours 3 hours CPF 6/9/22 Fall 2022 2/16/23 (for next reporting period) 10/13/21 Hybrid Public Meetings California State Housing Laws and Conservation Planning City of Palo Alto CPFAmy French Land Use Law Update 1 hour APA Hybrid Public Meetings Leading Transformative Change 2 hours 2.5 hours City of Palo Alto APA 2/10/22 2/16/22 6 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 15 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) III. Maintain a System for the Survey and Inventory of Properties that Furthers the Purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act A. Historical Contexts: initiated, researched, or developed in the reporting year (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: California CLG procedures require CLGs to submit survey results, including historic contexts, to OHP. (If you have not done so, submit an electronic copy or link if available online with this report.) Context Name Description How it is Being Used Date Submitted to OHP NA Click or tap here to enter text.Click or tap here to enter text.Click or tap here to enter text. B. New Surveys or Survey Updates (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: The evaluation of a single property is not a survey. Also, material changes to a property that is included in a survey, is not a change to the survey and should not be reported here. Survey Area Context Based- Reconnaissance yes/no Level:Acreage # of Properties Surveyed Date Completed Date Submitted to OHPor Intensive Citywide ongoing surveys per Comp Plan Policy L7.2; found two CRHR eligible properties of 23 properties studied between March 2021 and Sept 2022 no Reconnaissance NA 23 properties studied 3/2021 through 9/2022 period Through end of reporting Two CRHR Eligible property DPRs submitted with this CLG Report How are you using the survey data? To ensure no demolition permits are issued before properties are studied for Cal Register eligibility. When properties are determined California Register Eligible via these ongoing surveys, a discretionary review application for modification/demolition is deemed not exempt from CEQA review and building is retained unless SOC with EIR. When Non-California Register Eligible determination, building demolition, substantial remodel is possible. 7 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 16 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) IV. Provide for Adequate Public Participation in the Local Historic Preservation Program A. Public Education What public outreach, training, or publications programs has the CLG undertaken? How were the commissioners and staff involved? Please provide an electronic link to all publications or other products not previously provided to OHP. Item or Event Description Date Update of webpages including incentives https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Updates to and the National Register eligible properties list; most recently (and this will be reported in our next CLG report) we added a page on the reconnaissance survey/inventory update project information Development-Services/Historic-Preservation webpages occurred during the reporting periodhttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Preservation- Incentives https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departmen https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- ts/Planning-Development- Services/Historic-Preservation/2023- Reconnaissance-Survey development-services/historic-preservation/evaluation-tables- clipped-from-1998-2000-survey.pdf ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ANNUAL PRODUCTS REPORTS FOR CLGS NOTE: OHP will forward this information to NPS on your behalf.CLG Inventory Program During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2021) how many historic properties did your local government add to the CLG inventory? This is the total number of historic properties and contributors to districts (or your best estimate of the number) added to your inventory from all programs, local, state, and Federal, during the reporting year. These might include National Register, California Register, California Historic Landmarks, locally funded surveys, CLG surveys, and local designations. Program area Number of Properties added Two properties found California Register eligible during reporting period City of Palo Alto 8 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 17 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) A. Local Register (i.e., Local Landmarks and Historic Districts) Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) did you have a local register program to create local landmarks and/or local districts (or a similar list of designations) created by local law?☒Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been added to your register or designated from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022? Two added to list of CRHR eligible properties C. Local Tax Incentives Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) did you have a Local Tax Incentives Program, such as the Mills Act? ☐ Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many properties have been added to this program from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022? 0 Name of Program Number of Properties Added During Total Number of Properties Benefiting 2021-2022 From Program Mills Act 0 1 D. Local “bricks and mortar” grants/loan program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) did you have a local government historic preservation grant and/or loan program for rehabilitating/restoring historic properties? ☐Yes ☒No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022? Type here. Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Type here.Type here. E. Design Review/Local Regulatory Program 9 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 18 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) did your local government have a historic preservation regulatory law(s) (e.g., an ordinance) authorizing Commission and/or staff review of local government projects or impacts on historic properties? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many historic properties did your local government review for compliance with your local government’s historic preservation regulatory law(s) from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021? Not counted – we have our historic preservation consultant review building permits modifying historic properties, for SISR compliance F. Local Property Acquisition Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2021--September 30, 2022) did you have a local program to acquire (or help to acquire) historic properties in whole or in part through purchase, donation, or other means? ☐Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 NA Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Type here.Type here. IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM CLG REQUIREMENTS, OHP IS INTERESTED IN YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THE RECENT CAMP TRAINING   Did anyone from your local government participate in the free CAMP training opportunities in Fall 2021? No Whether or not you were able to take advantage of any of the CAMP trainings in 2021, would you like to see OHP to provide free additional CAMPs in the future? Not sure What are your top three topics for future training? XII Attachments (electronic) ☒ Resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for all commission members/alternatives and staff (Links and attached)\ 10 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 19 Certified Local Government Program -- 2021-2022 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022) Note: Board Member Bower’s paragraph is found in the email attachment since he is no longer on the website as of April 13, 2023 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Caroline-Willis https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Christian-Pease https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Gogo-Heinrich https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Michael-Makinen https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Margaret-Wimmer https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Resources-Board-HRB/Alisa-Eagleston-Cieslewicz ☒ Minutes from commission meetings (links) 10/28/21: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-01.27.2022-minutes- from-10.28.2021.pdf 12/9/21: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-01.27.2022-minutes-from- 12.09.2021.pdf 1/27/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/hrb-03.10.2022-minutes- january-27-2022.pdf 2/24/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-03.24.2022-minutes- february-24-2022.pdf 3/10/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-03-10-2022-minutes.pdf 3/24/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/march-24-2022-minutes.pdf 4/14/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/april-14-2022-minutes.pdf 4/28/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-07.14.2022-minutes- 04.28.22.pdf 5/12/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-07.14.2022-minutes- 05.12.22.pdf 5/26/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-07.14.2022-minutes- 05.26.22.pdf 7/14/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-08.25.2022-minutes- 07.14.2022.pdf 8/25/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-10.13.2022-minutes- 08.25.2022.pdf 9/22/22: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-11.10.2022-minutes- 09.22.22.pdf ☐ Drafts of proposed changes to the ordinance (NA) ☐ Drafts of proposed changes to the General Plan (NA) ☐ Public outreach publications (NA) Email to: info.calshpo@parks.ca.gov 11 Item 2 Attachment A: CLG Annual Report 10-1-21--9-30-22 Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 5 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 28, 2024 Report #: 2402-2685 TITLE 261 Hamilton Avenue: Review and Recommendation of a Request to Update a Property's Individual Palo Alto Historic Inventory Category to Category 2 from Category 3; the Property is Located in the National Register Ramona Street Architectural District RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend the City Council reclassify the building from a ‘Contributing Building’ Category 3 resource to a ‘Major Building’ Category 2 resource on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is to support the HRB’s review of a requested reclassification of 261 Hamilton, the Medico-Dental building. It is currently listed as a Category 3 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory. The owner requests designation as a Category 2 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory, per the attached letter of request and evaluation prepared by the City’s historic preservation consultant (Attachment A). The evaluation report was prepared directly for the City of Palo Alto at the applicant’s expense. The report’s conclusion is that the subject building is a meritorious work of an important regional architect of merit, Birge M. Clark, and is an excellent example of commercial design in the Spanish Colonial Revival style that is both individually significant and contributes to the Ramona Street Architectural District. Further the report notes the building meets the local Criteria 1, 2, 5 and 6 in consideration for eligibility as a local inventory Category 2 resource, as a “Major Building”. BACKGROUND The building at 261 Hamilton Avenue is located within the Commercial Downtown Community (CD-C) zone district, with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts, and within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 5 2014 Request for Rehabilitation, Major Project, and Category Upgrade On April 16, 2014, the HRB reviewed and recommended a project proposed at this address, as well as a request for a category upgrade associated with a proposed seismic rehabilitation. On June 5, 2014, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the rehabilitation along with relocation of basement floor area to a 5,910 square foot rear addition and addition of a 1,196 square foot mezzanine floor. The 2014 staff reports noted that the requested upgrade in category related to the associated rehabilitation project was anticipated to lead to the owner’s ability to generate 15,000 square feet of bonus area for potential future transfer to an eligible receiver site in Downtown Palo Alto. Council action was indicated for the category upgrade process, and the need arose for Council to weigh in on a code interpretation related to ‘building envelope’ to enable action on the larger discretionary project subject to Architectural Review (i.e. relocation of basement floor area above grade, which the community had commented on during the prior public hearing(s)). The zoning code in question was Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18 section regarding grandfathered facilities and additional floor area. The June 2014 Council action resulted in continuance of its review of the project to a date uncertain, and direction to staff regarding the code interpretation. That direction led to a code amendment to restrict future projects associated with grandfathered facilities in the Downtown. Council’s code interpretation direction effectively scuttled the larger project the HRB and ARB had recommended. Links1 to the staff report and meeting minutes of Council’s 2014 hearing are provided below. Minutes of the April 16, 2014 HRB meeting begin on page 65 of the Council staff report; they reflect that the HRB recommended an upgrade from the local inventory Category 3 to Category 2 on a 6-0-1 vote (page 91) associated with the rehabilitation project. Links2 to the ARB’s 2014 minutes and staff report are provided below; within the ARB staff report, Attachment F is the April 16, 2014 HRB staff report. 1 Link to Council staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2014/261hamilton-ave-id- 4678.pdf and action minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/00-archive/2014/06-23-14- action.pdf 2 June 5 2014 ARB minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/archive-table-layout-2011-and- newer/2014/6-5-14-42912.pdf and April 2014 ARB report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/architectural-review-board/archive-table-layout-2011-and-newer/2014/id-4598.pdf Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 22 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 5 After the Council action, the applicant dropped the pursuit of the category upgrade until the March 2024 request that is now the subject of this report. In December 2015, the owner submitted building permit plans for seismic retrofit and interior rehabilitation plans that did not involve exterior work; the plans were reviewed by a qualified historic preservation firm, approved, and implemented. Separate tenant improvements and signage plans were also approved and implemented. The building was rehabilitated, such many of the original features were restored and several compatible new elements were added. As noted, the City’s consultant has evaluated the building in its present state, and determined it rises to a category 2 local resource "Major Building" of regional importance in the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. Local Inventory Category 3 and Ramona Street Architectural District The building at 261 Hamilton Avenue was designed by prominent local architect Birge M. Clark and constructed by builder Wells P. Goodenough in 1928. Clark designed the subject building to function as a “professional building.” It was later renamed as the “Medico-Dental” building upon completion. The Medico-Dental 261 Hamilton Avenue is currently listed as a Category 3 historic resource per Council action (reflected in Attachment B) March 4, 1985; this action occurred before the nomination of the Ramona Street Architectural District for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. On May 21, 1985, the Ramona Street Architectural District was nominated and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As a contributing property in the National Register Ramona Street Architectural District, the building at 261 Hamilton Avenue is also listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. ANALYSIS Recent Historic Resource Evaluation and Local Inventory Categories The City’s consultant, Page and Turnbull, prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) (within Attachment A) finding 261 Hamilton Avenue meets Criteria 1, 2, 5 and 6 in consideration for eligibility as a Category 2: “Major Building.” These criteria are listed below: •Criterion 1 (The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation) •Criterion 2 (The structure or is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation) •Criterion 5 (The architect or building was important) •Criterion 6 (The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship The HRB’s purview, as set forth in PAMC Section 16.49.040, includes recommending the reclassification to the City Council for approval, disapproval or modification. The building at 261 Hamilton has met the criteria for designation that are set forth in the City’s historic preservation ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49.040 (b). Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 23 Item No. 3. Page 4 of 5 PAMC Section 16.49.020 (b) provides definitions for the four local inventory categories. The current local designation is a contributing building, Category 3 resource, defined as follows: Category 3 or 4: "Contributing building" means any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. The requested Category 2 resource is defined in the PAMC Section 16.49.020(b) as follows: Category 2: "Major building" means any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. HRB Purview of Resources in the Ramona Historic District Exterior alterations of resources within a National historic district are subject to HRB review. However, exterior changes are not proposed at this time. The modifications to the building submitted in 2015 via building permit application(s) were reviewed by Architectural Resources Group and the City’s historic preservation planner for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, prior to issuance of building permits. Benefits of Historic Listing and Reclassification As a contributing building in a national register historic district, the building has a greater chance of obtaining grants or tax credits for rehabilitation. Such benefits are provided at the state and federal levels. The building is eligible for historic preservation incentives set forth in the California Historical Building Code and the California’s energy standards. Reclassification from a Category 3 to a Category 2 resource at the local level would allow for participation in the Floor Area Bonus/Transfer of Development Rights program, which is only available for local inventory Category 1 and 2 resources. The applicant’s request to upgrade the local inventory category based on the attached evaluation does ask for transfer of development rights (TDR) or a floor area bonus. On-site use of bonus area would require review for compliance with the Standards and Architectural Review findings. PAMC Section 18.18.080 governs the process to transfer bonus floor area to eligible non-historic receiver site(s) in the Downtown area. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Maintenance of historic designation of a property or reclassification of historic designation of a property is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 24 Item No. 3. Page 5 of 5 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Notice of this HRB hearing appeared in the Daily Post on March 15, 2024, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting and notice cards were sent out on March 14, 2024, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade Attachment B: Inventory Form from 1985 AUTHOR/TITLE Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 25 February 22, 2024 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 261 Hamilton Avenue Project Description To Planning Staff and HRB Members: Attached is Hayes Group Architect’s submittal package for 261 Hamilton Avenue for a request to elevate the local historic listing classification. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of our client, Hamilton Ramona Partners This package includes an electronically submitted Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum prepared by the city’s consultant, Page & Turnbull. 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing building is on the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street, in downtown Palo Alto, in the CD-C(P)(GF) zoning district, adjacent to other commercial properties of similar scale. Constructed in 1928, and designed by Birge Clark, the subject property was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1986 as a contributing building to the Ramona Street Historic District. By default, because of the national listing, the building was subsequently listed in the California Register of Historic resources also as a contributor to the Ramona Street Architectural District. In 1985, the building was added to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as an individual Category 3 resource. In 2015, a rehabilitation and seismic upgrade project was undertaken and completed by Cody Anderson Wasney Architects and SEI, structural engineers. The rehabilitation work, reviewed by Architectural Resources Group, was found to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. 2. PROPOSED PROJECT We are proposing to elevate the historic status on the local inventory from Category 3, “contributing building” to Category 2, “major building”. According to the city commissioned Page & Turnbull Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum, dated February 8, 2024, 261 Hamilton Avenue is eligible for elevation to Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance in the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. The subject building meets Criterion 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the seven Criteria for Designation. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 26 In addition, in order for a building or landscape to qualify for listing under any local, state or national historic registry it must possess significance under at least one of the criteria described above and retain integrity. Page & Turnbull has concluded that the subject property retains integrity of Location, Setting, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling and Association. We look forward to a staff review and scheduling of an HRB hearing for the elevation of this major building. Please call me at (650) 365-0600x115 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal encl: Page & Turnbull HREM dated 2/8/2024 cc: Roxy Rapp, Hamilton Ramona Partners Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 27 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology MEMORANDUM DATE February 8, 2024 PROJECT NUMBER 16252B.29 TO Kristina Paulauskaite, Associate Planner PROJECT 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto OF City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services FROM Samantha Purnell, Cultural Resources Planner, Page & Turnbull CC Christina Dikas, Principal, Page & Turnbull VIA Email REGARDING 261 Hamilton Avenue – Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto has requested a Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum for the commercial building at 261 Hamilton Avenue in Palo Alto’s University South neighborhood. The building was designed by prominent local architect Birge M. Clark and constructed by builder Wells P. Goodenough in 1928. Clark designed the subject building for the property owner, Professional Building Inc., to function as a “professional building.” It was later renamed as the “Medico-Dental” building upon completion. The United States Post Office originally occupied the ground floor until 1933, with medical offices on the upper floors.1 METHODOLOGY Limited historical research was performed through online sources to supplement previous findings. Sources include the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) website, Ancestry.com, and Newspapers.com. Key primary sources consulted and cited in this report include Palo Alto building permit applications, historical photographs, and historical newspapers. City of Palo Alto staff provided Page & Turnbull with additional information, including: • State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory form for 261 Hamilton Avenue (1985) • State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523A, B and L forms prepared by Architectural Resources Group (2013) 1 Architectural Resources Group, “261 Hamilton Avenue,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record Forms, November 2013. Appendix D of Focus Historic Structure Report: 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA (March 4, 2014). Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 28 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 2 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Focused Historic Structure Report prepared by Architectural Resources Group (2014) • Building permits for 261 Hamilton Avenue • Drawings by Cody Anderson Wasney Architects (2015) HISTORIC STATUS 261 Hamilton Avenue has been previously evaluated and is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. National Register of Historic Places The subject property was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1986 as a contributor to the Ramona Street Architectural District. California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources was created in 1998. Because the subject property was already listed in the National Register, it was listed by default in the California Register of Historical Resources as a contributor to the Ramona Street Architectural District. Palo Alto Historic Inventory In 1985, 261 Hamilton Avenue was added to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as an individual Category 3 resource, which constitutes a “Contributing Building” or a “good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors.”2 In addition, the subject building is a contributor to the locally designated Ramona Street Architectural District. Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) 261 Hamilton Avenue is included in the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for Santa Clara County with two National Register status codes (which predate the current California Historic Resource Status Codes)3 and one current California Historic Resource Status Code: • 1D - Listed in NR as a Contributor to a district or multi-resource property (added 1986) • 3S - Appears eligible for listing in NR as a separate property (added 2000) 2 City of Palo Alto, “Historic Registers,” Palo Alto Historic Inventory, 2024, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Historic-Registers. 3 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory (November 2004), https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 29 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 3 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • 2D3 - Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the California Register (added 2013)4 The most recent update to the BERD database was in September 2022. Each status code listed in BERD is based on historical revaluations that occurred in 1981, 1985, and 2013 when the subject property was documented in State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory Forms, (DPR) 523A (Primary Record), and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms. The DPR forms identified a period of significance for the building as an individual resource of 1927, the year of the building’s construction. As a contributor to the Ramona Street Architectural District, the DPR forms identified a period of significance from 1927 to 1938.5 HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT & ALTERATION HISTORY Prior to construction of the subject property in 1928, an insurance map of Palo Alto from 1924 shows that the subject parcel and surrounding blocks were previously occupied by large, detached wood frame residences, with a section of attached wood frame and tile commercial buildings along University Avenue to the northwest (Figure 1). 4 While the Federal Tax Credit Application Part 1 was certified, the Part 2 certification was denied by the National Park Service in 2019 due to significant alterations to the interior that were determined not to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Website accessed on February 7, 2024 from: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/upload/appeal-2019-hamilton-building.pdf 5 Architectural Resources Group, “261 Hamilton Avenue,” 2013. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 30 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 4 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 1: Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map of Palo Alto, 1924. Page 4. The future location of the subject property is outlined in red. Source: Historical Information Gatherers. Edited by Page & Turnbull. The subject building was constructed in 1928 for Professional Building Inc. and was designed by prominent local architect of merit Birge Clark with builder Wells P. Goodenough. Upon completion, it was the tallest building in Palo Alto at three stories over a basement and mezzanine level. The subject building is also notable for housing the city’s first drive-in garage in the basement level. Early photographs of the subject building c.1928 show the east and south facades along Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenues shortly after the building’s completion with original ornamentation including wrought iron balconies, storefront window systems with wood spindles at the transoms, flat roll-out awnings, and tilework, along with hanging signage and tilework above the Hamilton central entryway (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 31 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 5 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 2. Subject building, c.1928. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 32 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 6 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 3. View of the west and south facades of the subject building from Ramona Street, c.1928. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. In photographs from 1928 to the early 1930s, parts of the north and east facades are visible from Hamilton Avenue. In both photographs, two wood frame residences that originally neighbored the subject building can also be seen at center prior to their demolition (Figure 4 Figure 5). Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 33 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 7 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 4. Context view of the north and east façades of the subject building, viewed from Hamilton Avenue c.1928. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 5. Context view of the north façade and upper levels of the east façade of the subject building, viewed from Hamilton Avenue c.1930s. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. A photograph likely dating to the later 1930s and taken from a similar angle along Hamilton Avenue and to the southwest shows the demolition of the two frame residences neighboring the subject Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 34 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 8 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 property (Figure 6). From this angle, most of the north façade is visible, including the original fenestration pattern at the ground floor. Figure 6. Context view of the north and east façades of the subject building, viewed from Hamilton Avenue, c.1930s. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 7. View of Ramona Street and the former Ramona Hotel, with the west façade of the subject building visible in the background at right, 1937. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 35 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 9 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 8. View of Hamilton Avenue with the south and east facades of the subject building visible in the background at right, c.1944. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. A Sanborn insurance map from 1947 notes the “Garage” located in the basement level, which was a somewhat advanced structural and social feature at the time of the building’s construction (Figure 9). The map also notes a drugstore, office, and other stores on the ground floor along with an upper floor lobby with elevator. The map confirms that the subject building’s footprint has remained unchanged over time. Permit records from 1965 indicate that there were alterations and a remodeling of storefront windows.6 This information is corroborated by a photograph likely dating to the early 1960s, which shows rounded and square awnings added to two of the storefront windows along with new signage in the place of the original Post Office tilework.7 From visual analysis, it appears that hanging retail signs were also removed during the period, however the remaining windows on the ground floor appear to have retained their original awnings and storefront configurations (Figure 10). 6 Architectural Resources Group. 7 Date of the photograph can be estimated based on the presence of a large parking lot opposite the subject building’s east façade, which therefore predates the excavation of the block for construction of the Civic Center Plaza site in 1967. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 36 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 10 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 9: Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map of Palo Alto, 1947. Page 4. The subject property is outlined in red. Source: Historical Information Gatherers. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 10. Context view of the south and east facades at the corner of Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue, c. early 1960s. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 37 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 11 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 A photograph from 1967 shows that the remaining storefront windows were altered and replaced with more rounded awnings in the intervening two years (Figure 11). It also appears that the north façade facing the alleyway retained the original fenestration pattern shown in earlier photographs dating to the 1930s. Figure 11. Context view of the east and north facades from across the construction site of the future City Hall building and plaza, 1967. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Photographs dating in range from 1986 to 1994 show that the east façade remained mostly unaltered beyond further changes to the storefront systems at the ground floor of Hamilton Avenue, which included the addition of a new metal grate at the central northern storefront (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 38 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 12 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 12. View of the east façade of the subject building along Hamilton Avenue, 1986. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 13. View of the east façade of the subject building along Hamilton Avenue, 1994. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 39 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 13 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Photographs dating from April to May 1994 show alterations to the fenestration of the north façade, which faces the alleyway, including what appears to have been the removal or enclosure of six windows with stucco (Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16). Figure 14. Context view of the north and east facades of the subject building, viewed from Hamilton Avenue, April 1994. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 15. View of the north façade facing Centennial Walk, viewed from Hamilton Avenue, May 1994. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 40 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 14 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 16. View of the north façade facing Centennial Walk, 1994. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. The following is a brief overview of the development and major alterations that have taken place at the subject property since its construction, based on building permits and visual analysis: • 1965: Permit issued to remodel storefront 8 • c.1965-1967: Storefront windows along the east façade were altered, and flat awnings were replaced with rounded awnings. Original tilework, hanging retail signage, and light fixtures were also removed and replaced with retail signage for the University Art Center. • 1972: Permit issued to install a glass window display and close off partitions of the lobby 9 • 1983: Permit issued to remove existing load bearing walls and replace existing lighting 10 • c.1986: A metal grate was added to the central northern storefront • Prior to 1994, alterations were made to the fenestration of the north façade, including the removal or enclosure of six windows with stucco paneling. 8 261 Hamilton Avenue, Permit 24498, 1965, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 9 261 Hamilton Avenue, Permit A31165, 1972, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 10 261 Hamilton Avenue, Permit B83-479, 1983, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 41 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 15 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • 1999: Permit issued replace an existing door in compliance with an exemption from accessibility standards 11 2015 REHABILITATION PROJECT In 2015, Cody Anderson Wasney architects undertook a rehabilitation project, which included the following work: Throughout all facades: • Refurbished and repaired existing steel sash windows • Repaired and restored existing terracotta roof tiles • Repaired wrought iron balconies and ornamentation • Repaired and cleaned surface stucco North Façade (alley): • Removed window mounted air conditioners from the third floor • Removed electrical panels and conduits as well as conduit cuts into windows at second floor • Removed non-historic gates from doors at the ground floor level • Removed non-historic windows from the ground and mezzanine levels • Removed light fixtures from the mezzanine level to be repurposed and relocated • Installed new sconces at the ground floor level on either side of the window and door systems • Replaced steel bollards with architectural bollards at ground floor level • Installed a new wood double door at ground floor level exit passageway • Installed a compatible metal storefront system at the original entry alcove • Installed new steel windows to the ground floor • Installed two sets of three vertical stone slab Centennial Plaques at the ground floor level that commemorate 100 years of Palo Alto’s history • Added a fence around rooftop mechanical at rear East Façade (Hamilton): • Replaced all non-historic aluminum storefront windows with steel frame windows and historically compatible wood doors with transoms • Removed existing infilled plaster panels from some windows • Where possible, repaired and refurbished existing wood awning boxes with metal liners, wood spindles, wood transom windows, glazing, and frames • Removed and replaced arched fabric awnings with historically compatible flat awnings under the transom level 11 261 Hamilton Avenue, Permit 99-338, 1999, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 42 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 16 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Added tile wainscotting to match existing tilework at storefront windows (and to replace non-historic) and added tile squares above the entryway • Added light fixtures to the storefront entryway at the northern side • Replaced existing wood plank planter boxes at the base of windows along the northern side of the east facade with historically compatible tilework • Restored any non-historic rounded transoms back to a historically compatible shape • Removed all existing pigeon spines on existing storefronts • Removed all exterior surface mounted conduits attached to existing storefront systems • Added a wall-mounted, projecting clock at the east end of the facade • Recessed entrances where they had been made flush in earlier alterations South Façade (Ramona): • Removed non-historic aluminum entrance systems • Replaced all non-historic aluminum storefront windows with steel frame windows and historically compatible wood doors with transoms • Restored non-historic rounded transoms back to a historically compatible shape and installed new historically compatible fabric awning • Where possible, repaired and refurbished existing wood awning boxes with metal liners, wood spindles, wood transom windows, glazing, and frames • Removed existing retail signage lettering that was mounted on the building • Repaired existing steel sash windows at upper floors • Replaced wood spindles in transoms where missing West Façade: • Removed window mounted air conditioners. • Removed conduit boxes. INTEGRITY While the Palo Alto Historic Register does not specifically discuss the concept of integrity, typically to qualify for listing in any local, state, or national historic register, a property or landscape must possess significance under at least one evaluative criterion and retain integrity. Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined by the National Park Service as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”12 12 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), 11; and National Park Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 43 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 17 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 In order to evaluate whether the subject property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance, Page & Turnbull used established integrity standards outlined by the National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Seven variables, or aspects, that define integrity are used to evaluate a resource’s integrity—location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property must possess most, or all, of these aspects in order to retain overall integrity. If a property does not retain integrity, it can no longer convey its significance and is therefore not eligible for listing in local, state, or national registers. The seven aspects that define integrity are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred; Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s); Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property; Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form the historic property; Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory; Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and the historic property. In the case of 261 Hamilton Avenue, an integrity evaluation is important to understand the effect of the 2015 rehabilitation project on the building’s eligibility for designation on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995), 44. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 44 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 18 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Location 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of location. The subject building has remained situated at its location of original construction since 1928. Setting 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of setting. The subject building retains its historic relationship with both Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street. While several buildings on the adjacent blocks and opposite the subject building along Hamilton Avenue have been replaced with newer infill since construction of the subject building in 1928, the block remains notably intact with buildings from the same period of construction, including the other buildings within the Ramona Street Architectural District. For these reasons, the subject building retains integrity of setting regarding surrounding urban commercial fabric. Design 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of design. While there have been several notable alterations, mainly to the storefront window and door systems along the Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street level facades, the most recent rehabilitation project implemented by Cody Anderson Wasney Architects had inserted elements of restoration, based on historic drawings and documentation, which have elevated the building to a high level of integrity. Upper floors and secondary facades appear to be largely unaltered and retain the majority of their original character-defining features including steel casement windows, wrought iron ornamentation, and unique cross gabled massing. The ground-floor storefront systems have been largely restored to their original condition and have received compatible new storefront systems, wood doors, tilework, wood spindles, awnings, and awning boxes. Several differences from the original design by Clark include the lowering of tile bulkheads, replacement of formerly tripartite divided light glazing at storefront systems with single pane glazing, and the exclusion of original transoms to two storefronts on the east façade. Other elements of the fenestration located along the north (alley) façade were not restored to the original design by Birge Clark and have instead been updated to modern functionality. Those include original windows that were removed and later covered with commemorative panels, along with the installation of a large steel door system to replace a set of two smaller doors. Overall, implementation of new tilework and all other work to storefront systems and entryways on the ground floor level appear to be historically compatible and differentiated, in compliance with previous guidance set forth in a Focused Historic Structure Report prepared by Architectural Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 45 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 19 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Resources Group in 2014.13 The overall composition of the building’s design, including the fenestration pattern, rooflines, cornices, and decorative detailing at the upper floors, all remain generally intact and contribute to the Spanish Colonial Revival stylistic elements designed by Birge M. Clark. For these reasons, 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of design. Materials 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of materials. The upper three floors of the building appear to retain nearly all original materials and the original fenestration pattern. Furthermore, alterations by Cody Anderson Wasney Architects in 2015 have utilized historically compatible materials and treatments where possible, thus restoring many original materials at the storefronts such as the tile bulkheads, spindle transoms, metal awning boxes, liners, and fabric awnings, along with glazed wood doors. Installation of new tilework at the ground level and all other restorations to materials at the upper floors, including refurbishment of terracotta roof tiles, steel sash windows, and stucco finishes, appear to be historically compatible and differentiated where necessary, in compliance with previous guidance set forth in a Focused Historic Structure Report prepared by Architectural Resources Group in 2014.14 Workmanship 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of workmanship. Features providing evidence of period workmanship and construction methods include original steel casement windows with multi-light panes, wrought iron ornamentation, turned wood spindles, and cast stone arched corbels. The high level of workmanship in the decorative detailing of the building reflects early twentieth century construction methods in prominent high style Spanish Colonial Revival commercial buildings and architect-designed buildings. Feeling 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of feeling. The building overall retains the feeling of its original design by Birge M. Clark as constructed in 1928, as its design, materiality, and workmanship remain highly representative of its original Spanish Colonial Revival aesthetic. The north (alley) façade has been altered most extensively compared to the original design by Birge Clark in the installation of a new steel door system and six-foot stone slab commemorative panels, and removal of smaller fixed windows at the ground and mezzanine levels. However, as this façade is not primary street-facing and historically functioned as the access point for automobiles to enter the building’s basement level garage, the ground level fenestration was arguably designed with a utilitarian 13 Architectural Resources Group, “261 Hamilton Avenue,” Focused Historic Structures Report, 2014. 14 Architectural Resources Group, “261 Hamilton Avenue,” Focused Historic Structures Report, 2014. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 46 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 20 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 functionality and therefore can be assessed to a lesser standard of stylistic integrity than the upper floors or facades facing Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street. Apart from the ground level of the north façade, all other elements of the building’s integrity have not diminished in terms of form, height, massing, or materiality such that its feeling is impaired. Association 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of association. The subject building is significant as a representative of an important period of early commercial growth in Palo Alto’s urban core, and as a contributor to the Ramona Street Architectural District which comprises an enclave of buildings with important artistic, architectural, commercial, and spatial value to the cultural heritage of Palo Alto. Through its association with architect of merit Birge M. Clark and connection to surrounding buildings along Ramona street, 261 Hamilton Avenue retains integrity of association. PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY EVALUATION The Palo Alto Historic Inventory is the official list of sites, structures and districts designated by the City Council as possessing significant historical and/or architectural value. Originally adopted in 1979, the Inventory has been updated and added to over time. Any 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 (Municipal Code Section 16.49.040). Properties nominated for designation are recommended by the HRB and decided upon by the City Council. The following Criteria for Designation, along with the definitions of historic categories and districts in Section 16.49.020, is used to designate historic structures, sites and districts to the historic inventory: 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; 2. The structure or is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; 3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; 4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; 5. The architect or building was important; 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 47 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 21 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are organized under the following Historic Categories: • 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. • 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. • Category 3 or 4: A "Contributing Building" 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. While 261 Hamilton Avenue is currently listed as a Category 3 historic resource, that designation was made in 1985, at which time the building has sustained a number of alterations to the ground floor facades. Following the 2015 rehabilitation project, which restored many the original features and installed a handful of compatible new elements, the property appears eligible for elevation to Category 2: A "Major Building" of regional importance in the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. The subject building meets the following Criteria for Designation: • Criterion 1 (The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation) 261 Hamilton Avenue is an important early building within Palo Alto’s urban core and is representative of a period of commercial development in the Downtown South neighborhood and the Ramona Street Architectural District. At the time of construction, the subject building was the tallest building in Palo Alto and was also the first building to feature a drive-in garage at the basement, which operated from 1928 to 1965.15 The design of an underground parking garage speaks to Palo Alto’s formal transition away more traditional transportation methods of horse, carriage, and rail to an era of modernity and invention with the personal automobile. It also symbolizes the development of Palo Alto’s downtown as a destination for commercial and social activity. For these reasons, 261 Hamilton Avenue meets Criterion 1. 15 Architectural Resources Group, “261 Hamilton Avenue,” 2014. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 48 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 22 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Criterion 2 (The structure or is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation) 261 Hamilton Avenue is an important early commercial work in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. 261 Hamilton Avenue retains its Spanish Colonial Revival character-defining features including original steel casement windows, terracotta roof tiles, elaborate wrought ironwork, variation in massing and rooflines, arched openings, and stucco cladding. Overall, the subject building remains an important and elegant anchor within the Ramona Street Architectural District and provides a stylistic and spatial connection to nearby civic, cultural, and commercial spaces. For these reasons, the subject building meets Criterion 2. • Criterion 5 (The architect or building was important) Birge M. Clark is an architect of merit who is widely considered to be the most influential architect in Palo Alto’s history. Clark was active during much of the twentieth century and was a proponent of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, which he called “Early California.” Clark played a major role in the creation of Palo Alto during the boom times of the 1920s and his prolific output and stylistic consistency greatly contributed to Palo Alto’s current architectural character. Clark designed a variety of commercial, residential, institutional, and industrial buildings, including 98 residences in Palo Alto and 39 on the Stanford campus. In Palo Alto, Birge Clark’s most well-known commercial and public buildings include the Police and Fire Station at 450 Bryant Street (now the Palo Alto Senior Center) (1927), the Post Office at 380 Hamilton Avenue (1932), the Lucie Stern Community Center at 1305 Middlefield Road (1932) and commercial buildings along the 500 Block of Ramona Street (1920s) including the subject property. For these reasons, 261 Hamilton Avenue is significant under Criterion 5 as the work of important local architect of merit Birge M. Clark. • Criterion 6 (The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. 261 Hamilton Avenue features excellent examples of Spanish Colonial Revival ornamentation that showcase the craftmanship and artistry of both Birge M. Clark’s original design and construction by important local builder Wells P. Goodenough. The subject building expresses the high style Spanish Colonial Revival design and craftsmanship that was characteristic of Clark, using features such as cross-gabled terracotta rooflines, arcades and arched openings, stucco cladding, steel casement windows, exposed carved wood rafters, turned wood spindles, and elaborate wrought ironwork. In addition to these high style Spanish Colonial Revival design elements, Clark’s design also incorporates several more Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 49 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 23 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 subtle Gothic motifs through the use of pointed elliptical storefront windows and arched corbeled balcony supports. This integration of stylistic variety represents his adaptability as an architect and his artistic vision for both the building and the block, aligning his vision with that of local artist and craftsman Pedro de Lemos to create a cohesive commercial and pedestrian experience along Ramona Street. For these reasons, 261 Hamilton Avenue meets Criterion 6. Criterion 3 and 4: The subject building does not appear to meet Criterion 3, as the building is an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style, which would have been considered common at the time of construction but would not be considered rare in the current day. Lastly, the subject building does not appear to meet Criterion 4, as its early use as a commercial building with medical and post office use would have been considered common at the time of construction, but would not be considered rare today. In conclusion, 261 Hamilton Avenue meets Criteria 1, 2, 5 and 6 in consideration for eligibility as a Category 2: “Major Building.” CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. These distinctive character- defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character-defining features of 261 Hamilton Avenue include, but are not limited to: • Irregular massing and roof forms • Low-sloped roof with moderate overhang and exposed eaves • Use of stepped facade with recessed portions along Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street, along with cross-gabled rooflines to create the illusion of two separate buildings • Use of balconies to differentiate the first and second floors from the street level • Wrap-around balcony connecting the east and south facades with arched corbelling supports detail • Wrought ironwork at railings, grilles, and corbels • Colonnades along the top floor • Arched openings at the street level of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 50 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 24 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Multi-light casement windows with steel sash • Stucco cladding • Terracotta roof tiles • Use of wood spindles at the transoms above ground floor windows • Recessed storefront entrances • Tiled bulkheads Features that are not original to the building, do not date to the period of significance, and therefore are not character-defining features, include, but are not limited to: • Tile or lettered signage and ornamentation at the ground floor • Light fixtures at the ground floor • Replacement materials, such as glazed wood storefront doors (though compatible), the new storefront system on the north façade, fabric awnings, attached hanging clocks, retail signage, and Centennial Plaques on the north façade CONCLUSION This Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum finds that 261 Hamilton Avenue appears eligible for elevation within the Palo Alto Historic Inventory from a Category 3: “Contributing Building” to a Category 2: “Major Building” of regional importance. The subject building is a meritorious work of an important regional architect of merit, Birge M. Clark, and is an excellent example of commercial design in the Spanish Colonial Revival style that is both individually significant and contributes to the Ramona Street Architectural District. QUALIFICATIONS Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. The company was one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation and is among the longest practicing such firms in the country. Offices are located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, and Sacramento, and staff includes planners, architectural historians, licensed architects, designers, and conservators. All of Page & Turnbull’s professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. Samantha Purnell, a cultural resources planner within Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Planning Studio, is the primary author of this report. Project manager and principal leading this project is Christina Dikas, Director of Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Planning Studio. Both meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 51 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 25 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 REFERENCES Architectural Resources Group. “261 Hamilton Avenue.” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record Forms, 2013. Baker Graphic Service. The Cardinal Hotel on Hamilton Avenue, circa 1944. c 1944. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/1926/rec/42. Berton Crandall. Medico Dental Building, ca 1930. c 1930. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/13009/rec/4. Birge Clark. “Post Office and Professional Building, Hamilton Ave. and Ramona St., Palo Alto, California.” Accessed December 20, 2023. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/ua-maps- drawings/catalog/ff243xp2871. “Council Acts on Proposed City Airport: Estimates on Costs for Park Program Read at Meeting.” Palo Alto Daily Times, August 9, 1927. https://www.newspapers.com/image/838361917/. Excavation for New Civic Center, 1968. 1968. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/9879/rec/209. George A. Weber. Ramona Hotel. 1937. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/10554/rec/2. Hamilton Avenue. c.1930s. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/13378/rec/3. Joe Melena. University Art Center, 1986. December 9, 1986. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/10554/rec/2. Joseph B. Weeden. Construction Site of New Civic Center, 1968. March 19, 1968. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/9934/rec/6. Joseph Weeden Jr. Civic Center Site, 1967. December 12, 1967. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/9981/rec/302. Linda Northway. 261-267 Hamilton Avenue, 1985. 1985. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/7051/rec/110. Medical Building, Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street. Undated. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/4669/rec/69. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 52 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Inventory Evaluation Memorandum [16252B.29] Page 26 of 26 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Medico Dental Building, Palo Alto Calif. c 1930. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/13009/rec/4. Medico-Dental Building, 261 Hamilton Avenue. c.1960s. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/1363/rec/163. Palo Alto Centennial Celebration, 1994. April 1994. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/8747/rec/217. Ramona Street and Homer Avenue, ca. 1970s. c.1970s. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/7966/rec/5. Tom Wyman. Medico-Dental Building, 1994. 1994. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/12738/rec/5. University Art Center, Hamilton Avenue, 1994. May 1994. Guy Miller Archives. Palo Alto Historical Association. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/12738/rec/5. View of Hamilton Avenue Including the Medico-Dental Building. Palo Alto Historical Association. Accessed January 12, 2024. https://cdm16865.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/PAHA/id/1922/rec/48. Item 3 Attachment A - Letter of Proposal Requesting Upgrade and Documentation Packet Pg. 53 ( .• -: 1 UT'-'-----C: ------'"-1-_ l-HI __ ~ . \ ,; i l.,, _____ l :•t _____ _ l•.·---: ... ~ '· t.; c:,u_• .. ~· ... __ .. ~•f i 1 •.•. HISTORIC RE~RCES INVENTORY _ \. ~6l-() 3 -'{-Ires; ~ENTIFll.:A1I0N at. Ill I-• -•·-.. ,,--·· -·-•--·. ------·-. -··------ 1. Conm,on 11 _,,,,L.: __ H_a_m_i_l_t_o_n_B_u_ilding_~-~~~~-:_r~~-ty !~t c_e_n_t_e_r_) _______ _ Medico-Dental Building 2. H1~to1il n.i•r,1. ,f k:1,Jwn: ____________________________________ _ 267 Hamilton Ave (Ramona Street Historic District) 3. St11:1.'l u, n,r,,! .idd1••~•-------------------------------·-----Palo Alto City: __________________ _ 94301 Santa Clara t ... :v. ------------- Al house-Hamil ton :,, ... , ... 2450 El Camino Real 4. Pre$ent O\",:'"'· :f I.new.•:,. ·-----··-·--. ·-.... -·---. . ·• --·----------·-----94306 Palo Alto Cny· -----------·----·· -··-- .·:!' .. _ ': ..... . -~ ~ .. ,· !'•••.;I·• ;x] Office and Commercial . . . ~ Office and Commercial -----.. ·--· - Orr,•.· : , ... : :.:~,. _____ _ DESCRIPTION 6 8111.'fly de;c.:ril>c th1· pri-wnr u!l·(~li·:.l oPPi·~·=•'IC'•' o• ~-:,-·, ~. , .. c'.•~·-.• •·L \ , .. '· . J,. --~ . !" ; • ~ !' . .t' t •. concl,11on-···· This massively-scaled corner building is an important anchor for the Spanish Colonial Revival commercial row along Ramona. The elegant ironwork of the period embroiders the rather severe massing. S~me alteration. to accommodate shops has occurred at street level. ---------------·-·--·······-·-··----·· 7. Loc.,t1u•,.,1 ~~ ... :!'!~ m;:i' td,.,w J''!'! :.1lw•I ~1!: .,i :l '-\Hlt1~•ncf,,·.q S(rt"t':' fOi.H~.,. ;..~•~! ~ ... t\.,\.i1:11••·~t l.:•rin,;::L (. I·. l~Oi-:~ • '_.:. I • .... l. ,. : ' . 100 •· ~-~~ F! .. ·1:.,::-.-. _____ _ 100 : , .. ,, ·----- .. ~ ........ ,,: X 1, (;n.•·..! t.·.,., 11. Sw1C\1111d,1 1!J• 12. .i. Opr:, l.m1! r · l c. {)1•:,i •''\' Ii.ult L•P i .. .! ,·-, ti. R\:\l(l••'ll ,.,, , ... , f:'. Commercial jX, • •• J t. h"Sm111al : g 01!,.-1 .-·, } ---------. ------ Th11 .n~ i.., ~,,,. ii. Non~ known r~! c. Zun,np D d. c. V,11ndJhsm D ,... I Public \'Jori..~ 11•~1•'C'I _.1 f. 6,,,~, 0 .., ~ .:,: ~ 523 (Rev. 7/75) 1978 13. Oatefs) of enclosed photo!1aph(s): _______ _ Item 3 Attachment B - Inventory Form from 1985 Packet Pg. 54 14. Primary exterior building mater · a. Stone D b. Brick LJ c. Stucco r I d. Adobe u e., Wood u f. Othr.r [~ Reinforced concrete 15. Is the structure: a. On its original site? 0 b. Moved? D c. Unknown? 0 -~ 16. Year of initial construction 1927 This date is: a. Factual 0 b. Estimated 0 17. Architect (if known): Birge Clark Wells P. Goodenough 18. Builder (if known): 19. Related features: a. Barn O b. Carriage house 0 c. Outhouse O d. Shed(s) 0 e. Formal garden(sl 0 f. Windmill 0 g. Watertower/tankhouse 0 h. Other □-----------i. None EJ SIGNIFICANCE 20. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when k~wn): A prominent visual landmark which performs major urban design functions, this building was planned by the important local architect, Birge Clark, for the owner, the Palo Alto Improvement Co. On the Ramona Street frontage, a definite effort was made to make it appear as though it consisted of several buildings built at different periods of time. The first story of the northern portion on Hamilto_n Avenue housed the post office, l92d-1933, and the City's first drive-in auto parking area was in the basement. Prior to purchase by T.H. Fuller for the Improvement Co. the site had been owned by E.A. Hettinger, prominent local contractor, and was occupied by two houses. 21. Main theme of the historic resource: (Check only one): a. Architecture ~ b. Arts & Leisure 0 c. Economic/Industrial D d. Exploration/Senlement O e. Government O f. Military 0 g. Religion O h. Social/Education · D 22. Sou~ces: List bociks, doi;umerits. surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: P.A. 'i'imes 9/11/26, 7/9/27, 10/22/27, 8/3/28 Birge Clark Commercial Inventory 1981, 1985 Historic Resources Board; P.a. Hist. Assn. 23. Date form prepared: B-y (name}: __ .::.:_ __ ..:___::..:......:...:..:...:..:.....::...:...::..:...::..:...... _____________ _ Address: 250 Hamilton Ave City Palo Alto. Ca 94301 ZIP: Phone: ___________ _ Organization: ------------------------ (State Use Only) Item 3 Attachment B - Inventory Form from 1985 Packet Pg. 55 Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 28, 2024 Report #: 2403-2784 TITLE Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 11, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s): •January 11, 2024 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: HRB 1.11 Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 1 `` Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz; Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Gogo Heinrich, Michael Makinen, Pease and Caroline Willis Absent: Board Member Wimmer (joined 8:39 a.m.) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Public Comment Leland Francois commented that he is looking for some assistance in trying to identify some of the earlier structures that were used and utilized by the dignitaries or part of the process during the 1945 United Nations era. There is a meeting at the old church at 2201 University Avenue in Ravenswood on or around the 24th of every month. Darlene Yaplee commented that staff’s presentation at the December 14, 2023, meeting showed the Joint Powers Board Cal Train as submitting an objection letter for both the University underpass and the Embarcadero underpass. She requested that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staff not separate the two properties from the rest of the objecting properties for the January 25, 2024 meeting. The same process, criteria, and categories should be used for all properties: residential, commercial, and city owned. The Joint Powers Board Cal Train is similar to fellow objectors regarding the concerns of being listed on the inventory even though they did not have an issue with devalued property. The public should be able to review and comment before the HRB acts in an open public meeting on all objecting properties using the same process, criteria, and categories. Ms. Yaplee stated that Mountain View City Council decided on survey properties based on community input, did not require formally opt off properties to participate, consideration of benefits beyond the Mills Act, and requires the property owner to opt in to be listed for the new survey, Section 36.54.70. Karen Holman commented that the City has not updated its inventory since it was first established. There are properties that have covenants on them that are not listed on the City’s website. The purview of the HRB needs to report and make recommendations directly to staff. The National Register Eligible should be a public meeting so the public can provide input. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chief Planning Official Amy French announced a February 23, 2024 meeting intended to replace the regular February 22, 2024 date. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES, January 11, 2024 Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom 8:30 A.M. Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Action Items Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if there were any disclosures from Board Members. There were none. 2. Recommendations on Nominations of Eligible Historic Resources to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory Resulting from the 2023 Historic Reconnaissance Survey Ms. French presented consultant recommendations regarding properties previously found eligible and confirmed to continue to exist and have integrity that were not eligible to the local inventory, and recommendation to Council to place them on the inventory. She explained that there are forty-three properties on the docket comprised of forty-one properties in the original group for January 11, 2024, and two properties postponed by owner request from the December 14, 2023 meeting. Twenty-eight properties were found significant due to association with persons, nine properties were found eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources through individual historic resource evaluations, and four properties are sites of ongoing or previously approved projects. The January 25, 2024 HRB meeting is recommended for the objections received on properties to allow full engagement, reporting, and discussion. The State of California recognizes that consent of the owner is not required for nomination, but a resource cannot be listed over an owner’s objections. Ms. French provided an overview of the State Historic Resources Commission (SHRC)’s procedures. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments from the public, with a reminder that there would be a three- minute limit. Carolyn Godfrey stated that she and her husband have owned the property at 211 Middlefield since 1988, and the home is proposed for the Historic Registry due to its connection with Earl C Thomas, who was a mayor of the City and who lived in the home from 1926 to 1939. She believed that the connection to Mr. Thomas was inadequate to justify placing the home on the historic register, stating that most residents likely do not know who Earl C Thomas is and would not know or care where he lived. The home was crushed by a tree last March, but the home is being rebuilt to look just as it did before. She encouraged the board members to explain the benefits, but then allow them to make the decision. Susan Dunn, property owner at 509 Coleridge Avenue, stated that the property is proposed for inclusion based on its association with a former president of the Southern Pacific Railroad and its perceived architectural quality. She and her husband love the home and do not intend to make any changes, but they do not believe that they should bind the hands of future owners as to what they need to do. She noted that the nonprofit organization Palo Alto Stanford Heritage help owners of property understand architectural and historical value, and stated that type of voluntary education and preservation is highly commendable. Additionally, the property lot is one hundred by one hundred and fifty acres and could be subdivided into two residential lots even under the current zoning. California’s housing initiatives recognize the need for additional housing, and this is an example of where it is not appropriate to bind the hands of future people who might be addressing issues that they consider more important than the historic and aesthetic considerations that the Board is supporting. Kusum Pandey, homeowner at 1965 Cowper Street, remarked that the entire process was extremely ambiguous and cloudy. She received a note card in the mail from the Planning and Development Services informing about the December 14, 2023 meeting; however, the card itself was postmarked on December 20, 2023, and it landed in her mailbox on December 21, 2023. She believed that as owners, they should not be forced to have their property listed if they disagree. Their primary objection is the lack of clarity regarding clear guidelines and communication of the value to them of being on the registry. Conversely, some property owners see the red tape involved as a burden. Community members love the environment and atmosphere of the City and want to maintain that without being forced to have properties unduly burdened. Geetha Svikantan, homeowner at 385 Waverley Street, commented that she was also unaware of the process and found out after being alerted by a neighbor. A letter of objection was sent to the City, and she also received a card in the mail for the December meeting the day before the meeting. The process itself seems to be shrouded in ambiguity and not enough notice has been given to the homeowners. She noted that her property was remodeled ten years ago and is no longer the original historic property. The reason Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Page 3 it seems to be on the list is because it was built in 1900 and occupied for a few years by people who worked at Stanford. She felt the advantages were ambiguous and did not believe that including the property on the list was appropriate. Dianne Jenett, homeowner at 330 Cowper Street, stated that her home has been nominated because it is a significant contribution to Black History in the City of Palo Alto. She was pleased that the City is honoring black history by nominating the home for inclusion. The founding of the AME Zion Church occurred in her home, and she wanted to support black history being told. Within the neighborhood, there are significant other resources that would tell the history of black contributions, such as Fran’s Market. She urged the City to step up and take some responsibility for researching and publicly honoring black history, and wanted to know what would be done to ensure people know about what happened in the nominated neighborhoods and the contributions of the families who lived there. Karen Holman commented that this is a topic that can be divisive, so it is important that the HRB and City Staff pull people together to understand the importance and benefits of having a historic inventory and properties that are exemplary of the history and that express its culture and values. There are lists of benefits regarding floor area ratio and setbacks. Notifications are lacking and need to be corrected. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)’s are allowed on the same property as a historic property. She spoke of areas that were identified as districts years ago when the survey was done; however, due to the lack of education by the City regarding demolition or demolition alternatives, homes in perfectly good shape that are twenty years old are getting demolished.. The Board’s obligation, in her opinion, is to educate individuals on the benefits, purpose, and reason of historic preservation. Simon Firth, homeowner at 2131 Harvard Street, commented that the home was no longer seen as eligible for the California register for its association with a person, as determined by the new survey, and inquired regarding how to get that communicated to the California Register. It was, however, found eligible for the local register as a Category 3 due to being representative of its time. Mr. Firth pointed out that there are many buildings in the College Terrace neighborhood built by that same builder that are not included in the inventory due to being considered ineligible twenty years ago. He felt that the Historic Resources Board and the City should conduct a more comprehensive and less arbitrary survey and consider what should be protected and what is defined as history prior to having a discussion. Lydia Callaghan stated that she was one of the many homeowners who have been unfairly impacted by this process and did not receive any notification. She felt the process was a tax on her time and finances. The community is not going to tear down and destroy historic homes. She believed that the effort was very suspiciously close to the state’s passing of Senate Bill (SB) 9, which would allow eligible lots to be subdivided. She felt the process would open the City up to litigation and that the HRB should rethink the situation and pass a resolution clarifying that the process is opt-in by owners and that objecting owners are now excused from having to participate. Ms. French requested that Ms. Callaghan send her an email because the Board is very careful about the notifications and sent certified letters for the December 14, 2023, and January 11, 2024 meetings. Colleen Braff, homeowner at 939 Forest Avenue, remarked that the home was remodeled ten years ago and she was careful in keeping with a historical style. The porch was removed and replaced exactly how it was with the original windows and original doors. A certified letter was received in December regarding the meeting. She stated that she was leaning toward supporting the process, but more information is needed regarding the benefits and potential burdens involved. Jerry Smith, homeowner at 162 Bryant Street, expressed objection to placing his home on the historic inventory in a letter to the HRB. He received assurance that the HRB did not intend to apply this designation if the homeowner objected; however, the policy is not yet formalized. Mr. Smith stated that he understood the need for City and State government to ensure that structures are safe, but imposing regulation on his aesthetic preference is egregiously trampling on his private property rights and unfairly costing substantial loss of property value. He suspected that the historic inventory issue may have emerged as a means of limiting the application of SB 9. Selectively targeting the owners of older homes with extra regulation and financial penalties is unfair. The city of Palo Alto government is already a bit too heavy-handed in the difficult balance of weighing the rights of the community against the rights of the individual. Adding regulations that impose the City Council’s taste in architecture would be a step in the wrong direction. He Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Page 4 stated that he agreed with Hank Williams when he sang, “If you mind your own business, then you won’t be minding mine.” He applauded the recommendation of the staff report to affirm that the HRB would not recommend that Council place properties on the local historic inventory over the expressed objections of the property owners and felt that opt-in would be a better solution. Naji Bekhazi, homeowner at 1570 University Avenue, remarked that he was not consulted by the committee observing the homes. The front of the home is the same but the back of the home and inside have been remodeled. Ms. French addressed public comments, stating that gutting a home on the inside does not render a property non eligible for a register. Mr. Smith’s objection was noted, and the property was not nominated on the November 9, 2023 date. Mr. Firth’s property is on the list currently as an objection property. Ms. Svikantan’s property was already resolved as an objection property on November 9, 2023. Notice cards were sent to the November 9, 2023 properties instead of certified letters. Properties located at 1965 Cowper Street, 509 Coleridge Avenue, and 211 Middlefield Road are listed as objection properties. Ms. French presented the first group of ten properties under Criteria 1, six with objections. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited discussion among the Board members. There was none. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 537 Coleridge Avenue, 2005 Cowper Street, 1215 Emerson Street, and 1511 Madrono Avenue to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local register. Board Member Heinrich commented that the criteria for historic persons was arbitrary and questioned the reasons. Vice Chair Rohman believed that it followed the National Register or the State criteria for historic persons. Ms. French remarked that was correct. The properties were identified in the 1997 to 2000 survey. Consultant Barrett Reiter explained that under the National Register and California Register, there is a criteria for an association with persons. A property having a significant association with the productive life of a person would be eligible for either the National or California Register. These properties were previously found eligible for the National Register for that criteria. Vice Chair Rohman stated that the National and State Register is seemingly arbitrary. This is an issue that preservationists are currently having conversations about. She expressed support for nominating all proposed properties as they are in line with the State and Federal regulations for the opportunity to represent that multicultural heritage in the City as a step forward on that agenda. Board Member Willis commented that it is difficult to look back one hundred years and realize that we built on their shoulders. Palo Alto is a very unique place, and we need to look back and look ahead and hopefully a compromise can be found. Board Member Willis seconded the motion. Board Member Heinrich commented that she would like to see more education to the public about the benefits before voting on the item. An education process could begin during the February meeting. Her research on the benefits of having a home on the register did not reveal any benefits to an owner while they are living there, not making any changes. Benefits became available when someone starts to remodel their home or applies for an application for renovation. She would like to see this explored more to be able better educate people on it. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz remarked that this is an important discussion, but the Board has not agendized a discussion of incentives for the current meeting. Ms. French noted that Item 3 on the agenda is an opportunity for general discussion, as well as a commentary on the correspondence from the subcommittee that has been published on the web page that has implications being wider than the subcommittee communication. She inquired whether Board Member Heinrich was proposing a substitute motion and stated that some people on the lists are very interested Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Page 5 and have projects waiting for this process to be complete, and holding those individuals back may not be fair. Ms. French asked if Board Member Heinrich was proposing a substitute motion since there was already a motion and a second on the table to move the first group of properties forward. She reminded the Board that the consultants will be with them for the four meetings and they will be finished. They will then move the properties that want to move forward more quickly than those that were objecting. Some who are on the lists are very interested and have projects waiting for this process to be complete. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz commented that the HRB does not place anything on the inventory. They simply advance properties to Council. For properties that have been advanced to Council, there is an opportunity for further communication and further objections. The dialogue is not over at today’s meeting. Council has already received the majority of properties that have been advanced by the Board, and it is important for Council to see the complete set of properties that are in non-objector status, and she would prefer to continue with this process. Ms. French added that the HRB reviewed properties on November 9, 2023, and December 14, 2023. Since those meetings, the Board has received objections which are being tracked and would be forwarded. All individuals objecting are invited to attend and provide input during the evening community meeting on potential additional incentives, such as moving forward on a Mills Act, et cetera. The motion passed(6-1). Ms. French presented five properties under Criteria 1 and 2 for consideration, with four objections noted. MOTION Motion by Board Member Willis to advance 939 Forest Avenue to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local register. Seconded by Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried (7-0). Ms. French presented three properties under Criteria 1, 2, and 5 for consideration, with one objection noted. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 1407 Hamilton Avenue and 1401 Edgewood Drive to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local register. Seconded by Board Member Pease. MOTION AMENDED Motion by Board Member Willis to recommend 1407 Hamilton Avenue as a Category 1 and 1401 Edgewood Drive as a Category 2. Seconded by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented three private properties under Criterion 2 for consideration two with objections. Board Member Wimmer recused herself from the item due to the property owners being current clients. MOTION Motion by Board Member Willis, that Council place 50 Crescent Drive on the current inventory Category 3 regarding Criterion 2. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried (5-1-1). Ms. French presented two properties under Criteria 2, 5, and 6 for consideration, one with objection. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 418 Coleridge Avenue as a Category 1 to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local register. Seconded by Board Member Wimmer, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented two properties under Criteria 2 and 5 for consideration, one with objection. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 1474 Edgewood Drive as a Category 2 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local register. Seconded by Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried (6-1). Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. French presented one property under Criteria 1, 2, and 3 for consideration. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 904 Cowper Street as a Category 2 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local register. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented 330 Cowper, noting that the owner had spoken earlier, having requested postponement from the December 14th meeting in order to do more research under Criterion 1 for consideration. Board Member Rohman commended the owner for conducting extra research and following up on the matter. She agreed that more can be done to recognize African American and multicultural histories in the City. This is an amazing first step in adding it to the inventory and beginning to even out the landscape of properties that compose the local inventory and the previous owners of significance. She also commended all of the day’s speakers for their comments. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz also commended the owner, stating that inclusion of history and history of groups that have historically been underrepresented in the narrative matters. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 330 Cowper Street as a Category 2 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local register. Seconded by Board Member Wimmer [multiple voices], the motion carried (7-0). Ms. French announced that the 365 Hawthorne Avenue property under Criteria 3 and 5 was postponed from the December 14, 2023, meeting by owner request. The owner has since registered an objection to the nomination listing and will be skipped until the meeting on the 25th. Ms. French presented one property under Criteria 1, 5, and 6 for consideration. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 365 Guinda Street as a Category 2 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local register. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented one property under Criteria 1 and 3 for consideration. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 375 Hawthorne Avenue as a Category 2 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local inventory. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented three properties under Criterion 2 and 5 for consideration. MOTION Motion by Vice Chair Rohman to advance 518-526 Bryant Street, 2340 Tasso Street, and 546 Washington Avenue to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local inventory. Seconded by Board Member Wimmer, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented two properties under Criteria 1,2, and 5 for consideration, one with an objection. Board Member Willis asked for clarification regarding whether the property at 525 University Avenue was a commercial building. Ms. French answered yes, the property is in the commercial downtown community zone. Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Page 7 MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 525 University Avenue as a Category 1 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local inventory. Seconded by Board Member Wimmer, the motion carried (7-0). Ms. French presented two private properties under Criterion 2 for consideration. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 2140 Yale Street as a Category 2 and 885 College Avenue as a Category 3 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local inventory. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French noted that an objection was received from the property owner of 1145 Lincoln Avenue and will be skipped. She presented one private property under Criteria 2 and 3 for consideration. Board Member Willis reminded that the building located at 321 California Avenue is also a commercial building and used to be a Safeway. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 321 California Avenue as a Category 2 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local inventory. Seconded by Board Member Wimmer, the motion carried (7-0). Ms. French presented one private property under Criteria 2 and 5 for consideration. Board Member Willis commented that she loved the record of everything that had been done to the home over the decades. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 550 Santa Rita Avenue as a Category 2 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local inventory. Seconded by Board Member Rohman, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented one private property under Criterion 3 for consideration. Board Member Willis remarked that this is one of those places that is kind of normal and mundane but there are not many remaining, so it is important to include properties like this in the inventory. MOTION Motion by Board Member Willis to advance 1082 College Avenue as a Category 3 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local inventory. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented one private property under Criterion 2 for consideration. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to advance 759 Homer Avenue as a Category 3 resource to City Council for consideration for addition to the Palo Alto local inventory. Seconded by Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried (6-1). 3. Discussion of Expectations in Advance of the January 25, 2024, HRB Meeting Regarding Making Recommendations Following Receipt of Objection Letters Ms. French explained that staff had a discussion on December 14, 2023. The full board was not present, so it was difficult to anticipate what the Board may choose. The goal is to have the HRB express its intention for January 25, 2024, with regard to the objections properties. Staff recommends that the HRB not move those properties forward to Council if there are objections, and that the HRB can affirm the continuing eligibility of properties for the local inventory. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments from the public. Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Marion Odell, homeowner at 482 Everett Avenue, commented that she attended the November meeting and wrote a letter objecting to being on the historic registry and still feels the same way. Reasons included possible impact on salability, added restrictions to permits for changes, and hindering new building. She believed that the City needed new housing on large lots. Darlene Yaplee referenced a “mistaken email,” and remarked that it is a surprise to read a recommendation for HRB to approve the list for the inventory from three members and a likely fourth member – a majority of the HRB. She shared points of concerns about the content in the email. She categorically rejected the proposal for an HRB approval for the Palo Alto inventory if the Council does not act soon. Such a list places residents on an ambiguous list further underscoring concerns of uncertainty and another round of anguish regarding the properties, particularly without an updated ordinance clearly stating that objections are honored or that an opt-in from owners is required. The statutory list and the benefits are not valued or usable for the homeowner or property. She hoped that the February meeting to get ideas for benefits will identify what could be beneficial for homeowners from their perspective. Design consultation is listed as a benefit, but many see this as a negative. Costs to homeowners are not listed, such as building restrictions of historical designation, and are extremely detrimental to the homeowners and property values. Objecting property owners have been remanded to a January 25, 2024 meeting. Many objectors have not provided comments to the HRB. In other cases, individuals have provided general comments, but are reserving their property specific comments for the January 25, 2024 meeting. Making a recommendation now to approve a list of homes prior to the January 25, 2024, meeting is premature and casts doubt on the integrity of the process. She suspected that Palo Alto is not following established best practices from the office of Historical Preservation. Katherine Clark, homeowner at 555 Center Drive, stated that she would support the proposition that if anyone objected to being listed, that the HRB remove them from the list. She did not want to be listed without knowing the benefits and for now, no benefits have been mentioned for their listing. Martin Bernstein commented that any regulations and ordinances that any jurisdiction passes will reflect the cultural values of the community, so they will see how strong of a cultural value historic preservation is for the City and the consequential ordinances that get adopted and passed by the Council. Educating the public on the economic and cultural values of historic preservation is essential. One example of financial value is that some of the properties can expand the floor area ratio. It is important that the HRB explain what is being done to promote the benefits and what the City Council is doing to expand the benefits and education is the key. Lian Bi, homeowner at 380 Coleridge Avenue, remarked that she did not believe that there was any financial benefit to the property; instead, it is a burden to the owners. The home was remodeled and renovated a couple of years ago by the previous owners and is no longer historical. The criteria standard is unclear and the whole process is cloudy. Bryan Mazlish, homeowner at 951 Hamilton Avenue, noted that he previously filed an objection. Many objectors are seeking clarity and comfort in terms of the process moving forward. He encouraged the board to provide clarity such that owners are not required to participate in the January 25, 2024, meeting or pursue any further obligations in terms of the cost of time, effort and expense in some cases. Ms. French confirmed that those who spoke about prior objections have been noted and action was not taken, which includes the properties of 380 Coleridge, 951 Hamilton, 555 Center, 482 Everett. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz opened the meeting to board discussion. There are two questions - one regarding commenting on the consultant’s work and whether all of the properties have been nominated correctly, and a second separate question of what to do with properties that have objections registered and to create some comfort and certainty for those who do not want their properties listed at this time. Board Member Wimmer believed that this has been a hopeful but somewhat disappointing exercise for some. She said City Council does care and can probably help define better incentives and offer the assurance that the public is seeking. Locations like Pasadena and Oak Grove put preservation first, and many people have pride of ownership, and maybe that is their incentive, more than a financial incentive She stated that she would like to see the community focus more on the preservation, stewardship and celebration of the history of the City rather than property value. She reiterated that the Board does not Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto Page 9 place the properties on any register, but simply recommends them and embraces the opportunity to help preserve them, but not to place hardship upon property owners. She did feel that the City needs to work on making incentives clear. Board Member Heinrich said she did not object to the list as a whole, but she did object to the process where the owners have to opt-out instead of opt-in to the list. Board Member Willis added that most individuals understand that they are lucky to have the properties that they have. There is some craftmanship, spirit, and design that is not in modern life and something reassuring about walking back into an enclosure that has been standing for a long time and speaks to the future being there. There is a benefit way beyond money that many hope to pass on to the next generation or the next owners of the homes. She stated that it is a leap of faith to think that the City is not going to do something that would make it challenging or expensive, but that leap of faith needs to be taken and say that there is some value in preserving these buildings. Vice Chair Rohman was pleased to have a quorum of the full board in attendance. She stated that she would be voting in alignment with the California Register of Historic Resources and the State process. This may mean that individuals do not need to attend and object in person on the 25th or comments may be submitted ahead of time. She felt that being a part of this process is a responsibility of the homeowner. Board Member Wimmer remarked that incentives do need to be improved by the Board to make a profoundly positive impact moving forward. Board Member Pease said the City provided significant benefits to commercial property owners for historic preservation and it is time to consider providing adequate incentives for owners of residential properties that are significant to their history. Board Member Heinrich agreed that something is needed for residential properties and not just commercial. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz commented that further discussion of incentives is necessary. It is something that there is interest in, and the board intends to take up at the February meeting. The community is encouraged to attend and participate at that time. She agreed with the work of the consultants and stated that the list and properties do appear to be eligible and categorized correctly. She pointed out that the properties under discussion were not identified by the Board, but were found to be eligible by others for the State or National Registers. Also, properties on the list are already impacted by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Acknowledging the work of the consultants gives future owners the opportunity to opt into the historic inventory without re-reviewing the property and incurring those costs. She was in favor of aligning their own procedures with those of the State and not recommending properties for inclusion over the expressed objection of the homeowner. While the list is valid and correct, not every property on the list has to be advanced. Board Member Heinrich inquired about the cost for an individual review of a property for historic preservation. Ms. French remarked that she did not have that information available, but she could put that in the staff report for the January 25th meeting. The idea is that if an owner came forward individually, as opposed to within the current process, they would incur the cost to bring properties forward to the HRB and then the Council. Board Member Willis found it interesting to go back through the reports of projects in the works because those reports were much more detailed than the reports funded by the City. The consultants tended to do very thorough job. Board Member Makinen believed that there is a level of distrust amongst the public and homeowners of historic properties in dealing with the City. One of the causes for this is that the City used to have a historic planner that could interface very effectively with homeowners to address concerns and questions, and that position has been vacant for a long time, and the absence of that point of contact has led to uncertainty and unanswered questions He stated that he would like to see the City planner position restored. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated that was a good point. She requested that the motion be separated by two parts. Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto Page 10 MOTION Motion by Vice Chair Rohman that the HRB recognize and agree with the consultant’s work, and that the categories presented for each property are appropriate, and that the properties covered in the inventory recommendation are eligible for listing on the local inventory. Seconded by Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried (7-0). MOTION Motion by Vice Chair Rohman that the HRB does not intend to advance properties with registered objections for consideration by Council at this time. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Rohman. Board Member Heinrich inquired regarding how her belief that the owner should opt in follows the motion. Ms. French explained that staff’s intention and planned protocol is that certified letters would be sent to all owners of properties for which no objections have been received. The Board does not want to move forward in situations where someone has not received the mail or in which staff has not heard from the owner. In that sense, it is an opt-in process because they will talk to every property owner before going to Council. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz restated her motion per Board Member Wimmer’s request as follows: The HRB does not intend to advance properties with registered objections for consideration by Council at this time. Seconded by Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried (6-1). Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz addressed public concerns, stating that the board does not intend to advance properties with objections at this time. Ms. French advised that there will be a staff report for the January 25th meeting that will clarify that this vote occurred. The community is encouraged to attend the meeting, but it is not necessary. Individuals are also encouraged to attend the community meeting on February 23, 2024. Board Member Willis implored the public to provide input on specifics of similar properties where one was on the list and the other was not. Board Member Wimmer inquired about the next step and whether the Board should provide a follow-up stating that they are not recommending the properties with objections until they’ve accomplished certain goals, such as public education, outreach and incentives After those secondary goals are reached, would they then recommend more of those properties? Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz explained that Council would have the opportunity to vote on the non-objector properties and for those properties, that is the next step. HRB is signaling that there is no intention to advance any of the objector properties now. Hopefully, the development of incentives can become impactful enough to convince the property owners to no longer object. Board Member Pease agreed, stating that it helps preserve the investment in the whole process, which has been significant. Board Member Heinrich stated that she would like to see the Council approve the list, but have the owners opt-in. Board Member Wimmer said that the subcommittee had hoped to amend the current ordinance to include the wording on the State and National Register to state that no property should be on any historic list or register over the objection of the owner. Vice Chair Rohman pointed out that is different than an opt-in. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz added that opt-in is an affirmative “I want to be on the register,” and what the Board is doing is a non-objection. Vice Chair Rohman added that this is in line with the wording of the State and National Register. Board Member Wimmer didn’t believe they were using that same wording. Vice Chair Rohman said no, they were not, but the motion they just voted on is affirming the wording of the State, even though it is not in the Palo Alto ordinance. Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated that their ordinance is silent on that. In theory, their ordinance would allow a property to be placed on the inventory over the objections of a homeowner, but the Board is stating that it is not their intention to doing that. Board Member Wimmer said that it would be nice if it was solidified in the ordinance. Board Member Pease asked if it would be easier to include that one sentence to the existing ordinance as an amendment rather than revisiting the whole process. Ms. French explained that the changes to Chapter 16 do not require going to the Planning and Transportation Commission first. Staff might consider a two-part process going to Council with those properties that have not provided objections after multiple certified letters and cards have been sent. Perhaps, there could be an agenda item that states the sentence placement on the Ordinance Chapter 16.49 for the January 25th meeting. Board Member Wimmer commented that one other item was to revisit the ordinance and to understand its effectiveness, so maybe this could be agendized at the meeting after next and could include the discussion regarding owners’ objections. Vice Chair Rohman supported the suggestion to have the HRB agendize adding the proposed sentence to the ordinance for the next meeting. Ms. French stated that it is possible as a study session to have that discussion and then a follow-up could be included in the February 23rd community meeting if there was an interest in discussing the ordinance as well as the incentives. Board Member Wimmer thought the Board should continue to discuss just the incentives and not add to that meeting. But as a follow-up Board meeting they should continue to discuss the ordinance and the effectiveness of the ordinance. Ms. French advised pushing the ordinance goal item back to a March date. Board Member Wimmer remarked that maybe Page and Turnbull could help the Board discuss the ordinance because they add another layer of expertise. She also mentioned the four Board members with terms expiring in March. Ms. French stated that she would reach out to the City Clerk and ask what the timeline is for recruitment and urge recruitment early and often. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of November 9, 2023 Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if there were any corrections or comments for the meeting from November 9, 2023. Board Member Willis stated that the minutes documented her as being Chair on page 603, fourth paragraph. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz told Board Member Heinrich that the minutes do state that she was absent that day. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to approve the meeting minutes for the November 9, 2023 meeting as corrected. Seconded by Board Member Willis, the motion carried (6-0-1). Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Board Member Willis asked that an attachment be added to prior meeting minutes indicating the specific addresses that had been voted on. Ms. French shared the calendar for upcoming meetings. There was discussion during the meeting in December about potentially canceling the meeting of February 8th due to a lot of input leading up to the meeting of February 23rd. Also, as noted, there will be a lot of business in March following that meeting. The regular February 8th meeting is still being shown. Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated that she was in favor of canceling the February 8th meeting. Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Willis disagreed. The meeting could be used to wrap a few things up, to explicitly understand what the process is to add a line to the ordinance regarding owner consent and clarify any incentives that could be brought forward more clearly at the February 23rd meeting. Ms. French reminded the Board that there was a goal of having one meeting per month and the second meeting of each month could be used for subcommittee members to meet. Board Member Willis still preferred that the February 8th meeting not be canceled. Board members need to come together and move forward with ideas. Board Member Heinrich agreed with keeping the February 8th meeting because Board members become more informed with more discussion. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz requested that the item be deferred. Adjournment Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to adjourn. Seconded by Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried unanimously, by voice vote. Item 4 Attachment A - 1.11.24 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 68 Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 28, 2024 Report #: 2403-2788 TITLE Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s): •January 25, 2024 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: HRB 1.25 Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 5 Staff Report Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Page 1 `` Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz; Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Gogo Heinrich, Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, Christian Pease and Caroline Willis Absent: Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Public Comment City Official Reports [Meeting in progress but no audio until 12:15] 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chief Planning Official Amy French announced dates for upcoming HRB meetings. Items will include the annual CLG report to the Office of Historic Preservation and the plan for the upcoming fiscal year. The HRB could discuss having one meeting each month with the entire Board and the other date reserved for opportunities for subcommittees to meet. Action Items 2. Historic Resources Board (HRB) Recommendation to Council on the Nomination of 2601 East Bayshore Road, Consideration of Reasons for Local Inventory Listing Objections, and Recommendation to City Council Regarding Properties Found Eligible for Local Inventory Listing via the Historic Reconnaissance Survey for Which Property Owner objections were received. Ms. French noted this was the day to discuss properties with objections from owners to listing on the local inventory, or objections to properties appearing on a list of eligible properties even if the HRB does not forward them to the Council for listing. Another goal was to provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding nomination of the City’s property at 2601 East Bayshore Road. This was postponed from the December 14th HRB hearing. Ms. French commented on the discussion at the January 11th meeting, regarding the HRB’s ability to affirm eligibility of properties for the local inventory based on criteria set forth by the consultant and noted that discussion could be continued with regard to what it means to be eligible for a local inventory. The Board also needed to formally vote to decline to advance properties with objections to the City Council for placement on the inventory. Ms. French presented statistics regarding the properties involved in the current process, including that objections were received from owners on approximately 50 percent of the 163 properties involved. Approximately 60 percent or more of the objection properties are zoned single-family residential. Inquiries were received regarding establishment of historic districts, but this was not within the scope of the current process. Ms. French presented the property at 2601 East Bayshore Road, found to be eligible as a Category 1 local inventory resource under criteria 1, 4 and 5. Three structures at the site were demolished in 2017 and HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES, January 25, 2024 Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom 8:30 A.M. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Page 2 another in 2019, yet the remaining building was found to still have integrity and still be eligible for the National Register. There were questions regarding the future use of the building. With the PF zoning and design overlay district, any physical changes to the property would need to go through the site design process. The City could potentially lease the property under this zoning. She noted that there is concern regarding hazardous materials related to the property. The Baylands Conservation Plan is still in the CEQA process, but there has been some controversy around preserving or demolishing the building. Barrett Reiter, consultant, Page and Turnbull, summarized the reason the building is categorized as a Category 1. The building is the last remnant of the Federal Telegraph Company at Marsh Station and is significant for its remarkable contributions to the field of radio communications. The company was founded in Palo Alto in 1909 and was a pioneer in radio transmission and long distance wave transmission which has impacted the field of radio sciences and communications. It is an internationally important history that has impacted world wars, communication and knitting the country together, and it started in Palo Alto, making it an exceptional building with an exceptional history. It is eligible for the National Register. The question is whether listing on the local inventory helps create opportunities for its reuse, so that if it is demolished in the future there is some plan to do interpretive work preserving and highlighting the history conveyed on the site so that the public could understand the significance of the site. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited public comment on 2601 East Bayshore. There was none. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited Board discussion on the item. Vice Chair Rohman asked if the structure and the surrounding land is currently owned by the City. Ms. French responded that it is, and that it is also subject to some regional oversight due it’s status as a wetlands. Board Member Heinrich said her research on the building revealed a report by AECOM given to the City. This report stated that the building does not retain sufficient historic integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association and no longer conveys its historic significance. It is recommended to not be eligible for listing. Board Member Heinrich said she agreed with the report and did not feel the building should be retained, citing hazardous materials and incongruence with the 123 acres of wetlands surrounding it. Vice Chair Rohman asked who AECOM is. Board Member Heinrich said they are a consultant hired by the City. They developed the concept for the former ITT property, Emily Renzel Wetlands. Vice Chair Rohman agreed that the building was problematic. She also agreed with restoration of the wetlands. However, she felt the HRB’s purview was to decide whether the site/structure should be recognized as historic. She agreed that even if the building is demolished, there would be an opportunity for interpretation on the site, including how the wetlands were originally used as undesirable land, but in 2024 are recognized as an important ecosystem. She felt this is a learning opportunity for people, even if the structure is demolished. She felt the building should go on the local inventory as a means of recording the site’s important history. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz agreed and said the Board makes recommendations to Council about listing, but land use is not their purview. Council can address that as part of their decision-making process. The Board should look at the particulars of the site and the structure for listing. Board Member Heinrich wondered why they would list a building on the inventory if it was demolished. Board Member Willis said she looks at the inventory as a record of what happened in Palo Alto. She hoped that the building might survive in some sense, similar to the Sea Scouts building. She said it is important to maintain their history in some form where people can have access to it. The inventory is the best shot at doing that. Vice Chair Rohman agreed that it is part of the evolving cultural landscape of Palo Alto, to illustrate that as far back as the turn of the century there were huge innovations happening in Palo Alto. Even if the building is demolished the story remains of Palo Alto’s importance in technology in the early 1900s. There were Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Page 3 different ways of thinking of ecological resources then, and those ways of thinking have changed, and this is an important story to tell. Board Member Wimmer felt it would be interesting to see what sort of adaptive use the City might come up with, or whether they would lease the land to someone who might develop it. If, in time, there is a proposal for use of the property, it could be determined whether the building fits into that or not. Until there is a proposal for the site, she would advocate for protecting it in its current state since there is no reason to remove it currently. She was also in favor of historic preservation of the site in general, whether the building is there in the future or not, as the site of the original Federal Telegraph Company. It could be simply a plaque or perhaps the City could rename the parcel as such, to help preserve the history. Board Member Heinrich felt in any case the soil and hazmat testing should be done on the building. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said even a listed property could be demolished if it is hazardous, or under other circumstances. Board Member Makinen said, after reading its history of it, the building does have significance, and he felt there are areas that should be taken under consideration. He was not in favor of demolishing the building at the present time. Board Member Heinrich thought the hazmat study should be done now to determine if there are hazardous materials leaching into the groundwater. Board Member Willis asked Board Member Heinrich if she was advising the City that they should do testing because they own the property. Board Member Heinrich said this was correct. Board Member Willis hoped this would be noted by Ms. French. Ms. French noted that references to hazmat were more about the site and less about the building. There is probably a process for directing Public Works to do some sort of testing and it is not in her purview, but she would mention it to Public Works. Board Member Wimmer said when someone comes forward with a proposal for the site, whether the City, or a lessee, at that time an Environmental Impact Report and Historic Evaluation Report would be required on an official level. Ms. French agreed and said there has been some discussion within the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the site. It is a broader issue than the HRB’s opinion on the matter. It extends to other boards and commissions, and to Council. Board Member Wimmer thought she recalled a discussion about the site being a Boy Scout facility. Board Member Willis referred back to the Sea Scout building, which has been nicely resurrected. Council Member Lydia Kou asked if the HRB receives communication when other boards or commissions have had discussions on the site. Ms. French said that the discussion within Parks and Recreation Commission occurred in the past. She has not researched minutes and reports from years past, but she has reached out to Director O’Kane to inform her of this issue coming forward at the HRB. She has also spoken to CSD employees, and there was no mention that it is on the docket for Parks and Recreation Commission. Council Member Kou said it would be important for boards to know what other boards are discussing. Some sort of summary would help keep all of the boards informed about discussions. Ms. French supported this idea. Board Member Wimmer mentioned Peninsula Open Space Trust and said they take on properties such as this. She thought they would have a process for qualifying them or a protocol and guidelines that they follow for such a property. Ms. French added there are often grants available to help cities with properties of significance. Since Palo Alto is a CLG city and they send in a report each year to the Office of Historic Preservation, there are grants Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Page 4 they can apply for to refurbish historic properties. There may be grants for cleaning up hazardous materials that the City could look into. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to recommend 2601 East Bayshore Road to City Council for listing on the local inventory as a Category 1 structure. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried (6-1). Ms. French presented 82 objections properties, of which 51 are residentially zoned. Staff had sent certified letters to property owners prior to the December 14th meeting and January 11th meeting. Certified letters were not sent prior to the November 9th meeting. However, certified letters were sent to those properties recently to alert them to the current meeting. Notice cards were sent to all property owners on the objections list that staff has been tracking. a Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited public comment. Alan Cooper, 270 Kellogg Avenue, owner of a potentially eligible Category 1 property, objected to his property being listed on the Palo Alto register because there needs to be more incentives that are fair and equitable for both the City and the property owner. Earlier in the meeting he had spoken about six possible new incentives. He said he loves his home and has lived in it for 40 years. He believed it should be recognized as part of Palo Alto’s history and should be on the register. He looked forward to the HRB promoting new, mutually equitable, incentives and the City Council approving them. At that time he will remove his objection. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz mentioned that there is a community meeting scheduled on February 23rd and the Board would love to hear from homeowners interested in discussing incentives. Board Member Willis commented that there are criteria for appointing HRB members that have an economic interest in historic houses, and at the moment there are several Board members that do have economic interest and historic houses. Don Jackson cited points from a revised letter from 31 realtors which said that the potential impact of a property being listed on the City’s historic inventory may be a loss up to 20 percent of its market value. He said that the HRB has provided no evidence or data for the belief that a historic designation will increase or have no impact on its market value. The HRB member bios on the website do not indicate to him that the Board members possess professional experience with local real estate transactions. He agreed with the realtors that there should not be an “eligible” list maintained by the City or the HRB, and if such a list continues to exist, the property owner should be provided the option to object to inclusion on that list. He did not ask to be on the list and being forced to be on it has subjected him to uncertainty and stress since the process began. The realtors point out a conflict of interest created by the City using the same historic consultant, Page and Turnbull, both for assessing the eligibility for historic properties and then requiring homeowners to pay the same consultant to review and approve potential improvements or changes to their property. He feels this is a racquet and that this conflict of interest merits investigation and review by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Mr. Jackson said that owners of historic properties should be supported and nurtured by the HRB, but their actions have resulted in a majority of them strenuously objecting both to the current process and their property’s historic designation. He asked why the Board waited until the January 11th meeting to convey that it would not forward or recommend objecting properties to Council instead of doing so from the beginning. He felt the HRB should have focused more on developing significant and material financial and zoning incentives for historic properties. Michael Onken spoke regarding 132 Hamilton Avenue, which is owned by his family. He wanted to file his objection, stating that this has been an office building for 75 years. It had a prior use going back to the 20’s, but if someone walked by today they would never know what that use was, as there is nothing remaining having anything to do with the original use, and there is no significance. Dan Marshall thanked the Board for the assurance of not being placed on the historic list. He purchased his home in 2007 and began remodeling it shortly after. They immediately ran into problems with the Planning Department. They had no idea why. They planned to retain the beauty of the house, but began to understand that there was some other motive affecting their ability to upgrade their home. He did not remember a disclosure of “eligible” when they bought the house. At the time a lot of work was needed. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Page 5 They came understood that because house was eligible for historic designation there were requirements to do certain things or not do certain things. He asked at one point if he needed a lawyer because it was unclear where his rights ended and the City’s rights began. There were no rules or definitions. In the end they compromised. He said the problem with the “eligible” designation is that nobody really knows what it means, other than it’s a thorn in the side of property owners. They would like eliminate that “eligible” designation. He said if they were put on the historic inventory it would substantially reduce the value of his house. Kusum Pandey, 1965 Cowper, reiterated the belief that there should be no “eligible” status on the Palo Alto inventory list maintained by the City. She protested the current opt-out system. While she appreciated the Planning staff sending out notices for the current meeting, for the November meeting they did not receive any notice until a week afterward. She worried about homeowners being forced to opt-out and by their absence, having their property listed without their knowledge. Darlene Yaplee disagreed with affirming 845 Waverly eligible for Palo Alto inventory and asked that they not conflate this with the National Historical eligible list. She said the alleged significance is architecture – a rare surviving example of an early middle class residential building. Only ten surveyed properties evaluated class, and very property except theirs was associated with a style of architecture. The survey asserts style and class were among the predominant forms of residences that house middle and working class people. Another surveyed property looked just like theirs but was not identified as middle class and is eligible because of its style. Their evaluation – a house whose principal significance has little to do with its style or decoration. Without style, how is their home historical or middle class. If class is the criteria, then it should be standardized for every historical home to determine rarity and consistency. She said their middle class home is not rare. Today 387 homes are on the Palo Alto inventory, of which 25 are 1,800 square feet or below, a proxy for middle class, which is not rare. This does not include the 193 Professorville districts, which has middle class houses as well. Therefore, most historical and non-historical properties are middle class. The survey states that most residents are middle and working class. She asked if historical criteria should be someone’s subjective view of a class defined by income, education and social status? The 1979 survey suggested a historical district originally built for a lower socio-economic group, although contiguous to Professorville, perhaps a residential district for domestic labor. She didn’t think an owner would want their property characterized as lower socio-economic, a sure way to bring the property value down. Class criteria is not a good look for Palo Alto. The 1979 survey co-funded by the State office, researched and observed each property for significance bordering Page Mill, El Camino, the Creek, plus College Terrace. Her property and others were part of this survey, following all state regulations. They were not identified as historical. She asked why the same properties are subsequently found to be historical using different consultants. She said they reject finding their home as Palo Alto inventory eligible. Middle class is an invalid criteria, subjective and inconsistent. She said it is not rare. There are at 25 to 352 middle class homes already on the Palo Alto inventory. Mala Narasimharajan said she and her husband own the single-family residence at 546 Washinton Avenue. She said they are strongly in favor of removing the “eligible for historic status” label and do not support an eligible list to be created or used. If such a label is placed on a home and the home is placed on a list, it directly decreases home values, possibly more than 20 percent. They feel it is wrong for homeowners to pay for subjective designations made by external parties with varying misplaced incentives. Any property labeled “eligible for historic status” burdens homeowners with responsibility and expense to prove otherwise. It is a presumptive approach to historic status and not only burdensome for property owners but also disrupts the clarity and predictability that should be inherent in a real estate process. There appears to be a strong conflict of interest to have the same historic consultants perform the survey to determine if a property is historic and then also be hired by the City and residents to consult on historic and preservation of the properties. John Bard, owner of 947 Waverly, commented on the process. He felt the Board has been willing to listen to the public and to improve the process along the way, but it is a little late for people starting at the beginning and going through the evolving process. He said going forward, the Board needs to focus on a more clear and consistent approach to how properties get identified for eligibility and then get moved to the list going forward. He said people are concerned about what eligibility means. The Board has not codified the ability of homeowners to object and to make sure that they don’t get put on the inventory if Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Page 6 they disagree with the designation for their property. If that were clearer, having an eligibility list would provide an opportunity to reconsider those properties and to have homeowners reconsider participation in the inventory if the right incentives were offered. He felt the incentives are not significant enough to overcome potential impact on property value, and it is unfair to force homeowners to accept that reduction in property value if they do not agree. He suggested clarifying that homeowners can object and prevent their properties from being put on the inventory and being subject to the restrictions which add cost to any remodeling or potential devaluing of their property. This would make homeowners more comfortable with participating in the process, being listed an eligible and potentially agreeing to protect their homes by having them put on the inventory. He said the process is unclear regarding the restrictions on changes to properties. Once that process is clear homeowners may be more willing, or potentially less willing, to participate based on how complicated it might be to make changes to their properties. Marion Odell, 482 Everett Avenue, said they purchased the home in 1987 and did a remodel in 2006. The front of the house does not look like it did when it was first built. An additional floor was added. She said they have chosen to not be on the historic register. Their house was on the first list. She immediately sent a letter stating that they did not want to be on the registry. She did not see their house on the list, but she did get a letter back confirming the letter she sent. She wanted to make clear that they do not want their house to be on the registry. Ms. French assured Ms. Odell that their objection was on the record. Charlotte Lowell said there could be a form that prevents a prima facie case but then other information comes in. She said it is clear that Dames and Moore knows how to describe a builder who goes beyond ordinary building. She said her house is Spanish Colonial Revival. If there are 15 to 20 houses that are Spanish Colonial Revival, how does one of them gets selected? She thought a better way would be to offer incentives for those who would like to opt in. She asked the Board to look and compare the houses by E. J. Smalling because without looking at the others, it seems arbitrary to say that one house should be selected as a fine example. She asked that they look at whether or not it should be Category 2. She said she likes her house, although it’s not perfectly crafted, but she wants to be able to repair her house if a tree falls on it. She thought that a blanket approval of everything on the list as eligible isn’t a good process when other objections come. Daniel Robertson, 643 College Avenue, said he is in the College Terrace District. He lives in a house built around 1914. His great-grandfather purchased the house in 1956. He is a fourth generation Palo Alto resident and seen many changes. Many come to Palo Alto because of the schools, the atmosphere, the environment. His neighborhood is old, and many houses that are there have been either demolished or taken down by Stanford. He described his house as old and ready to fall down. His grandfather purchased the property from the original owner. Many houses in neighborhood were built around 1894. His barn was built around the 1890’s and is ready to fall down. He said he can’t do anything with his property without having to go through the Planning Department. Many residents in his neighborhood are already having trouble doing additions because the Palo Alto Planning Department has made it difficult. They don’t want to see bigger houses being put in, yet a block from him there was to be a 60-unit apartment complex. He felt they should have a choice of whether they want their houses to be on the list or not due to financial and personal belief. To rebuild in Palo Alto is very expensive so that must be taken into consideration. Individuals should have a choice. Martin Bernstein stated that many regulations are based on cultural value. For example, San Francisco homes are presumed to be historic, and the rules are very clear. The idea of potentially eligible for listing is confusing. He has clients that ask him what this means. It adds confusion and moments of limbo. Regarding the effect on property values with a historical designation, he said that some properties can apply for additional floor area ratio, up to 250 square feet, which adds value. He mentioned also relief from setbacks and ability to keep a basement in a flood zone for some properties. There are benefits and incentives on the books already. He said one of the key questions is how do homeowners who aren’t familiar with the language of the ordinances learn about them? He suggested education on what it means to be eligible. He has sympathy for those who are trying to sell their home, or purchase a home. He said the City used to have a designated Historic Planner. A homeowner could meet, free of charge, with the historic planner, ask any questions, and become educated on the benefits or challenges of historic listing. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Vijay Chakravarthy, 540 Washington, agreed with the objections and wanted to offer a different viewpoint, trying to understand the perspective of the Board. The notion of preserving history is very subjective, and he did understand the process to be about discussion of preservation. He observed that, with the wetlands as an example, he would argue as an engineer that the equipment that was used has far more historic value that the building itself, so the idea of what constitutes history and what can be changed is subjective. He would like to have more dialogue to understand why some decisions are made. He pointed out that it is strange to have something be historical yet also operational at the same time. This is a burden that a homeowner faces. For example, the Wright Brothers’ first airplane is historical, but you could not expect to fly it every day while preserving the history of it. In the context of a home, the homeowner is actually living in it. He would argue that his own historic home was designed in an era when kitchen staff were considered to not be visible by high-ranking guests elsewhere. Certain aspects of its design, materials, energy efficiency are unfavorable in the present day environment. He asked the reasons why these building are considered to be of value from the Board’s perspective, which may or may not conflict with an owner’s notion of value. Given that the homeowner has to live every day in a poorly-designed home every day, he feels it is a good dialogue to have. Amnon Levy, owner of 250-252 Cowper, said during the November 9th meeting the Board heard comment from property owners requesting not to list their property. Several reasons were provided. One speaker shared that critical data indicated that listing a property in Palo Alto can cost 10 to 20 percent devaluation. For him that would amount to devaluation of his property by nearly $1 million, which would be financially devastating for him. He asked that the Board think about the consequences to homeowners’ lives in making their decisions. He said they don’t have any intention to change or remodel their duplex. It will maintain it’s charming characteristics, so in their case the only consequence of listing would be a great financial loss. He asked that the Board give the homeowner a choice to opt in or out. As an owner of a property nominated for listing, he said there is a lack of clarity in the process moving forward. He does not have a good understanding of the possible outcomes of the discussion. He acknowledged it is not the Board’s practice to respond to public comment, but after attending two meetings he wondered whether the Board intends to address some of the concerns brought up, including devaluation of property and inadequate incentives. Some homeowners mentioned no clarity in the process, no transparency, and confusion in the process. He was unclear if his property has been removed from the list, although he has seen it listed in different columns indicating that objection has been made. He wondered if these will be handled differently by the Board. He felt they were rushing to finalize the list, but they are not ready with the processes to support that, so they should step back and define processes and provide the homeowners with more formal information. Jessica Tsoong, 360 Kellogg Avenue, appreciated the Board not advancing properties to the City Council for listing over the owners’ objections. However, she wished to object to her property being categorized as “eligible” for the local inventory list and to ask that a local eligible list not be created. She said the ordinance does not state that owners can opt out of a local list, so creating one is a problem. She understands the desire to preserve historically significant buildings but the ambiguity in guidelines and inconsistent applicant of historic preservation requirements makes her wary of being considered on any list deemed eligible for local inventory listing. In her experience, being on the eligible list for the national registry has resulted in adverse impacts to their property and their rights as homeowners. She said when they renovated their house they were continually faced with a lack of consistent procedure and what seemed like arbitrary requirements by the review board in order to continue through the planning and construction process. They are also concerned about impact to their property value. She pointed out inaccuracies in the results of the 2023 reconnaissance survey being used to determine the historic list. One criteria applied to her property was criteria 5, that the building or architect was important. The survey stated a rear guesthouse on their property was designed by Birge M. Clark, architect of significance. She said this guesthouse is, in fact, not a part of their property, as the property was subdivided years ago and this house is at a completely different address – 1450 Waverly. However, to her knowledge, 1450 Waverly is not listed as an historic property. Such errors and discrepancies in the 2023 reconnaissance survey by Page and Turnbull make her concerned about the accuracy of the survey and how the historicity of properties is being determined. She asked that an eligible list for the local list not be created. With no other public comments to be heard, Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved to Board discussion. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Vice Chair Rohman asked Ms. French if the “inventory eligible” list is a requirement that must be submitted to the state, or if it simply exists for the purposes of this process. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz followed up and asked about the properties deemed eligible. Her understanding is that means eligible for the state and national register, which is what invokes CEQA. As a Board they do not do that. Ms. French said that was correct. From the 1997 to 2000 survey those properties which have come through the process to see if they still exist and still have integrity were found to be eligible and were sent to the Office of Historic Preservation back in the year 2000. To the extent that there have been additional properties identified in the survey as potentially eligible, and the Comprehensive Plan policy says that demolition permits cannot be issued until they find out if they are actually eligible – policy 7.2 in the Comprehensive Plan – those properties have been sent each year as they are found eligible or ineligible to the Office of Historic Preservation as well. This is a list that is a State database. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked, if a homeowner had concerns about their HRE for purposes of California Register eligibility, how they would go about modifying that, whether there was a process with the State to do this. Ms. Reiter explained that it would be a process of de-listing and the owner would need to provide evidence that the either the integrity has changed or the property has been demolished, or that additional information has come to light which needs to be documented and submitted either to the keeper of the national register to remove it, or to the California register. Vice Chair Rohman said in other words, Palo Alto’s eligible list is only created because it is a requirement of being a certified local government by the State. Ms. French said the obligation of a certified local government is to maintain the list of properties on a local register. It’s part of being a certified local government, and it a requirement to report annually to the State. Vice Chair Rohman asked Ms. Reiter if there is any way to do away with the eligible list in Palo Alto. If so she asked what the ramifications would be. Ms. Reiter responded that from hearing the public comment they need to clarify where there is confusion as to whether the properties that are not moved at this time to the Palo Alto inventory would become listed on a separate list in the City’s records that they are eligible for the inventory but not listed. The concern is that an additional category of “potential eligible” is being created, versus being eligible for the national register, which all of the properties already are, including the ones they found which do not have integrity. She believed for those, the homeowner would have to submit information to the keeper of the national register. She said her organization could follow up with the state office to see if there is a process by which they could remove a larger number of resources if the City were to forward a list of properties that have lost integrity, to update those records. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said what she was understanding is that by virtue of state or national eligibility the properties are identified and are therefore eligible for CEQA. Being eligible under state or national categories also strongly suggests that a property would be eligible for local listing. For the objection properties to not be forwarded to Council, the state determination still stands, and this is something the Board cannot change. Ms. French said they published a list of properties on the webpage, addresses that their consultant determined still had integrity and were therefore still eligible for the state register. That status is not proposed to change, although a property owner may wish that to be the case. The City could take steps with those that the consultant identified as no longer eligible to assist those property owners in having their property removed. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz referred to the commentor who asserted that their assessment was inaccurate because it was no longer within their property’s boundaries. They may want to engage with the process of dealing with a state or local nomination that may not apply. Ms. French added that perhaps the only reason for the HRB to state that the objections properties are eligible for a local inventory is so that in the future this process does not have to happen again. It would Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Page 9 be a blanket for those homeowners going to through this process to return and perhaps go straight to Council with a request to be put on the inventory rather than have more HRB hearings to consider what category, under which criteria, et cetera. That was the purpose of reviewing a large group like this – to go through the process once. Board Member Willis said because they didn’t look at those that had owner objections they missed that opportunity, but she felt it was still something they should follow up on to clarify things. She thought they needed to, before the next meeting, be very clear about how being on the inventory versus being a historic resource not on the inventory differs. She thinks this happens in life – people assume the worst. She said, because they don’t have any demolition protection in Palo Alto there is not much difference, aside from the incentives, for being on the inventory or being a historic resource that is not on the inventory. Before the next month’s meeting she said she will try to clarify what the differences are for the properties. She said it is personal for the Board members as well, and she hoped that they could convince homeowners that being on the inventory is a good thing. Board Member Heinrich asked about a property being placed on an “eligible list,” where the owner has opted out of being listed on the inventory, implying that there are now two lists. Ms. French said there is a published list of properties that the consultant found eligible for listing under certain criteria and for which category on the inventory. That list includes the “objections properties,” where they have received objections. Those objections sometimes are that the owner doesn’t think they are eligible under the criteria identified. Board Member Heinrich asked if they are preparing to vote on two different items – the eligible list and the inventory. Ms. French responded that it is for the properties for which they’ve received objections only. Board Member Heinrich asked if a property owner has submitted an objection and they remain on the eligible list, and if fair and equitable incentives become available and they want to be moved to the inventory from the eligible list, if they would have to pay a fee to do so. Ms. French said the City processes have funded the consultant assistance to go through this process. Her understanding is that if owners individually come forward and the HRB has not identified them as eligible under certain criteria they would have to individually come back to the HRB for the process for those properties that did not want to be recognized as eligible for the local inventory. They still remain eligible for the national and state inventory unless other actions are taken by the owner. Board Member Heinrich wanted to clarify that if they want to opt in later they would have to pay a fee. Ms. French responded that yes, that is how the system is set up, because it has to cover the costs of the things they have been doing in batches through the survey process, including staff reports, published notifications, notice cards, et cetera. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if it is possible to allow people to come back without going through the process again, to leave the door open for those who have de-listed themselves from the state and national registers to remove themselves from this process. Ms. French said it is difficult to explain the processes and what to do if an owner finds that their property no longer has integrity. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said there is a process for de-listing. Ms. French acknowledged this but said it not clear and is not in the ordinance. Ms. Reiter said it would be difficult if an individual property owner came forward later who had wanted to be pulled off the list. Some on-the-ground work would need to be done in terms of assessing that, so it would be difficult to say that there would be no fees involved in that scenario to cover staff time for the process. She felt that any property owner who is objecting right now but within the next year or so finds that the incentives have improved and wants to be listed, few changes would have occurred to their property, so it might be more likely that something simple could be done to affirm the findings and move it forward. This would probably needed to be a time-bounded situation. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz’s understanding was, therefore, that it would be difficult for property owners that have registered objections to come back a in a few years and request listing on the Palo Alto inventory without paying associated fees and having their property assessed again. Ms. French thought the Council would have to consider that and decide if it wanted to set up some sort of grace period. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz remarked that it wouldn’t involve the HRB. Ms. French said Ms. Reiter’s contributions are important because if someone comes back two or three years from now, and if they’ve built a second floor without any kind of historic review, then they would need to evaluate the property as to whether it still retains integrity. She added that building a second is possible for historic resources, but they would need to review its compatibility under the Secretary of the Interior standards. Council Member Lydia Kou commented that, in listening to the discussion, there is a lot of confusion. There is a difference between being identified and becoming eligible. She wondered if there is a chart that illustrates the process from the point of identification to where it goes from there and which eligible list it automatically goes on. She wondered if there was some such chart. Ms. French said all of the properties were previously found eligible for national and California, so that is not a point of the current discussion. The HRB is not set up to reverse those designations. For the properties found by the consultant to no longer have integrity she could try to find a way to help those properties come off of the California and national register eligibility. She thought for the February 23 community meeting they could help people understand that even if they have objected to listing on the local inventory, those properties are not automatically coming off of the California and national eligible list. Council Member Kou said she understood this. She wondered why updating their ordinance was not a priority before jumping into this endeavor. Board Member Heinrich agreed that they should have updated their ordinance before jumping into listing properties because they need to know the fair and equitable incentives first. They need to have the community discussion and then come back and do a vote. She would like to defer the decision for the day. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said the properties with no objections have been sent to Council already. What they could do that day was to follow up on their vote, to reiterate that properties with registered objections will not be sent to Council for consideration for the local inventory. Board Member Heinrich wondered why they needed to reiterate this if it has already been done. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said the last vote showed their intent, but this would be the official vote. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz that properties with registered objections not be recommended to Council for consideration for listing on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion passed unanimously. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz hoped this would provide clarity for property owners who are concerned about the status of their property as part of the HRB’s process. Ms. French added that she looked to make sure that all of the people that spoke that day about their objections will have their properties published in the list of objection properties if they are not already on it. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said property owners could also object to Council. Ms. French said this was correct. Even those already recommended by the HRB to Council can go forward with objections. There is no Council date yet regarding those properties. The intent is to have further conversations about incentives, the ordinance, et cetera, at the February meeting. Board Member Willis asked about a real estate letter that came in the previous night. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Ms. French said she was at a meeting and did not see the email, but she had looked at it during the current meeting, and it was sent to City Council in addition to the HRB, so it will be published on both the HRB webpage and the Council webpage. She will forward any correspondence that came in the previous night to the Board members. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz closed discussion of the item, reminding property owners of the February 23rd meeting, 6:00 p.m. in the Community Room. Refreshments will be provided, and the Board will be discussing incentives. [The Board took a break from 10:14 to 10:17 a.m.] During the break Board Member Willis asked those present if they had done any charts showing incentives for single-family residences or commercial buildings. She said she will do this for the next meeting. She said there is much fear and speculation about these things and she would like to demonstrate the facts, including incentives as well as any negatives involved. For example, how much longer does it take to get through the Building Department if you have a property on the inventory than if you don’t? Also, getting facts straightened out with realtors. Study Session 3. Brown Act Refresher Caio Arellano, Chief Assistant City Attorney, addressed the Board. Mr. Arellano shared his professional background, noting that he has been conducting Brown Act trainings for quite some time and has sat with city councils and planning commissions, advising various bodies on ins and outs and pitfalls of the Brown Act. He shared tips and tricks for the HRB members to think about in the course of their work. The Brown Act is the basic open meetings law for local government agencies in California. The State has its own open meeting law, which is basically the same. The key components of the Brown Act are, one, the meetings must be in public at a regular place and time. Two, the agenda for the meetings must be posted in advance, and members are not allowed to discuss any items that were not on the agenda. Three, there must be opportunity for public participation, both on agenda items and a separate opportunity for members of the public to address the body on anything that is not on the agenda. Planning staff and the City Clerk’s Office prepare the agenda, noticing, setting up the room for in-person and virtual attendance and providing for public comment. Mr. Arellano noted the two biggest questions involved in adhering to the Brown Act – are you a legislative body? And is what you are doing considered a meeting? If both of those are true, then the procedures must be followed. A legislative body is defined in the Brown Act to include any appointed bodies, such as the HRB, or standing committees of the City Council. Other legislative bodies may include any boards or commission included in the Municipal Code, any advisory bodies created by City Council action, or some board, commission, or City Council subcommittees. For example, if the HRB established a subcommittee to work on a particular issue that the full Board doesn’t have time to discuss and they wished to delegate some of the work to a smaller group for efficiency sake, they should work with staff to make sure they are not running afoul of the Brown Act when doing so. Mr. Arellano explained when the Brown Act does not apply. It does not apply to individual discussions members may have with members of the public or the staff. This is because they are not meeting as a board. Communications between less than a quorum of the board or committee is not a meeting because there is not a majority of members present. For the HRB there must be four or more members present to be considered a meeting. The Brown Act does not apply to ad hoc subcommittees which involve less than a quorum. Mr. Arellano discussed the question, “What is a meeting?” which is the main thing to be concerned with. The Board must not unwittingly do something that would be considered a meeting as defined by the Brown Act. The statute defines a meeting as “a majority of members at the same time and place to hear, discuss or deliberate on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body.” He provided examples of circumstances and situations which would or would not be considered meetings. He explained that a common pitfall with regard to the Brown Act are serial meetings. He stressed, with regard to emails, not using “reply all” or “send to all.” Secondly, he stressed being very careful about using social media posts Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Page 12 or message boards to discuss, present an opinion, or “like” or “dislike,” any HRB-related matter. Mr. Arellano presented a scenario for Board members to participate in to test their understanding of the concepts presented. Ms. French added that it is always appropriate to send any communication to her as the liaison to the Board to avoid any mistakes. She noted that their webpage, thanks to recent interest by the public in greater transparency, includes publishing any public comments addressed to any Planning Department commissions. Anything sent to the HRB is published on their webpage. If there is communication that looks like a serial meeting may have happened, she does publish those on the webpage, stating “Board communication,” in order show the public what has been discussed, although they try to avoid needing to do that. Mr. Arellano added that there is nothing to prevent members of the public from emailing the Board members as a group. The Board’s responsibility is to make sure they are not discussing or deliberating outside the context of a noticed meeting. They can thank the individual for the communication but save the discussion for when the Board comes together. Board Member Pease posed the question if there is a three-person subcommittee that wishes to have something agendized and wants to communicate that, what is the proper procedure. Ms. French replied it should be sent to her, the liaison. She would have that discussion with the Chair about the appropriate meeting in which to bring it forward, given any work that needs to be done by staff to support the request or any notice of it that needs to be advertised. She asked the entire Board that, if they are holding a subcommittee meeting, if it starts to become a regular meeting, then it becomes something that needs to be advertised. Board Member Pease noted that the Ms. French typically meets with the Chair and Vice Chair for a pre- meeting on the Monday before a Thursday meeting. He asked if a subcommittee wanted something to be agendized, what the timeline would typically be in order to do that, given necessary advertising requirements, et cetera. Ms. French said they typically publish the agenda at least 72 hours in advance. For something that came up Monday at noon, when she and the Chair and Vice Chair meet, it would be too late to put on the agenda. There is a section on the agenda for reports from officials that can be general topics, so a subcommittee could report out on something, but it would not be a discussion because it has not been advertised. Mr. Arellano agreed with this assessment. He said one issue is the question of how a subcommittee puts an item on the Board’s agenda, and what the lead time for doing so would be. Ms. French said in general 8:30 on Monday morning for the Thursday meeting would be the deadline for a known topic that a subcommittee wanted to be discussed to be put on the agenda. Mr. Arellano further commented that the subcommittee chair could then contact the staff liaison before this time. Board Member Pease wondered, if an ad hoc subcommittee gets together and decides that there is urgency and they would like something agendized, and the subcommittee meeting is on Wednesday, if the request was made by early Monday morning, if it would be possible to get it added to the agenda to be published in writing. Ms. French responded that it would have to be before 8:30 on Monday, so she would hope that the communication would come to her by at least Friday the week before. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited public comment on the item. There was none. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of December 14, 2023 Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz recused herself from this item because she was not in attendance. Board Member Willis pointed out an anomaly in the text on packet page 24 which was discussed and corrected. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Page 13 MOTION Motion by Board Member Willis to approve the draft minutes of the December 14th meeting as corrected. Seconded by Board Member Heinrich, the motion carried (6-0-1) by voice vote. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Board Member Willis said she received a notice from the November meeting in which her property was nominated. It said, “Your property will be heard again on Thursday, January 25th to reaffirm eligibility for local inventory listing and voted on for recommendation.” She asked if that was done, or was going to be done. Ms. French said she didn’t thoroughly look at the message in that letter, but the intent was for all of the November 9th properties that didn’t have a certified letter to have a chance to receive a certified letter so that, even if they hadn’t been following the process, they could be aware that today they could still object. Board Member Willis added that she thought the letter could be a little more user-friendly. Ms. French agreed that there was a lot of information in it. She said she had been out of the office the last week. She requested to see the letter to view what actually was received. She noted that they had planned to send certified return receipt letters to all of the properties that have been nominated for which they have not received objections. She said they will make a nice letter in within the next week to make sure everyone knows about the February 23rd meeting as well, where they can voice their ideas and concerns regarding incentives, the ordinance and other confusion. Vice Chair Rohman said this discussion would be put in the packet for the next meeting. Ms. French advised that there was a member of the public that wanted to comment on approval of the minutes, and asked the Chair if she wished to re-open that item to receive comment. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz agreed to this. Darlene Yaplee said on the previous minutes on the 9th, there has been a lot of communication about what communication they are to receive – letters or postcards. She felt it is unclear what people have actually received. She has never received anything except two postcards and a letter on the 9th meeting. She has not gotten a reminder on the 25th meeting. She didn’t know if this was because she had objected, but she not received anything since the 11-9 meeting. People are confused as to when they have received notices and don’t understand what meetings they should go to or not go to. She wanted to comment that it was communicated in the minutes what people were supposed to get, but she was not sure what she was supposed to have gotten, and many others have not. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the vote on the minutes could stand. Ms. French said the minutes could stand. She added that they will do their best to help people understand through the next set of meetings. Staff’s intent has been to reassure people that submitted objections have been received and heard. Board Member Heinrich announced that PAST is starting their spring walking tours again. Their website shows all of the neighborhoods, dates and times. Board Member Wimmer said the next time they will be together will be at the community meeting on February 23rd. She asked if there is anything they should be doing in preparation for that, or if it would just be an open forum, an opportunity for the public to speak. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said it would be a discussion of incentives and hearing from the community what they would like to see, what would make having their property listed perhaps more appealing, et cetera. They could also talk about what is currently available. Ms. French asked that if anyone on the HRB has ideas of what that meeting could be or what they would like to see, to please email her directly. She will compile all ideas from all members of the HRB. She asked them to do this soon as it takes time to develop each packet, provide notice to the newspaper, et cetera. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Adjournment MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Heinrich, the motion carried unanimously by voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 a.m. Item 5 Attachment A - 1.25 HRB Minutes Packet Pg. 83