Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-12 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, June 12, 2025 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. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas are available at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512 ) Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to hrb@paloalto.gov 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@paloalto.gov 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.  1 Regular Meeting June 12, 2025 CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL   PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.   CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS   1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 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.Chair and Vice Chair Elections This item has been postponed to allow full member attendance and will be re-noticed on a future agenda. 3.Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 411 Kipling Street [24PLN-00292]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) - Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 431 Kipling Street [24PLN-00290]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) - Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.  2 Regular Meeting June 12, 2025 5.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 10, 2025 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT      3 Regular Meeting June 12, 2025 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@paloalto.gov. 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@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  4 Regular Meeting June 12, 2025 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: June 12, 2025 Report #: 2505-4682 TITLE Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND Attached is the HRB meeting schedule and attendance record for the calendar year. This is provided for informational purposes. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that it be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. No action is required by the HRB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 HRB Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following email: HRB@PaloAlto.gov. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Historic Resources Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 0 3 2 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/9/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 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 CANCELED 6/12/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/10/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Eagleston-Cieslewicz 8/14/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/11/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/9/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Pease 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 Workplan Goal 1: Eagleston-Cieslewicz Workplan Goal 2: Pease Workplan Goal 3: Rohman Workplan Goal 4: Pease & Ulinskas Workplan Goal 5: Rohman & Willis July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 10 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 12, 2025 Report #: 2506-4762 TITLE Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 411 Kipling Street [24PLN-00292]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) - Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action: 1. Discuss and provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development Services on project’s conformity with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 16, 2024, the owner Thoits Bros. Inc. (via Hayes Group Architects) submitted a request for 2,500 square feet of historic bonus floor area for accessibility upgrades and rehabilitation of 411 Kipling Street (APN 120-15-023), a mixed-use two-story building currently listed as a Category 2 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory. On April 17, 2025, Hayes Group Architects submitted a revised project and plans. On May 12, 2025, the City’s consultant, Page & Turnbull, prepared a Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards Compliance Memorandum (Attachment B). The memorandum found the project consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation, as summarized in this report. The HRB is requested to review the application and provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development Services on the project’s conformity to the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following project description is based on the project plans submitted on April 17, 2025 (Attachment C). The project includes the following accessibility upgrades: •Demolish existing non-historic front stairs and replace with narrower wood stairs and cheek walls with wood shiplap cladding and accessible metal handrails. •Demolish existing non-historic rear wood deck and stairs, and replace with new tiered rear deck and stairs with accessible metal handrails. The project includes the following Rehabilitation work: •Demolish existing wood fence and gate at southeast side of property, and replace with new wood fence and gate with horizontal slats. •Remove non-historic door at rear façade and replace with new glazed wood door. •Remove non-historic aluminum windows and siding at rear façade, and replace with new wood sliders and wood shiplap siding. o Rehabilitate existing wood-sash windows and doors Repair to be undertaken in accordance with Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows and Preservation Brief 10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork. o Routine maintenance to include paint removal, removal and repair of sash including reglazing where necessary, repairs to the frame and operating hardware, and repainting. o Repair exterior wood components as needed based on evaluation of existing condition, including railings, columns, decking, and ceilings of the front porch; siding, cornices, window and door casings and surrounds; and other functional and decorative elements Remove damaged or deteriorated paint using the gentlest method possible prior to repainting. o Repair of wood elements may include patching, splicing, consolidating, and reinforcement using recognized preservation measures, and limited replacement in kind of extensively deteriorated features, missing components, or when replacement can be based on documentary of physical evidence . o New work shall match the old in material, design, scale, color, and finish. Additional areas of work include: •Patching exposed concrete foundation. •Remove and replace a large non-original light fixture on front porch with a smaller globe light. •Remove existing HVAC unit and install new electric HVAC unit. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 10 BACKGROUND Palo Alto Historic Inventory 411 Kipling Street is listed as a Category 2 (“Major Building”) historic resource on the local Historic Inventory. The property was previously listed as a Category 4 (“Contributing Building”) historic resource, but its historic status was elevated following completion of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) by Page & Turnbull in November 2023. Upon the HRB’s recommendation, City Council reviewed and approved the findings of the HRE, elevating the building from Category 4 to Category 2 on September 9, 2024. A Category 2 is defined as: “A ‘Major Building’ of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region.” Category 2 historic properties require historic preservation project review. Site Development 411 Kipling Street is located on a parcel that is 40 feet wide by 112.5 feet deep and within the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) District with a Pedestrian Combining District (P). The property includes a one-and-a-half-story residential building currently used as two commercial units. The one-story building provides a contrast to the larger commercial scale and higher density found on University Avenue and sections of Lytton Avenue and Cowper Streets. The one-story building, then a single-family residence, was built by George W. Mosher in 1902 for Hiland H. Holley, but its first occupants were Mrs. M. M. Baker and Mrs. E. A. Sykes. By 1924, the footprint of the subject property remained the same, but the rear outbuilding was removed. Between 1902 to 1925 the rear addition was added to the house including the wood siding and double-hung sash windows. In 1989, a permit was granted for the construction of new stairs with a railing at the entryway. Since the late 1980s, no other alterations have been documented, and all facades appear unchanged. Character Defining Features Character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. The character-defining features of 411 Kipling Street as identified in Attachment A are assumed to be those architectural features and materials that date to the building’s original construction in 1902. These features include, but are not limited to: •One-and-a-half-story massing •Hipped roof with wide boxed eave •Hipped roof dormer with boxed eaves, dentil molding, cottage windows, and diamond mullions •Plain frieze board and cornice with dentil molding •Wood shiplap siding •Wood water table across all facades •Recessed front porch with solid balustrade and Tuscan columns •Wood door casings and window frames •Wood one-over-one double hung sash windows with ogee lugs Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 10 Bonus Floor Area The Bonus Floor Area /Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program is available for qualifying rehabilitation projects for local Historic Inventory Category 1 and 2 resources that are: a) Zoned CD (Commercial Downtown) as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18; b) Zoned PF/City owned property; or c) Zoned Residential Transition (RT-35 and RT-50) in the South of Forest Area Phase 2 (SOFA 2)1 area. Further, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.070 provides the following for Historic Rehabilitation Bonuses: A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation, but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR. Pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.18, an application for such floor area bonus was filed with the Director of Planning and Development Services on October 16, 2024, stating the amount of such bonus applied for (2,500 square feet), the basis therefor under PAMC 18.18.070(a)(3), and the extent to which such bonus is proposed to be used for transfer. The application also included a historic structure report, prepared by a qualified expert, the City’s consultant, Page & Turnbull, at the applicant’s expense, in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the California State Office of Historic Preservation. The project’s compliance with the SOI Standards is detailed in the following section. Following this hearing, the Director, taking into consideration the recommendations of the HRB, will decide on whether the project conforms to the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR §67,7). A written certification will be issued stating total floor area bonus which is eligible for transfer to another site pursuant to the provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.18. The certification shall be recorded in the office of the County recorder and a copy shall be provided to the applicant. 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. 1 SOFA 2 webpage link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/south-of-forest-coordinated-area-plan-phase-2.pdf Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 10 The following table summarizes the project’s compliance with the SOI Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 1 A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: Although the property was built as a residential rental property, it is currently used as two commercial units and has been in use for commercial purposes since the 1980s. This use has not changed the exterior appearance of the building. The proposed project would retain the current use and retain distinctive materials, features, spaces, or spatial relationships. 2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The proposed project does not propose to remove or replace any historic features of the building. Proposed work would be limited to the removal and replacement of the existing non- historic features, the in-kind replacement of damaged historic features, and patching, repairing, and repainting existing historic materials as needed based on their current condition. Only non-historic and utilitarian features are proposed for removal, including existing non-historic concrete paths, wood steps, a ceiling light fixture, and a wood handrail at the front (south) entrance; non-historic wood steps, a wood door, aluminum sliding windows at the rear (north) façade; a wood fence and gate at the north side of the property; and exterior electrical and mechanical equipment. Areas of non-original siding, trim, and decking would be replaced to match the original materials. As such, the historic character of the building would be retained and preserved to a high degree. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 2. 3 Each property shall 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The project does not propose any changes to the property that would be conjectural, based on features from other historic properties, or which would create a false sense of historical development. Areas of patching or in-kind replacement would be based on the existing materials present on the historic building and would not be conjectural. New features that will be Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS installed to replace existing non-historic features – such as the new front steps and cheek walls, side fence, and rear deck, steps, doors, and windows – will have simple, contemporary designs that do not mimic historic designs or features. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 3. 4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: No alterations that occurred after the subject property’s original construction in 1902 have acquired significance in their own right. As discussed under Rehabilitation Standard 2, proposed changes to non-original elements are limited to removing or replacing non-historic or utilitarian features that do not have historic significance. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4. 5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: As proposed, the project would preserve all of the distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the early twentieth century Square Cottage style design of 411 Kipling Avenue. The character-defining features of the building which convey the techniques and craftsmanship of its construction include its one- and-a-half-story massing with a hipped roof and boxed eaves; a hipped-roof dormer with boxed eaves, dentil molding, cottage windows and diamond pattern mullions; a plain frieze board and cornice with dentil molding throughout; wood shiplap siding with a wood water table across all façades; a recessed front porch with a solid balustrade and Tuscan columns; wood door casings and window frames; and wood one-over-one double-hung sash windows with ogee lugs. As discussed under Preservation Standard 2, the proposed project would retain all historic features. The only materials or features that will be removed are non-historic alterations. The project would, therefore, maintain the historic character of the building to a high degree. As all original and historic features and examples of craftmanship would be preserved, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: As proposed, the project would undertake an assessment of all historic wood windows and doors, entrances and porches and associated features, and functional and decorative wood components in order to outline areas of repair. The proposed project would follow the guidance of the National Park Service (NPS) in Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows and Preservation Brief 10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork to ensure that all proposed treatments prioritize repair over replacement. In areas where replacement may be necessary due to the level of deterioration, the project would replace materials or features in kind to match the existing features in look, texture, design, and materials. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 6. 7 Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The proposed project would use physical treatments recommended by the NPS for cleaning wood and removal of paint on historic wood windows, doors, siding, and other wood components. As the proposed project would follow the provided technical guidance of Preservation Briefs 9 and 10, the proposed project would use the gentlest methods possible. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 7. 8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ☐ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☒ N/A Explanation: The proposed project would not undertake ground-disturbing excavation work. Therefore, Rehabilitation Standard 8 would not be applicable to the project. 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The proposed project does not include the construction of any new additions to the building. Exterior alterations and new construction are limited to the replacement of existing non- historic features with new features that address accessibility issues. The existing non-historic wood front steps would be replaced with new wood steps that have accessible metal handrails and cheek walls that are clad with wood shiplap siding. The Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS new stairs would align with the existing porch opening and would be slightly narrower in width than the existing stairs, so that they are compatible in size, scale, and proportion to the building. The use of wood for the steps and cheek walls would also be compatible with the predominant wood exterior materials of the house, while the use of shiplap siding with subtly different dimensions from the historic wood siding would differentiate the steps as new construction. Non-historic wood steps, a wood door, replacement aluminum windows and vertical wood siding at the rear façade would also be replaced with a new tiered wood deck with accessible metal handrails, a new glazed wood door, wood windows, and new wood shiplap siding. The deck would include a new accessible platform lift at its east side. While the new deck would have a larger footprint than the existing steps, it would be tucked behind the rear façade of the house and would not be visible from the public right-of-way. Similar to the proposed new front steps, its wood construction and use of shiplap siding with differing dimensions from the historic wood siding, would be compatible with and differentiated from the historic wood material palette of the house. The new wood windows and new wood shiplap siding would be more compatible with the historic design of the house than the existing non-historic aluminum windows and vertical wood siding, but would be of a clearly contemporary design. Lastly, the new fence and gate would also be of compatible wood construction, and the horizontal orientation of the wood slats will identify it as a contemporary alteration. As all of the proposed alterations and new construction would only impact non-historic features and the proposed replacements features would be both compatible with and differentiated from historic elements, the historic integrity of the property would be retained and protected. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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 ☐ N/A Explanation: Proposed new construction consists of the replacement of non-historic steps at the front and rear entrances with new wood steps at the front entrance and a new wood deck with steps and Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS a platform lift at the rear façade, and replacement of an existing wood fence and gate at the east side of the property with a new wood fence and gate. All of the new features could be removed in the future without impacting the essential form and integrity of the property. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 10. As the above analysis demonstrates, the project as currently designed complies with the guidance of the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed project is consistent with nine of the 10 Standards for Rehabilitation. Standard eight does not apply to the project. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the Standards and the historic building at 411 Kipling Street would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project and would continue to express its historic significance and integrity. Therefore, 411 Kipling Street would remain eligible as a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. As proposed, the project would be consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least ten days in advance of the public hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 27, 2025, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) because the scope of work is limited to minor exterior alterations of an existing building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Continue the bonus floor area request for further discussion. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 3. Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum Attachment C: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE:  HRB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     7-11 37.5' 05.5' 105.5' 37.5' 105.5' 3 105.5' 93.0' 105.5' 93.0' 105.5' 168.0' 112.5' 168.0' 112.5' 88.0' 125.0' 40.0' 112.5' 40.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 95.0' 36.0' 95.0' 57.0' 11 50.0' 218.0' 218.0' 45.0' 112.5' 4 112.5' 100.0' 40.0' 5 60.0' 112.5' 12.5' 60.0' 112.5' 12.5' 60.0' 112.5' 12.5' 35.0' 62.5' 35.0' 62.5' 83.0' 62.5'83.0' 62.5' 118.0' 62.5' 118.0' 62.5' 118.0' 100.0'118.0' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 93.0' 112.5' 93.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'53.0' 112.5' 53.0' 112.5' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 440-444 421-423 431-433 3 335- 337 351 457451 465 463 489- 499360 480 420 430 425 450 437 437 411 405 419 405 401 349 LYTTON AVENUE KIPLING STREET This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Underlying Lot Line abc Easement Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'37' ATTACHMENT A Location Map 411 Kipling St CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto kpaulau, 2024-03-15 09:57:51 Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) CD-C (P) Item 3 Attachment A 411 Kipling St Location Map     Packet Pg. 17     170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 MEMORANDUM DATE May 12, 2025 PROJECT NO. 24402.04 TO Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT University and Kipling Avenues, Palo Alto – SOI Standards Compliance OF City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Clare Flynn, Cultural Resource Planner, Page & Turnbull CC Christina Dikas Brobst and Barrett Reiter, Page & Turnbull VIA Email REGARDING 411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto – SOI Standards Compliance Memo Introduction This Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards Compliance Memorandum has been prepared by Page & Turnbull regarding the property at 411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto (APN 120-15-023) in Palo Alto’s Downtown North neighborhood (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This memorandum was prepared in anticipation of a proposed project at the site. The property contains a one-and-a-half-story residential building, currently used as two commercial units, which was constructed in 1902 by prominent local builder G. W. Mosher for Hiland H. Holly for use as a residential rental property. 411 Kipling Street is listed as a Category 2 (“Major Building”) historic resource on the local Palo Alto Historic Inventory.1 The property was previously listed as a Category 4 (“Contributing Building”) historic resource, but its historic status was elevated following completion of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) completed by Page & Turnbull in November 2023.2 The Palo Alto Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Palo Alto City Council reviewed and approved the findings of the HRE, elevating the building from Category 4 to Category 2 on September 9, 2024.3 The definition of Category 2 is: “A ‘Major Building’ of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region.”4 Category 2 historic properties require historic preservation project review according to Palo Alto’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 16.49.040). 1 “Historic Registers,” City of Palo Alto Website, accessed September 6, 2024, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Historic-Registers. 2 Page & Turnbull, 411 Kipling Street: Historic Resource Evaluation, November 21, 2023. 3 “Consent,” City Council Staff Report #: 2407-3290, City of Palo Alto City Council Special Meeting, September 9, 2024. 4“Historic Registers,” City of Palo Alto. Website, accessed September 6, 2024, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Historic-Registers. Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 18     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 2 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 The purpose of this memorandum is to review the proposed exterior alterations to the property for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to determine whether the proposed project poses a potential impact to the historic resource. Figure 1. Subject property at 411 Kipling Avenue, indicated with dashed red outline. Source: Google Maps, 2022. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 19     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 3 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 2: Subject property at 411 Kipling Avenue, view northeast Methodology Page & Turnbull prepared an HRE for this property in November 2023. The HRE provided information on the historic development and construction history of the property. It provided an evaluation of the building’s historic significance under Criteria 2, 5, and 6 of the Palo Alto Historic Inventory and an assessment of the building’s ability to convey that significance through its high level of historic integrity. Page & Turnbull reviewed drawings of the proposed project that were prepared by Hayes Group Architects (dated April 17, 2025) and were provided by the City of Palo Alto to Page & Turnbull via email on May 5, 2025. No additional building-specific research was conducted for the purposes of this memorandum. Existing Historic Status As previously noted, 411 Kipling Street is a Category 2 property listed on Palo Alto’s Historic Resources Inventory. Previous surveys and reports did not establish a period of significance for the Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 20     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 4 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 property; however, a period of significance of 1902, aligning with the building’s original date of construction, has been assumed for the purpose of this analysis. Character-Defining Features Character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible for historic designation relating to architectural merit, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character-defining features of 411 Kipling Street Avenue have not previously been identified but are assumed to be those architectural features and materials that date to the building’s original construction in 1902. These features include, but are not limited to: • One-and-a-half-story massing • Hipped roof with wide boxed eave • Hipped roof dormer with boxed eaves, dentil molding, cottage windows, and diamond mullions • Plain frieze board and cornice with dentil molding • Wood shiplap siding • Wood water table across all facades • Recessed front porch with solid balustrade and Tuscan columns • Wood door casings and window frames • Wood one-over-one double hung sash windows with ogee lugs Proposed Project Description The proposed project description is based on the Building Planning Submission Revision #1 drawing set for 411 Kipling Street (dated April 17, 2025), prepared by Hayes Group Architects. The proposed project includes the following scopes: • Replace existing concrete path from public sidewalk to front porch with new accessible concrete path. • Replace concrete path at southwest side of front porch with new stabilized decomposed granite path that wraps around the southeast side of the property • Install new accessible platform lift with adjacent concrete sidewalk at rear (northeast) corner of building Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 21     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 5 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Demolish existing non-historic front stairs and replace with narrower wood stairs and cheek walls with wood shiplap cladding and accessible metal handrails • Demolish existing non-historic rear wood deck and stairs, and replace with new tiered rear deck and stairs with accessible metal handrails • Demolish existing wood fence and gate at southeast side of property, and replace with new wood fence and gate with horizontal slats • Remove non-historic door at rear façade and replace with new glazed wood door • Remove non-historic aluminum windows and siding at rear façade, and replace with new wood sliders and wood shiplap siding • Rehabilitate existing wood-sash windows and doors o Repair to be undertaken in accordance with Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows and Preservation Brief 10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork o Routine maintenance to include paint removal, removal and repair of sash including reglazing where necessary, repairs to the frame and operating hardware, and repainting • Repair exterior wood components as needed based on evaluation of existing condition, including railings, columns, decking, and ceilings of the front porch; siding, cornices, window and door casings and surrounds; and other functional and decorative elements o Remove damaged or deteriorated paint using the gentlest method possible prior to repainting o Repair of wood elements may include patching, splicing, consolidating, and reinforcement using recognized preservation measures, and limited replacement in kind of extensively deteriorated features, missing components, or when replacement can be based on documentary of physical evidence o New work shall match the old in material, design, scale, color, and finish. • Additional work will include: o Patching exposed concrete foundation o Remove and replace a large non-original light fixture on front porch with a smaller globe light o Remove existing HVAC unit and install new electric HVAC unit SOI Standards Compliance Analysis The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties & Guidelines for Historic Buildings (the Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated goal of making possible “a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”5 The Standards are used to evaluate proposed work on historic properties and 5 Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, (U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 22     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 6 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources. Projects that do not comply with the Standards may cause either a substantial or less-than-substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The Secretary of the Interior offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The Standards for Rehabilitation, which “acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character,” would be the appropriate Standards for the proposed project at 411 Kipling Street.6 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ANALYSIS Rehabilitation Standard 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.7 Discussion: Although the property was built as a residential rental property, it is currently used as two commercial units and has been in use for commercial purposes since the 1980s. This use has not changed the exterior appearance of the building. The proposed project would retain the current use and retain distinctive materials, features, spaces, or spatial relationships. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 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 characterize a property will be avoided. Discussion: The proposed project does not propose to remove or replace any historic features of the building. Proposed work would be limited to the removal and replacement of the existing non- historic features, the in-kind replacement of damaged historic features, and patching, repairing, and repainting existing historic materials as needed based on their current condition. Only non-historic and utilitarian features are proposed for removal, including existing non-historic concrete paths, wood steps, a ceiling light fixture, and a wood handrail at the front (south) entrance; non-historic wood steps, a wood door, aluminum sliding windows at the rear (north) façade; a wood fence and Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.: 2017), accessed August 22, 2024, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment- guidelines-2017.pdf. 6 Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 7 This and the following Standards are listed in Grimmer (2017) and also at National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Technical Preservation Services: Rehabilitation as a Treatment,” accessed May 5, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm. Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 23     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 7 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 gate at the north side of the property; and exterior electrical and mechanical equipment. Areas of non-original siding, trim, and decking would be replaced to match the original materials. As such, the historic character of the building would be retained and preserved to a high degree. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: The project does not propose any changes to the property that would be conjectural, based on features from other historic properties, or which would create a false sense of historical development. Areas of patching or in-kind replacement would be based on the existing materials present on the historic building and would not be conjectural. New features that will be installed to replace existing non-historic features – such as the new front steps and cheek walls, side fence, and rear deck, steps, doors, and windows – will have simple, contemporary designs that do not mimic historic designs or features. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: No alterations that occurred after the subject property’s original construction in 1902 have acquired significance in their own right. As discussed under Rehabilitation Standard 2, proposed changes to non-original elements are limited to removing or replacing non-historic or utilitarian features that do not have historic significance. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: As proposed, the project would preserve all of the distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the early twentieth century Square Cottage style design of 411 Kipling Avenue. The character-defining features of the building which convey the techniques and craftsmanship of its construction include its one-and-a- half-story massing with a hipped roof and boxed eaves; a hipped-roof dormer with boxed eaves, Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 24     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 8 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 dentil molding, cottage windows and diamond pattern mullions; a plain frieze board and cornice with dentil molding throughout; wood shiplap siding with a wood water table across all façades; a recessed front porch with a solid balustrade and Tuscan columns; wood door casings and window frames; and wood one-over-one double-hung sash windows with ogee lugs. As discussed under Preservation Standard 2, the proposed project would retain all historic features. The only materials or features that will be removed are non-historic alterations. The project would, therefore, maintain the historic character of the building to a high degree. As all original and historic features and examples of craftmanship would be preserved, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: As proposed, the project would undertake an assessment of all historic wood windows and doors, entrances and porches and associated features, and functional and decorative wood components in order to outline areas of repair. The proposed project would follow the guidance of the National Park Service (NPS) in Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows and Preservation Brief 10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork to ensure that all proposed treatments prioritize repair over replacement. In areas where replacement may be necessary due to the level of deterioration, the project would replace materials or features in kind to match the existing features in look, texture, design, and materials. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: The proposed project would use physical treatments recommended by the NPS for cleaning wood and removal of paint on historic wood windows, doors, siding, and other wood components. As the proposed project would follow the provided technical guidance of Preservation Briefs 9 and 10, the proposed project would use the gentlest methods possible. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 25     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 9 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project would not undertake ground-disturbing excavation work. Therefore, Rehabilitation Standard 8 would not be applicable to the project. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: The proposed project does not include the construction of any new additions to the building. Exterior alterations and new construction are limited to the replacement of existing non- historic features with new features that address accessibility issues. The existing non-historic wood front steps would be replaced with new wood steps that have accessible metal handrails and cheek walls that are clad with wood shiplap siding. The new stairs would align with the existing porch opening and would be slightly narrower in width than the existing stairs, so that they are compatible in size, scale, and proportion to the building. The use of wood for the steps and cheek walls would also be compatible with the predominant wood exterior materials of the house, while the use of shiplap siding with subtly different dimensions from the historic wood siding would differentiate the steps as new construction. Non-historic wood steps, a wood door, replacement aluminum windows and vertical wood siding at the rear façade would also be replaced with a new tiered wood deck with accessible metal handrails, a new glazed wood door, wood windows, and new wood shiplap siding. The deck would include a new accessible platform lift at its east side. While the new deck would have a larger footprint than the existing steps, it would be tucked behind the rear façade of the house and would not be visible from the public right-of-way. Similar to the proposed new front steps, its wood construction and use of shiplap siding with differing dimensions from the historic wood siding, would be compatible with and differentiated from the historic wood material palette of the house. The new wood windows and new wood shiplap siding would be more compatible with the historic design of the house than the existing non-historic aluminum windows and vertical wood siding, but would be of a clearly contemporary design. Lastly, the new fence and gate would also be of compatible wood construction, and the horizontal orientation of the wood slats will identify it as a contemporary alteration. As all of the proposed alterations and new construction would only impact non-historic features and the proposed replacements features would be both compatible with and differentiated from historic elements, the historic integrity of the property would be retained and protected. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 26     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 10 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: Proposed new construction consists of the replacement of non-historic steps at the front and rear entrances with new wood steps at the front entrance and a new wood deck with steps and a platform lift at the rear façade, and replacement of an existing wood fence and gate at the east side of the property with a new wood fence and gate. All of the new features could be removed in the future without impacting the essential form and integrity of the property. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 10. Conclusion As the above analysis demonstrates, the project as currently designed complies with the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed project is consistent with nine of the ten Standards for Rehabilitation, and Standard 8, related to archaeological resources, does not apply to the proposed project. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the Standards and the historic building at 411 Kipling Street would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project. The building would in fact be preserved and maintained to ensure its continued historic significance and integrity. Therefore, 411 Kipling Street would remain eligible as a Category 2 building on Palo Alto’s Historic Resources Inventory. Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 27     411 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 11 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Appendix Preparer Qualifications Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. The company was one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation and is among the longest practicing such firms in the country. Offices are located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Jose, and staff includes licensed architects, designers, architectural historians, conservators, and planners. All of Page & Turnbull’s professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. This Standard Compliance Memorandum was prepared by staff in Page & Turnbull’s San Francisco office, including Christina Dikas Brobst, principal-in-charge; Barrett Reiter, project manager; and Stephanie Hodal, Cultural Resources Planner, the primary author; and Clare Flynn, Cultural Resources Planner, all of whom meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture, Architectural History, or History. Item 3 Attachment B 411 Kipling Street Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 28     ATTACHMENT C Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “411 Kipling Steet” 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_411 KIP_Plan.pdf” and dated 04/21/2025 to review the plan set. Project Website: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/411-Kipling-Street Item 3 ATTACHMENT C Project Plans     Packet Pg. 29     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 10 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 12, 2025 Report #: 2506-4763 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 431 Kipling Street [24PLN-00290]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) - Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action: 1. Discuss and provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development Services on project’s conformity with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 16, 2024, the owner Thoits Bros. Inc. (via Hayes Group Architects) submitted a request for 2,500 square feet of historic bonus floor area for accessibility upgrades and rehabilitation of 431-433 Kipling Street (APN 120-15-021), a mixed-use two-story building currently listed as a Category 2 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory. On April 17, 2025, Hayes Group Architects submitted a revised project and plans. On May 12, 2025, the City’s consultant, Page & Turnbull, prepared a Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards Compliance Memorandum (Attachment B). The memorandum found the project consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation, as summarized in this report. The HRB is requested to review the application and provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development Services on the project’s conformity to the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 30     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following project description is based on the project plans submitted on April 17, 2025 (Attachment C). The project includes the following accessibility upgrades: •New wood stairs and metal handrails at front porch. •Extension of rear porch, including wood screen windows, wood screen doors, and sidewalls featuring flush horizontal wood cladding. •New wood stairs and metal handrails at rear porch. •New accessible lift and enclosure at rear porch. •Accessible bathroom. The project includes the following rehabilitation work: •Rehabilitate wood-sash windows and doors including evaluation of each window and door for routine maintenance, stabilization, and/or repair, as well as inspection for dry rot and wood damage based on existing conditions. •Repair to be undertaken in accordance with Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows and Preservation Brief 10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork. •Routine maintenance may include paint removal; removal and repair of sash including reglazing where necessary; repairs to wood frames and operating hardware; and repainting. •Specific additional areas of work related to the treatment of historic wood features would include: o Investigation of existing narrow vertical window opening at the west end of the second floor at the rear (north) façade, with replacement window to match existing as needed. o Replacement of window screens in kind. o Removal of non-original surface material on entry porch decking, stair treads, and risers; repair or replacement in kind of original decking and replacement of non-original decking to match original; and painting. o Repair or replacement in kind of damaged decorative rafter tails. o Replacement of missing corner trim to match original. o Repair of inset openings in siding to blend with existing siding at east and west façades. Additional areas of work include: •New driveway gate and pedestrian gate with metal frames and horizontal wood slat cladding to replace existing non-historic fence and gate. •Reroofing of front porch. •In-kind replacement of metal screening at ground-level vents. •Removal of electrical boxes, wires, and conduit that are no longer in use. •Removal of window A/C units. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 31     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 10 BACKGROUND Palo Alto Historic Inventory 431-433 Kipling Street is listed as a Category 2 (“Major Building”) historic resource on the local Historic Inventory. The property was previously listed as a Category 4 (“Contributing Building”) historic resource, but its historic status was elevated following completion of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) by Page & Turnbull in March 2024. Upon the HRB’s recommendation, City Council reviewed and approved the findings of the HRE, elevating the building from Category 4 to Category 2 on September 9, 2024. A Category 2 is defined as: “A ‘Major Building’ of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region.” Category 2 historic properties require historic preservation project review. Site Development 431-433 Kipling Street is located on a parcel that is 50 feet wide by 112.5 feet deep and within the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) District with a Pedestrian Combining District (P). The property includes a two-story mixed-use building with a commercial unit on the first floor (addressed as 431 Kipling Street), and a residential unit on the second floor (addressed as 433 Kipling Street). The two-story mixed-use building provides a contrast to the larger commercial scale and higher density found on University Avenue and sections of Lytton Avenue and Cowper Streets. The two-story building, then a single-family residence, was built by George W. Mosher in 1901 for Hiland H. Holley. The ownership transferred to the Leonard family sometime between 1916 and 1919. Newspaper records from 1919 show that the owner, Maude B. Leonard, commissioned an addition to the residence, along with construction of a garage several months later. A 1924 Sanborn Map Company map corroborates the timing of the addition, however there is no footprint of a garage until later Sanborn maps. Despite this discrepancy, newspaper advertisements from 1920 indicate that the newly built garage featured a “cement floor, light, and water,” and could be rented, most likely for automobile storage. At this point, the earlier rear outbuilding had been removed. During the 1920s, the Leonard family occupied the lower unit at 431 while renting the upper floor to another family. Following this, around 1938 B.S. Gibson purchased the property and converted the lower unit to a commercial space for his window shade store “Gibson Shade Shop,” which remained in operation until the 1970’s when ownership transferred to James Alexander who also operated a window shade store, “Alexander’s Shade Shop.” In the 1980s, Thoits Bros. took ownership of the property. Since that time, the subject building’s first floor commercial unit has been occupied by a local wine bar, Vino Locale. No further documentation of alterations to the exterior were uncovered through a review of available building permits or planning records, however, through visual analysis it appears that a north-facing door was replaced more recently at the rear upper balcony. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 32     Item No. 4. Page 4 of 10 Character Defining Features Character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. The character-defining features of 431-433 Kipling Street, as identified in Attachment A, are assumed to be those architectural features and materials that date to the building’s original construction in 1901. These features include, but are not limited to: •Two-story massing •Hipped roof with open eaves and exposed rafter tails •Horizontal wood cladding at first floor with wood corner boards •Wood shingle cladding at side walls and base of entry porch •Wood shingle cladding at second floor and second-floor balcony with flared detail at base •Wood-clad water table across all façades at first floor •Wood belt course across all façades between first and second floor •Entry porch with low walls and Tuscan columns •Wood window and door surrounds •One-over-one double-hung sash windows with ogee lugs •Fixed single-pane window with checkered mullion transom on front façade Bonus Floor Area The Bonus Floor Area /Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program is available for qualifying rehabilitation projects for local Historic Inventory Category 1 and 2 resources that are: a) Zoned CD (Commercial Downtown) as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18; b) Zoned PF/City owned property; or c) Zoned Residential Transition (RT-35 and RT-50) in the South of Forest Area Phase 2 (SOFA 2)1 area. Further, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.070 provides the following for Historic Rehabilitation Bonuses: A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation, but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR. Pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.18, an application for such floor area bonus was filed with the Director of Planning and Development Services on October 16, 2024, stating the amount of such bonus applied for (2,500 square feet), the basis therefor under PAMC 18.18.070(a)(3), and the extent to which such bonus is proposed to be used for transfer. The application also 1 SOFA 2 webpage link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/south-of-forest-coordinated-area-plan-phase-2.pdf Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 33     Item No. 4. Page 5 of 10 included a historic structure report, prepared by a qualified expert, the City’s consultant, Page & Turnbull, at the applicant’s expense, in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the California State Office of Historic Preservation. The project’s compliance with the SOI Standards is detailed in the following section. Following this hearing, the Director, taking into consideration the recommendations of the HRB, will decide on whether the project conforms to the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR §67,7). A written certification will be issued stating total floor area bonus which is eligible for transfer to another site pursuant to the provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.18. The certification shall be recorded in the office of the County recorder and a copy shall be provided to the applicant. 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. The following table summarizes the project’s compliance with the SOI Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 1 A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: Although the property was built as a residential rental property, it currently has a commercial unit on the first floor and a residential unit on the second floor. This use has not changed the exterior appearance of the building. The proposed project would retain the current use and retain the building’s distinctive materials, features, spaces, or spatial relationships. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 1. 2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: The proposed project does not propose to remove or replace any historic features of the building. The stairs and railings at the front porch are non-historic, as are the rear stairs, screened porch, rear addition, and driveway gate, which all date to after the period of significance. None of the proposed alterations to the driveway gate or rear porch meaningfully alter spaces, spatial relationships, or circulation patterns that characterize the property. Proposed renovation Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 34     Item No. 4. Page 6 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS work would be limited to in-kind replacement, as well as the patching, repair, and repainting of existing historic materials including historic wood siding, windows, and doors. Only non-historic electrical boxes, wires, and conduits that are no longer in use, and non-original surfacing on porch decking, stairs, and risers are proposed for removal. Areas of non-original siding, trim, decking, and stair treads and risers are to be replaced to match the building’s original materials. Existing asphalt shingle roofing would be replaced in kind. As such, the historic character of the building would be retained, and the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 2. 3 Each property shall 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: The project does not propose any changes to the property that would be conjectural, based on features from other historic properties, or would create a false sense of historical development. Many of the changes proposed are limited to repair and in-kind replacement, and alterations proposed to the front steps and proposed rear porch would incorporate non- historic and contemporary features such as metal tube railings, metal planter boxes, and an accessibility lift that would be contemporary in style and would not create a false sense of historical development. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 3. 4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: No alterations that occurred after the subject property’s original construction in 1901 have acquired significance in their own right. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4. 5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: As proposed, the project would preserve all of the distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the early twentieth century Square Cottage style design of 431-433 Kipling Avenue. The character-defining features of the building which convey the techniques and craftsmanship of its construction include its two- Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 35     Item No. 4. Page 7 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS story massing with a hipped roof, open eaves, and exposed rafter tails; various wood plank and shingle cladding types; decorative wood features including belt course, and entry porch with low walls and Tuscan columns; wood window and door surrounds; one-over-one double-hung wood-sash windows with ogee lugs; and a fixed single-pane wood-sash window with a checkered mullion transom on the front façade. As discussed under Rehabilitation Standard 2, the proposed project would retain all historic features and would therefore maintain the historic character of the building to a high degree. As all original and historic features and examples of craftmanship would be preserved, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 5. 6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: As proposed, the project would undertake an assessment of all historic wood windows and doors, the front porch, entrances and associated features, and all functional and decorative wood components to outline areas of repair and/or potential replacement. The proposed project would follow the guidance of the National Park Service (NPS) in Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows and Preservation Brief 10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork to ensure that all proposed treatments prioritize repair over replacement. In areas where replacement may be necessary due to the level of deterioration, the project would replace materials or features in kind to match their existing look, texture, design, and materials. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 6. 7 Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: The proposed project would use physical treatments recommended by the NPS for cleaning wood and for the removal of paint on historic wood windows, doors, siding, and other wood components. As the proposed project would follow the provided technical guidance of Preservation Briefs 9 and 10, the proposed project would use the gentlest methods possible. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 36     Item No. 4. Page 8 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ☐ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☒N/A Explanation: The proposed project does not involve any major ground disturbance. In the case of the inadvertent discovery of archaeological materials during ground disturbing activity, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 8. 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐N/A Explanation: As previously described in the discussions for Rehabilitation Standards 2 and 5, proposed alterations and new construction would only affect non-historic features. The proposed front steps are sufficiently differentiated from the historic features of the building through the use of simple metal railings and metal planter boxes, which also maintain a contemporary, subdued aesthetic that defers to the historic features of the original design. Despite their contemporary material, the overall dimensions and look of the planters are compatible with the building’s 1901 design as they resemble the low side walls that would have been typical for a building of this era. The proposed rear porch, which connects to the non-original 1919 rear addition, also features wood steps with metal railings, as well as horizontal wood cladding on its sidewalls and wood-frame screens, windows, and doors. The use of horizontal wood cladding allows the proposed rear porch to remain compatible with the original design of the building, while the selection of a different cladding profile with a larger dimension, and the use of metal handrails, differentiates the rear porch as a contemporary addition. The proposed lift would be enclosed on its north side by a wood sidewall matching the rest of the rear porch, that would screen its more contemporary look and enhances its compatibility with the historic building. The use of differentiated horizontal wood slat cladding similarly identifies the proposed vehicle gate and pedestrian gate as contemporary. Overall, the new features would not destroy any historic materials and are generally compatible with the material, scale, and form of historic features. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 4. Page 9 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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 ☐N/A Explanation: If the proposed front and rear porch alterations, as well as the proposed gate and fence, were to be removed in the future, the historic form and integrity of the historic building would remain intact. The areas of the front and rear porches have previously been altered from their original 1901 design and the potential removal of the proposed alterations would not impact the historic building or its historic integrity. The proposed rear porch would be attached to the building minimally through its sidewalls and wood-frame fenestration. These alterations are, therefore, reversible and would not impact the historic form and integrity of the property. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 10. As the above analysis demonstrates, the project as currently designed, complies with the guidance of the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed project is consistent with nine of the 10 Standards for Rehabilitation. Standard eight does not apply to the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the Standards and the historic building at 431-433 Kipling Street would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project and would continue to express its historic significance and integrity. Therefore, 431-433 Kipling Street would remain eligible as a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. As proposed, the project would be consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least ten days in advance of the public hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 27, 2025, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) because the scope of work is limited to minor exterior alterations of an existing building. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Item No. 4. Page 10 of 10 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Continue the bonus floor area request for further discussion. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum Attachment C: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison2 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 2 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following email: HRB@PaloAlto.gov. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 39     LY T T O N A V E N U E WA V E R L E Y S T R E E T COW P E R S T R E E T KIP L I N G S T R E E T UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E COWPER STR E E T LAN E 3 0 PC- 4 2 9 6 37.5' 105 . 5 ' 37.5' 105.5' 37.5' 105 . 5 ' 37.5' 105.5' 93.0' 105 . 5 ' 168.0' 112 . 5 ' 168. 0 ' 112.5' 40.0' 112 . 5 ' 40.0' 112.5'50.0' 112 . 5 ' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112 . 5 ' 50.0' 112.5' 36.0' 95.0' 36.0' 95.0' 39.0' 37.5' 18.0' 75.0' 57.0' 112.5' 107.0' 50.0' 107. 0 ' 50.0'107.0' 25.0' 107. 0 ' 25.0' 20.0' 50.0' 130.0' 100 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 37.5' 25.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112 . 5 ' 14.0'17.5'36.0' 130.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130. 0 ' 50.0' 50.0' 218 . 0 ' 50.0' 218.0' 45.0' 112 . 5 ' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 105 . 5 ' 45.0' 105.5' 110.0' 100 . 0 '110 . 0 ' 100.0' 110.0' 25.0' 110 . 0 ' 25.0' 110.0' 110. 0 ' 50.0' 50.0' 72.5' 75.0' 72.5' 80.0' 30.0' 80.0' 85.0' 85.0' 10.0' 50.0' 10.0' 50.0' 83.0' 62.5' 118.0' 62.5' 118 . 0 ' 118.0' 100 . 0 ' 118 . 0 ' 100.0' 100.0' 112 . 5 ' 262 . 5 ' 225.0'225 . 0 ' 130. 5 ' 225.0' 93.0' 112 . 5 ' 93.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112 . 5 ' 100 . 0 ' 112.5'53.0' 112 . 5 ' 53.0' 112.5' 65.0' 140. 0 ' 65.0' 100.0' 112 . 5 ' 100.0' 112 . 5 ' 100.0' 112 . 5 ' 100.0' 112 . 5 ' 100.0' 112 . 5 ' 100.0' 112 . 5 ' 225 . 0 ' 130. 5 ' 225.0' 225 . 0 ' 130. 5 ' 225.0' 225 . 0 ' 130. 5 ' 225.0' 7-11 463 480 530 405 431 433 437 440 332 360 473 - 479 425 415 - 4 1 9 460 - 476 436 - 452 489 - 499 347 - 359 411 421 425 419 405 450 423 443 451 463 440 480 499 430 431 444 441439 423 453 361 457 451 465 420 430 342 340 338 450 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Current Features Districts Sidewalk Edge (RF) abc Dimensions (AP) Tree (TR) Road Edges (OG) abc Building Roof Outline (BL) Address Label Points (AP) 0'50' Attachment A Location Map 431-433 Kipling St CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APR I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sswitze, 2024-06-24 08:38:18 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Item 4 Attachment A Location Map     Packet Pg. 40     170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 MEMORANDUM DATE May 12, 2025 PROJECT NO. 24402.04 TO Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT University and Kipling Avenues, Palo Alto – SOI Standards Compliance OF City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Walker Shores, Cultural Resource Planner, Page & Turnbull CC Christina Dikas Brobst and Barrett Reiter, Page & Turnbull VIA Email REGARDING 431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto – SOI Standards Compliance Memo Introduction This Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards Compliance Memorandum has been prepared by Page & Turnbull regarding the property at 431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto (APN 120-15-021) in Palo Alto’s Downtown North neighborhood (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This memorandum was prepared in anticipation of a proposed project at the site. The property contains a two-story mixed-use building with a commercial unit on the first floor (addressed as 431 Kipling) and a residential unit on the second floor (addressed as 433 Kipling). The building was constructed in 1901 by prominent local builder G. W. Mosher for Hiland H. Holley for use as a residence. In 1919, a large addition was added at the rear northwest corner of the building. 431-433 Kipling Street is listed as a Category 2 (“Major Building”) historic resource on the local Palo Alto Historic Inventory.1 The property was previously listed as a Category 4 (“Contributing Building”) historic resource, but its historic status was elevated following completion of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) by Page & Turnbull in March 2024.2 The Palo Alto Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Palo Alto City Council reviewed and approved the findings of the HRE, elevating the building from a Category 4 to a Category 2 on September 9, 2024.3 The definition of Category 2 is: “A ‘Major Building’ of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in 1 “Historic Registers,” City of Palo Alto Website, accessed September 6, 2024, 2 Page & Turnbull, 431-433 Kipling Avenue: Historic Resource Evaluation, March 19, 2024. 3 Consent Calendar, City Council Staff Report #: 2407-3290, City of Palo Alto City Council Special Meeting, September 9, 2024. Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 41     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 2 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 the state or region.”4 Category 2 historic properties require historic preservation project review according to Palo Alto’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 16.49.040). The purpose of this memorandum is to review the proposed exterior alterations to the property for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to determine whether the proposed project poses a potential impact to the historic resource. Figure 1. Subject property at 431-433 Kipling Street, indicated with dashed red outline. Source: Google Maps, 2023. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 4 “Historic Registers,” City of Palo Alto. Website, accessed May 5, 2025, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Historic-Registers Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 42     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 3 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 2. Subject property at 431-433 Kipling Street in 2023, view north. Methodology Page & Turnbull prepared an HRE for the property in March 2024. The HRE provided information on the historic development and construction history of the property. It provided an evaluation of the building’s historic significance under Criteria 2, 5, and 6 of the Palo Alto Historic Inventory and an assessment of the building’s ability to convey that significance through its high level of historic integrity. Page & Turnbull reviewed drawings of the proposed project that were prepared by Hayes Group Architects (dated April 17, 2025) and were provided to Page & Turnbull by the City of Palo Alto. No additional building-specific research was conducted for the purposes of this memorandum. Existing Historic Status As previously noted, 431-433 Kipling Street is a Category 2 property listed on Palo Alto’s Historic Resources Inventory. Previous surveys and reports did not establish a period of significance for the property. A period of significance of 1901, aligning with the subject building’s original date of construction, has been assumed for the purpose of this analysis. Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 43     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 4 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Character-Defining Features Character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible for historic designation relating to architectural merit, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character-defining features of 431-433 Kipling Street have not previously been identified but are assumed to be those architectural features and materials that date to the building’s original construction in 1901. These features include, but are not limited to: • Two-story massing • Hipped roof with open eaves and exposed rafter tails • Horizontal wood cladding at first floor with wood corner boards • Wood shingle cladding at side walls and base of entry porch • Wood shingle cladding at second floor and second-floor balcony with flared detail at base • Wood-clad water table across all façades at first floor • Wood belt course across all façades between first and second floor • Entry porch with low walls and Tuscan columns • Wood window and door surrounds • One-over-one double-hung sash windows with ogee lugs • Fixed single-pane window with checkered mullion transom on front façade Proposed Project Description The proposed description is based on the Building Planning Submission drawing set for 431-433 Kipling Street (dated April 17, 2025), prepared by Hayes Group Architects. The proposed project includes the following scopes: • Accessibility upgrades to the front and rear porches, including: o New wood stairs and metal handrails at front porch o Extension of rear porch, including wood screen windows, wood screen doors, and sidewalls featuring flush horizontal wood cladding o New wood stairs and metal handrails at rear porch o New accessible lift and enclosure at rear porch • New driveway gate and pedestrian gate with metal frames and horizontal wood slat cladding to replace existing non-historic fence and gate Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 44     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 5 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Rehabilitate wood-sash windows and doors including evaluation of each window and door for routine maintenance, stabilization, and/or repair, as well as inspection for dry rot and wood damage based on existing condition o Repair to be undertaken in accordance with Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows and Preservation Brief 10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork o Routine maintenance may include paint removal, removal and repair of sash including reglazing where necessary, repairs to wood frames and operating hardware, and repainting o Specific additional areas of work related to the treatment of historic wood features would include:  Investigation of existing narrow vertical window opening at the west end of the second floor at the rear (north) façade, with replacement window to match existing as needed  Replacement of window screens in kind  Removal of non-original surface material on entry porch decking, stair treads, and risers; repair or replacement in kind of original decking and replacement of non-original decking to match original; and painting  Repair or replacement in kind of damaged decorative rafter tails  Replacement of missing corner trim to match original  Repair of inset openings in siding to blend with existing siding at east and west façades • Additional areas of work would include: o Reroofing of front porch o In-kind replacement of metal screening at ground-level vents o Removal of electrical boxes, wires, and conduit that are no longer in use o Removal of window A/C units SOI Standards Compliance Analysis The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties & Guidelines for Historic Buildings (the Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated goal of making possible “a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”5 The Standards are used to evaluate proposed work on historic properties and are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial 5 Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, (U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.: 2017), accessed May 7, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment- guidelines-2017.pdf. Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 45     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 6 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 changes to historic resources. Projects that do not comply with the Standards may cause either a substantial or less-than-substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The Secretary of the Interior offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The Standards for Rehabilitation, which “acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character,” would be the appropriate Standards for the proposed project at 431-433 Kipling Street.6 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ANALYSIS Rehabilitation Standard 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.7 Discussion: Although the property was built as a residential rental property, it currently has a commercial unit on the first floor and a residential unit on the second floor. This use has not changed the exterior appearance of the building. The proposed project would retain the current use and retain the building’s distinctive materials, features, spaces, or spatial relationships. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Discussion: The proposed project does not propose to remove or replace any historic features of the building. The stairs and railings at the front porch are non-historic, as are the rear stairs, screened porch, rear addition, and driveway gate, which all date to after the period of significance. None of the proposed alterations to the driveway gate or rear porch meaningfully alter spaces, spatial relationships, or circulation patterns that characterize the property. Proposed renovation work would be limited to in-kind replacement, as well as the patching, repair, and repainting of existing historic materials including historic wood siding, windows, and doors. Only non-historic electrical boxes, wires, and conduits that are no longer in use, and non-original surfacing on porch decking, stairs, and risers are proposed for removal. Areas of non-original siding, trim, decking, and stair treads and risers are to be replaced to match the building’s original materials. Existing asphalt 6 Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 7 This and the following Standards are listed in Grimmer (2017) and also at National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Technical Preservation Services: Rehabilitation as a Treatment,” accessed May 7, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm. Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 46     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 7 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 shingle roofing would be replaced in kind. As such, the historic character of the building would be retained, and the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: The project does not propose any changes to the property that would be conjectural, based on features from other historic properties, or would create a false sense of historical development. Many of the changes proposed are limited to repair and in-kind replacement, and alterations proposed to the front steps and proposed rear porch would incorporate non-historic and contemporary features such as metal tube railings, metal planter boxes, and an accessibility lift that would be contemporary in style and would not create a false sense of historical development. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: No alterations that occurred after the subject property’s original construction in 1901 have acquired significance in their own right. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: As proposed, the project would preserve all of the distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the early twentieth century Square Cottage style design of 431-433 Kipling Avenue. The character-defining features of the building which convey the techniques and craftsmanship of its construction include its two-story massing with a hipped roof, open eaves, and exposed rafter tails; various wood plank and shingle cladding types; decorative wood features including belt course, and entry porch with low walls and Tuscan columns; wood window and door surrounds; one-over-one double-hung wood-sash windows with ogee lugs; and a fixed single-pane wood-sash window with a checkered mullion transom on the front façade. As discussed under Rehabilitation Standard 2, the proposed project would retain all historic features and would therefore maintain the historic character of the building to a high degree. As all original and historic features and examples of craftmanship would be preserved, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 47     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 8 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: As proposed, the project would undertake an assessment of all historic wood windows and doors, the front porch, entrances and associated features, and all functional and decorative wood components to outline areas of repair and/or potential replacement. The proposed project would follow the guidance of the National Park Service (NPS) in Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows and Preservation Brief 10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork to ensure that all proposed treatments prioritize repair over replacement. In areas where replacement may be necessary due to the level of deterioration, the project would replace materials or features in kind to match their existing look, texture, design, and materials. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: The proposed project would use physical treatments recommended by the NPS for cleaning wood and for the removal of paint on historic wood windows, doors, siding, and other wood components. As the proposed project would follow the provided technical guidance of Preservation Briefs 9 and 10, the proposed project would use the gentlest methods possible. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project does not involve any major ground disturbance. In the case of the inadvertent discovery of archaeological materials during ground disturbing activity, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 8. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 48     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 9 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Discussion: As previously described in the discussions for Rehabilitation Standards 2 and 5, proposed alterations and new construction would only affect non-historic features. The proposed front steps are sufficiently differentiated from the historic features of the building through the use of simple metal railings and metal planter boxes, which also maintain a contemporary, subdued aesthetic that defers to the historic features of the original design. Despite their contemporary material, the overall dimensions and look of the planters are compatible with the building’s 1901 design as they resemble the low side walls that would have been typical for a building of this era. The proposed rear porch, which connects to the non-original 1919 rear addition, also features wood steps with metal railings, as well as horizontal wood cladding on its sidewalls and wood-frame screens, windows, and doors. The use of horizontal wood cladding allows the proposed rear porch to remain compatible with the original design of the building, while the selection of a different cladding profile with a larger dimension, and the use of metal handrails, differentiates the rear porch as a contemporary addition. The proposed lift would be enclosed on its north side by a wood sidewall matching the rest of the rear porch, that would screen its more contemporary look and enhances its compatibility with the historic building. The use of differentiated horizontal wood slat cladding similarly identifies the proposed vehicle gate and pedestrian gate as contemporary. Overall, the new features would not destroy any historic materials and are generally compatible with the material, scale, and form of historic features. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: If the proposed front and rear porch alterations, as well as the proposed gate and fence, were to be removed in the future, the historic form and integrity of the historic building would remain intact. The areas of the front and rear porches have previously been altered from their original 1901 design and the potential removal of the proposed alterations would not impact the historic building or its historic integrity. The proposed rear porch would be attached to the building minimally through its sidewalls and wood-frame fenestration. These alterations are, therefore, reversible and would not impact the historic form and integrity of the property. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 10. Conclusion As the above analysis demonstrates, the project as currently designed complies with the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed project is consistent with all ten Standards for Rehabilitation. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 49     431-433 Kipling Street, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 10 of 10 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Standards and the historic building at 431-433 Kipling Street would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project and would continue to express its historic significance and integrity. Therefore, 431-433 Kipling Street would remain eligible as a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. Appendix Preparer Qualifications Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. The company was one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation and is among the longest practicing such firms in the country. Offices are located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Jose, and staff includes licensed architects, designers, architectural historians, conservators, and planners. All of Page & Turnbull’s professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. This Standard Compliance Memorandum was prepared by staff in Page & Turnbull’s San Francisco office, including Christina Dikas, principal-in-charge, Barrett Reiter, project manager, Stephanie Hodal and Walker Shores, Cultural Resources Planners, authors, all of whom meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture, Architectural History, or History. Item 4 Attachment B 431-433 Kipling St Standards Compliance Memo     Packet Pg. 50     ATTACHMENT C Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “431 Kipling Steet” 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_431 KIP_Plan.pdf” and dated 04/21/2025 to review the plan set. Project Website: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/431-Kipling-Street Item 4 ATTACHMENT C Project Plans     Packet Pg. 51     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 12, 2025 Report #: 2506-4758 TITLE Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 10, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and approve the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: April 10, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following email: HRB@PaloAlto.gov. Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 52     City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: April 10, 2025 Council Chambers & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on April 10, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:31 a.m. Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Vice Chair Samantha Rohman, Boardmember Christian Pease, Boardmember Geddes Ulinskas, and Boardmember Caroline Willis, Absent: None. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no changes planned. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a slide presentation including the 2025 meeting schedule, 2025 subcommittee assignments, chair and vice chair elections in June, May meeting canceled, speaker session: Navigating Historic Preservation Approvals on May 8 and a project update: 1023 Forest Ave. and photos. Action Item 2.Historic Resources Board Awards Discussion Item 5 HRB 4.10.25 Minutes     Packet Pg. 53     City of Palo Alto Page 2 Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation about the HRB Awards including timing and frequency, evaluation criteria, HRB by-laws attachment B draft language and next steps. He offered to present an Excel file to provide context of the ARB’s award process. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz wanted to confirm that the list was closed and anything done in the additional year would go to the next cycle. Mr. Switzer confirmed it could be a static list and that was similar to how the Architectural Review Board Awards were managed. Any projects that fell in the year being awarded would be sent to the following eligible list. Boardmember Willis stated she and Boardmember Rohman felt they needed to first understand their intent with the Awards Program. Most of the projects the HRB reviews were commercial but they would like to encourage residential preservation. She did not believe the awards in their current configuration were going to do that. They both felt there was a lot more to be done before they could put a substantial logical Awards Program in place. She did not feel like that should be their priority. She felt like they needed to focus on getting some incentives for preservation and updating their inventory in a way people could look at it and understand it. It was her point of view that they needed to put this back and focus on their other projects. She believed in that process they would come up with a more logical pool of candidates. She remarked if they had an informational summary at the end of each packet about historic properties that were under construction would make the program more fluid. Boardmember Rohman mentioned she and Boardmember Willis had multiple conversations about the Awards Program. They kept coming back to other pieces of the HRB’s purview. At the most basic level, they needed a reasonable pool of candidates for awards in Palo Alto and they did not feel like they had the complete or correct information. She indicated there was also a question of defining their award criteria. She talked about how PAST and HRB looked at their pool of criteria. She thought it was a fine starting point but did not award stewardship. She said there were also properties not on the inventory that people had been wonderful stewards of for years. There were properties on the inventory they had not seen because there were no projects or permits. The properties on the inventory with projects were the ones they saw. They were interested in expanding their pool. To do that, they wanted to understand why some projects were not coming to the HRB. They did not feel like what they had was worthy of awarding or the best examples of preservation. Boardmember Willis was curious how time or money played a part in what they reviewed. Mr. Switzer explained the Historic Resources Board fell under the purview of the Historic Preservation Ordinance captured in 16.49. The ordinance detailed three review bodies: The Architectural Review Board which captures commercial or multifamily projects and often that level of review was deferred to the Historic Resources Board, The Historic Resources Board which captures projects on categories 1 and 2 on the inventory as well as structures within the Historic Districts and Staff level of review for minor alterations of projects that would not affect the integrity of a structure or capturing like for like permits. Item 5 HRB 4.10.25 Minutes     Packet Pg. 54     City of Palo Alto Page 3 That was the framework of what comes before the Board. A majority of those projects were captured at the building permit level. This was pulled for the inventory properties. If a property was not listed on the inventory, it did not fall under the purview of the Historic Resources Board. The intent of the Award Program came from the Comprehensive Plan Policy L.76 that is to promote award programs and other forms of public recognition for exemplary historic preservation projects. That was similar to how the Architecture Review Board aligned with their comprehensive plan policy that framed their design awards that were created in 2005. Boardmember Willis thought the root of their conflict was that they were not seeing the best preservation projects. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated the ones covered by permits were at least appearing on the list. Boardmember Rohman indicated they had identified at least one project they would like to look into as a test case because it was not on the initial list they received and not on this list. It was a category 2 in Professorville but it had not come to the HRB. The address was 475 Melville. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated she would have to recuse herself. Boardmember Willis stated a few places on the list were great restoration projects. She said the last 10 years had not been kind to them. Even though there were probably projects in Palo Alto that would be great to give awards to, she thought they should start the program strong and thought it was premature. She had concern it would be a distraction from other things they should be working on. She felt like they were losing things because they did not have strong incentives for preservation. She thought their inventory was embarrassing but it should be the best, most accessible inventory in the US. She acknowledged there were some projects people had done great jobs with but there were not a lot. She thought it was time to focus on other things. She opined if they did not update their inventory and get some incentives, it would reflect in the next 100 years. She advised they needed to help people understand there are things in Palo Alto worth preserving. She thought that should be their focus. She thought an Awards Program would be great but did not believe it would help their preservation efforts. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz reasoned the Awards Program could play a role in helping to reinforce enthusiasm and interest in preservation in the community. She thought the stewardship award would be a fantastic addition to the potential categories. She thought the categories could be flexible to allow for a distinction between residential and commercial. She mentioned there were a couple of projects on the list she was interested in acknowledging. Boardmember Rohman opined they needed to decide and draw a line if projects needed to be completed or not. She did not know if they should be awarding 1023 Forest when it was not complete. She pointed out that the permit on 475 Melville was applied for on August 2, 2022, and it was a category 2 in Professorville so in theory it should have come to the HRB because there is façade restoration listed. Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz recused herself at 8:58 AM as there was brief discussion on her property. Item 5 HRB 4.10.25 Minutes     Packet Pg. 55     City of Palo Alto Page 4 Boardmember Rohman stated these projects were hard to find without going out in the community and looking around. She did not recall seeing 475 Melville on the list but noted it could have been before her time on the Board. Mr. Switzer said it was before his time, as well. The permit was opened on August 2, 2022. A building permit was issued on September 5, 2023. A previous permit was issued in 2019 that appeared to be reserved for interior work. He would have to look further into the remodel for exterior improvements to see what the determination was. In some instances when work is conducted on a property, perhaps on a structure that might not be listed on the inventory, the address itself would be listed but perhaps an accessory structure was completed after the fact. Boardmember Willis asserted there had been significant work on the façade. It was restoration work. She thought there was a line where they needed to be aware of these things even if there was no reason for them to advise on them. She thought it should have come to the HRB and that a lot of the reason they were having trouble with awards was because they saw the drastic ones. Mr. Switzer highlighted that the historic preservation planner position was a relatively new position. The community had been without one for upwards of 7 years which took up a majority of that 10 year cycle list. He opined they were at a great opportunity to implement some of these new programs in the community, encourage preservation and award exemplary projects. It also offered the opportunity to educate the community about what preservation would look like and what would be a good project. Focusing on moving forward, he thought they were at a great opportunity to review the list and identify some opportunities they may have missed in the past and the project should potentially have come before the Board. Boardmember Willis mentioned a couple more properties she and Boardmember Rohman would send to Mr. Switzer that she thought would be nice to include. Boardmember Ulinskas was glad to have the list because there were a lot of properties he was not familiar with. He felt it might be beneficial to recognize some additions rather than pure restorations because more people were buying the properties to do expansions. Boardmember Willis agreed. Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz returned to the meeting at 9:13 AM. Boardmember Rohman discussed the differing views the board members had on what would merit award in historic preservation and deemed it beneficial. She summarized the she and Boardmember Willis were not feeling particularly compelled by what they had seen as a subcommittee for the awards. She proposed having each board member present two or three properties they saw merit in awarding and tell them why. She opined that would give them a more well-rounded pool of projects to look at and help them define their categories. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz suggested having someone be the point person for looking at properties associated with that and evaluating feasibility. They could look at the appropriate part of the list and report back with their thoughts about that particular goal. Boardmember Ulinskas thought that was a great idea. Item 5 HRB 4.10.25 Minutes     Packet Pg. 56     City of Palo Alto Page 5 Boardmember Willis felt strongly that this was a distraction from things they needed to work on such as ordinance and inventory and they needed to redirect. Mr. Switzer pointed out the item before them was regarding preservation awards. They could schedule further discussion at a future meeting on ordinance and inventory if needed. Regarding Chair Eagleston- Cieslewicz’s suggestion of dividing the projects between the board members, it would equate to around 88 projects per board member. This would track with the process they conducted with the Architectural Review Board. Following the meeting, Staff could divide the list either by area or number of the categories and send it out to the board members. Boardmember Pease thought stewardship and small projects and how to identify them was interested. He had been concerned about the opacity of the projects the Planning Department did independently. He had asked for a list several times and never gotten an answer. They needed to see the projects that Staff, under the rules, was allowed to agree to or turn down in order to see where they might find a small project that would sail through the planning process that fits that category. He thought it was a major problem that the Board was constrained on what they were allowed to know. He stated if someone had a category one or two house and were doing things to it that did not require coming to them, they may be the very projects they would want to highlight and reward. He recalled that he went through the early process of looking into the inventory and spent days driving around Palo Alto taking pictures of things and did not want to go through that process again. The idea of 88 homes was not a good use of time. He stated they needed something more shaped to the economic realities of residential real estate in Palo Alto if they wanted to preserve things. Mr. Switzer provided background on how the list was compiled from projects that had come before the Board and projects for every designated property in the City, categories one through four, as well as properties within the historic districts. With the help of their data team, they were able to sift through and pull through the permitting software all of the projects before them. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz thought some of the items could be removed from the list for things like alterations to commercial kitchens or installation of signage. Mr. Switzer agreed Staff could remove some of the projects with the direction of the Board. Boardmember Ulinskas mentioned it went back to the incentives they started working on and they would have to drill down and develop those ideas strongly. He suggested using the time from then to July to revisit the incentives. Mr. Switzer indicated if it was the will of the Board they could schedule a more substantive conversation about those preservation incentives for the June meeting. He noted a community outreach meeting held in 2023 for incentives and talking with community members about what would be preferred. They could have conversation offline about how they frame that discussion item. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz was fine with agendizing discussion of incentives in June. She instructed to bring the conversation back to the Awards Program. In her view, they did not have to award someone in every single category. They could be tailored about it in the early stages. There were ways of doing this Item 5 HRB 4.10.25 Minutes     Packet Pg. 57     City of Palo Alto Page 6 that did not require a comprehensive overhaul of everything to acknowledge a few properties that were doing an outstanding job of historic preservation. Boardmember Pease agreed and did not want to see the program delayed indefinitely. He still thought more information about what alternatives there were in that regard made sense and would keep the ball rolling. Boardmember Rohman indicated the list in front of them was not a hard list to digest. She described some of the items they might want to remove from the list by their description in order to cut the list down. She suggested it was their responsibility to look through the whole list. Boardmember Pease responded that was a great idea. Boardmember Willis agreed they each should look at all the properties. She suggested they all write down their understanding of the intent of initiating this awards program beyond promoting preservation in Palo Alto. They should next each define the criteria. She proposed that their 1234 was out of date and suggested re-evaluating the inventory. She thought the Awards Program was a good opportunity but they needed to understand their intent. In her view, it would be about promoting preservation to all community members. Mr. Switzer noted there was 12 months before the Preservation Month in May of 2026. He thought it was manageable that the Board could work through this program and have something of substance to deliver in May. Regarding next steps, there had been some draft language provided for the amendment to the bylaws in Attachment B. That language was flexible. There could be a decision made to move Attachment B forward effectively amending the bylaws solidifying this program and the work being done in the procedural roles for the Historic Resources Board. The next steps would include discussions to flesh the program out, direction on how the list would be reviewed by the Board and further expanding on the Comprehensive Plan Policy to determine categories, intent and what the Board would like to see this look like in Palo Alto. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz indicated the draft language gave them flexibility to determine how they wanted to shape this. Boardmember Willis suggested eliminating the every five years beginning in 2025 in the first section of 8.0 until they more fully understood where they were heading. She did not feel strongly one way or another on points one and two. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz explained 8.2 was how they would provide that acknowledgement. Mr. Switzer added the language in the article closely aligned with the Architectural Review Board’s article about their design award program. Keeping the teeth of this would be establishing the frequency, start date, criteria and number of the awards as well as how they would be presented. Boardmember Pease inquired if it had to have 2025 in it. Mr. Switzer replied that could be stricken. Item 5 HRB 4.10.25 Minutes     Packet Pg. 58     City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz understood there was general consensus that the five-year cycle seemed appropriate. Boardmember Willis did not think they had enough information to make an educated decision on the five-year cycle but did not object putting it in there. Mr. Switzer observed this could be a start to solidify the procedural roles for the Historic Resources Board and future amendments could be made to the sections as they figure things out through the process of the first award program. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz confirmed they could amend the frequency if the Board found the adopted frequency inappropriate. Boardmember Pease queried how the proposal worked. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz explained these were their bylaws and they amend them for themselves. She invited the board members to take individual categories and take a pass through the list about properties that might fit that bill. Boardmember Rohman said she took notes on suggested next steps. She stated Brown Act was meant to protect the public so they could see everything getting done. She preferred to directly email the Board the next steps and have those on record. Mr. Switzer explained the process she was describing would be classified as a daisy chain. That could create a serial meeting and would be a violation of the Brown Act and would need to be a scheduled meeting. He thought following the same process they did with the Architecture Review Board of having Staff send out the directions to the Board and having any correspondence filtered back would be the preferred method of communication. He welcomed any board members to send any suggestions to Staff. Boardmember Willis clarified that she and Boardmember Rohman wanted to focus on other things they felt were more important than the Awards Program. She felt it was appropriate for someone else or Staff to take the lead. Mr. Switzer replied the subcommittee could be dissolved if that was the intent of the subcommittee members. Boardmember Willis wanted to offer it up to anyone on the Board that might be more focused on the project. Boardmember Rohman agreed and said she needed to focus on her other subcommittee. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz offered to work on it. Boardmember Ulinskas volunteered to help. Mr. Switzer announced the new subcommittee would be Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz and Boardmember Ulinskas. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz and Boardmember Ulinskas agreed to agendize an update on this for June. Item 5 HRB 4.10.25 Minutes     Packet Pg. 59     City of Palo Alto Page 8 MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved to adopt the suggested language for Article 8, the preservation awards, striking the language at the beginning of Section 8.0 beginning in 2025 seconded by Boardmember Ulinskas. VOTE: The motion carried by voice vote 5-0. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 13, 2025 MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved to approve the minutes from the March 13, 2025, meeting seconded by Boardmember Willis. VOTE: The motion carried by voice vote 5-0. Announcements Boardmember Rohman announced the PAST Annual Awards presentation would be on May 4 at 2 PM at the Arts Center. Boardmember Willis communicated PAST was organizing tours for Preservation Month and she encouraged everyone to go. Adjournment Adjourned at 9:48 a.m. Item 5 HRB 4.10.25 Minutes     Packet Pg. 60