HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-09 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
Regular Meeting
Thursday, May 09, 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 Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three
(3) minutes per speaker.
2.201 Alma Street, Tower Well Park: Park Name Discussion per City Council Direction
3.Tailored Mills Act Program Recommendation to City Council
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 28, 2024
5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 11, 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 May 09, 2024
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 09, 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 Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three
(3) minutes per speaker.
2.201 Alma Street, Tower Well Park: Park Name Discussion per City Council Direction
3.Tailored Mills Act Program Recommendation to City Council
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 28, 2024
5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 11, 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 May 09, 2024
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 09, 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 Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three
(3) minutes per speaker.
2.201 Alma Street, Tower Well Park: Park Name Discussion per City Council Direction
3.Tailored Mills Act Program Recommendation to City Council
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 28, 2024
5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 11, 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 May 09, 2024
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 09, 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 Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.201 Alma Street, Tower Well Park: Park Name Discussion per City Council Direction3.Tailored Mills Act Program Recommendation to City CouncilAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 28, 20245.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 11, 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 May 09, 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: May 9, 2024
Report #: 2404-2916
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 Board members anticipate being absent from
a future meeting, it is requested that it be brought to staff’s attention when considering this
item. The second meeting date each month has been crossed off indicating a proposal to
cancel. On May 13, 2024, Council will consider on its consent calendar1 (Item 9) reducing the
HRB meetings to one per month, as well as reducing the number and composition of members
(see attached documents for awareness only). No action is required by the HRB for this item.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2024 HRB Schedule & Assignments
Attachment B: Council Report for May 13, 2024, Consent Calendar Item 9
Attachment C: Item 9 Ordinance Showing Annotated Modifications
AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
1 Link to May 13 2024 Council Agenda:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14261
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 Wimmer
4/25/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
5/9/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Pease
5/23/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
6/13/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
6/27/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
7/11/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
7/25/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
8/8/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
8/22/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
9/12/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/26/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
10/10/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
10/24/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
11/14/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/28/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
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
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: May 13, 2024
Report #:2404-2882
TITLE
CONSENT/Legislative: Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.27, Historic
Resources Board, Section 2.27.010 to Reduce Required Members from Seven to Five, Reduce
the Required Number of Professionals from Three to Two, and Expand the Professional Fields
Consistent with Certified Local Government (CLG) Requirements for Historic Resources Boards;
and to PAMC Section 2.27.030 (a) and (b) to Reduce Regular Meetings to Once per Month and
Reduce the Size of a Local Quorum to Three Members.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council modify PAMC Sections 2.27.010 and 2.27.030 of the PAMC
Chapter 2.27, Historic Resources Board to minimally meet CLG requirements. The goal is to:
1. Reduce the requirement to five members forming the City’s Historic Resources Board (HRB);
2. Reduce the criteria requiring three subject matter professionals from three to two
members;
3. Broaden the categories of professions to match the Certified Local Government (CLG),
requirements for historic commissions;
4. Remove the code requirement for one member to be an owner/occupant of a category 1 or
2 historic structure, or of a structure in a historic district;
5. Reduce the number of regular meetings from twice per month to once per month and cite a
minimum four meetings to be held per year as required for CLG programs; and,
6. Reduce the size of an HRB quorum to three members present in Palo Alto.
BACKGROUND
The HRB’s goals and purposes (purview) are set in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27
Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties. These duties are to:
a) Render advice and guidance to a property owner upon the owner's application for
alteration of any historic single-family or duplex building in the downtown area and any
such building designated as significant elsewhere in the City
Item 1
Attachment B - Council
May 13 2024 Item 9 HRB
Composition PAMC 2.27
Packet Pg. 7
b) Inform the architectural review board of the historical and/or architectural significance
of historic commercial and multiple-family structures in the downtown area and any
such buildings designated as significant elsewhere in the City that are under review by
the Architectural Review Board. Submit recommendations to the Architectural Review
Board regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures
c) Recommend to the council the designation of additional buildings and districts as
historic. Research available information and add historical information to the inventory
sheets of historic structures/sites. This inventory is maintained in the department of
planning and development services
d) Perform such other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the Historic
Resources Board by the City Council
The City's historic preservation program includes the implementation of the 2017-2030
Comprehensive Plan historic preservation policies, which include:
•Policy L7.2 (Preparation of historic evaluations to determine eligibility for the California
Register of Historical Resources)
•Policy L7.1.1 (Recommend eligible resources to the local inventory)
•Policy L7.1.2 (Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance)
PAMC Sections 2.27.010 and 2.27.030
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.27, Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.010
establishes a seven-member board including three professionals in the fields of architecture,
landscape architecture, building design or other design professionals. Members are not
required to reside in Palo Alto, but with the current seven-member requirement, it is necessary
for a quorum of five members to be present in Palo Alto for the HRB meetings. The current
code states:
2.27.010 Historic Resources Board. The Historic Resources Board shall be composed of
seven members appointed by the city council and serving without pay. Members shall
have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history, architecture or historic
preservation. One member shall be an owner/occupant of a category 1 or 2 historic
structure, or of a structure in a historic district; three members shall be architects,
landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals and at least one
member shall possess academic education or practical experience in history or a related
field. The Palo Alto Historic Association shall be given notice of vacancies on the board
and shall be encouraged to have its members submit applications.
The HRB has been holding at least 12 meetings each year for the past several years, as
documented in annual work plans. The code states that two meetings per month will be held
‘or at the pleasure of the chairperson’. There is an interest in reducing these meetings to once
per month, which may help to encourage candidates to apply for the position. The code states:
Item 1
Attachment B - Council
May 13 2024 Item 9 HRB
Composition PAMC 2.27
Packet Pg. 8
2.27.030 Organization. (a) The Board shall hold meetings twice monthly or at the
pleasure of the chairperson and shall establish such rules as may be appropriate and
necessary for the orderly conduct of its business. The Board shall elect a chairperson
and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall serve in such capacity for terms
of one year each, or until a successor is elected. The chairperson shall preside over
meetings of the board, and in the absence or disability of the chairperson, the vice
chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson. (b) Four members shall
constitute a quorum and decisions of the board shall be determined by majority vote of
those members present at the meeting. Action minutes shall be kept by the Board.
Challenges for Recruitment
The City Clerk's office has often needed to pursue multiple recruitments for HRB positions and
the HRB recently experienced members who had served multiple terms who then ‘termed out’.
The most recent recruitment for a seven-member HRB resulted in only one candidate
application, from an incumbent member, for four open positions.
There are currently three HRB members whose terms did not end March 31, 2024. Four
members are currently serving past their terms that ended March 31, 2024. Three of the four
are now serving into the six-month timeframe prescribed in the City’s rules, until Council
appoints their successors. Under the current code, the next recruitment would need to find two
additional design professionals and another member, given the one eligible incumbent, an
architect, has applied.
With hybrid meetings enabling remote participation by board members, it can still be difficult to
ensure a quorum of five members are present in Palo Alto to hold these meetings. If the code
were amended to reduce membership to five members and two professionals with a broadened
list of professions, the recruitment may yield one more candidate needed for a five-person
board. Reducing the board to seven members would require a quorum of three members
within Palo Alto, and modification to Section 2.27.030. Staff would continue to work with
members’ schedules to secure meeting dates allowing all members to attend.
Certified Local Government Board Requirements
The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has rules1 for minimum number of members serving
on a historic commission for a CLG, the minimum number of professionals, and the range of
professions considered eligible to serve the professional positions. CLG procedures require local
commissions to meet these requirements:
•A minimum of five individuals with all members having demonstrated interest,
competence, or knowledge in historic preservation.
1 Link to OHP rules for commissions: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/clgrequirements.pdf
Item 1
Attachment B - Council
May 13 2024 Item 9 HRB
Composition PAMC 2.27
Packet Pg. 9
•At least two members are encouraged to be appointed from among professionals in the
disciplines of history, architecture, architectural history, planning, pre-historic and
historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, and
landscape architecture or related disciplines, such as urban planning, American studies,
American civilization, or cultural geography, to the extent that such professionals are
available in the community.
•Commission membership may also include lay members who have demonstrated special
interests, competence, experience, or knowledge in historic preservation.
Certified Local Government Benefits
The City of Palo Alto is a Certified Local Government (CLG). Participation as a CLG2 allows the
City to apply for and receive federal grants annually to assist with the City’s historic
preservation program. The CLG program is:
•To encourage the direct participation of local governments in the identification,
evaluation, registration, and preservation of historic properties within their jurisdictions
and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns into local
planning and decision-making processes.
•A partnership with local governments, the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
and the National Parks Service (NPS), which is responsible for administering the National
Historic Preservation Program. CLG Responsibilities include:
o Enforce appropriate state and local laws and regulations for the designation and
protection of historic properties,
o Establish an historic preservation review commission by local ordinance,
o Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties,
o Provide for public participation in the local preservation program, and
o Satisfactorily perform responsibilities delegated to it by the state.
The NPS and OHP do not dictate the content of historic preservation plans or ordinances, nor is
their approval needed prior to the selection and appointment of individual local preservation
commissioners by local government officials. In no way is the autonomy of a local government
decreased by being a CLG. However, the OHP may decertify a CLG if it establishes policies or
adopts practices that violate the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The OHP reviews the structure and processes of local preservation programs and may comment
on or make suggestions about strategies a local government can use to accomplish its goals and
objectives. Beyond that, neither the NPS nor OHP have any regulatory authority over local
governments.
2 Link to CLG Program information: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21239
Item 1
Attachment B - Council
May 13 2024 Item 9 HRB
Composition PAMC 2.27
Packet Pg. 10
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no significant cost reduction in publishing and mailing packets for five members instead
of seven. Resources would be saved by reducing recruitments to fill five HRB seats.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
During March 28 and April 11 HRB meetings, staff announced the potential for reduction of the
HRB, shared potential code language to modify the number of professionals and professions,
and discussed reducing regular meetings. The HRB indicated support for all.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance modifying PAMC Chapter 2.27 Sections 2.27.010 and 2.27.030
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
Item 1
Attachment B - Council
May 13 2024 Item 9 HRB
Composition PAMC 2.27
Packet Pg. 11
NOT YET APPROVED
1
0160142_20240430_ay16
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 2.27 (Historic Resources Board) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) to Reduce the Number of Historic Resources Board
Members from Seven to Five
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations.
A. The City of Palo Alto is a Certified Local Government (CLG) with obligations to maintain a
historic resources board of at least five members with at least two members in
professions set forth by the State Office of Historic Preservation.
B. Recent recruitment for the Historic Resources Board have not yielded sufficient
candidates to fill all open seats or sufficient open seats to maintain a four-member
quorum of the Board.
SECTION 2. Section 2.27.010 (Historic Resources Board) of Chapter 2.27 (Historic
Resources Board) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) is
amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
2.27.010 Historic Resources Board.
The Historic Resources Board shall be composed of seven five members appointed by
the city council and serving without pay. Members shall have demonstrated interest in and
knowledge of history, architecture, or historic preservation. One member shall be an
owner/occupant of a category 1 or 2 historic structure, or of a structure in a historic district;
three Two members shall be professionals in the disciplines of architecture, architectural
history, planning, landscape architecture, or related disciplines, or pre-historic and historic
archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, or conservation architects, landscape
architects, building designers or other design professionals and at least one member shall
possess academic education or practical experience in history or a related field such as
American studies, American civilization, or cultural geography. The Palo Alto Historical
Association shall be given notice of vacancies on the board and shall be encouraged to have its
members submit applications.
SECTION 3. Section 2.27.030 (Organization) of Chapter 2.27 (Historic Resources Board)
of Title 2 (Administrative Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) is amended to read as
follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
2.27.030 Organization.
(a) The Board shall hold meetings twice monthly or at the pleasure of the chairperson, but
no fewer than four meetings per year.
(b) and The Board shall establish such rules as may be appropriate and necessary for the
orderly conduct of its business, consistent with City Council guidelines for boards and
commissions.
(c) The Board shall elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall
serve in such capacity for terms of one year each, or until a successor is elected. The
Item 1
Attachment C - Ordinance
modifying PAMC Chapter
2.27 Sections 2.27.010
and 2.27
Packet Pg. 12
NOT YET APPROVED
2
0160142_20240430_ay16
chairperson shall preside over meetings of the board, and in the absence or disability of the
chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson.
(bd) Four Three members shall constitute a quorum and decisions of the board shall be
determined by majority vote of those members present at the meeting. Action minutes shall be
kept by the Board.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be
subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section
15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Item 1
Attachment C - Ordinance
modifying PAMC Chapter
2.27 Sections 2.27.010
and 2.27
Packet Pg. 13
NOT YET APPROVED
3
0160142_20240430_ay16
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
Item 1
Attachment C - Ordinance
modifying PAMC Chapter
2.27 Sections 2.27.010
and 2.27
Packet Pg. 14
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 2
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: May 9, 2024
Report #: 2404-2913
TITLE
201 Alma Street, Tower Well Park: Park Name Discussion per City Council Direction
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review the name of Tower Well Park at
201 Alma Street and consider renaming it to Fredrick Eyerly Tower Well Park. The Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC) will also review the park name.
BACKGROUND
PAHA
On November 8, 2023, following the City’s Naming Policy, the Palo Alto Historical Association
(PAHA) was requested to recommend a name for the new park at the corner of Alma Street and
Hawthorne Avenue. Given the significant historic landmark on the property, PAHA recommend
“Tower Well Park.” PAHA noted,
“When constructed in 1910, the water tower was the first major visible infrastructure of
the City’s utilities, and is a symbol of the City’s successful beginnings and forward
thinking leaders. The PAHA board agrees that “Tower Well Park” reflects the historic
significance of this site."
Council Action March 4, 2024
On March 4, 2024, the City Council considered an item (item #6), park dedication for the ‘Tower
Well Site’. Staff noted the site is among the City-owned properties that was found eligible in
2000 for the National Register of Historic Places, and City Council would be receiving the HRB’s
recommendation for placement of the property on the local Historic Resources Inventory.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 15
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 2
During the March 4th Council meeting a member of the public submitted correspondence1
urging the Council to retain the current name/name the newly dedicated park as "Fred Eyerly
Tower Well Park" and initiate adding the site to the California Historic Register and National
Historic Register. The speaker noted:
•The Tower Well site was named for Eyerly in a dedication ceremony on October 2, 2000
•The HRB had discussed the site in 1999 and 2000 (Palo Alto Weekly of May 12, 1999,
and April 5, 2000, and the Daily News of September 2000).
•The site was identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
•The reasons for dedicating the site as parkland were discussed more than 23 years ago
in his November 7, 2000 letter to the HRB that included excerpts of Palo Alto Weekly
articles of May 24, 1999, and April 5, 2000, and of City Council Minutes of February 28,
1994, and June 10, 1996.
The Council adopted a park dedication ordinance for the Tower Well site, 0.19 acres of land at
201 Alma Street, approved the proposed name “Tower Well Park”, and referred to the HRB and
PRC to consider renaming it to Fredrick Eyerly Tower Well Park. Council also referred to the HRB
adding the site to the California and National registers.
Fred Eyerly
Fred Eyerly, who passed away May 12, 2000, served on Palo Alto’s City Council for eight years,
one year as a Palo Alto Mayor in 1982, and eight years on the Palo Alto Utilities Commission. A
Palo Alto Weekly article2 described Mr. Eyerly as “an eminently fair and considerate mayor”.
Council Action April 22, 2024
On April 22, 2024, Council received the HRB’s recommendation for the property for placement
on the HRI as a Category 1 resource. The nomination form and evaluation are on the City’s
website.3 The City Council placed the property on the City’s local historic resources inventory.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
1 Public speaker correspondence file:///C:/Users/afrench/Downloads/Item%206%20Public%20Comment.pdf
2 Link to Palo Alto Weekly article: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/morgue/page4/2000_May_24.TOWN24.html
3 Nomination form and evaluation 201 Alma: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-
amp-development-services/historic-preservation/historic-inventory/almast_201.pdf
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 16
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 10
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: May 9, 2024
Report #: 2404-2940
TITLE
Tailored Mills Act Program Recommendation to City Council
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB):
(1) resume its discussion regarding a draft City of Palo Alto policy for processing
requests for historic property preservation agreements as provided by the State of
California’s Mills Act property tax abatement program, and
(2) discuss an approach/recommendation to present a Mills Act preservation incentive
proposal to City Council. This approach may include requesting the City present a
primer on historic preservation in a joint study session with the HRB and Council,
where existing and potential preservation incentives could also be discussed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The HRB has long discussed bringing its Mills Act pilot program concept to City Council. The HRB
previously studied and prepared a draft Tailored Mills Act Program document, working toward
recommending the City Council establish a Mills Act policy/program. The Tailored Mills Act
Program document attached to this report (Attachment A) was updated in January 2018. The
other attachments to this report (OHP technical bulletin, Mills Act Fact Sheet, Notes from the
June 8, 2017 HRB meeting, and Ad Hoc committee reflections on comparison cities in October
2017) are to assist the HRB in its discussion. During the study, staff and the HRB ad hoc committee
collected Mills Act program documents from seven Bay Area jurisdictions, and from San Diego.
BACKGROUND
An HRB ad hoc committee worked with former historic planners in 2017-2018. The HRB 2021-
22 Work Plan included reconstituting an HRB Mills Act ad hoc committee for further discussion,
research, and refinement of the draft tailored Mills Act program proposal. The 2022-23 Work
Plan included a Goal 5, to work toward establishing a tailored Mills Act program, a goal that was
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 17
Item No. 3. Page 2 of 10
carried forward into the 2023-24 Work Plan, which ends June 30, 2024. The 2023-24 Work Plan
noted work on the Mills Act goal would only commence after the HRB concludes the Inventory
Update and nomination process. The HRB targeted the May 2024 HRB to resume discussion of a
Mills Act program.
Two years ago, at an HRB meeting, a member of the ad hoc committee, former HRB Member
Bower, declared that the document (Attachment A) was virtually done, with seven pages of
explanations and history prepared by the last historic planner in 2018. The part that was
unfinished in 2018 pertained to the acceptable project list, which Bower worked on in December
2021 and January 2022 and talked through with HRB Member Wimmer. HRB Member Bower said
the document was ready for the HRB to look at and decide whether or not to move forward with
it. He said there is not an application form, but this would be a staff task. He noted there would
be a lot of work for the Board to do before moving it ahead to Council. Board Member Wimmer
suggested the ad hoc could share the document with the Board, up to the point where the
committee left off.
Origin of the Mills Act
The Mills Act is an economic incentive program for owners of historic buildings that are listed in
the National Register of Historic Places or on a state, county, or city official register such as the
California Register of Historical Resources and the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. It is the single
most important economic incentive program available in California for private property owners
of qualified historic buildings. The Mills Act was established by the State of California in 1972 to
provide historic property owners with significantly reduced property tax breaks in exchange for
an agreement to provide a major public benefit by preserving, restoring and maintaining the
property. The adoption of the Mills Act was a milestone acknowledgement by the State of
California regarding the importance of preservation to the welfare of Californians, just as the
adoption of the Williamson Act in 1965 (upon which the Mills Act was modeled) had
acknowledged the essential importance to the State of preserving open space (Attachment A and
Attachment B).
Previous Mills Act Contracts
Despite a lack of official process, the City of Palo Alto previously entered into two Mills Act
contracts with property owners, one of which is still active. In 1986, the Juana Briones House,
4155 Old Adobe Road, is the first Palo Alto property to have a Mills Act contract. The home
changed ownership and was demolished in 2011. In 1996, the Squire House, 900 University
Avenue, became the second property to have a Mills Act contract. The contract is still active, and
the property owners and the public receive the benefits of the home’s continued preservation.
The Council adjusted the contract, per owner request, to remove the “annual public tour”
language; the revised contract date was November 29, 2017. Enforcement of the “public tour”
by the City for that contract had been inconsistent and irregular. Additionally, the State of
California decided the public access component of the Mills Act was detrimental to the spirit of
the Act and put unnecessary burdens on homeowners.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 18
Item No. 3. Page 3 of 10
City Council Direction to Staff
In December 1997 the Palo Alto City Council, consistent with the recommendation of the Historic
Resources Board, voted to postpone a Mills Act application for 420 Maple Street until a policy
and implementing procedures for Mills Act agreements had been developed by staff and
presented to the council. Representatives of 420 Maple had reached out to the City again on May
24, 2017, to inquire about becoming a Mills Act property. The City Council further voted that no
further Mills Act application be accepted by staff until “appropriate policies and procedures” are
adopted by the Council). In its comments the Council emphasized its concern that reductions in
local taxes by the Mills Act would reduce the income of the Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD), widely considered the City’s most important service apart from services for community
safety and security. The Council was especially concerned that a Mills Act program, if it resulted
in a number of qualified applications for property tax reduction, could significantly impact the
operations of PAUSD; consequently, the Council concluded, PAUSD issues need to be taken into
careful consideration by the Council when reviewing proposed criteria for eligibility for the Mills
Act.
The Council has recognized the widespread support in Palo Alto for incentive-based historic
preservation and has acknowledged the potential value of the Mills Act program in compelling
the perpetual preservation and the major rehabilitation and restoration of significant properties.
In evaluating applications for the Mills Act, the 1997 Council commented that three historic issues
were paramount: the significance of the property to the community, the development pressure
on the site, and the need for rehabilitation. To address the funding reduction for PAUSD that
would result from any Mills Act agreement, the 1997 Council commented that the number of
new Mills Act agreements would need to be limited and that each agreement must provide a
major public benefit. When the Mills Act contract for 900 University returned to Council, there
was further discussion about a need for a program.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 19
Item No. 3. Page 4 of 10
PAUSD Webpage Information on Property Taxes
Staff reviewed the PAUSD’s webpage1 on the 2023-24 adopted budget, which provides a
statement about property taxes:
“As of May 2023, Santa Clara County projected our secured property taxes to increase
6.23% for 2022-23. Taking the county-wide $26M potential tax roll correction into
consideration, the net secured property tax increase is approximately 6.23%. The next
update from Santa Clara County will be on June 2, 2023. The unsecured property tax
increase is approximately 6.58%.”
A Board member had asked staff to provide a current PAUSD budget for HRB discussions. The
PAUSD webpage2 also provides the following statements about the Palo Alto parcel tax:
•“Since 2001, Palo Alto schools have benefited from a voter-approved parcel tax that now
provides over $15 million per year in locally controlled funding that cannot be taken by
the state. For 19 years stable and predictable parcel tax funding, has protected local
schools from dramatic fluctuations in education funding from the state and other
sources.”
•“Although we feel the pinch of high property taxes, we are fortunate in that the high value
of our houses drives our tax bill up more than the actual tax rate, which is comparatively
low.”
Staff Response to City Council Direction
Former historic staff members had responded to both the 1997 direction and the 2016 Council
direction regarding an appropriate Mills Act policy for Palo Alto by developing the draft policy. A
subcommittee of HRB members worked with the last historic planner until March 2018. The
program had the following characteristics:
The program will prioritize properties that are threatened under developmental pressure,
have an immediate need for rehabilitation, have an element of public use, contribute to
affordable or denser housing or are considered the most significant to a community and
Palo Alto’s identity.
The program will promote heritage tourism, encourage seismic safety, foster civic pride
and safeguard a sense of place.
The Mills Act contracts will be granted to properties whose significance has been verified
by expert authority.
Each Mills Act application will include an enforceable plan for an exceptional public
benefit and educational purposes.
Each local Mills Act will include the State contract requirements for such agreements.
1 Link to PAUSD’s adopted budget 2023-24:
https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/pausd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CSQRMR6E2D58
2 link to PAUSD webpage on parcel tax https://www.pausd.org/about-us/funding/parcel-tax
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 20
Item No. 3. Page 5 of 10
HRB Meetings 2021-2023: Mills Act Discussions
The HRB has held a number of meetings in 2021 and 2022, prior to kicking off the inventory
update and nomination process the HRB just completed. Staff provides links to reports and
minutes and brief summary from seven meetings.
September 9, 2021
The September 9, 2021 HRB staff report3 included discussion and background documents in
preparation for a Mills Act retreat topic to decide how best to proceed. The report attachments
included the Draft Palo Alto Mills Act Tailored Program, a May 3, 2006 HRB Staff Report City
Policy on Mills Act, a December 15, 1997 City Manager's Report (Policy), and the November 5,
1997 HRB Minutes including Mills Act discussion. The meeting minutes4 from September 9,
2021 are provided via a link below.
October 28, 2021
The October 28, 2021 HRB report5 transmitted the Chair’s memo proposing the creation of
three teams of HRB members, where Team 3 would work on:
•Developing a “starter” Mills Act proposal including criteria for evaluation, a “trial”
period, and formulated primarily to encourage current owners to upgrade knob and
tube wiring, foundations and address other life safety issues.
•Identifying topics to discuss with Council.
December 9, 2021
The December 2021 HRB meeting staff report reflected a pivot to focus on the State Law Senate
Bill (SB) 9 (urban lot split and development of single family residential properties) signed into
law in October 2021 and addressed via Council adoption of an urgency ordinance. The HRB
refocused on the inventory update as a priority, noted in the staff report6.
3 Link to September 9, 2021 report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2021/hrb-9.9-retreat.pdf
4 Link to meeting minutes of 9/9/21: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2021/hrb-10.28-sept-9-minutes.pdf
5 Link to October 2021 HRB report with Chair’s memo:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-
resources-board/2021/hrb-10.28-city-official-2.pdf
6 Link to December 9, 2021 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2021/hrb-12.09-sb9-update-and-retreat.pdf
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 21
Item No. 3. Page 6 of 10
January 27, 2022
The retreat staff report7 and minutes8 are provided via links below. During the meeting, the
City’s consultant presented on the Mills Act, noting it is one of the strongest incentives to
preservation but does take staff resources. Board Member Bower noted he had been working
on the Mills Act with Board Member Wimmer (the two member ad hoc committee) and it was
as far along as the subcommittee was able to push it.
February 24, 2022
The HRB reviewed the Work Plan and carried forward “Tailored Mills Act Program discussion”
from ‘consider reconstituting an ad hoc committee for further discussion, research, and
refinement of a draft’ to ‘finalize outreach approach and bring forward program report to City
Council.’ This was viewed as a third quarter activity ‘unless other projects are not finished’, as a
lower priority goal contingent upon finishing other, higher priority, goals. Member Bower
pointed out the changes shown in red on the program document reflected the updated
language changes the ad hoc proposed since they worked on the Mills Act document. The
meeting minutes9 are viewable via the below link.
March 10, 2022
This meeting had extensive conversation about the Mills Act program as reflected in meeting
minutes10. In addition to the comments at the start of this report’s Background section,
Member Bower clarified:
•the program was not designed for one particular group or another and that they
essentially have the Mills Act proposal ready to be reviewed, that just as in other cities
with programs, the elected officials, City Council would have to approve every Mills Act
contract, so they will be the ones who control the entire spending part
•the school district gets 45% of every property tax dollar, City of Palo Alto gets 9% and
the State and County get some, such that that the actual property tax consequence of
$150,000 of property tax redirection means that the school district would have $67,500
less money in their budget of approximately $365 million.
7 Link to staff report for January 29, 2022 retreat:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-
minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-01.27.2022-retreat.pdf
8 Link to HRB retreat minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/hrb-03.10.2022-minutes-january-27-2022.pdf
9 Link to February 24, 2022 meeting minutes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-
minutes/historic-resources-board/2022/hrb-03.24.2022-minutes-february-24-2022.pdf
10 Link to meeting minutes of March 10, 2022 HRB:
file:///C:/Users/afrench/Downloads/Meetings783Summary%20Minutes_20221208111256836.pdf
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 22
Item No. 3. Page 7 of 10
•people who have lived a long time in Palo Alto pay very low tax rates and when they sell,
the property taxes rise dramatically. This is a huge income boost, mostly for the school
district, so the Mills Act proposal would have an infinitesimal impact on school revenue.
HRB member Wimmer noted:
•the number of people who would want to step forward to participate in the Mills Act
would be rare because it is, in fact, an arduous task and not free money; and would
involve a lot of paperwork and processing of documents that the City would require, so
there should be a focus on who is going to do that, and how that will happen.
•the number of people legitimately interested, educated about it and willing to
participate in the Mills Act is probably a relatively low number, unless the HRB could
somehow make it much easier
•given all that has been put into the proposal, they need to move it forward and not
assume that it can’t be done because of potential pushback
•launching a program with one to three property owners who want to participate in a
pilot program is the idea. In this process they could train them, get their feedback and
maybe taper the program as they witness the owners actively participating. This would
allow for them to establish the rules from the start, but also be able to change them as
they move through with a type of pilot program.
April 14, 2022
Member Bower noted his interest in the full board discussing creation of a pilot program rather
than ad hoc committee, stating they have to have a Mills Act before deciding as a Board what
to recommend to the Council, which he suspected would be a single project. In response to a
member’s question about using the program for commercial properties, Bower added that the
Mills Act is a state-defined program, and he did not feel they should go to the Council and just
ask for a commercial program. He stated there needs to be an overall definition of what the
Mills Act Program in Palo Alto will be, then the Council can decide how to apply it; he suggested
they should have a single version for all rather than a specific version for each type of building.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAFT TAILORED MILLS ACT POLICY/PROGRAM
Introduction
An important feature of the State’s Mills Act program is its flexibility. Although the State has
certain requirements that all jurisdictions must include in the Mills Act policies, the program
allows jurisdictions to develop additional requirements to ensure that unique local goals and
needs are met. The Mills Act policy requirements at both the State and local levels are of two
main types: the criteria for eligibility and the contract requirements. There are also required
penalties for termination of contract.
State Policy Requirements
State Criteria for Eligibility
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 23
Item No. 3. Page 8 of 10
As set forth in California’s Government Code 50280.1, a property is eligible for the Mills Act as
follows: “Qualified historical property” for purposes of this article, means privately owned
property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the following:
(1) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Listed in any state, city, county or city and county official register of historical or
architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks.
(Staff comment: A local jurisdiction is allowed to define “qualified historical property”
in a more restrictive manner if this furthers the overall goals of the jurisdiction).
State Contract Requirements
As set forth by California Government code 50281, the following requirements must be included
in the language of any Mills Act contract:
(1) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years.
(2) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:
(1) For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary,
to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and
regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks
and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code.
(2) For the periodic examinations of the interior and exterior of the premises by
the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of
Equalization as may be necessary to determine the owner’s compliance with
the contract.
(3) For it to be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all successors in interest
of the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and obligations
under the contract as the original owner who entered into the contract.
Local Policy Requirements
The City of Palo Alto Mills Act policy must include all the State contract requirements above. In
addition, staff is proposing to include the following more restrictive criteria to balance historic
preservation with the significant competing goals of the community, which is allowed under the
State’s Mills Act program.
Local Criteria for Eligibility
As allowed by the State, the program could include the three following local modifications of the
term “qualified historical property:”
(1) Properties applying for the Mills Act must be listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as
Category 1 or 2, 3 or 4 (as defined in Section 16.49.020 of PAMC), or
(2) Individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of
Historical Resources, or
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 24
Item No. 3. Page 9 of 10
(3) Contributing to one of the four historic districts: Professorville, Ramona Street, Green
Gables or Greenmeadow.
These criteria would allow for maximum inclusivity, given the need to preserve a wide range of
resources, including residential, commercial and industrial, in order to best represent the storied
past of Palo Alto. The program could also be limited to accepting no more than three (3) Mills Act
contracts a year during the pilot program run.
Local Contract Requirements
As allowed by the State, the program could propose the following local additions to the State’s
contract requirements:
(1) A ten-year rehabilitation and maintenance plan will be required to be submitted for
attachment to the Mills Act contract. The rehabilitation plan must include extensive
restoration of the identified character defining features of the property (including
missing historic features if they can be photo-documented) and the removal or
compatible replacement of incompatible alterations. The rehabilitation plan will be
restricted to the exterior of the property unless the property owner elects to include
work on interior features of identified significance. Rehabilitation and restoration
work that commenced up to two years before the establishment of the contract may
be indicated on the ten-year rehabilitation plan. An annual report detailing the
rehabilitation and restoration work performed during the past year along with the
overall cost of the work performed will also be required.
(2) The property will be inspected every one to five years by the Historic Preservation
Planner, accompanied by the Building Official, if necessary, to determine compliance
with the Mills Act contract.
(3) For educational purposes, property owners will be required to fund and display an
interpretive panel along the public right of way and their home and that is visible to
the public. The panel will include information on the history and architectural merit
of the home for the public to enjoy. The property will also be used for exterior home
tours at the discretion of the City and other promotional material.
(4) Staff considers that the scope of the required rehabilitation plan will ensure that all
applications for a Mills Act will bestow a major public benefit on the community by
extensively restoring and perpetually maintaining extraordinary historic properties.
Public access to private homes is not a requirement.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Because a Mills Act contract results in a tax relief incentive for the property owner, it also
results in a reduction in the annual revenue of the Palo Alto Unified School District and a small
reduction in City General Fund revenue. While the impact of any single Mills Act contract is
relatively minor, the cumulative impact of a number of Mills Act contracts could be significant
for PAUSD because Palo A lot is a “basic aid” city. A policy document to forward to the City
Council would ideally contain recommended administrative procedures and an analysis of
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 25
Item No. 3. Page 10 of 10
potential impacts of a Mills Act program on the income of the Palo Alto Unified School District.
The City may consider consulting with a tax advisor or economic analysist subconsultant.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Palo Alto Mills Act Tailored Program
Attachment B: State OHP Technical Bulletin: ”Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program,”
published by the California Office of Historic Preservation, December 2004
Attachment C: “Mills Act Fact Sheet,” prepared by Emily Vance, Historic Preservation Planner
for the City of Palo Alto, 2017 (Expanded from the “Mills Act Fact Sheet,” published by the City
of Riverside, California).
Attachment D: June 2017 HRB meeting notes
Attachment E: Subcommittee notes from October 2017
Attachment F: December 1997 City Manager’s Report on Policy
Attachment G: Minutes from November 5, 1997 HRB meeting
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 26
MILLS ACT
TAILORED PROGRAM OUTLINE
January
2018 Prepared by the City of Palo Alto & the Historic Resources Board
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 27
1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................2
Tailored Program Summary......................................................................................................................2
Role of the Applicant................................................................................................................................3
Role of Planning Department....................................................................................................................3
Role of Historic Resources Board..............................................................................................................3
Role of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office............................................................................................3
Role of California Office of Historic Preservation.....................................................................................3
Mills Act State Policy ....................................................................................................................................4
State Criteria for Eligibility........................................................................................................................4
State Contract Requirements ...................................................................................................................4
Proposed Local Mills Act Policy ...................................................................................................................5
Local Mills Act Criteria for Eligibility .........................................................................................................5
Local Mills Act Program Regulations.........................................................................................................5
Term Limitations.................................................................................................................................5
Tax Redirection Limitations.................................................................................................................5
Property Value Limitations..................................................................................................................5
Ranking System...................................................................................................................................6
Cancellation Penalty............................................................................................................................6
Fees.....................................................................................................................................................6
Submittal Date....................................................................................................................................6
Local Mills Act Contract Requirements.....................................................................................................7
HRB Review.........................................................................................................................................7
Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan.................................................................................................7
Eligible Work..................................................................................................................................7
Ineligible Work...............................................................................................................................8
Tax Redirection...................................................................................................................................8
Property Inspection.............................................................................................................................8
Application Checklist ....................................................................................................................................9
Figure 1. Mills Act Contract Timeline............................................................................................................6
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 28
2
INTRODUCTION
Enacted by the State of California in 1972, the Mills Act grants participating local governments
the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively
participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving
property tax relief (CGC 12.50280-50290, CRTC 1.9.439-439.4). It is the “single most important
economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified
historic buildings by private property owners.”1
An important feature of the Mills Act program is its flexibility. Although the State has certain
requirements that must be included in all individual Mills Act policies, the program allows
jurisdictions to develop additional requirements to insure that unique local goals and needs are
met. By implementing a tailored Mills Act program in Palo Alto, with finely tuned eligibility
criteria and contract requirements, the City can both incentive the thoughtful preservation of
our shared heritage and wisely address the community’s priorities and needs. Tailored
programs have been successfully adopted in other California cities that have similar
complications like high property values and schools supported by Basic Aid.2
Tailored Program Summary
The Tailored Mills Act Program for Palo Alto will be program, where all tax relief received by a
property owner will be reinvested in the rehabilitation, preservation or restoration of the
historic property. Work will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
and will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards). Mills Act contracts
will be open to all property types but will be limited in length, the maximum being 15 years. For
educational purposes, property owners will be required to fund, with tax redirection, and
display an interpretive panel along the public right of way that is visible to the public. The Mills
Act program is voluntary and requires owner consent.
COMMUNITY P RIORITIES AND NEEDS ADDRESSED BY THE TAILORED MILLS ACT PROGRAM
1. contributes to Affordable Housing
3. safeguards a Sense of Place
5. fosters Civic Pride
7. protects Palo Alto’s History
9. provides Preservation Incentive
2. encourages Seismic Safety
4. promotes Heritage Tourism
6. preserves Neighborhood Character
8. supports Environmentally Conscious
Development
1 California Office of Historic Preservation, “Mills Act Program,” http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412.
2 Other nearby communities with successful Mills Act programs includes Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Saratoga, Los Altos,
San Jose and Campbell. Cities that have both basic aid school districts and Mills Act program include Beverley Hills, Campbell,
Los Altos and Saratoga.
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 29
3
Role of the Applicant
The Applicant is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property during the
duration of the Mills Act contract and must follow the approved Rehabilitation and
Maintenance plan. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining appropriate documents,
signatures and recordation attachments as well as associated fees prior to work and successful
contract recordation.
Role of the Planning Department
The Planning Department oversees all Mills Act applications and monitors existing Mills Act
properties. The Historic Preservation Planner will work with property owners to complete their
applications and develop rehabilitation and maintenance plans that are specific to each
property. The Planning Department will keep the applicant(s) informed throughout the year, as
the application moves forward through HRB review, City Council and the Assessor’s Office.
Once a Mills Act contract is entered into, all subsequent work on the property during the
duration of the contract will require staff approval which includes compliance with the
Standards.
Role of the Historic Resources Board
The HRB will first hold a hearing to consider a recommendation to City Council whether to
approve, modify or deny the initial Mills Act application. Once a Mills Act contract is entered
into, all subsequent work on the property during the duration of the contract will require staff
approval. If staff determines proposed work does not comply with the Standards, staff will
refer the application to the HRB.
Role of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office
The role of the Assessor’s Office is to locate and accurately assess all taxable property Palo Alto
and also serve as the county’s official record-keeper of documents such as deeds, liens, maps
and property contracts. In a Mills Act Historical Property contract, the Assessor’s Office assesses
qualified properties based on a state prescribed approach and records the fully executed
contract. All Mills Act properties will receive an initial valuation during the application process
and will be assessed annually by the January 1st lien date and in subsequent years, as required
by state law. The State Board of Equalization has strict guidelines the assessor must follow in
order to value Mills Act properties (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 439.2).
Role of the California Office of Historic Preservation
OHP provides Mills Act information to local governments and uses information provided by
local governments to maintain a list of communities participating in the Mills Act program as
well as copies of Mills Act ordinances, resolutions, and contracts that have been adopted. OHP
does not participate in the contract negotiations, is not a signatory to the contract and has no
authority over the administration of the Mills Act program.
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 30
4
MILLS ACT STATE POLICY
Effective March 7, 1973, Chapter 1442 of the Statutes of 1972 (also known as the Mills Act)
added sections 50280 through 50289 to the Government Code to allow an owner of qualified
historical property to enter into a preservation contract with local government. When property
is placed under such a contract, the owner agrees to restore the property if necessary, maintain
its historic character, and use it in a manner compatible with its historic characteristics.
State Criteria for Eligibility
As set forth in California’s Government Code 50280.1, a property is eligible for the Mills Act as
follows: “Qualified historical property” for purposes of this article, means privately owned
property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
(b) Listed in any state, city, county or city and county official register of historical or
architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks.
State Contract Requirements
As set forth by California Government code 50281, the following requirements must be
included in the language of any Mills Act contract:
(a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years.
(b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:
(1) For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary,
to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and
regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks
and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code.
(2) For the periodic examinations of the interior and exterior of the premises by
the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board
of Equalization as may be necessary to determine the owner’s compliance
with the contract.
(3) For it to be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of all successors in interest
of the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and
obligations under the contract as the original owner who entered into the
contract.
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 31
5
PROPOSED LOCAL MILLS ACT POLICY
The proposed Tailored Mills Act Program must include all the State contract requirements
above. In addition, staff is proposing to include the following more restrictive criteria to balance
historic preservation with the significant competing goals of the community, which is allowed
under the State’s Mills Act program.
Local Mills Act Criteria for Eligibility
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local modifications of the term “qualified
historical property” which will be defined as any property that meets any of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal
Regulations;
(b) Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources;
(c) Listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as Category 1 through 4, as defined in Section
16.49.020 of PAMC (b); or
(d) Contributing to a Local Historic District, as defined in Section 16.49.020 of PAMC (c).
Local Mills Act Program Regulations
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local regulations, which do not invalidate
State requirements:
(a) Term Limitations: Mills Act Contracts will have a minimum term of ten years and a
maximum term of 15 years. This is accomplished by the City issuing a notice of
nonrenewal in the 5th year of the agreement, after which the remaining 10-year
term of the contract occurs before the agreement formally terminates. During the
10 year phase-out period, the property tax benefits enjoyed by the Mills Act
property gradually decrease until they reach the full regularly assessed value of the
property at the end of the final year (Figure 1).
(b) Tax Redirection Limitations: A limit will be set on the total tax redirection that can be
associated with Mills Act properties. Program impact on City revenues will be
limited to $150,000/year, to be adjusted annually in amount equivalent to the
percent change of the overall assessed valuation of the City for the previous year,
excluding those properties that have been issued a notice of nonrenewal.
(c) Property Value Limitations: A limit will be set on total property value that would be
eligible for Mills Act contract. Pre-contract assessed valuation limits will be
$5,000,000 or less for residential and $10,000,000 or less for commercial.3
3 To be adjusted for inflation
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 32
6
Figure 1. Mills Act Contract Timeline
(c) Ranking System: A ranking system will be employed by the HRB when reviewing Mills
Act applications that is based on community priorities and needs and utilizes the
criteria listed below. Staff considers that the scope of the required rehabilitation
plan will ensure that all applications for a Mills Act will bestow a major public benefit
on the community by extensively rehabilitating and maintaining historic properties.
Public access to private homes is not a requirement. A higher ranking will be given
to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act contract:
▪Will result in more affordable housing units;
▪Will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition,
deterioration, abandonment and/or general neglect;
▪Will result in the greatest number of improvements to the historic property,
resulting in the greatest benefit to the public.
(d) Cancellation Penalty: Noncompliance with the provisions of a Mills Act contract will
result in either legal action against the owner or contract cancellation. A contract
may be cancelled if the City determines that the owner has breached any of the
conditions of the contract or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point
that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historical property. The contract
may also be canceled it is determined that the owner has failed to restore or
rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in the contract. No contract shall
be canceled until property owner has been properly noticed and a public hearing is
held. If the contract is cancelled, the owner must pay a penalty of 12.5% of the
market value of the property at the time of cancellation, per state law.4 The
cancellation fee shall be paid to the City Tax Collector at such time and in such
manner as the City shall prescribe.
(e) Fees: Initial permit and planning fees will be waived for Mills Act participants. There
will be no application fee for submitting a Mills Act contract application but a one-
time activation fee of $250 will be required if the contract is selected and initiated.
4 California Government Code, Article 12, Section 50286
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 33
7
(f) Submittal Date: Applications will only be accepted and approved during the month
of June in any given year in order to allow sufficient time for the City and Assessor’s
Office to determine the cumulative financial impact, to record contracts prior to
January 1st in any given year and to reduce the cost of processing applications.
Local Mills Act Contract Requirements
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local additions to the State’s contract
requirements:
(a)HRB Review: All Mills Act applications, including rehabilitation and maintenance
plans and subsequent work, will be reviewed and approved by the Historic
Resources Board.
(b)Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plans: A rehabilitation and maintenance plan will
be required to be submitted for attachment to the Mills Act contract. All work
performed must conform to the rules and regulations of the California Office of
Historic Preservation, including compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and the State Historic Building Code. The rehabilitation plan must include
restoration of the identified character defining features of the property and the
removal or compatible replacement of incompatible alterations. The rehabilitation
plan can include exterior and interior work that has been pre-approved. Qualified
rehabilitation and restoration work that commenced up to two years before the
establishment of the contract may be indicated on the ten-year rehabilitation plan.
An annual report detailing the rehabilitation and restoration work performed during
the past year along with the overall cost of the work performed will also be
required. In general, work that is directly related to the repair or improvement of
structural and architectural features of the historic building will qualify. Examples of
eligible and ineligible work include but are not limited to:
Eligible Work
▪Seismic upgrading
▪Foundation repair
▪Re-roofing and downspout restoration
▪Exterior siding and trim repair and restoration
▪Historic windows repair and restoration
▪Paint exterior
▪Removal of inappropriate additions and construction
▪Plumbing system upgrades
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 34
8
▪Electrical system upgrades
▪Original door, hardware and other features restoration
▪Front iron fencing restoration
▪Chimney stabilization
▪Consulting/Professional fees (limit this?)
▪Repair and restoration of original interior features (like original built-ins
and woodwork) must get HRB approval to be considered eligible
▪HVAC systems (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)
▪Solar panels must be essential to the operation or maintenance of the
rehabilitated historic building and must get HRB approval to be
considered eligible5
Ineligible Work
▪New construction and additions
▪Landscaping
▪Homeowner labor
▪Acquisition/furnishing costs
▪Parking lot
(c)Tax Redirection: All tax savings must be redirected into rehabilitation work for the
property and the anticipated construction must be equal to or greater than tax
savings.
(d)Property Inspection: The property will be inspected annually/ every two years/
dependent on work proposed by the Historic Preservation Planner (accompanied by
the Building Official if necessary) to determine compliance with the Mills Act
contract and approved Rehabilitation and Maintenance plan.
(e)Educational Component: For educational purposes, property owners will be required
to fund, with tax redirection, and display an interpretive panel along the public right
of way that is visible to the community. The panel will include information on the
history and architectural merit of the home for the public to enjoy. The property will
also be used for exterior home tours at the discretion of the City and other
promotional material with proper notification.
5 See National Park Service, Historic Tax Credit Qualified Expenses explanation on solar panels. Generally, HVAC
features are included as eligible cost so the function and purpose of a renewable energy system will determine if
it is an eligible expense. Systems that produce electricity to back feed the power grid may not qualify
(https://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/before-apply/qualified-expenses.htm).
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 35
9
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Item 3
Attachment A: Palo Alto
Mills Act Tailored
Program (Updated)
Packet Pg. 36
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
Technical Assistance Bulletin #12
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Department of Parks & Recreation
1416 9th Street Room 1442-7
Sacramento, CA 95814
PO Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296
916-653-6624
calshpo@ohp.parks.ca.gov
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
This publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the
Interior, under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and administered by the California Office
of Historic Preservation. The contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department
of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibits unlawful discrimination on the
basis of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap in its federally- assisted programs. If you believe you have
been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information,
please write to Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Box 37127,
Washington DC 20013-7127.
December 2004
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 37
Table of Contents
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program .................................................................1
Purpose of the Mills Act Program.............................................................................1
Benefits to Local Governments................................................................................1
Benefits to Owners..................................................................................................1
Qualified Historic Property.......................................................................................2
OHP’s Role.............................................................................................................2
For Additional Information .......................................................................................2
California State Codes Relating to Mills Act Program ...................................................3
California Government Code, Article 12, Sections 50280 - 50290 .............................3
California Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 1.9, Sections 439 – 439.4.................6
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 38
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Prog ram 1
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
Purpose of the Mills Act Program
Economic incentives foster the preservation of residential neighborhoods and the
revitalization of downtown commercial districts. The Mills Act is the single most
important economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation
of qualified historic buildings by private property owners.
Enacted in 1972, the Mills Act legislation grants participating local governments (cities
and counties) authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties
who actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties
while receiving property tax relief.
Benefits to Local Governments
The Mills Act allows local governments to design preservation programs to
accommodate specific community needs and priorities for rehabilitating entire
neighborhoods, encouraging seismic safety programs, contributing to affordable
housing, promoting heritage tourism, or fostering pride of ownership. Local governments
have adopted the Mills Act because they recognize the economic benefits of conserving
resources and reinvestment as well as the important role historic preservation can play
in revitalizing older areas, creating cultural tourism, building civic pride, and retaining the
sense of place and continuity with the community’s past.
A formal agreement, generally known as a Mills Act or Historical Property Contract, is
executed between the local government and the property owner for a minimum ten-year
term. Contracts are automatically renewed each year and are transferred to new owners
when the property is sold. Property owners agree to restore, maintain, and protect the
property in accordance with specific historic preservation standards and conditions
identified in the contract. Periodic inspections by city or county officials ensure proper
maintenance of the property. Local authorities may impose penalties for breach of
contract or failure to protect the historic property. The contract is binding to all owners
during the contract period.
Benefits to Owners
Owners of historic buildings may qualify for property tax relief if they pledge to
rehabilitate and maintain the historical and architectural character of their properties for
at least a ten-year period. The Mills Act program is especially beneficial for recent
buyers of historic properties and for current owners of historic buildings who have made
major improvements to their properties.
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 39
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Prog ram 2
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14
Mills Act participants may realize substantial property tax savings of between 40% and
60% each year for newly improved or purchased older properties because valuations of
Mills Act properties are determined by the Income Approach to Value rather than by the
standard Market Approach to Value. The income approach, divided by a capitalization
rate, determines the assessed value of the property. In general, the income of an
owner-occupied property is based on comparable rents for similar properties in the
area, while the income amount on a commercial property is based on actual rent
received. Because rental values vary from area to area, actual property savings vary
from county to county. In addition, as County Assessors are required to assess all
properties annually, Mills Act properties may realize slight increases in property taxes
each year.
Qualified Historic Property
A qualified historic property is a property listed on any federal, state, county, or city
register, including the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of
Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest,
and locally designated landmarks. Owner-occupied family residences and income-
producing commercial properties may qualify for the Mills Act program.
OHP’s Role
OHP provides technical assistance and guidance to local governments and property
owners. OHP maintains a current list of communities participating in the Mills Act
program and copies of Mills Act ordinances, resolutions, and contracts that have been
adopted. OHP does not participate in the negations of the agreement and is not a
signatory to the contract.
For Additional Information
Contact the planning department of the city or county within which the historic property
is located.
California’s four largest cities (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose)
as well as more than 75 other city and county governments have instituted Mills Act
programs. A list of communities participating in the Mills Act Program is available online
at http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21412 .
For additional information on the Mills Act, please contact Maryln Lortie in the Office of
Historic Preservation, PO Box 942896, Sacramento CA 94296-0001, (916) 653-8911,
mlort@ohp.parks.ca.gov.
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 40
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Prog ram 3
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14
California State Codes Relating to Mills Act Program
California Government Code, Article 12, Sections 50280 - 50290
50280. Restriction of property use.
Upon the application of an owner or the agent of an owner of any qualified historical
property, as defined in Section 50280.1, the legislative body of a city, county, or city and
county may contract with the owner or agent to restrict the use of the property in a
manner which the legislative body deems reasonable to carry out the purposes of this
article and of Article 1.9 (commencing with Section 439) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of
Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The contract shall meet the
requirements of Sections 50281 and 50282.
50280.1. Qualified historic property.
"Qualified historical property" for purposes of this article, means privately owned
property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the
following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2(b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Listed in any state, city, county, or city and county official register of historical or
architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.
50281. Required contract provision.
Any contract entered into under this article shall contain the following provisions:
(a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years.
(b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:
(1) For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary, to
restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office
of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building
Code.
(2) For the periodic examinations of the interior and exterior of the premises by the
assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of Equalization
as may be necessary to determine the owner's compliance with the contract.
(3) For it to be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all successors in interest of
the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and obligations under the
contract as the original owner who entered into the contract.
(c) The owner or agent of an owner shall provide written notice of the contract to the
Office of Historic Preservation within six months of entering into the contract.
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 41
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Prog ram 4
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14
50281.1. Fees.
The legislative body entering into a contract described in this article may require that the
property owner, as a condition to entering into the contract, pay a fee not to exceed the
reasonable cost of administering this program.
50282. Renewal.
(a) Each contract shall provide that on the anniversary date of the contract or such
other annual date as is specified in the contract, a year shall be added automatically to
the initial term of the contract unless notice of nonrenewal is given as provided in this
section. If the property owner or the legislative body desires in any year not to renew
the contract, that party shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the contract on the
other party in advance of the annual renewal date of the contract. Unless the notice is
served by the owner at least 90 days prior to the renewal date or by the legislative body
at least 60 days prior to the renewal date, one year shall automatically be added to the
term of the contract.
(b) Upon receipt by the owner of a notice from the legislative body of nonrenewal, the
owner may make a written protest of the notice of nonrenewal. The legislative body
may, at any time prior to the renewal date, withdraw the notice of nonrenewal.
(c) If the legislative body or the owner serves notice of intent in any year not to renew
the contract, the existing contract shall remain in effect for the balance of the period
remaining since the original execution or the last renewal of the contract, as the case
may be.
(d) The owner shall furnish the legislative body with any information the legislative
body shall require in order to enable it to determine the eligibility of the property
involved.
(e) No later than 20 days after a city or county enters into a contract with an owner
pursuant to this article, the clerk of the legislative body shall record with the county
recorder a copy of the contract, which shall describe the property subject thereto. From
and after the time of the recordation, this contract shall impart a notice thereof to all
persons as is afforded by the recording laws of this state.
50284. Cancellation.
The legislative body may cancel a contract if it determines that the owner has breached
any of the conditions of the contract provided for in this article or has allowed the
property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified
historical property. The legislative body may also cancel a contract if it determines that
the owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in the
contract.
50285. Consultation with state commission.
No contract shall be canceled under Section 50284 until after the legislative body has
given notice of, and has held, a public hearing on the matter. Notice of the hearing shall
be mailed to the last known address of each owner of property within the historic zone
and shall be published pursuant to Section 6061.
50286. Cancellation.
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 42
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Prog ram 5
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14
(a) If a contract is canceled under Section 50284, the owner shall pay a cancellation
fee equal to 121/2 percent of the current fair market value of the property, as
determined by the county assessor as though the property were free of the contractual
restriction.
(b) The cancellation fee shall be paid to the county auditor, at the time and in the
manner that the county auditor shall prescribe, and shall be allocated by the county
auditor to each jurisdiction in the tax rate area in which the property is located in the
same manner as the auditor allocates the annual tax increment in that tax rate area in
that fiscal year.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, revenue received by a school district
pursuant to this section shall be considered property tax revenue for the purposes of
Section 42238 of the Education Code, and revenue received by a county
superintendent of schools pursuant to this section shall be considered property tax
revenue for the purposes of Article 3 (commencing with Section 2550) of Chapter 12 of
Part 2 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code.
50287. Action to enforce contract.
As an alternative to cancellation of the contract for breach of any condition, the county,
city, or any landowner may bring any action in court necessary to enforce a contract
including, but not limited to, an action to enforce the contract by specific performance or
injunction.
50288. Eminent domain.
In the event that property subject to contract under this article is acquired in whole or in
part by eminent domain or other acquisition by any entity authorized to exercise the
power of eminent domain, and the acquisition is determined by the legislative body to
frustrate the purpose of the contract, such contract shall be canceled and no fee shall
be imposed under Section 50286. Such contract shall be deemed null and void for all
purposes of determining the value of the property so acquired.
50289. Annexation by city.
In the event that property restricted by a contract with a county under this article is
annexed to a city, the city shall succeed to all rights, duties, and powers of the county
under such contract.
50290. Consultation with state commission.
Local agencies and owners of qualified historical properties may consult with the State
Historical Resources Commission for its advice and counsel on matters relevant to
historical property contracts.
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 43
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Prog ram 6
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14
California Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 1.9, Sections 439 – 439.4
439. Historical Property Restrictions; enforceably restricted property.
For the purposes of this article and within the meaning of Section 8 of Article XIII of the
Constitution, property is "enforceably restricted" if it is subject to an historical property
contract executed pursuant to Article 12 (commencing with Section 50280) of Chapter 1
of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
439.1. Historical Property; definitions.
For purposes of this article "restricted historical property" means qualified historical
property, as defined in Section 50280.1 of the Government Code, that is subject to a
historical property contract executed pursuant to Article 12 (commencing with Section
50280) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code. For
purposes of this section, "qualified historical property" includes qualified historical
improvements and any land on which the qualified historical improvements are situated,
as specified in the historical property contract. If the historical property contract does
not specify the land that is to be included, "qualified historical property" includes only
that area of reasonable size that is used as a site for the historical improvements.
439.2. Historical Property; valuation.
When valuing enforceably restricted historical property, the county assessor shall not
consider sales data on similar property, whether or not enforceably restricted, and shall
value that restricted historical property by the capitalization of income method in the
following manner:
(a) The annual income to be capitalized shall be determined as follows:
(1) Where sufficient rental information is available, the income shall be the fair rent
that can be imputed to the restricted historical property being valued based upon rent
actually received for the property by the owner and upon typical rentals received in the
area for similar property in similar use where the owner pays the property tax. When
the restricted historical property being valued is actually encumbered by a lease, any
cash rent or its equivalent considered in determining the fair rent of the property shall be
the amount for which the property would be expected to rent were the rental payment to
be renegotiated in the light of current conditions, including applicable provisions under
which the property is enforceably restricted.
(2) Where sufficient rental information is not available, the income shall be that which
the restricted historical property being valued reasonably can be expected to yield under
prudent management and subject to applicable provisions under which the property is
enforceably restricted.
(3) If the parties to an instrument that enforceably restricts the property stipulate
therein an amount that constitutes the minimum annual income to be capitalized, then
the income to be capitalized shall not be less than the amount so stipulated. For
purposes of this section, income shall be determined in accordance with rules and
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 44
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Prog ram 7
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14
regulations issued by the board and with this section and shall be the difference
between revenue and expenditures. Revenue shall be the amount of money or money's
worth, including any cash rent or its equivalent, that the property can be expected to
yield to an owner-operator annually on the average from any use of the property
permitted under the terms by which the property is enforceably restricted. Expenditures
shall be any outlay or average annual allocation of money or money's worth that can be
fairly charged against the revenue expected to be received during the period used in
computing the revenue. Those expenditures to be charged against revenue shall be
only those which are ordinary and necessary in the production and maintenance of the
revenue for that period. Expenditures shall not include depletion charges, debt
retirement, interest on funds invested in the property, property taxes, corporation
income taxes, or corporation franchise taxes based on income.
(b) The capitalization rate to be used in valuing owner-occupied single family
dwellings pursuant to this article shall not be derived from sales data and shall be the
sum of the following components:
(1) An interest component to be determined by the board and announced no later than
September 1 of the year preceding the assessment year and that was the yield rate
equal to the effective rate on conventional mortgages as determined by the Federal
Housing Finance Board, rounded to the nearest 1/4 percent.
(2) A historical property risk component of 4 percent.
(3) A component for property taxes that shall be a percentage equal to the estimated
total tax rate applicable to the property for the assessment year times the assessment
ratio.
(4) A component for amortization of the improvements that shall be a percentage
equivalent to the reciprocal of the remaining life.
(c) The capitalization rate to be used in valuing all other restricted historical property
pursuant to this article shall not be derived from sales data and shall be the sum of the
following components:
(1) An interest component to be determined by the board and announced no later than
September 1 of the year preceding the assessment year and that was the yield rate
equal to the effective rate on conventional mortgages as determined by the Federal
Housing Finance Board, rounded to the nearest 1/4 percent.
(2) A historical property risk component of 2 percent.
(3) A component for property taxes that shall be a percentage equal to the estimated
total tax rate applicable to the property for the assessment year times the assessment
ratio.
(4) A component for amortization of the improvements that shall be a percentage
equivalent to the reciprocal of the remaining life.
(d) Unless a party to an instrument that creates an enforceable restriction expressly
prohibits the valuation, the valuation resulting from the capitalization of income method
described in this section shall not exceed the lesser of either the valuation that would
have resulted by calculation under Section 110, or the valuation that would have
resulted by calculation under Section 110.1, as though the property was not subject to
an enforceable restriction in the base year.
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 45
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Prog ram 8
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14
(e) The value of the restricted historical property shall be the quotient of the income
determined as provided in subdivision (a) divided by the capitalization rate determined
as provided in subdivision (b) or (c).
(f) The ratio prescribed in Section 401 shall be applied to the value of the property
determined in subdivision (d) to obtain its assessed value.
439.3. Historical Property; notice of nonrenewal.
Notwithstanding any provision of Section 439.2 to the contrary, if either the county or
city or the owner of restricted historical property subject to contract has served notice of
nonrenewal as provided in Section 50282 of the Government Code, the county
assessor shall value that restricted historical property as provided in this section.
(a) Following the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 50285 of the Government
Code, subdivision (b) shall apply until the termination of the period for which the
restricted historical property is enforceably restricted.
(b) The board or assessor in each year until the termination of the period for which the
property is enforceably restricted shall do all of the following:
(1) Determine the full cash value of the property pursuant to Section 110.1. If the
property is not subject to Section 110.1 when the restriction expires, the value shall be
determined pursuant to Section 110 as if the property were free of contractual
restriction. If the property will be subject to a use for which this chapter provides a
special restricted assessment, the value of the property shall be determined as if it were
subject to the new restriction.
(2) Determine the value of the property by the capitalization of income method as
provided in Section 439.2 and without regard to the fact that a notice of nonrenewal or
cancellation has occurred.
(3) Subtract the value determined in paragraph (2) of this subdivision by capitalization
of income from the full cash value determined in paragraph (1).
(4) Using the rate announced by the board pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision
(b) of Section 439.2, discount the amount obtained in paragraph (3) for the number of
years remaining until the termination of the period for which the property is enforceably
restricted.
(5) Determine the value of the property by adding the value determined by the
capitalization of income method as provided in paragraph (2) and the value obtained in
paragraph (4).
(6) Apply the ratios prescribed in Section 401 to the value of the property determined
in paragraph (5) to obtain its assessed value.
439.4. Historical Property; recordation.
No property shall be valued pursuant to this article unless an enforceable restriction
meeting the requirements of Section 439 is signed, accepted and recorded on or before
the lien date for the fiscal year in which the valuation would apply.
Item 3
Attachment B: State OHP
Technical Bulletin 12
Packet Pg. 46
Mills Act Fact Sheet
▪The Mills Act (a state sponsored legislation enacted in 1972) is a self-directed, economic
incentive program for owners of historic buildings that are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or on a State, County or City official register like the California Register of
Historical Resources or the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.
▪It is the single most important economic incentive program available in California for private
property owners of qualified historic buildings.
▪A Mills Act program must be developed according to two California State Codes: California
Government Code, Article 12, Sections 50280-50290 and California Revenue and Taxation Code,
Article 1.9, Sections 439-439.4.
▪Under the program, property owners receive a significant reduction in local property taxes in
exchange for their active participation in restoring, rehabilitating, repairing and preserving their
properties. Participants enter into a perpetual 10-year contract with the City.
▪Contracts are automatically renewed each year and are transferred to new owners when the
property is sold.
▪City, County or State officials may periodically inspect properties to ensure proper maintenance.
▪Penalties may be imposed for breach of contract or failure to maintain the historic property.
▪The County Assessor’s Office re-assesses property taxes based on a capitalization of income
formula rather than on market value. Mills Act participants may realize a property tax savings of
approximately 50% each year depending on property value, net operating income and other
variables.
Item 3
Attachment C: Mills Act
Fact Sheet
Packet Pg. 47
Mills Act Pilot Program
HRB Workshop – June 8, 2017
▪Squire House is interested in staying on…
▪What are the community’s needs and priorities?
▪What properties do we want to prioritize?
▪Do schools pay property tax?
o Yes – we can highlight our historic schools (Palo Alto High School Category 2)
o No – is there a way to prioritize historic public schools?
▪School funding issue:
Item 3
Attachment D: Notes HRB
Meeting June 8, 2017
Packet Pg. 48
MILLS ACT PILOT PROGRAM – SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING – OCTOBER 3, 2017
▪HP House and Garage – expressing interest (willing to open house up for fundraising use for school district,
PAST, etc.)
▪Eligibility Requirements
o Locally listed (1-4 or 1-2)
o Nationally Register individual listing
o CA Register individual listing
o Contributing properties in NR + local districts
▪Time Limits [Contracts extend one year annually unless either party elects to non-renew – SCC]
o Issue notice of nonrenewal in 5th year with 10 year phase out period (Belvedere)
▪Geographic distribution requirement
o Minimum total of contract to be awarded to properties in specific areas (Oakland)
▪Eligible work
o Just exterior
o Interior included (like electrical, plumbing)
Item 3
Attachment E:
Subcommittee Meeting
Oct 3, 2017
Packet Pg. 49
▪Limit on the total tax loss that can be associated with Mills Act properties or number of Mills Act properties in
any given year
o Cap at $25,000, to be adjusted annually in an amount equivalent to the percent change of the overall
assessed valuation of the City for the previous year, excluding those properties that have been issued a
notice of nonrenewal (Belvedere)
o Program impact on City revenues limited to $25,000/year and $25,000/year in any single redevelopment
area with a cumulative limit of $250,000/year for all redevelopment areas (with exception of Central
Business District). In CBD limit of the program impact on Redevelopment revenues to
$100,000/building/year/ with a cumulative limit of $250,000/year. Anything that exceeds these limits
may request special consideration by City Council. (Oakland)
o 3 Mills Act contracts a year (Saratoga)
o Lottery/rankings/higher ranking based on following criteria (Campbell):
▪Result in greatest number or value of improvements
▪Reduce the threat to historic property
▪Result in preservation and maintenance
▪Highest percentage of tax savings used to finance property maintenance
o Applications only during month of July (Gilroy)
▪Reviewed at one time each year so that the cumulative financial impact can be determined
▪Contracts must be recorded prior to January 1
▪Assessor’s office has more available time
▪Reduces cost of processing applications
o Addresses School District concerns (Palo Alto basic aid, crunch numbers, data science intern)
▪Limit on total property value that would be eligible (exceptions allowed)
o Residential – pre-contract assessed valuation of $3,000,000 or less (San Francisco)
▪Except if it is an exceptional property
o Commercial – pre-contract assessed valuation of $5,000,000 or less (San Francisco)
▪Except if it is an exceptional property
Item 3
Attachment E:
Subcommittee Meeting
Oct 3, 2017
Packet Pg. 50
▪What would we require from participants?
o 10 year work plan/Rehabilitation Plan (San Francisco)
o Interpretive signage
o Onsite visit every five years (San Francisco), periodic examinations (Napa County, San Diego)
o Spend the property tax money that is saved through the Mills Act on preserving and/or restoring the
property (Berkeley)
o Anticipated construction must be equal to or greater than tax savings (Oakland)
o Expend an amount equal to a minimum of 10% of the tax savings attributed to the Mills Act agreement
for the preservation and maintenance of the property (San Jose) and must include all of the following
tasks:
▪Year 1 – foundation repairs
▪Year 2 – plumbing upgrades
▪Year 3 – electrical upgrades
▪Year 4 – basement waterproofing
▪Year 5 – repaint exterior
▪Year 6 – original door, window and hardware restoration
▪Year 7 – re-roofing and downspout restoration
▪Year 8 – repair exterior trim and siding
▪Year 9 – front iron fencing restoration
▪Year 10 – repaint exterior
o General Application (photos, location map, legal description, etc.)
▪Ordinance changes
o Defined (Los Altos)
o Incentives section (Los Altos)
Item 3
Attachment E:
Subcommittee Meeting
Oct 3, 2017
Packet Pg. 51
In the County of Santa Clara there are 296 active contracts. In 2016 there were 7 new contracts. Some properties do
not benefit from Mills Act value as their base year values are lower than the tax incentive value Mills Act provides.
Lowest reduction given: 0%. The largest reduction in the county was 92.37% for 2016. Average reduction was 56.39%
for 2016.
This large range and continually changing market conditions makes it difficult for the Assessor to forecast the exact
savings for any potential Mills Act property prior to the actual assessment.
Each local government establishes their own criteria and determines how many contracts they will allow in their
jurisdiction. For answers to specific questions such as local eligibility criteria, application procedures, and contract terms,
contact the city or county official for your jurisdiction.
The Mills Act allows local governments to design preservation programs to accommodate specific community needs and
priorities for rehabilitating entire neighborhoods, encouraging seismic safety programs, contributing to affordable
housing, promoting heritage tourism, or fostering pride of ownership. Local governments have adopted the Mills Act
because they recognize the economic benefits of conserving resources and reinvestment as well as the important role
historic preservation can play in revitalizing older areas, creating cultural tourism, building civic pride, and retaining the
sense of place and continuity with the community’s past.
Item 3
Attachment E:
Subcommittee Meeting
Oct 3, 2017
Packet Pg. 52
Item 3
Attachment F: 1997
December 15, City
Manager's Report (Policy)
Packet Pg. 53
Item 3
Attachment F: 1997
December 15, City
Manager's Report (Policy)
Packet Pg. 54
Item 3
Attachment G: Minutes
from Historic Resources
Board Meeting of
November 5, 1997
Packet Pg. 55
Item 3
Attachment G: Minutes
from Historic Resources
Board Meeting of
November 5, 1997
Packet Pg. 56
Item 3
Attachment G: Minutes
from Historic Resources
Board Meeting of
November 5, 1997
Packet Pg. 57
Item 3
Attachment G: Minutes
from Historic Resources
Board Meeting of
November 5, 1997
Packet Pg. 58
Item 3
Attachment G: Minutes
from Historic Resources
Board Meeting of
November 5, 1997
Packet Pg. 59
Item 3
Attachment G: Minutes
from Historic Resources
Board Meeting of
November 5, 1997
Packet Pg. 60
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: May 9, 2024
Report #: 2404-2942
TITLE
Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 28, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
BACKGROUND
Attached are minutes for the following meeting:
•March 28, 2024
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: HRB 3.28 Minutes
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 61
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Michael Makinen (remote – microphone
malfunction at the beginning), Margaret Wimmer, Christian Pease and Caroline Willis
Absent: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz and Board Member Gogo Heinrich
Public Comment
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chief Planning Official Amy French announced changes to the meeting agenda. The revised order is as
follows: City Official Reports will remain as the first item. Agenda Item 3 (Action Items) concerning 261
Hamilton Avenue will be addressed immediately following the City Official Reports. Agenda Item 2 (Study
Session) will be addressed after Agenda Items 4 and 5 (Minutes of Approval).
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
Ms. French announced an upcoming HRB meeting scheduled for April 11, 2024, which will include the
annual CLG report to the Office of Historic Preservation and the Work Plan. he proposed a new meeting
structure where the HRB would convene once a month with the full Board, and the alternate date would
be available for subcommittee meetings. She advised that the City has not received enough applications
for the HRB seats. Current members are to serve until the replacement members are appointed. Board
Member Gogo Heinrich confirmed her availability for the April 11 meeting but indicated she would not be
available in May and thereafter. Board Member Michael Makinen expressed his willingness to participate
remotely when possible. Ms. French noted that a seven-member board requires four in-person members
in Palo Alto for quorum, while a five-member board only requires three, suggesting a reduction in board
size as a potential solution to facilitate quorum and board operations.
Board Member Willis voiced her long-standing support for a five-member board, believing it would lead to
stronger, clearer consensus on project reviews. She sought clarification on the process for such a change.
Ms. French clarified that reducing the board size would necessitate an ordinance change. However, since
it is not part of Title 18, it would not require Planning Commission involvement.
Study Session **
2. Work Plan and Certified Local Government Report
Ms. French provided an update on the Work Plan and the Certified Local Government (CLG) Report. She
clarified that the Board was not required to take action on this item during today’s meeting. Ms. French
informed the Board that she had not yet prepared a draft CLG report for the reporting period of October
2022 through September 2023, with the due date for the current year’s report set for April 26, 2024.
Ongoing activities, such as reviewing alterations and implementing Comprehensive Plan Policy L7.2, were
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES, March 28, 2024
Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom
8:30 A.M.
Item 4
Attachment A - 3.28.24
HRB Minutes
Packet Pg. 62
City of Palo Alto Page 2
cited as accomplishments and goals in HRB Work Plan. The upcoming report will detail the Council’s actions
regarding all nominations. Ms. French advised that the Board would be discussing the Work Program, noting
the general expectation for Work Plans to be presented to the Council before their July break. She
announced that on April 11th, she would present a draft plan that includes any outstanding items from the
previous year, including discussions on the Tailored Mills Act Program. Ms. French highlighted that one of
the goals for the Work Plan was to initiate discussions on the Preservation Ordinance. The Board has
already begun examining the incentives in the zoning code. She reminded the Board of the Comprehensive
Plan’s policy program, which mandates an evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing historic
ordinance—a task that could be included in the next Work Plan year starting in April. Ms. French emphasized
that the purpose of the current discussion was not to advance any items but to gather ideas for the
upcoming Work Plan. She encouraged Board Members to propose new items for consideration, which she
could incorporate into the draft to be voted on April 11th. Ms. French brought to attention that the April
meeting might be the last session for some board members.
Vice Chair Rohman requested clarification on whether the Board needed to take any action on the 2021-
2022 Work Plan.
Ms. French clarified that the CLG report was for 2022-2023 and had not yet been prepared. The CLG report
does not technically require the Board’s approval but is meant for sharing and review. Ms. French intends
to present and review the CLG report on April 11th, which serves as a retrospective of the Board’s
accomplishments. She mentioned that the Work Plan will require a vote by the Board, which is why she
plans to bring the Work Plan forward on April 11th while there are still board members to review it
Board Member Willis inquired about the necessity of aligning the Work Plan with the CLG report.
Ms. French explained that that she was currently synchronizing the two by including them in the same
agenda—a practice she has maintained since assuming the liaison role. She clarified that the CLG report’s
schedule is determined by the State, whereas the Work Plan’s timeline is established by the Board and
Commission handbook and the Council. She suggested the possibility of adjusting the Board’s Work Plan
year to begin in July.
Board Member Willis asked if the Work Plan could adhere to one timeline while being presented to the
Council before the start of that period.
Ms. French answered yes, the Board outline plans starting July 1st, which would then be submitted to
Council. She noted that the Board is currently addressing items from the previous year’s Work Plan, which
extends through next month.
Vice Chair Rohman invited Board discussion on the item.
Board Member Wimmer believed that one goal should be the ongoing review and update of the ordinance.
She emphasized the importance of ensuring that the ordinance remains effective and accurately represents
the Board’s efforts.
Vice Chair Rohman acknowledged the Board’s successful completion of a significant project this year. She
expressed confidence about the Board setting one big, bolder goal per Work Plan as the main focus, and
then subsequent goals to continue working on until that first goal is accomplished. Perhaps, the goal for
this upcoming year is to make changes to the ordinance.
Board Member Willis thought the Board needed to undertake achievable goals. She expressed the
importance of working on the Mills Act, acknowledging it as a long-term objective. The immediate priority
should be to clearly communicate the benefits of being listed on the inventory. Despite the complexity of
the task, she has been making efforts with some assistance. She suggested that the Board consider minor
modifications to the ordinance that could help facilitate the realization of these benefits. She asked Ms.
French if she knew of instances where the Board could cite the City’s use of the Historic Building Code so
the community can understand see it as beneficial. She proposed that providing examples could enhance
understanding and appreciation.
Ms. French stated that sadly, she did not. She offered to ask the Chief Building Official to request that his
staff flag whenever someone asks for the Historic Building Code so that she becomes aware.
Item 4
Attachment A - 3.28.24
HRB Minutes
Packet Pg. 63
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Board Member Willis advocated for increased contact with the Building Department regarding the Historic
Building Code, emphasizing their role as the gatekeepers.
Ms. French presented the five proposed goals for the HRB Work Plan via screen sharing. The goals are as
follows:
1) Review exterior alterations to historic resources.
2) Prepare evaluations to determine the eligibility of properties for the California Register of Historical
Resources (Policy L7.2).
3) Continued implementation of Policy L7.1.1.
4) Improve outreach, review incentives, and develop a work program for the next year, considering
the implementation of additional Historic Preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan, such as
L7.1.2: Reassess Historic Preservation Ordinance.
5) Tailored Mills Act Program discussion: Finalize the outreach approach and present a program report
to the City Council.
Ms. French opened a discussion on possibly consolidating these into three goals. She encouraged the HRB
to affirm what has been accomplished and identify what would continue forward. She noted the concept
that the Board has goals that are just part of their regular work, which is reviewing projects, and so it does
not necessarily have to be a goal.
Vice Chair Rohman sought clarification on whether the Board had reviewed any projects this year.
Ms. French responded that it is uncommon for projects to be brought before the HRB.
Vice Chair Rohman inquired about Goals 1 and 2.
Ms. French confirmed that Goal 1 essentially articulates the Board’s role and suggested that it could be
reported on rather than listed as a distinct goal. Goal 2 pertains to implementing Policy L7.2, which is when
people come forward to sell their property and they ask if it is historic, and then the Board works with a
consultant to find out. She continued by explaining that Goal 3 involves the launch of the implementation
of Policy L7.1.1, which the HRB has done, so now it is in the Council’s court looking towards the April 22nd
date.
Vice Chair Rohman inquired about the necessity of including Goals 1 and 2.
Ms. French confirmed that it was not necessary to include them.
Board Member Pease sought clarification on whether there was a retrospective method to observe any data
on what benefits have been taken advantage of by individuals with historic homes.
Ms. French indicated that it is possible that she could gather some information from the planning
entitlement process, specifically regarding home improvement exceptions and non-residential properties.
Board Member Pease asked if that was something that had to be done manually or if there was a more
efficient method.
Ms. French responded that the current system requires manual tracking due to the lack of a specific flagging
mechanism for incentives in the tracking system. The process involves more discussion and citing examples
rather than percentages of building permits utilizing incentives.
Vice Chair Rohman asked whether the idea of bringing to the forefront the review and potential amendment
should be included under Goal 4, which pertains to outreach and incentives.
Ms. French stated that perhaps the Work Program for the next year is not just to review incentives but
work on improved incentives. She mentioned that there are various ideas from the public and the HRB that
could be considered for proposing changes to the Council.
Vice Chair Rohman stated that in theory, Goals 4 and 5 could be the primary goals for the Board in the
upcoming Work Plan year.
Item 4
Attachment A - 3.28.24
HRB Minutes
Packet Pg. 64
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Ms. French agreed, adding that Goal 4 could likely be divided into specific actions for proposed incentives
and methods to enhance outreach.
Board Member Willis shared her perspective on the HRB’s performance in public communication, suggesting
that outreach deserves dedicated attention. She proposed initiatives like conducting tours and engaging
with the community to promote preservation and revitalize the momentum seen in the 1970s. Emphasizing
the importance of public support, she recommended treating outreach as a distinct focus area. She also
addressed the need for at least one more board member. She proposed reaching out to the Council to
nominate potential candidates, which could facilitate more efficient communication and decision-making.
Ms. French pointed out the presence of a Council Liaison, indicating a connection to Council in that manner.
She was hopeful that future discussions at the Council level might consider reducing the HRB’s board
membership from seven to five. She also suggested the possibility of decreasing the frequency of meetings
to once a month, with the option of special evening meetings as needed, to potentially attract those hesitant
to commit to bi-monthly hearings.
Board Member Willis expressed opposition to this idea.
Vice Chair Rohman supported the suggestion. She also agreed with the proposal made by Board Member
Willis that outreach be moved into a completely separate goal from incentives. Vice Chair Rohman believed
that approach could get the Board to three really easily between the Mills Act, outreach, and incentives.
She shared that Karen Holman has reached out to her to participate in social work for the new museum,
and she was keen on involving HRB members more in the community again. She suggested that one
meeting per month would facilitate greater community engagement.
Board Member Wimmer recalled that one meeting per month is the way it used to be. She noted that under
Ms. Carolyn’s chairmanship, the HRB shifted to meeting at least twice a month. Board Member Wimmer
observed that while this increase seemed substantial, it ultimately fortified the structure and communication
of the meetings. The frequent gatherings allowed the Board to maintain continuity and strengthen as a
group. On the topic of the Historic Building Code, Board Member Wimmer mentioned that it serves as an
incentive and recalled a beneficial presentation by a building official, highlighting the value of such
educational sessions for both new and existing members.
Board Member Willis concurred with the benefits of meeting twice a month, stating it helps her stay
engaged with the Board’s tasks. Regarding the requirements for board members, she asked Ms. French if
there had been any consideration regarding the composition of the five members.
Ms. French shared her screen to display the stipulations of the Chapter 2 Administrative Code regarding
Board membership. According to the current code, the Historic Resources Board shall be composed of
seven members in which one member shall be an owner/occupant of a Category 1 or 2 historic structure,
or of a structure in a historic district, three members shall be architects, landscape architects, building
designers or other design professionals, and at least one member shall possess academic education or
practice experience in history or a related field.
Vice Chair Rohman asked whether the material interest includes the architect or owner.
Ms. French clarified that was not part of the existing code but was included in a previous ordinance proposal.
She suggested that it would be beneficial to consider including an item on the agenda to discuss what the
Board perceives as an ideal composition regarding skills and membership.
Vice Chair Rohman asked the Board Members about that potential addition to the agenda for the upcoming
meeting.
Board Member Pease reflected on the foundational nature of the Mills Act and the ordinance, suggesting
that the recent exercise produced a mailing list of historic homeowners, which presents an opportunity for
outreach. He acknowledged the complexity of the ordinance process and the long-standing examination of
the Mills Act, viewing these as leverage points for the hard work they represent. Board Member Pease
expressed caution against altering the ordinance without precise and careful consideration, emphasizing
the importance of assuring property owners that these measures are not mandatory. The Mills Act ties
together all things such as advantages, benefits, and the Building Code. It is not a big technological leap
Item 4
Attachment A - 3.28.24
HRB Minutes
Packet Pg. 65
City of Palo Alto Page 5
to put on the website for Historic Preservation a link to YouTube where that can be explained in an easily
digestible format.
Board Member Willis sought clarification from Board Member Pease regarding his reference to “that,”
questioning whether it pertained to the Historic Building Code or the Mills Act.
Board Member Pease clarified that “that” referred to the Historic Building Code, emphasizing its role as an
incentive or a benefit. It needs to be explained. He recalled Board Member Wimmer’s mention of a past
presentation on the Historic Building Code to the Board and suggested leveraging that work by providing
a link to a video explanation, which would be more accessible than textual content on a webpage.
Vice Chair Rohman inquired if Board Member Pease wished to include a discussion on this topic in the
agenda for the next meeting.
Board Member Pease advocated prioritizing outreach to the foundational work and using it to communicate
with people. The Board has a list of things that can be used for this purpose, and it is a more efficient way
to use time and energy. He questioned why the Mills Act has taken over a decade and still needs more to
be accomplished. He expressed reluctance to include it in a plan and trying to work through the details
quietly without anyone outside the Board knowing what is going on. He felt these efforts could be made
more accessible now with a link, through the City website, without reconstructing anything.
Ms. French interpreted the discussion to outline the Work Plan for the next meeting, suggesting Goal 4
focus solely on outreach, including web page updates with YouTube videos and training opportunities. Goal
5 would address the continuation of the Mills Act, determining the Council’s interest in it, and Goal 6 might
involve proposing Zoning Code incentives.
Board Member Pease clarified his intention to reevaluate the foundational aspects of the Board’s work and
to identify which elements would benefit from enhanced communication strategies. He suggested utilizing
the existing list of those qualified and have expressed strong opinions about it, and somehow communicate
the minimal time commitment that would be required.
Vice Chair Rohman acknowledged the validity of these points but had to depart from the meeting. She
recommended adding this topic to the agenda for the next meeting to ensure a thorough discussion.
Ms. French noted that the upcoming meeting focused on the Work Plan and outreach would be the
appropriate context for this discussion. She informed the Board that the April 11th meeting has three items
scheduled, including two upgrade projects.
Board Member Wimmer announced her unavailability for the April 11th meeting due to out-of-town
commitments.
Vice Chair Rohman inquired if there were any final remarks before the meeting adjournment.
Board Member Willis raised concern about the potential for increased meeting cancellations if the number
of absent members exceeds the allowable limit.
Ms. French acknowledged the need for further discussion on this matter and expressed gratitude for Board
Member Willis’s concern. She informed the Board that she has been in communication with Board Members
Makinen, Heinrich, and Wimmer. Board Member Makinen has assured his commitment to attend meetings
until a replacement is appointed. Regarding the possibility of transitioning to a five-member board, Ms.
French admitted uncertainty about the implications for board composition and membership. She concluded
by stating her intention to include an agenda item at the next meeting to discuss the Board’s desire to
address board composition.
Action Items **
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
Ms. French shared a presentation showing the location of the building at 261 Hamilton Avenue across the
street from the former University Art building. The building is a local Category 3 resource and contributor
to the National Register historic district, which is called the Ramona Architectural District. The California
Item 4
Attachment A - 3.28.24
HRB Minutes
Packet Pg. 66
City of Palo Alto Page 6
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. There is no proposal to add bonus floor area to the
property. She shared slides showing a couple images of the subject building drawn from the Page & Turnbull
Report from 1928, 1986 and currently. Staff recommends that 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.
Vice Chair Rohman stated that she would love to hear the history of the item.
Roxy Rapp, applicant, shared his personal connection to Palo Alto, having been a resident since 1947. He
expressed a particular fondness for Ramona Street, highlighting its significance to him. Recalling its vibrant
history as a hub for clothing, Mr. Rapp reminisced about the street’s past activity and mentioned his
mother’s frequent visits to the dress shops there. He recounted a pivotal moment when he received an
offer from his Little League coach, Bill Alhouse, to purchase the building. Mr. Rapp detailed his efforts to
preserve the building’s historical integrity, including obtaining its original drawings. He noted the modern
alterations made by University Art over the years, such as concealing original tilework and changing the
windows and awnings. Upon acquiring the building and conducting a study, Mr. Rapp discovered its
historical significance as the site of Palo Alto’s second post office. He expressed his appreciation for the
building’s current moniker, ‘University Art,’ while clarifying its origins as a dental and medical facility. During
the process of demolishing what University Art had done, Mr. Rapp and his son discovered beautiful
stonework hidden by the previous renovations. They sourced matching stone from the original
manufacturer in Los Angeles, ensuring the new additions were indistinguishable from the original. The
renovation also included extensive structural work to reinforce the building against earthquakes, involving
deep excavation around the major support columns and foundational walls. Mr. Rapp concluded his remarks
by reflecting on the excitement and fulfillment he experienced in revitalizing a building so rich in history
and personal significance.
Vice Chair Rohman thanked Mr. Rapp for sharing his story and for setting a wonderful example of both
adaptive reuse and preservation. She commended Mr. Rapp’s meticulous attention to detail concerning
Ramona Street and the district. Vice Chair Rohman highlighted Ramona Street as one of Palo Alto’s most
beautiful areas and assets of downtown.
Mr. Rapp expressed a sense of sadness regarding the current state of Ramona Street, contrasting it with
memories from the past. He articulated a heartfelt desire to restore the street’s aesthetic appeal, aspiring
to revitalize its appearance to rekindle the community’s admiration and attract visitors.
Samantha Purnell, Consultant, Page & Turnbull, supported Mr. Rapp’s remarks, emphasizing the
architectural and historical significance of the building. She described it as a cornerstone of the Ramona
Street district, serving as a central point of interest within the community.
Board Member Willis inquired about the reasons for requesting a Category 2 update for the building instead
of a Category 1.
Ms. Purnell replied that the building does have the potential to be listed as a Category 1, but the project
scope given to the firm by the City was only for a Category 2 update.
Ms. French mentioned that the request was for a Category 2 update, which was what was analyzed. She
suggested that the description of Category 1 could be reviewed if desired but clarified that it was not
advertised as such. However, with the action to elevate the category to Category 2 as requested, further
exploration regarding Category 1 could be considered.
Vice Chair Rohman wanted to clarify that it could skip two levels and does not have to go to Category 2
and then to Category 3.
Ms. French responded that just as long as it meets the criteria, that could be a recommendation for the
Council to consider.
Board Member Willis asked for clarification on the staff's position that the HRB cannot choose to elevate it
to Category 1 without advertising it again.
Item 4
Attachment A - 3.28.24
HRB Minutes
Packet Pg. 67
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Ms. French explained that the project description was to elevate to Category 2, but she believed there could
be comments to that effect. There is no material difference in terms of how the code applies. Category 1
and Category 2 are the same regarding applying incentives and similar factors.
Vice Chair Rohman suggested that the board obtain input from the property owner concerning any potential
objections to being classified Category 1 instead of Category 2.
Mr. Rapp stated that the only difference is that it makes it more prestigious as a Category 1 and makes it
more outstanding than a Category 2.
Vice Chair Rohman asked Mr. Rapp if he had any objections to the HRB recommending that Council
recommends it as a Category 1 versus a Category 2.
Mr. Rapp said no, he was thrilled that the HRB would even consider it.
Vice Chair Rohman asked Ms. French if Category 1 could be reviewed.
Ms. French informed that she was in the process of uploading Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, Historic Preservation, to access the relevant definitions.
Board Member Willis explained that part of her position on elevating it to Category 1 was its prominence
on Ramona Street in the City’s historic district. She resonated with Mr. Rapp’s sentiments of discontent
regarding the current state of what exists there now.
Ms. French displayed the definition of a Category 1 resource from Chapter 16.49, highlighting that “an
exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance
of the building is in its original character.” She noted that any minor modifications to the building had been
reversed and restoration had taken place, so she believed that there were no impediments to elevating the
building, given its significance at both the National and State levels.
Vice Chair Rohman invited Board discussion on the item. There was none.
MOTION
Motion by Vice Chair Rohman to recommend that the City Council reclassify the building from a ‘Contributing
Building’ Category 3 resource to a Category 1 resource on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.
Vice Chair Rohman invited public comment.
John Shenk, CEO of Thoits Brothers, provided remarks on the historical significance of the Thoits family in
Palo Alto, dating back to the late 1800s. He expressed his enthusiasm for Mr. Rapp’s efforts in recognizing
and preserving the city’s heritage. Mr. Shenk highlighted the Thoits family’s involvement with the Palo Alto
Improvement Company, responsible for developing notable landmarks such as the Cardinal Hotel and other
structures on Ramona Street. He conveyed his support for the ongoing preservation initiatives and
commended the direction in which they are progressing.
Vice Chair Rohman thanked Board Member Willis for the proposal to reclassify the building as a Category
1 resource. She indicated her intention to restate the motion.
MOTION
Motion by Vice Chair Rohman to recommend that the City Council reclassify the building at 261 Hamilton
Avenue from a ‘Contributing Building’ Category 3 resource to a Category 1 resource on the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory. Seconded by Board Member Willis, the motion carried (5-0) by voice vote.
Board Member Willis thanked Mr. Rapp for all he has done to preserve heritage.
Mr. Rapp informed the Board that he, along with Mr. Ken, intends to return shortly to present a project
they have been collaboratively working on.
Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 11, 2024
Board Member Willis identified a discrepancy on page 66 regarding the first two motions. The minutes
incorrectly stated that the motions were made and seconded by the Vice Chair. Board Member Willis
Item 4
Attachment A - 3.28.24
HRB Minutes
Packet Pg. 68
City of Palo Alto Page 8
suggested that Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz was likely the individual who made the motions, as indicated by
the minutes showing the motion restated by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz.
MOTION
Motion by Vice Chair Rohman to approve the draft minutes of the January 11th meeting as corrected.
Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried (5-0) by voice vote.
5. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2024
MOTION
Motion by Vice Chair Rohman to approve the draft minutes of the January 25th meeting. Seconded by Board
Member Willis, the motion carried (5-0) by voice vote.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas
Adjournment
MOTION
Motion by Vice Chair Rohman to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 a.m.
Item 4
Attachment A - 3.28.24
HRB Minutes
Packet Pg. 69
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: May 9, 2024
Report #: 2404-2961
TITLE
Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 11, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
BACKGROUND
Attached are minutes for the following meeting:
•April 11, 2024
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: HRB 4.11 Minutes
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 5
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 70
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz; Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Christian
Pease and Caroline Willis
Absent: Board Members Gogo Heinrich, Michael Makinen and Margaret Wimmer
Public Comment
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments
Chief Planning Official Amy French reported the absence of Board Members Heinrich and Wimmer. The
decision for monthly meetings, at the Chair’s discretion, was affirmed as per the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
No quarterly Historic Resources Board (HRB) meetings are currently scheduled, with a potential meeting in
July. Ms. French is preparing a report for the City Council to propose modifications to the HRB composition
and member count. While drafting the Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report, she discovered
that the CLG requires a minimum of five members, including at least two professionals from a diverse range
of professions. She is working on an ordinance change to align with this requirement, suggesting a
reduction of two professionals who could be architects or from other professions. Ms. French presented the
proposed changes to the draft language and advised that they would be posted online as a proposal to
Council in May, followed by a recruitment process for an additional candidate.
Board Member Willis inquired about the omission of the April 25, 2024, meeting from the schedule.
Ms. French clarified that the Board has adopted a monthly meeting schedule, at the Chair’s and Staff’s
convenience. With a Historic Planner joining the staff in May, the team anticipates increased capacity to
support quarterly meetings. The frequency of meetings may be reassessed by the next Chair. The upcoming
meeting is scheduled for May.
Board Member Willis requested Ms. French to email the proposed ordinance changes.
Ms. French agreed to the request.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 411 Kipling Street [24PLN‐00032]: Request for
Historic Designation Reclassification, From a Local Historic Resource Category 4 to a
Category 2. Environmental Assessment: No project under California Environmental Quality
Act and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. Zone District: CD‐C (P) ‐ Downtown
Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. For More Information Contact
Kristina Paulauskaite at Kristina.Paulauskaite@CityofPaloAlto.org.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES, April 11, 2024
Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom
8:30 A.M.
Item 5
Attachment A - HRB 4.11
Minutes
Packet Pg. 71
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Associate Planner Kristina Paulauskaite advised that she was assisting Ms. French with the Historic Program
with the City of Palo Alto (City). She presented an overview of the request to reclassify 411 Kipling Street
from Category 4 to Category 2. This building, located in the Commercial Downtown with the Pedestrian
Shopping Combining District zone, offers a contrast to the larger commercial scale and higher density of
University Avenue. The building’s history was discussed. Constructed in 1902 as a one-and-a-half story
home by George Wilbert Mosher, a prolific contractor and craftsman, the building remained largely
unchanged until the late 1980s. Mr. Mosher, who constructed hundreds of buildings during the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, made 411 Kipling Street a prime example of the early Palo Alto “Square Cottage”
building type, featuring stylistic elements of Colonial Revival and Queen Anne Free Classic. In 1985, the
building was surveyed for the Historic Resources Inventory and added to the local register as a Category 4
building, a classification for good examples of architectural styles that relate to the character of a
neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion, or other factors. It is not within the National Register
of Historic District boundaries. In November 2023, Page & Turnbull prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation
(HRE) for the City at the applicant’s expense. The HRE found the subject property individually eligible for
listing in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory under Criterion 2, 5, and 6. In February 2024, Mark Sterns,
on behalf of Hayes Group Architects, submitted a Major Historic Resources Board Review. The applicant
requested a reclassification of the one-story commercial building from a “Contributing Building” Category 4
resource to a “Major Building” Category 2 resource on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. The staff concurred
with the findings of the Page & Turnball evaluation and supported the upgrade from a Category 4 to a
Category 2. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) was requested to recommend the reclassification from
Category 4 to Category 2 to the City Council for approval, disapproval, or modification. In addition to the
recommended action, the HRB may continue or deny the reclassification.
Ken Hayes, applicant, informed that 411 Kipling Street was originally built as a residential rental property.
He highlighted that the immediate vicinity is an early 20th-century residential block, where every building,
except the former Apple building, is locally listed as a Category 2, 3, or 4 historic structure. According to
the Sanborn maps, 411 Kipling appears to be the first structure erected on that specific property. Mr. Hayes
presented pictures of the building to showcase its stylistic elements and echoed Ms. Paulauskaite’s
comments about the building’s classification process. He urged the Board to endorse the efforts to
memorialize the building and support the Staff’s recommendation.
John Shenk, applicant, expressed his gratitude to the Board and shared his anticipation for the processing
of this matter. He considered Kipling as one of the most unique streets in Downtown. He voiced his
enthusiasm to aid in preserving the building and enhancing its significance to the community. He observed
that the public was largely unaware of these historic buildings that deserved more recognition
Board Member Willis inquired if Mr. Shenk had thought about a Historic District on Kipling Street.
Mr. Shenk confirmed that he had, although he was unsure of its implications. He noted that almost the
entire block, with each of the homes in their various states of categorization, could be considered. He
suggested collaborating with Mr. Hayes to explore this possibility.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited further discussion from the Board.
Board Member Willis proposed that the Board should consider aligning the rest of the inventory with the
City’s current standards at some point.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz agreed that the request was reasonable and asked for a motion.
MOTION
Motion by Board Member Willis that the HRB recommend the City Council reclassify the building at 411
Kipling Street from a ‘Contributing Building’ Category 4 resource to a ‘Major Building’ Category 2 resource
on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion passed (4-
0-0-3) by roll call vote.
3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 271 University Avenue [24PLN‐00039]: Request for
Historic Designation Reclassification, From a Local Historic Resource Category 3 to a
Category 2. Environmental Assessment: No project under California Environmental Quality
Act and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. Zone District: CD‐C (GF)(P) ‐Downtown
Item 5
Attachment A - HRB 4.11
Minutes
Packet Pg. 72
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. For More
Information Contact Kristina Paulauskaite at Kristina.Paulauskaite@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Ms. Paulauskaite presented a proposal to the Staff for the reclassification of 271 University Avenue from
Category 3 to Category 2. This property, located in the Downtown North neighborhood, is prominently
positioned along the commercial corridor of University Avenue. The building, a fine example of the Art Deco
style, was constructed in 1930. From its inception until the 1940s, only a handful of modifications were
made. In 1946, a fabric awning was added, and in 1965, the original storefront system was replaced with
a new aluminum roll-up and swing glass storefront door system. From then until 2015, various other
changes were implemented, but no major alterations have been made since. The building is a notable work
of Carl I. Warnecke, a respected Bay Area architect who left a significant legacy in the architectural field,
particularly in the East Bay. He primarily worked in Oakland and Piedmont through his partnership with
Chester H. Miller, an Oakland native who gained his architectural knowledge through vocational training
rather than formal education. Ms. Paulauskaite emphasized the building’s Art Deco style, its historical
significance, and the timeline of its construction and modifications. The Staff agreed with her findings and
supported the proposal to upgrade 271 University Avenue from a Category 3 to a Category 2 resource. The
building is recognized as an exceptional work of Carl I Warneke and an outstanding representation of the
Art Deco Zig-Zag Moderne style. The Historic Review Board (HRB) is being asked to recommend this
reclassification from Category 4 to Category 2 to the City Council for their consideration and potential
approval, disapproval, or modification. The HRB also has the option to continue or deny the reclassification
process.
Ken Hayes, applicant, expressed his gratitude to the staff for their assistance in advancing the application.
He voiced his support for the project at 437 Kipling, which is currently under consideration for recognition
as a Category 2 resource. He drew attention to the building’s Art Deco style, its historical significance, and
the modifications it has undergone over time. The building is currently designated as a Category 3 resource,
indicating local significance. The city engaged the services of Page & Turnbull, funded by the applicant, to
evaluate the building’s eligibility for elevation to Category 2. The Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE)
determined that the property qualifies for listing in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory under Criteria 2,
5, and 6. Mr. Hayes urged the Board to endorse this unique Palo Alto building and support the staff’s
recommendation to elevate it from Category 2 to Category 3
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz opened the floor for discussion among the Board Members.
Board Member Willis expressed her admiration for the building, describing it as one of her favorites in town.
She recalled witnessing its construction in the 1980s and advocating for more extensive restoration of the
first floor. Despite the fact that the interior of the building is not entirely original, Board Member Willis
appreciated the preservation of much of the original detailing. She felt the building was on the verge of
qualifying for Category 1, but believed the first-floor façade could be a potential obstacle.
Vice Chair Rohman reflected on the city’s rich architectural diversity, expressing her appreciation for the
care and effort invested in preserving these buildings and enhancing their status to ensure their continued
preservation.
MOTION
Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz that the HRB recommends the elevation of 271 University Avenue to
a Category 2 on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory for consideration by Council. Seconded by Vice
Chair Rohman, the motion passed (4-0-0-3) by roll call vote.
Board Member Willis communicated to Mr. Hayes and Mr. Shenk that the Board is looking for an additional
member. She said that any suggestions from them would be highly appreciated.
[The HRB adjourned for a brief intermission at 9:08 a.m. and reconvened at 9:14 a.m.]
4. Historic Resources Board Discussion of Work Plan for 2024-25 and Review of Certified Local
Government (CLG) Annual Report
Ms. French presented the staff report, discussing both the Work Plan and the CLG Annual Report. On March
28, the HRB initiated discussions on the achievements from 2023-24 and potential objectives for the 2024-
25 work plan. The proposed goals encompassed a limited modification to PAMC 16.49 and clarifications
Item 5
Attachment A - HRB 4.11
Minutes
Packet Pg. 73
City of Palo Alto Page 4
about the HRB’s role (Goal 1), enhancement of preservation outreach including improved communication
methods for community accessibility (Goal 2), training on the State’s historic building code (Goal 3), and
additional preservation incentives, incorporating ideas from the 2023 reconnaissance survey/inventory
update (Goal 4). Ms. French proposed extending the current work plan until the end of June, enabling the
Board to complete the Mills Act Program in May and June. She noted that the topics were organized into
three draft goals, with the State Historic Building Code training included in Goal 2. She explained that Goal
1 would necessitate Council direction and accommodation in the PDS department work plan. Given the
City’s CLG status, any changes to the historic ordinance would need State office of historic preservation
approval before adoption. The implementation of draft work plan Goal 1 could commence in July, pending
Council direction. The HRB is scheduled to present the nominations to the Council on April 22, 2024. The
HRB will deliberate on language clarifications regarding its role on three potential topics: the nomination
process, the impact of HRB recommendations on exterior modifications, and the downgrading or removal
of a locally listed Category 1 or Category 2. Ms. French emphasized clarifications concerning Goal 1
nominations, HRB suggestions/recommendations, and category downgrading. Goal 2 aims to discover
innovative methods to promote preservation, including the application of existing zoning code incentives
and the State historic building code. The goal also involves enhancing communication methods to provide
the community with accessible information, such as using videos to help property owners understand local
and State preservation incentives and codes. Additionally, it includes enabling the HRB staff liaison(s), the
City’s historic preservation consultant, and the Chief Building Official to conduct ongoing training for the
HRB, staff, and the community on the use of the State’s historic building code. Goal 3 pertains to additional
incentives, requiring Council direction and accommodation in the PDS department work plan. The goal
seeks to extend the community engagement initiated during the 2023 reconnaissance survey/inventory
update.
Board Member Willis expressed her preference to remove the topic of “removal or downgrading of a locally
listed Category 1 or Category 2.” She acknowledged the necessity of addressing this issue, but suggested
prioritizing other tasks. Her recommendation was to focus on updating the current inventory.
Ms. French pointed out that task was already included under Goal 1 (c) as a related activity, which involves
conducting a survey of all existing 1970s/1980s HRI properties listed in the inventory.
Board Member Willis inquired about the presence of any 1970s/1980s properties in the inventory.
Ms. French clarified that these properties were identified and listed during that period, not necessarily built.
She further emphasized the importance of this activity and predicted the need for an HRB subcommittee
and additional resources due to potential outreach requirements. She also mentioned the involvement of a
qualified consultant for form preparation and anticipated that the work might extend beyond the current
work plan timeframe. However, she expressed optimism about the upcoming addition of a new staff
member to assist with these tasks.
Board Member Willis understood Ms. French’s points but emphasized the need for the Board to lobby the
Council more actively. She suggested exploring more efficient techniques for addressing these issues.
Ms. French proposed modifying Goal 1 (c) to align more closely with the related activity.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz suggested renaming Goal 1 (c) to “category changes.”
Ms. French agreed that would cover potential changes such as the removal of demolished properties from
the inventory.
Vice Chair Rohman concurred with the proposed classification of Goal 1 (c) as “category changes” and
expressed her support for the discussed modifications.
Ms. French stated that Goal 1 (c) would involve conducting a survey of all existing properties to determine
any necessary category changes.
Vice Chair Rohman sought clarification, asking if they would be reviewing all items currently on the
inventory, including those confirmed in the meeting held on April 22, 2024.
Ms. French clarified that the focus would be on properties surveyed during the 1970s and 1980s, as the
ones confirmed recently would not be included.
Item 5
Attachment A - HRB 4.11
Minutes
Packet Pg. 74
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz added that would involve both upgrades and downgrades for consistency, as
well as removals for any properties no longer in.
Board Member Willis suggested modifying the report to refer to “inventory properties” for clarity, as the
term “existing 1970s/1980s properties” could be confusing.
Ms. French hoped that in the report it says Category 1 and Category 2 but acknowledged needing to make
changes to the work plan to state, “historic resources inventory properties prior to April 22, 2024.”
Vice Chair Rohman asked whether they should consider everything prior to when the current Board was
seated.
Ms. French said she could state “prior to the 2023 survey.” She asked for clarification regarding whether
she should change Goal 1 (c) to Goal 1 (a).
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz felt that keeping it as Goal 1 (c) was appropriate.
Ms. French explained that Goal 1 in its entirety was to modify Chapter 16.49, and the current discussion
did not pertain to this modification. She proposed having four goals and suggested extending the current
term to the end of June. If the Mills Act is addressed now, it could replace the placeholder for Goal 4.
Board Member Pease inquired if this would reorder or eliminate the Mills Act.
Ms. French proposed that if the term of the work plan is extended to the end of June with the current
Board, and the Mills Act is addressed now, it could be removed from the next year’s work plan and replaced
by the current discussion as Goal 4.
Board Member Willis asked Ms. French about the Council’s potential commitment to the Mills Act and its
impact on more than three properties.
Ms. French responded that she did not have a clear sense of it, but based on past experiences, the support
has been minimal. The Board would complete their part, prepare a report, and see what could be done.
Board Member Pease asked if it was appropriate to discuss the scope of the Mills Act review at this point
or if they would need to wait.
Ms. French welcomed the discussion and mentioned that there would be room on the agenda of the next
meeting to tackle the Mills Act.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited discussion regarding Goal 2 from the Board.
Vice Chair Rohman thought this was an important goal and did not feel it should be Goal 2. It is stated that
the Commission is to identify, evaluate, register, and preserve historic properties, and she thought that
should be prioritized first. She felt incentives were more important than communication/promotion.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz said she would be supportive of that as well.
Ms. French sought clarification on whether the goal of communication/promotion was being changed to
incentives.
Board Member Willis clarified that the discussion was about reordering the goals.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz believed the discussion was about reordering and prioritizing the current Goal 3
over the current Goal 2.
Board Member Pease said he agreed with reordering but wanted to emphasize the need to distinguish
between general public outreach and addressing specific complaints about confusion and
misunderstanding. He suggested that this change in order could help drive the other goals.
Vice Chair Rohman suggested rewording Goal 2 to make it clear that the goal is education.
Ms. French asked if the title of Goal 2 should be changed to “Education.”
Board Member Pease suggested renaming it to “User Support,” emphasizing the need to provide easy and
quick learning resources for those trying to understand the process.
Item 5
Attachment A - HRB 4.11
Minutes
Packet Pg. 75
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Board Member Willis proposed renaming the goal to “Communication/Education.” She shared her struggle
with creating a chart for incentives and expressed the need to make the code easier to understand.
Ms. French felt the challenge faced was that people like Mr. Hayes and others who do this kind of work
knows the codes in and out, but homeowners who are new to the process are unfamiliar with the codes.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz acknowledged the complexity of the code and the limitations it places on
simplifying the presentation of various incentives, options, and classifications.
Ms. French pointed out the complexity of the review process and the difficulty of explaining it, especially
for projects subject to CEQA. She emphasized the importance of Board discussions in this context.
Vice Chair Rohman suggested replacing the word “promote” in Goal 2 with “education” to reflect the goal
of creating user-friendly, educational resources.
Ms. French noted down “new user-friendly resources” and asked if this would become Goal 1.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz clarified that it would become Goal 3. She recapped the goals as follows: Goal
1 is to modify the ordinance, Goal 2 is to implement preservation incentives, Goal 3 is to focus on education,
and Goal 4 pertains to properties surveyed in the 1970s and 1980s.
Board Member Willis sought clarification on whether Goal 2 would remain as it is.
Ms. French pointed out that it was moved to Goal 3. She reiterated the goals: Goal 1 involves Chapter
16.49 modifications, Goal 2 focuses on additional preservation incentives, Goal 3 is about education and
creating user-friendly resources, and Goal 4 is to conduct a survey of all existing inventory properties before
the action on April 22, 2024, excluding those in the 2023 inventory update.
Vice Chair Rohman suggested upgrading Goal 4, which involves re-examining the 70s/80s inventory, to one
of the top three goals.
Board Member Willis proposed moving incentives to Goal 4, allowing the Board to apply learnings from
Goals 2 and 3.
Board Member Pease expressed openness to reordering but emphasized that discussing incentives was the
quickest way to address the Mills Act. He suggested presenting a comparison of incentives between
commercial and residential properties and any Board suggestions for Council, rather than rewriting the Mills
Act drafts.
Ms. French advised that the adopted workplan would be discussed on April 22, 2024. She planned to
repackage and send out information stating that the Mills Act and other incentives had been discussed. She
explained that incentives to the zoning code would require Planning Commission review and would not go
to Council in Q1 of the fiscal year. She felt that having incentives as Goal 4 made sense timeline-wise, and
a subcommittee could continue discussing incentives
Board Member Pease expressed confidence in Ms. French’s judgement. He questioned the impact of
transferable development rights on three downtown properties, all represented by the same professional.
He voiced concern about the lopsided situation in residential areas and the risk to more buildings in town
than anything downtown or commercial. He expressed worry about houses being replaced by cookie-cutter
mansions and advocated for opportunities for property owners to consider preserving them fairly.
Ms. French clarified that assigning a number to a goal does not prevent work from commencing. Once
designated as Goal 4, it is on the Board’s radar to seek permission to allocate resources. Meanwhile, a
subcommittee could collaborate with staff to discuss previously heard matters and work on this table.
Board Member Pease expressed his understanding of the sensitivity and including it in the work plans.
However, he emphasized the importance of the Board establishing a credible framework, without which he
saw no need for staff work.
Ms. French proposed taking a vote.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz responded that she would prefer not to vote on the order if the Board could
agree that all items are important and will be addressed.
Item 5
Attachment A - HRB 4.11
Minutes
Packet Pg. 76
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Ms. French suggested removing the numbers entirely, listing the items in order of appearance with bullet
points
Board Member Willis felt that numbers would be useful for reference purposes.
Ms. French highlighted that the work plan specifies the quarter to initiate each goal. She explained that if
it is a Category 4, she could still refer to it along the lines of “begin quarter 1 with subcommittee meeting
with staff…” and leading up to more extensive work.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz agreed with this approach
Ms. French initiated a discussion on the CLG Report, covering October 2022 through September 2023.
During this period, there were thirteen HRB meetings, with eight HRB members serving due to a member’s
departure and a replacement joining. HRB members and staff attended various trainings, which were
individually reported. She mentioned that she would attach a list of properties previously deemed
‘potentially eligible’ that were professionally evaluated for eligibility for the California Register during the
reporting period. The report, found on page 39 of the packet, includes these details. She also mentioned
that the Office of Historic Preservation would provide feedback on any draft changes to the historic
ordinance.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted that all of her trainings were through the California Association of
Museums Annual Conference. The Palo Alto Art Center was a moderator for one of the panel discussions,
but it was all through the Annual Conference.
Ms. French acknowledged this and agreed to make the necessary adjustment.
Vice Chair Rohman mentioned her participation in the Secretary of Interior Standards Bootcamp organized
by the California Preservation Foundation.
Ms. French replied requested the details and agreed to make the appropriate adjustments.
Vice Chair Rohman agreed to provide the information via email and inquired about including her degree
courses.
Ms. French welcomed this addition.
Board Member Willis suggested an edit on page 142 of the membership section to include professional
titles, such as “H. Caroline Willis, Architect” and the same for Board Member Heinrich.
Ms. French agreed to the adjustment and confirmed that she would initiate contact with Board Member
Heinrich.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas
Ms. French informed the Board of an upcoming meeting scheduled for April 22, 2024, and assured them
that she would forward the details once they were published.
Board Member Willis shared that the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST) will resume tours starting in May.
Some of the scheduled tours include Stanford’s Palo Alto on May 11th, Upper College Terrace on May 18th,
University Avenue on May 25th, and Greenmeadow on June 1st.
Ms. French mentioned that the PAST website can be accessed via the City website.
Adjournment
MOTION
Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Pease, the motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
Item 5
Attachment A - HRB 4.11
Minutes
Packet Pg. 77
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Item 5
Attachment A - HRB 4.11
Minutes
Packet Pg. 78