Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-10 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, October 10, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Historic Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o n YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas are available at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512) Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions and Actions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments 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.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 1023 Forest Ave. (24PLN‐00172) Request for Major Historic Resource Board Review for the rehabilitation and restoration of an existing Category 2 home. Original historic belvedere and brick chimneys. New incidental exterior window and door replacement; introduction of new hardscape elements including entry gates, brick paths, driveway, and wood deck; and new detached single car garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: R‐1 (Single Family Residential). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Approval of Minutes from July 11, 2024 Historic Resources Board Meeting 4.Approval of Minutes from August 8, 2024, Historic Resources Board meeting 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 October 10, 2024 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, October 10, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMHistoric Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments 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.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 1023 Forest Ave. (24PLN‐00172) Request for Major Historic Resource Board Review for the rehabilitation and restoration of an existing Category 2 home. Original historic belvedere and brick chimneys. New incidental exterior window and door replacement; introduction of new hardscape elements including entry gates, brick paths, driveway, and wood deck; and new detached single car garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: R‐1 (Single Family Residential). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Approval of Minutes from July 11, 2024 Historic Resources Board Meeting 4.Approval of Minutes from August 8, 2024, Historic Resources Board meeting 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 October 10, 2024 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, October 10, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMHistoric Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 1023 Forest Ave. (24PLN‐00172) Request for MajorHistoric Resource Board Review for the rehabilitation and restoration of an existingCategory 2 home. Original historic belvedere and brick chimneys. New incidental exteriorwindow and door replacement; introduction of new hardscape elements including entrygates, brick paths, driveway, and wood deck; and new detached single car garage.Environmental Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Section 15303 (New Construction orConversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: R‐1 (Single Family Residential).APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Approval of Minutes from July 11, 2024 Historic Resources Board Meeting4.Approval of Minutes from August 8, 2024, Historic Resources Board meetingBOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  3 Regular Meeting October 10, 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: October 10, 2024 Report #: 2408-3405 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. No action is required by the HRB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 HRB Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: 2025 HRB Meeting Schedule AUTHOR/TITLE: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 4     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 8/8/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/12/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 10/10/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/14/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/12/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 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. 5     Historic Resources Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/9/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/10/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/8/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/12/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/10/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/14/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/11/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/9/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/11/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2025 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment B: 2025 HRB Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 9 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 10, 2024 Report #: 2406-3192 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1023 Forest Ave. (24PLN-00172) Request for Major Historic Resource Board Review for the rehabilitation and restoration of an existing Category 2 home. Original historic belvedere and brick chimneys. New incidental exterior window and door replacement; introduction of new hardscape elements including entry gates, brick paths, driveway, and wood deck; and new detached single car garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: R-1 (Single Family Residential). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend that the application is consistent with the standards of review contained in Municipal Code Section 16.49.050, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On June 19, 2024, a Major HRB Review and Home Improvement Exception (HIE) request was submitted for the historic rehabilitation, restoration, and of an existing Category 2 resource ‘Major Building’ on the City’s Inventory. The associated HIE request includes 334 square feet of floor area (104 square feet for the belvedere and 230 square feet for the garage) in excess of what is allowed for the site, and construction of the belvedere above the maximum 33-foot height limit. It’s important to note that the HRB may only inform the findings for the HIE request. No recommendation is requested or required for the HIE. PAMC Section 16.49.050 provides that the HRB shall review and provide non-binding recommendations on applications for alterations to single-family and duplex residences which are historic structures/sites. Staff requests that the HRB recommend that the application is consistent with the review procedures in PAMC 16.49 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for Rehabilitation and Restoration. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Major HRB Review for the rehabilitation and restoration of an existing Category 2 home including restoring the original historic belvedere and two non-original brick chimneys. The construction of a new single car garage, incidental exterior window and door replacements, and the introduction of new hardscape elements including entry gates, brick paths, driveway, and wood deck in the rear of the residence are also proposed. See Attachment A (Project Plans). For a more in-depth project description, see Attachment B (Applicant’s Letter). BACKGROUND The house at 1023 Forest Ave was constructed around 1896 in the Queen Anne architectural style. Originally designed by architect Charles H. Barrett and constructed by builder M.P. Madison, the three-story residence boasts many extravagant architectural features such as turned woodwork, turret, belvedere (third floor open porch), decorative carving, and other design elements that provide visual interest. It was built for $6,500 for Mrs. A.G. Herzinger, who occupied it until about 1907. Though the residence survived the 1906 earthquake, it sustained substantial damage that altered its architectural form. Photographic evidence shows that there was once a belvedere on the third floor with a dome shaped roof. It is believed that the belvedere was damaged when the unreinforced masonry chimney collapsed in the earthquake. Though the chimney was rebuilt, the belvedere was not. Shortly after the earthquake, the property was owned by Ernest R. (an automobile agent) and Angie Smith until around 1920. Records indicate, it stood vacant in the twenties and thirties. Clifton H. Woodhams was the occupant from 1948-1955. He was a Stanford graduate born in Los Altos, who had a long and successful career in Redwood City with the San Kateo County Title Co. He helped establish the municipal band and Peninsula Symphony, was a trustee of the Sequoia school district for 16 years, and in 1969 was named Redwood City’s "outstanding citizen of the year. In 1955 the original 42,205 square foot lot was subdivided into five (5) separate lots, resulting in the 9,728 square foot lot that the residence is still sited on today, as well as the adjacent lots that today are developed with other residential uses. In 1979 the property was identified through City survey efforts. This 1979 survey would later result in what is now the City’s local inventory. The property was reevaluated in 1983 and was attributed a Category 2 “Major Building” that signifies it is a property of regional importance. Category 2 resources are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. ANALYSIS PAMC 16.49.050 provides, in part, that in evaluating applications, the HRB shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. The prime concern should be the exterior appearance of the building site. The proposed alterations should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the building and its site. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 In 1987, the City Council adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for Rehabilitation for use by the Historic Resources Board. The Standards for Rehabilitation promote historic preservation best practices that help to protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. Compliance of the property owner with the HRB recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory1. Compliance with SOIS The following two tables summarize the project’s compliance with the SOIS for the treatment of Historic Properties for restoration and rehabilitation. #SOIS FOR RESTORATION ANALYSIS 1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that interprets the property and its restoration period.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: 1023 Forest Ave was originally constructed as a residence. The property would continue to be used as a residence and the project does not propose any new uses. 2 Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: No conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings will be added to the building. The existing non-original chimneys replaced after the 1906 earthquake would be restored to closely match their original configuration in shape, color, and texture. The chimneys would be recreated using a similar metal stud and thin brick method and restored to their original design with arched caps. No elements of the original belvedere remain on the structure. Further discussion of material choices and features for its proposed restoration are found in Standard 6. 3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The original fireplaces will be converted to gas using a double-walled insulated metal flue liner, and the reconstructed second (west) chimney flue to be used for a kitchen hood exhaust. The two chimneys would remain distinct by their modern metal stud and thin brick construction method to replicate the original shape, color, and texture. The restoration of the belvedere would introduce a metal roof for the conical portion of its roof. This would be distinct from the other roofing materials and easily recognized as a product of a later addition while still maintaining compatibility with the original design. 4 Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA 1 PAMC 16.49.050(b) Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 #SOIS FOR RESTORATION ANALYSIS historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. Explanation: No major changes or additions have occurred since the structure was completed that have acquired their own historic significance. No impact is anticipated with the proposed restoration work to remove materials, features, spaces, or finishes. 5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: As described in Standard 4, distinctive features, finishes, and examples of craftsmanship will be preserved in their entirety. While the proposed project does involve the removal of some features that resulted as alterations after the structure’s period of significance, such as the replacement of non-historic windows and a window to door replacement, the distinctive features and finishes of the structure will still be preserved. Discussion of the metal roof is found in standard 6 and 7. 6 Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The original roof was once constructed of wooden shingles that were custom cut, steamed, and shaped to conform to the conical turret and bell-shaped belvedere roof elements. However, since no elements of the original belvedere remain on the structure and the roof over the rest of the residence has since been replaced with a composite shingle, the replacement of the distinctive belvedere roof would be difficult to closely match the original design in composite shingles. Utilizing a metal roof would produce a better-quality design and avoid shingle lines looking un- uniform, chaotic, and messy in appearance. The proposed chimneys would be restored to their original arched cap design. Investigation of the interior brick work provided that the protruding portions of the two chimneys are non-original. Restoring the non-original brick chimneys with replacement materials would be in substantial conformance with Standard 6. 7 Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: Careful research utilizing generative AI and historic photographs as guides informed the approximate sizes, characteristics, and details of the proposed belvedere columns, railings, and the acanthus leaf Vitruvian scroll frieze motif. Forensic investigation inside the interior walls revealed that the original brick appears darker brown and smoother than the un- original reconstructed portions of the chimneys. The proposed chimney work would closely resemble their original design with arched caps. Though keeping the recreated roof over the belvedere in composition shingle would be preferred, the applicant could not identify a viable option to be adapted for the Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 #SOIS FOR RESTORATION ANALYSIS roof’s geometry. Considering this, the choice to utilize the metal roofing material will help distinguish the roofing material as not original, yet non-distracting and complementary. No false sense of history would be anticipated by introducing the metal roof. 8 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The project does not include any physical or chemical treatments to clean or remove historic materials or finishes. 9 Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: Limited excavation will be required for the project. It does not appear likely that the project would disturb any ground that was not previously disturbed during the original construction or subsequent work throughout the years. In the case of discovery of archaeological materials, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project will adhere to Restoration Standard 8. 10 Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The project only proposes to construct design elements that were previously constructed and part of the original architectural design. No other work is proposed that would create a design element that was not constructed or executed. The remaining project items would be captured with the SOIS for rehabilitation as a treatment for the historic property, as follows: #SOIS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: 1023 Forest Ave was originally constructed as a residence. The property would continue to be used as a residence and the project does not propose any new uses. 2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved in the proposed project. No alterations Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 #SOIS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS characterize a property will be avoided. are proposed that would alter or diminish the historic character of the building. Three flat low-profile operable skylights are proposed. These would not be visible from Forest Ave and are not anticipated to affect the historic character of the structure. On the third floor an aluminum slider window is proposed to be replaced with a more complementary three section double hung wood window unit. On the first floor a previous kitchen remodel introduced an uncharacteristic 34 square foot curved arched windows. The plans propose to replace these arched windows with a more regular arrangement that is more characteristic with the architectural style. Lastly, a non-original kitchen entry door is proposed to be replaced with a window and the rear door to replaced with a window to make access more convenient. 3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: No conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings will be added to the building. A new wooden deck is proposed at the rear of the structure. The design of the railing, balustrade, and steps draw on the historic design components of the structure without seeking to exactly replicate them. Two wrought iron pedestrian gates and one auto gate is proposed. A new single car garage is also proposed at the rear of the structure with a complementary material palette as the main structure without suggesting it is historic. These features would be recognized as products of their own time. 4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: No changes or additions since the original construction have, in their own right, acquired historic significance. The project chooses to remedy previous unsympathetic alterations with replacing aluminum windows on the third floor, arched windows on the first floor, and replacing a non-original door with a window. 5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: As described in Standard 2, distinctive features, finishes, and examples of craftsmanship will be preserved in their entirety. While the proposed project does involve the removal of non-original features such as windows and doors that were products of previous remodels, these changes would not inadvertently remove any distinctive materials or features from the property. Thus, the project is substantially in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 5. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 #SOIS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The project does not include any deteriorated historic materials that will be removed. The table detailing SOIS compliance for restoration speaks to the replacement of the lost belvedere and two arched capped chimneys. Since these features no longer remain in their original form, there is no features to repair. Replacement features are substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The project does not include any physical or chemical treatments to clean or remove historic materials or finishes. 8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: Limited excavation will be required for the project. It does not appear likely that the project would disturb any ground that was not previously disturbed during the original construction or subsequent work throughout the years. In the case of discovery of archaeological materials, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project will adhere to Restoration Standard 8. 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The proposed new single car garage will utilize a complementary material palette as the main structure without suggesting it is historic. The new garage would also be sited at the rear of the structure and not affect the spatial relationship of the residence to the property site. The design of the new proposed deck at the rear of the structure draws on the historic design components of the structure without seeking to exactly replicate them. The railing, balustrade, and steps would be represented as products of their own time. Two wrought iron pedestrian gates and one auto gate is proposed. These would blend well with the design of the residence and differentiated from other historic components. 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The proposed new single car garage and wrought iron gates would be located away from the main structure. Should in the future these new additions be removed, it is not anticipated that they would affect the form or integrity of the main historic structure. The newly proposed deck would be attached to the Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 #SOIS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS main residence, but should it be removed in the future the deck removal would not affect the integrity of the structure. The proposed deck will not alter any structural or character defining features of the historic residence. Home Improvement Exception Findings The HRB may only inform the following findings for the HIE request. Applications for a HIE are reviewed and acted upon as set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.075 and approved based upon findings under PAMC Section 18.12.120, as follows: 1. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style, neighborhood character, protected tree as defined in Chapter 8.10, or other significant tree, or of a residence that is designated on the city's Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, or any contributing structure within a locally designated historic district, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations; and 2. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 3. The exception is being granted based on characteristics of the property and improvements on the property, rather than the personal circumstances of the applicant, and is the minimum exception necessary for the project to fulfill the purposes of subsection (a). Subsection (a) provides the purpose of a HIE is to enable a home improvement or minor addition to an existing single-family or two-family home, or accessory structure, or both, to be consistent with the existing architectural style of the house or neighborhood, to accommodate a significant or protected tree, or to protect the integrity of a historic structure in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. By enabling adaptive reuse of existing buildings, the home improvement exception promotes retention of existing houses within the city. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Secretary for Resources has found that certain classes or projects have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. The proposed project meets the criteria for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS, OUTREACH, AND COMMENTS Notice of this HRB hearing appeared in the Daily Post on September 27, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommend action, the HRB may: 1. Continue the discussion of the application to a date certain with specific direction to staff or the applicant. 2. Recommend that that the application is not consistent with the standards of review contained in Municipal Code and the SOIS for Rehabilitation and Restoration. HRB should specify which standards are of concern and how the project does not comply. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Project Plans Attachment B: Applicant’s Letter AUTHOR/TITLE: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     ATTACHMENT B Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1023 Forest Ave” and open record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “C2_1023FOR_PLN.pdf (Project Plans)” and dated 09/17/24 to review the plan set. Item 2 Attachment A: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 16     Lippert & Lippert Design 580 Hawthorne Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301-1211 phone: 650/323-5961 cell: 650/444-4882 September 12, 2024 (revised) Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th. Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Barbero/Katchatryan Residence, 1023 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Dear Mr. Switzer, The A.G. Herzinger House located at 1023 Forest Avenue is one of Palo Alto’s oldest homes. Built in 1896 the Victorian Queen Anne style house is currently a category 2 resource on the City of Palo Alto historic inventory, was designed by architect C.H. Barrett, and built by M.P. Madison. At the time of construction the property was located in unincorporated Palo Alto, on the tract later known as the Ashby Addition. At the time Boyce and Hale Streets were the Palo Alto city limits; where Forest Avenue dog legs. Once becoming annexed as part of the City of Palo Alto, Forest Court was renamed Forest Avenue. Subsequently the property was subdivided and developed, with a new side street and cul-de-sac was named Forest Court. A decade after the house was completed the three-story Victorian home survived the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, but not without sustaining substantial damage. Originally there was a bell shaped belvedere (open porch) on the third story, which was destroyed. It is believed the belvedere was torn from the house when the original unreinforced masonry chimney flue collapsed during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. If you look at the original photograph of the home one can observe the belvedere is connected to the original brick arched topped chimney with an iron connector rod. The masonry chimney flue was rebuilt, however the belvedere was not. There was a second arched topped chimney flue on the west side, which is believed collapsed at the same time. Mrs. Herzinger moved out of the home in 1907. It is our proposal to replicate and recreate the original belvedere using the original historical photograph as a guide. We’ve been able to use generative AI tools and existing cues from the second story porch to successfully approximate sizes, characteristics, and details of the original belvedere columns, railings, and the acanthus leaf Vitruvian scroll frieze motif. Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 17     Lippert & Lippert Design page RE: Barbero/Katchatryan Residence, 1023 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Further, it is our goal to replace the existing failing non-historic masonry chimney flue with a non-combustible metal studs and double-walled flue liner, with a thin brick clad replica of the original historic arch topped chimney flue. While there was only black & white photography, we’re able to identify the existing non-historic brick chimney as a non-original replacement to the home through the shape and configuration of the brick pattern, red color, and hammered textured brick face. Through our forensic investigation inside the interior walls the original brick appears darker brown and smoother. The height and configuration of the original chimney flue can be calculated by the size of the footprint of the remaining original brick chimney and counting brick courses. It is our proposal to replicate and recreate the second chimney flue on the west exterior using a similar metal stud and thin brick method. Neither of these chimneys will be wood burning. The original fireplace will be converted to gas using a double- walled insulated metal flue liner, and the reconstructed second (west) chimney flue to be used for kitchen hood exhaust. It was also discovered there is an existing quarter round leaded stained glass window concealed in the wall to the right of the masonry chimney flue. The lead has sagged over the years, and the window is currently being restored and re-supported with pencil rods. The home is currently undergoing reroofing and seismic upgrading under building permit 22BLD-00466. Early on it was identified the original 2x4 roof rafters at 32”o.c. were significantly over span. Using the existing roof pattern we introduced new 2x8 roof rafters at 16”o.c.; sistering them to the existing framing. However, in the process of strengthening the roof this tripled the weight, creating new seismic load complications and challenges. This was accomplished by bringing the seismic roof loads down internally to the foundation through a series of shear walls and steel moment frames. It was later discovered the existing original basement and crawlspace was unreinforced masonry, thereby creating other complications anchoring the shear walls and moment frames to the foundation. Further, the home is located in a flood hazard zone, and the unreinforced masonry foundation was deteriorating; thereby jeopardizing the home’s structural integrity. It was decided to replace the entire unreinforced masonry basement and crawlspace with a new concrete stem-wall, mat-slab, and waterproof membrane under building permit revision 22REV-00699. The new roof framing, shear walls, moment frames, basement, crawlspace, and foundation have been completed. Reroofing has not begun pending dryer weather. The original historic roof material was wood shingles, with a 5-inch exposure, on spaced sheathing. These materials are visible from the underside of the attic. At the time the house was built in 1896 it wasn’t Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 18     Lippert & Lippert Design page RE: Barbero/Katchatryan Residence, 1023 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA uncommon to employ cedar shingles and shakes, as these materials could be easily custom cut, steamed, and shaped to conform to the conical turret, curved balcony roof, and bell shaped belvedere roof elements. This art has been lost, and the finished product is undesirable due to the building code requiring the roof diaphragm be shear plywood or other suitable structural substrate. The existing ” x 6” spaced sheathing boards no longer comply, and solid sheathing will not allow for cedar shingles and shakes to breath. Unfortunately, the original roof had been previously covered over with asphalt composition shingles. It is approved (building permit 22BLD-00466) to reroof the house using primarily asphalt composition shingles. However, composition shingles are problematic with the compound curved shape of the conical turret, balcony, and bell roofs. Even with trimming, these shapes cause the composition shingle lines to be un-uniform, chaotic, and messy in appearance. We suggest and propose using prefinished and preformed interlocking metal standing seam roof panels on the belvedere roof. This will distinguish the roofing material as not original; yet non-distracting and complementary. While the existing roof doesn’t have any skylights, we propose the introduction of three (3) flat low-profile operable skylights on the east, west, and north roofs to reduce the home’s energy loads; allowing for natural light and ventilation, and improve indoor airflow. These are discreetly placed and are not directly visible from Forest Avenue. The proposed skylights will be insulated glass, with interior sunshades, employing a low profile 2”x4” curb. There is an existing shed roof on the third level north exterior that isn’t believed to be original, since it doesn’t share the same architectural vocabulary as the other gable end dormer roof elements. The existing 8’w. x 5’h. aluminum slider window is uncharacteristic to the existing home, and we propose replacing it with a complementary triple double hung wood window unit. In 2017 (building permit 17000-01719, 17REV-00520) a previous kitchen remodel added an uncharacteristic 34 sq. ft. curved addition with arch windows to the west elevation. We propose removing and replacing the three (3) arch windows with a more historically discreet and sympathetic assembly of windows. Prior to this addition the windows were large fixed glass windows. We propose replacing the arch windows with a more rectangular arrangement. Further, we propose swapping locations of the rear kitchen entry door (non-historic) with a window location, centralizing and making rear access more convenient. There are several exterior landscape improvements being proposed: 1.) The introduction and adaptation of a Victorian era brick and wrought iron pedestrian entry gate at Forest Avenue, and a brick and wrought iron auto and pedestrian service gate at the rear cul-de-sac. Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 19     Lippert & Lippert Design page RE: Barbero/Katchatryan Residence, 1023 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 2.) Replacement of existing non-historic 8”x16” concrete pavers, with new context appropriate traditional brick herringbone pattern pervious pavers. 3.)A new rear wood deck, railing, balustrade, and steps which draws on historic components of the existing home, without seeking to exactly replicate those elements. 4.) Replacement of the existing impervious asphalt parking, with a new coordinated brick herringbone pervious paver driveway. Lastly, we propose a new 230 sq. ft. single car garage, accessible from the rear cul-de-sac, drawing on a complementary material palette as the main house without seeking to suggest it as historic. Because of the proximity of the garage to the interior property lines, this would be constructed of non- combustible materials without an overhang on three sides. The garage rear would have an overhang for compost, recycling, and landfill waste bins. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Development Regulations, Chapter 18.10.130 Historic Review Incentives, (b) Exemptions to gross floor area requirements are available to historic residences pursuant gross floor area in Section 18.04.030(65)(D)(vii). a.New or existing basement area, including where the existing finished level of the first floor is three feet or more above grade around the perimeter of the building foundation walls; and b. Up to 500 square feet of unusable attic space in excess of five feet in height from the floor to the roof above. Home Improvement Exceptions provide for additional square footage and certain other exceptions for historic homes pursuant to Section18.12.120 (R- 1 Chapter). We are requesting a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) for the incidental floor area for the third story open belvedere (104 sq. ft.), and the proposed detached garage (230 sq. ft.) for a total of 334 sq. ft. Further, the proposed belvedere exceeds 33’ h.; the maximum height limit for 12:12 sloped roofs, and encroaches into the daylight plane and interior side yard setback. We believe the below sections of Palo Alto Municipal Code apply: Within Palo Alto’s Title 18 Zoning, Development Regulations, Chapter 18.21 R-1 Single-Family Residential Districts, Section 18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions, (b) Applicability, (c) Limits of the Home Improvement Exception, (10) For any residence designated on the city's Historic Inventory as a Category 1 through 4 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code … to allow up to 250 square feet of floor area in excess of that allowed on the site, provided that any requested addition or exterior modifications associated with the HIE shall be in substantial conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 20     Lippert & Lippert Design page RE: Barbero/Katchatryan Residence, 1023 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Further, (12) to allow a horizontal extension (pursuant to Section 18.12.050(a) (Setback/Yard Encroachments and Projections) of a portion of an existing legal nonconforming building wall that is more than twelve feet above grade. Such horizontal extensions must remain within the height and daylight plane limits for the district unless an HIE or variance for a height or daylight plane encroachment is granted. Lastly, (13) to allow an increase in the height of an existing legally non- conforming building wall that encroaches into a setback. Such vertical extensions must remain within the height and daylight plane limits for the district unless an HIE or variance for a height or daylight plane encroachment is granted. We feel replacement and replication of the proposed belvedere is an essential architectural feature of the original historic 1896 Queen Anne Victorian style home, represents (12) an extension of a portion of the existing legally nonconforming building, and (13) an increase in the height of an existing legally non-conforming building wall that encroaches into a setback. Because the original historic belvedere deck (porch footprint) already exists and is accessible, and the proposed belvedere is an open porch on multiple sides (229º), non-habitable space, we assert the defined floor area (104 sq. ft.) is incidental to the maximum allowable floor area. Because the original and chimney flues and belvedere were destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the proposed chimney flues and belvedere seeks to restore and complete the original appearance of the original historic 1896 Queen Anne Victorian home. We believe Home Improvement Exception (HIE) findings could be made: (1) The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style … or of a residence that is designated on the city's Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, … which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations The existing maximum allowable floor area calculates accordingly: Site Size: .22 acres = 9,728 sq. ft. (see site survey in drawing set) 45% x 5,000 sq. ft. = 2,250 sq.ft. 30% x 4,728 sq. ft. = 1,480 sq. ft. MAX. ALLOWABLE FAR: 3,730 sq. ft. Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 21     Lippert & Lippert Design page RE: Barbero/Katchatryan Residence, 1023 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA We have calculated the existing floor area documented in the drawing plan set accordingly: Exist. Basement Level: 1,163 sq. ft. (exempt from floor area) Exist 1st. Floor Level: 1,840 sq. ft. (1st. level porches exempt) Exist. 2nd. Floor Level: 1,953 sq. ft. (includes existing porches) Existing 3rd. Floor Level: 1,149 sq. ft. (includes existing porches) Total Existing Floor Area: 4,942 sq. ft. (legally existing non-conforming) Proposed Belvedere Porch: 104 sq. ft. (non-habitable space) Proposed Detached Garage: 230 sq. ft. (non-habitable space) Proposed Additional Area: 334 sq. ft. (Home Improvement Exception) Total Existing Floor Area: 4,942 sq. ft. (legally existing non-conforming) TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 5,276 sq. ft. When the original home was built the original property was 42,205 sq. ft. (150’ x 281.87’). Then in 1955 the property was subdivided into five (5) single-family lots. The original subdivided parcel could easily support the existing 4,942 sq. ft. home. Further, Forest Court and the cul-de-sac was considered a 20’ private road shared by all the property owners. At the time Forest Court and the cul-de-sac was part of the subdivision map; and considered a portion of each of the individual properties. Included in this documentation is the December 1954 Record of Survey of a Subdivision. Subsequently Forest Court and the cul-de-sac became a dedicated public right-of-way and public utility easement. At the time the City of Palo Alto approved the subdivision, and dedicated right-of-way it would have been required that the historic 1896 home, and the other homes built on Forest Court, comply with the development regulations then in place. Up until the mid-1980’s Palo Alto didn’t have a maximum floor area as part of the R-1 Development Regulations. The intent and purpose of adopting Development Regulations regarding maximum floor area was to establish limits for oversized developer homes. The historic Queen Anne Victorian home was well suited for the 9,728 sq. ft. lot. However, the original historic 1896 home pre-dates mass production of cars during the automobile era. It’s a bit ironic that the reduction of site area through the dedication of the right- of-way would preclude the property from having a covered parking space. Within Palo Alto’s current Municipal Code, Development Regulations, Chapter 18.21 R-1 Single-Family Residential Districts, Section 18.12.060 Parking, (a) Parking for Specific Uses, Table 4 shows the minimum off- street automobile parking requirements for specific uses within the R-1 district. In Table 4 Single-Family Residential Uses the Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirement is 2 spaces per unit, of which one must be covered. Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 22     Lippert & Lippert Design page RE: Barbero/Katchatryan Residence, 1023 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA However, when the original 1896 Queen Anne Victorian style house was built, horseless carriages (automobiles) were not commonplace, therefore at the time garages were not required. The site has the capacity for two off-street tandem parking spaces accessible from a new driveway off the rear cul-de-sac off Forest Court. We are requesting a Home Improvement Exception for 230 sq. ft. of additional floor area for a new detached single-car garage; to be discreetly located in the northeast rear corner (interior side yard) of the property. The requested covered parking would comply with all other required setbacks, height limits, and daylight plane. However, the garage might be considered a reasonable hardship in the R-1 district, as the current property owners cannot achieve what other single-family home owners are otherwise entitle. We therefore request a HIE for a 230 sq. ft. detached single car garage; under Municipal Code, Development Regulations, Chapter 18.21 R-1 Single-Family Residential Districts, Section 18.12.060 Parking. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions, or require additional information. Sincerely, Lee I. Lippert, AIA, Architect Lippert & Lippert Design Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 23     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 24     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 25     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 26     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 27     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 28     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 29     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 30     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 31     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 32     Item 2 Attachment B: Applicant Letter     Packet Pg. 33     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 10, 2024 Report #: 2409-3548 TITLE Approval of Minutes from July 11, 2024 Historic Resources Board Meeting RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and approve the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: July 11, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 34     City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: July 11, 2024 Council Chambers & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on July 11, 2024, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:33 AM. Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz; Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Christian Pease and Caroline Willis Absent: Board Members Michael Makinen and Margaret Wimmer (Zoom technical difficulties) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None Public Comment None City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chief Planning Official Amy French announced that Council modified the HRB meeting schedule ordinance to meet the first of every month. As the HRB is now a five-member board, either Board Member Makinen or Wimmer could serve as the fifth member for the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 8. Special meetings not included in the ordinance’s scheduled dates, such as the quarterly meeting, must be advertised 72 hours in advance and could be held in the evening. On August 5, the Council will interview HRB candidates. After Council appoints new HRB members, a special HRB meeting for a meet and greet could be scheduled for August 22; however, appointments may not occur in August, so staff would work with the Chair to determine an appropriate date. The City Council directed staff to explore alternatives to the use of Potentially Eligible on online parcel reports of potentially eligible historic properties. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer explained that the California Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) provided approximately 36 historic status codes for properties and structures. Staff looked at the way other jurisdictions approached identification of historic properties. Staff proposed the following five status codes: (1) Property listed in the National Register or California Register. (2) Property determined eligible for listing in the National Item 3 Attachment A: July 11, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 35     City of Palo Alto Page 2 Register or California Register. (3) Property recognized as historically significant by local government (City of Palo Alto). (4) Not eligible for listing or designation. (5) Not evaluated for National Register or California Register; may need evaluation. Status Code 3 applied to each property on the inventory. Status Code 5 replaced the potentially eligible status. Staff addressed Board Member Willis’s questions. Steven Switzer stated that properties in historic districts fell under Status Code 3, following the existing local category designation. Amy French provided the following examples. Professorville was locally and nationally designated. Part of Professorville fell under Status Code 1. Eichler Districts were listed on the National Register but not the local register. The Eichler Districts fell under Status Code 1. Ramona Architectural District would be designated as Status Codes 1 and 3. Status Code 1 did not apply to all properties located in a designated historic district. Status Code 1 applied to individually listed National or California registered properties or districts. No individual Eichler homes were listed on the National Register or local inventory, nor were they all contributing structures. The number of contributing properties determined whether it was a national registered district, which allowed for some non-contributors. Discussions will continue at the staff level before bringing this forward to the City Council, likely in the consent calendar report for the two properties applying to be listed on the register. In October, the HRB approved changes to the Historic Review Bulletin. Mr. Switzer was updating the material in the Historic Review Bulletin for consistency and ensuring compliance with State regulations. Changes included shorter, succinct sentences; removal of “potentially eligible” references; and modification of the table orientation to make it more legible and user friendly. Mr. Switzer was waiting until the status codes were determined before rolling out the updated bulletin. Board Member Willis requested staff to send her the chart by email. Ms. French told Board Member Willis that staff published the PowerPoints after the meeting on the HRB webpage and offered to send Board Member Willis a link to this PowerPoint. Mr. Switzer pointed out that the bulletin was not ready for circulation because it was a draft document and subject to change. Ms. French remarked that the exploration directed by City Council to staff would be shared with the Director when he returned in August. Ms. French planned to agendize this topic for the August HRB meeting. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 431-433 Kipling Street [24PLN-00134]: Request for Historic Designation Reclassification, From a Local Historic Resource Category 4 to a Category 2. Environmental Assessment: Not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per Section 21065. Zone District: CD-C (P) - Downtown Commercial District with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. For more information Contact the Project Planner Steven Switzer at Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org. Mr. Switzer presented the request for reclassification of 431 Kipling Street from Category 4 to Category 2. The property was located in the Downtown North neighborhood within the Commercial Downtown with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District, Zone District CD-C(P). 431 Kipling Street was a two-story mixed-use building with a commercial unit on the first floor and a residential unit on the second floor. Item 3 Attachment A: July 11, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 36     City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Switzer provided a chronology of the property. It was built in 1901 by George Mosher. Thoits Brothers took ownership of the property in the 1980s. Since then, the Vino Locale wine bar has operated in the first floor commercial unit. All facades remained unchanged since the 1980s. There were no documented alterations. George Wilbert Mosher was a contractor and craftsman who constructed hundreds of buildings in Palo Alto during the late 19th and 20th centuries. 431 Kipling exemplified the two-story square box identified in the Dames & Survey, an American Foursquare building type with Craftsman stylistic influences. In 1985, the property was surveyed for the local register and identified as Category 4. Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Category 4 was a contributing structure, meaning any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles relating to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, shape, or proportion. On March 19, 2024, Page & Turnbull prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation of the property and determined it was individually eligible for listing on the register under Criteria 2, 5, and 6. Criterion 2: The structure was particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state, or nation. This property was an excellent example of the two-story square box house type in the Downtown North neighborhood, mixed with some Colonial Revival, American Foursquare, and sometimes the vernacular of Greek Revival. Criterion 5: The architect or building was important. George Mosher was a builder of merit who made many important contributions to Palo Alto’s housing stock. Criterion 6: The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design. Elements of the facade include original wood windows with one-over-one double-hung sashes, an original transom with checkered mullions, a shirtwaist course with flared shingle siding, and high- quality tongue-and-groove siding. On May 8, 2024, the applicant requested a reclassification on the Historic Inventory from a Contributing Building Category 4 to a Major Building Category 2. Staff concurred with the findings of the Page & Turnbull Historic Resource Evaluation and supported the owner’s request for a reclassification upgrade from a Category 4 to a Category 2 on the local inventory. Board Member Willis thought the balcony on the right side of the building was an addition. Mr. Switzer replied that review of the City’s records did not reference a balcony addition. Samantha Purnell from Page & Turnbull stated that the building’s original footprint showed a projecting bay at the right side, so they believed the porch was original. Board Member Willis noted aspects of the eaves and the lower porch enclosure suggested the balcony was an addition to the original building. Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects made a presentation on behalf of his client, Thoits Bros. and John Shenk. Mr. Shenk was unable to attend this meeting but had asked Mr. Hayes to deliver Thoits Bros.’ message of having deep care and respect for the community. Thoits Bros. wanted to memorialize these historic buildings by elevating their historic classification. The immediate neighborhood was an early 20th Century residential block where all buildings were listed as 2, 3, or 4 on the local inventory. Sanborn maps showed 431 was probably the first structure on this property on Kipling. The front Item 3 Attachment A: July 11, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 37     City of Palo Alto Page 4 elevation was decorated with stylistic elements of Colonial Revival and Craftsman. There was a 1919 rear addition. The building retained its original form with the front porch, balcony, exposed rafter tails, Tuscan columns, shirtwaist belt course, flared wood shingles, tongue-and-groove siding, windows with checkered mullion pattern, and ogee lugs. In 1985, it was elevated on Palo Alto’s Inventory to a Category 4 contributing building. The City recently hired Page & Turnbull to conduct a historic evaluation. Page & Turnbull determined the building met qualifying Criteria 2, 5, and 6, and recommended elevating the building to a Category 2 Major Historic Resource. Although not required for Palo Alto listing, the building maintained integrity of location, setting, design materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Mr. Hayes urged the Board to recommend to Council that 431 be elevated to a Category 2 historic listing, as per staff’s recommendation. There was no public comment. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments from the Board. Board Member Willis wanted to convey to Public Works her suggestion to do something with the parking lot across the street to enhance the row of historic houses. In the future, Board Member Willis hoped the Board would discuss making this a historic district. Motion Recommend to Council that 431-433 Kipling Street be upgraded from a Category 4 to a Category 2. MOTION: By Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz, seconded by Board Member Pease. VOTE: Passed 4-0-2 by roll call vote (Board Members Makinen and Margaret Wimmer absent). Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 9, 2024 Public Comment Herb Borock requested two corrections regarding his comments. At the bottom of Page 2, it said he noted that the Council introduced the first name Frederick. Mr. Borock said his oral and written comments were that nobody on the Council mentioned the name Frederick and it was somebody from the City Clerk’s Office who introduced the name Frederick. On Page 5, Mr. Borock’s comments in the middle of the page on the fourth line referred to Public Office candidates identifying themselves as historic figures. Mr. Borock’s statement was Public Office candidates identifying themselves as advocates for historic preservation. On Page 82 of the Board’s packet, Page 9 of the minutes, the fourth paragraph included comments by Council Member Kou about the Mills Act. Board Member Willis thought the comments referred to local inventory and not the Mills Act. Ms. French stated that staff could listen to the video to see if there was an error in the minutes. Council Member Kou thought she said the Mills Act but she would watch the video to confirm. Item 3 Attachment A: July 11, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 38     City of Palo Alto Page 5 MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved to approve the May 9 meeting minutes with any corrections to sections identified for further review. Vice Chair Rohman seconded. VOTE: Passed 4-0-2 by voice vote (Board Members Makinen and Margaret Wimmer absent). Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Vice Chair Rohman announced she had not received any additions, subtractions, or corrections to the letter to Council on the Mills Act pilot. Vice Chair Rohman asked Board Members to route their comments through Mr. Switzer and Ms. French so Vice Chair Rohman could make edits before finalizing the letter. Ms. French stated this could be Board Member Makinen’s last meeting. Ms. French thanked Board Member Makinen for his service. Adjournment MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved to adjourn. Vice Chair Rohman seconded. VOTE: Passed 4-0-2 by voice vote (Board Members Makinen and Margaret Wimmer absent). Meeting adjourned at 9:12 AM. Item 3 Attachment A: July 11, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 39     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: October 10, 2024 Report #: 2409-3547 TITLE Approval of Minutes from August 8, 2024 Historic Resources Board meeting RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and approve the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 40     City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: August 8, 2024 Council Chambers 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on August 8, 2024, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:43 AM. Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Christian Pease, Caroline Willis, and Margaret Wimmer Absent: None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None Public Comment None City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chief Planning Official Amy French announced that this meeting is a Historic Resources Board Retreat which is open to the public. Three people attended via Zoom. Ms. French turned the meeting over to Mr. Switzer. Mr. Switzer discussed the remaining meetings scheduled this year. The quorum presently has three members. The two members whose terms have expired were invited to attend and participate. Interviews were conducted on August 5 to replace those 2 board members. Those appointments are scheduled to take place at the August 12 meeting. The newly appointed members will be introduced during the September 12 meeting. The election for the new chair and vice chair will be held on October 10. A City Council meeting will be held on August 19 regarding the 2023 Recognizance Survey, adding 5 properties to the inventory: 211 Quarry Road, 825 Kipling Street, 1215 Emerson Street, 904 Bryant Street, and 751 Channing Ave. HRB staff had been doing website maintenance and updates to the HRB and Historical Preservation pages. Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 41     City of Palo Alto Page 2 Study Session 2. Historic Resources Board Retreat: Discussion of the Following Potential Topics: (1) Draft Mills Act Letter; (2) Historic Review Bulletin; (3) Historic Preservation Awards; (4) HRB Workplan; (5) Historic Status Label in Parcel Report Public Comment None Mr. Switzer noted that this will be the finalization of the Draft Mills Act Letter, which will be sent to the City Council and will satisfy HRB’s FY 23-24 Workplan Goal 5. Board Member Pease sent an attachment to this item regarding the Tailored Mills Act Program, which was distributed to the Board for their review. Ms. French invited questions and comments from the Board. Board Member Willis questioned the best way to revise the document to present to the City Council. Mr. Switzer thought the latest version of the Pilot Program document was updated in 2018. He said Board Member Pease requested more staff time be devoted to making applicable revisions to the document. Board Member Willis commented that the HRB could rewrite the document and prepare it for the Board’s approval. It was her opinion that the document had not changed since last month’s meeting. She questioned if the letter is sent to City Council now, would the Pilot Program be attached in its current form. Vice Chair Rohman said the intention was to send it to the City Council as a working document open to revision. She marked the document with notes and questions she had for the City Council and was treating it as a working document. Mr. Switzer added that the City Council might provide a more tailored program, as the name itself suggests, and any modifications could be implemented at the local level. Board Member Willis pleaded for a more polished document. She asked if the City’s attorney had reviewed the document because she is bothered by the agreement term and is concerned that making changes to the terms of the agreement may not be legal. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz felt it would be more efficient to send the letter now and get a general sense of the City Council’s position before wasting staff resources on altering a document they are uninterested in pursuing. Board Member Willis wanted the document to go to the City Council for review. She claimed there were three Council members who strongly supported this. Board Member Willis did not want to hesitate and wanted to present the strongest case possible to get each member’s support. Mr. Switzer agreed. Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 42     City of Palo Alto Page 3 Vice Chair Rohman questioned what a realistic timeline would be to get the document revised and sent to the City Council. Ms. French suggested having staff weigh in on the revisions and then send the document to the City Council asking for their feedback, as per normal practice and City Council’s expectation. As far as the timing, Ms. French is unsure. Mr. Switzer agreed to send the letter. Board Member Wimmer said she was on this subcommittee in 2017 and 2018. She spent a lot of time working on this. She felt it was presentable in its current state. It is up-to-date and comprehensive, and she is ready to share it with Council to get their feedback. She thought that revisions, reevaluations, and changes will need to be made once they receive Council’s feedback. Ms. French noted that when staff prepares the staff reports for the City Council, the City attorneys will review the report but have not looked at the document to date. It will be reviewed after the Board revises the document. Board Member Willis suggested putting a timeline in place for the Tailored Program outline. She wondered if they could agree to get any revisions completed within the current year. Mr. Switzer said it could be done. Ms. French thought it could be feasible because this Board has seen it multiple times and have had opportunities to amend it and had not done so. Board Member Willis suggested changing the revision date on the document from January 2018 to July 2024 but Ms. French pointed out that there were not any revisions made, therefore, the date could not be changed. Board Member Willis expressed her desire to revise the document before the City Council views it. She felt that once the City attorney reviews the contract, he is going to have revisions and feedback. Ms. French explained that the staff reports would bring forward any studies and the Board could then comment and critique the proposed document. They will alert the Board if the City attorney discovers any issues. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz reminded the Board that if the letter went to the City Council, it is still open to modification at a variety of points during the process. She thanked Vice Chair Rohman for her hard work preparing and drafting the letter. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if there were any additional comments or questions about the letter. Board Member Pease made a motion to send the document to the City Council. Chair Eagleston- Ciezlewicz seconded the motion. Board Member Willis asked for clarification on whether this vote means that they are sending the document before the staff and the Board has the chance to make revisions. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz and Mr. Switzer explained that there will be an attachment sent with the letter. Board Member Willis had a few corrections she wanted to address on the draft report. On Page 6 of the document, it says City Tax Collector instead of Santa Clara County Tax Collector. Mr. Switzer clarifies that the letter does reference further revisions could be implemented on this program. If the City is going to pursue a Mills Act contract and program, they have to meet minimum State requirements. At the local level, they will be able to implement further requirements and restrictions. Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 43     City of Palo Alto Page 4 Board Member Wimmer agreed that there will be many opportunities to make revisions later in the process. She said there was a chance that it could be completely rewritten. Board Member Willis agreed. She wants to see this developing and not stagnant. Motion Motion made by Board Member Pease to send the letter to City Council. Seconded by Chair Eagleston- Ciezlewicz. Vote: Motion carried (5-0) Mr. Switzer discussed updates to the Historic Review Bulletin, which included some minor text changes for shorter and more succinct sentences, changing the orientation of the table on the second page of the bulletin, modifying table orientation, and removing the “potentially eligible” references. He welcomed any comments or suggestions from the Board. Board Member Willis had a question. While reviewing the Historic Resources Application Review Procedures slide entitled “When does a property require evaluation,” she questioned whether it referred to every property in Palo Alto or specific properties. Mr. Switzer explained that, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), there are four discretionary projects. Any structure that is 45 years of age or older could be considered a historic resource, which was noted on the slide. It also referenced that should any discretionary projects be involved, it may require further historic resource evaluation to determine the status of the structure or site. Mr. Switzer asked for permission from the Board to upload it to the website. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz wondered whether a vote would be needed. Ms. French did not believe a vote was taken in October to update it, so a vote was not required. Public Comment Darlene Yaplee commented via Zoom. She was looking for clarification on evaluation as a historic resource. She claimed it read, “The City of Palo Alto may require an HRE report, as long as both of the following conditions apply,” and wanted to know what criteria would determine whether it may be required. Mr. Switzer explained that it would constitute a Discretionary Development Application, which could include a two-story development, any commercial development, and anything that would require an architectural review or variance. Items under CEQA that require a Discretionary Application are items such as ministerial permits, building permits, business licenses. Things that are ministerially approved are not subject to this requirement. The second qualifier is that the existing development is more than 45 years of age, which is a State requirement. There is a Public Resource Code section that provides that language. Ms. Yaplee asked for clarification because it says, “may require,” which sounds like she may not need to do it even if she met those two conditions. She wanted the language clarified. Mr. Switzer explained there are certain instances where a structure has sustained multiple renovations, if it is over 45 years of age, then a Historic Resource Evaluation may not be required because there is evidence in the City records or State records that would determine the non-eligible status, or the structure may not meet the criteria of designation for a historic resource. The City will not require a property owner to Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 44     City of Palo Alto Page 5 conduct a resource evaluation on a structure that would not meet the designation for criteria. It is a case-by-case analysis. Mr. Switzer addressed the Board on the topic of Historic Preservation Awards. Mr. Switzer discussed that Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.6 provides that the City shall promote an awards programs and other forms of public recognition for exemplary works of historic preservation projects. The Board will potentially collaborate with PAHA and PAST. The Board could consider an HRB awards program for historical preservation awards, as well as centennial plaques that will be offered to any structure 100 years of age. The frequency of the awards, the criteria for selection, and time and location of the awards ceremony would be included in the FY 24-25 Workplan. To solidify the criteria for selection and frequency, it would require a revision of the bylaws. The City’s Architectural Review Board has an awards program. The Board may be able to compile a list of projects that have been approved, reviewed, and constructed for the Board’s consideration. Board Member Wimmer felt PAHA and PAST did an excellent job with their awards program and she would be more comfortable strengthening their effort as opposed to starting an HRB awards program. Board Member Willis said she originally agreed with Board Member Wimmer but she is now coming around to the idea of an HRB awards program. She thought that adding their own voice to strengthening preservation in the community is important and PAST would appreciate the support with awards and plaques costs as well as promotional and educational materials. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the awards would only be for projects that came before the HRB. PAST’s awards program is very established and recognized in the community. PAST has a broader range of projects to consider because they can choose any project. Mr. Switzer stated that the Board may choose the criteria for selection. Board Member Pease thought the program was qualitatively different and was a promising idea. Mr. Switzer reminded the Board that this would be placed on the FY 24-25 Workplan, which would track with the Architectural Review Board’s Awards Ceremony. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz thinks this is worth placing on the workplan and reviewing it further. Vice Chair Rohman agreed it was worth exploring. Board Member Wimmer thought they might be able to collaborate with the ARB to make one combined awards program. Jodie Clark-Gerhardt, Manager of Planning and ARB liaison, introduced herself. She said the ARB awards program term is every five years and they only consider projects that came before the ARB, which is a smaller subset. Board Member Pease thought there is a distinction between these two ceremonies and they should stand alone. Board Member Willis agreed this should move forward and placed on the workplan. She thought past Board members might have an interest in becoming part of the awards program subcommittee. After Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 45     City of Palo Alto Page 6 some discussion, Board Member Wimmer agreed that this would be valid and worthy but an actual award ceremony might be too much of an undertaking. Board Member Willis suggested biannually or every five years might be easier to accomplish at first. Board Member Pease commented that if this were to go into the FY 24-25 Workplan and they chose the 5-year cycle, there would not be an award ceremony until 2030. Mr. Switzer suggested that staff could compile a list of eligible projects. Board Member Pease thought the recognition would be good for the community. Board Member Willis would like to see the award ceremony align with PAST’s awards ceremony, which is held during Preservation Week. Motion Motion by Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz to place Historic Preservation Awards on the FY 24-25 Workplan. Board Member Willis seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried (5-0) Public Comment None Mr. Switzer reminded the Board that the previously scheduled City Council meeting on August 12, 2024, for approval of the HRB Workplan had been cancelled. A new date will be determined at a later time. The Preservation Awards will be added to the FY 24-25 Workplan. Mr. Switzer asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. Board Member Willis asked Mr. Switzer to rephrase Goal 3. Mr. Switzer referred her to Attachment E of her packet. Mr. Switzer explained Project Goal 3 reads, “Conduct a survey of the local inventory resources listed prior to the 2023 Historic Reconnaissance Survey to determine historic conditions.” If Council directs a survey update, that will require resources and may extend into next year’s workplan. He further elaborated that it would be a cleanup effort of any structures that have been demolished or existing inventory and looking at any of the category upgrades that have gone before the Board as well as Council, and offering additional preservation incentives. The Board agreed that no vote was needed. Public Comments 1. Amy Sung is a local resident. She had a question regarding the proposal to address the Historic Status Label in the parcel report and the “potentially eligible” status. She wondered what the difference was from removing the status from the parcel report and if the properties were subject to an internal review. Ms. Sung would also like to know what criteria will be applied to properties that fall under “Not evaluated, may need evaluation.” What is the difference between the current status and the proposed solution and how many properties would be impacted by these changes? 2. Darlene Yaplee is concerned with the parcel report. The wording “recognized” in Code 3 seemed ambiguous, especially considering the reconnaissance process the Council recently went Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 46     City of Palo Alto Page 7 through. Ms. Yaplee said Code 1 and Code 2 are very confusing to people who are property eligible. She would like to see a breakdown of how each goal is different from the next goal in terms of the implications to properties. She asked if Palo Alto is the only city that has the label “may need evaluation” on their parcel report. She felt it would raise questions and concerns from homebuyers. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz turned the meeting over to Mr. Switzer to present the staff report, which should answer most of these questions. Mr. Switzer noted that at the April 22 City Council meeting, they directed staff to explore some alternatives to the “potentially eligible” status in the parcel report. The staff explored alternatives and provided four options for discussion and consideration. A lot of comments were regarding aligning the status with the California Build Environment Resource Directory (BERD); however, those requirements come from the State and were taken verbatim from their status code list. The five governing status codes appeared on the slide presented to the Board. Mr. Switzer went through each of the five codes and categories that would be applied to properties. Code 5, “Not evaluated for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation” would replace the “potentially eligible” status. He discussed another alternative the City could pursue, which would be removing the historic status altogether from the parcel reports. Other alternatives would be to add “Further information may be inquired by planning staff” or keeping the “potentially eligible” status as is. Mr. Switzer asked if the Board had any questions or comments. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz agreed with the newly proposed language because it expressed that a property may need evaluation or that it is unevaluated but may trigger things at the State level. She also pointed out that this is to comply with State law and CEQA. She felt that removing the historic status altogether from the parcel reports would be less transparent than the proposed alternative. Vice Chair Rohman fears that if the historic status is removed entirely, the owner will be subject to these regulations if they ever decide to demo or update their property. She pointed out that the property will eventually have to go through CEQA evaluation when the property attains 45 years of age or older. She was not certain that removing the designations from the parcel report would be helpful to the owners, so she supported this proposed language that is in line with the State. Board Member Wimmer agrees with Vice Chair Rohman. She suggested that if a property qualifies for historic status, changing “historic status” to either “National Register” or “California Register.” She suggested making a blanket statement for all projects, “Historic screening evaluation is required for all new development projects.” The City Planner reviews the parcel reports of any new project submitted to the City and would see the historic status. Board Member Willis was unclear which properties this applied to. She suggested that when a property falls under “not eligible for listing or designation,” it would be helpful to articulate that the property was evaluated and deemed not eligible. She asked whether “not evaluated” meant the property was not yet 45 years old. Mr. Switzer noted that the Planning staff would be investigating any discretionary projects, Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 47     City of Palo Alto Page 8 pursuant to CEQA, for structures 45 years of age. As properties age, there will be a rotating list that will be updated through the parcel report system as well as their mapping efforts. Board Member Willis questioned whether this new system would eliminate their current list of the 500 “potentially eligible” properties. Mr. Switzer explained that the new status codes would address those properties in addition to providing more succinct language for all properties listed in the inventory and those that have been evaluated. Board Member Willis addressed the need for further clarification of categories “Not eligible for listing or designation” and “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation.” Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz explained that aside from properties that were already evaluated, it is the presence of a previous evaluation that will determine what group the property falls into. If a property does not have an evaluation, then it will fall into one of the two categories, “Not eligible for listing or designation” or “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation.” Board Member Willis asked if every property over 45 years old would fall into one of the five categories. Mr. Switzer thought that could potentially be an alternative the Board and staff could explore. Board Member Pease pointed out that the key point is that this is a State requirement. Mr. Switzer remarked that this applied to discretionary projects. Ministerial projects, such as building permits, would not be subject to this level of review or requirements. Board Member Willis suggested putting a supplemental explanation on the website that discusses, “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation,” more in-depth. Ms. French thought she would be able to compile an exhaustive list of what is discretionary and what is ministerial for the website. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz asked if a vote was needed on the language change. Mr. Switzer did not believe so. Council directed staff to investigate these alternatives and present them to the Board for collaboration. Staff prepared a report, which will go before the City Council. Ms. French explained that the City Council on August 19 will review on consent the 5 additional properties in the report. Board Member Willis added that she would like to see the language, “Not eligible for listing or designation” changed to reference that the property has been evaluated and not found eligible. Regarding, “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation,” she asked that the comma be replaced with a semicolon. Public Comments Ms. French noted there was no comment for the minutes but there was public comment on the parcel report. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz reopened the parcel report to public comment. 1. Amy Sung asked with what kind of certainty were they replacing the current “potentially eligible” status. She was looking for clear articulation on what makes a property fall into this category and wondered if the City considers any property that is 45 years old. She questioned how many properties fell into this category and how the City planned to accommodate this Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 48     City of Palo Alto Page 9 expansion. She questioned how they planned to track the properties with their current resources and what criteria and review would be put into place. 2. Leannah Hunt is concerned with the five items proposed this morning. She did not believe the Board was responding to the conversation that took place at the City Council earlier this year. Ms. Hunt is concerned with the 45-year threshold because that would include around 75 percent of the housing market in Palo Alto. She felt as though the list was not narrowed down, as Council suggested. She felt that Codes 4 and 5 are very ambiguous. She is concerned that the phrase “may need evaluation,” will give staff total discretion to order that any homeowner go through that process using the outside contractor for historic evaluation, which is an extremely expensive process and it would delay construction projects. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz reiterated that this review relates to a State law, CEQA. She invited staff to address these concerns. Vice Chair Rohman added that the 45-year threshold is not something the City chose. It is a State mandate. Mr. Switzer explained, as noted in the staff report, the 45 years of age is from the evaluation pursuant to CEQA in the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1(g). He explained that the “potentially eligible” status was applied to properties from the Dames & Moore survey and 1948 was the cutoff threshold. The current statuses on parcel reports are a result of a large survey conducted by the City. The staff is aligning status codes with State law pursuant to CEQA. Ms. French said it was option to remove “potentially eligible” from parcel reports. It is possible to say, “Talk with Planning staff,” as a label for everything that is unknown. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz reiterated that depending upon the specifics of the project and the property, it is still subject to CEQA regardless of what any website says. Vice Chair Rohman suggested if they were to remove the “not evaluated” status when a homeowner views their parcel report, it would not have any information. She was concerned that if they decided to do a home improvement project later, it would be a surprise that they were subject to CEQA. Board Member Wimmer mentioned changing the language in Code 5, “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation,” to include the local Palo Alto Register if they were to adopt that language. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz said they have typically been using the National Register or California Register eligibility as the trigger for local inventory eligibility. Ms. French added that the language conveys the CEQA State law. It does not matter if it has been evaluated locally if it is eligible for the National or California Register. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 13, 2024 Public Comment None Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz asked if anybody had any changes that needed to be made to the Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 13, 2024. Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 49     City of Palo Alto Page 10 On Page 35 of the packet, Board Member Willis thought “worldwide outreach” was erroneous. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz said it may be a transcription error. Board Member Willis pointed out that on Page 38, third paragraph, Ben said that it cost him approximately $5,000 per year. She felt that was inaccurate. Ms. French noted that if Ben said that, then that is what it reads. This was Board Member Wimmer’s last meeting on the Board, and Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz thanked her for her many years of service. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz and the Board congratulated Ms. French on her retirement. Chair Eagleston- Ciezlewicz thanked Ms. French for her work with the HRB over the years and her service to Palo Alto with a standing ovation. Motion Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz moved to approve the minutes from the June 13 meeting following review and any corrections. Seconded by Board Member Pease. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 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 10:18 AM. Item 4 Attachment A: August 8, 2024 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 50