Residents urge public review of Civic Center orchard record and study of Civic Center buildings

A preservation advocate asked the Los Altos Historical Commission on May 14 to reopen public review of revisions to the landmark heritage orchard DPR (Historic Resource No. 15), saying the new draft filed Feb. 6 is longer than previous versions and appears to omit primary sources.

"There are some inconsistencies with it and I think the sources for that particular DPR were not complete," the speaker said, urging the commission to follow the usual practice of a study session before adopting changes and to allow public comment on the revised document.

The speaker also asked the commission to consider a separate historic-resource assessment for the Civic Center buildings, arguing that although the campus was not qualified in 2012, more recent research — including materials the speaker said they would consult at UC Berkeley — shows the site and its architect, Arnold (Arnist) Comp, may be regionally significant. "It's really important to ensure that it is accurate and not violent," the speaker said, adding archival materials that cite a Frank Lloyd Wright visit could be relevant to the evaluation.

A different commenter, speaking on behalf of the Los Altos Preservation Action League, told commissioners that contract add‑ons for the Los Altos Youth Center and related site work appear to have enlarged installations such as HVAC pads and concrete surfaces and that new trenching and utility work may encroach on orchard land. "It looks like the HVAC concrete pad and fence area... looks like it's doubled, maybe even tripled in size with the new concrete pad," the commenter said, and urged commissioners to inspect the site and request full contract addenda from staff.

Staff responded to questions about recordkeeping and the Certified Local Government (CLG) report, explaining the CLG reporting window runs Sept. 2023–Oct. 2024 and that required minutes for that period had been provided; staff said outstanding minutes from later meetings will be forwarded at a future meeting for formal approval. Regarding contract and plan changes, staff told commissioners they would provide the addenda and related materials in response to the comments and that commissioners could request follow-up if they wished to pursue enforcement or clarification.

Why it matters: The DPR and the historic-resource inventory are primary records used for local and state preservation decisions; changes that omit source material or alter site boundaries can affect which properties receive protections, incentives and public recognition. Commissioners did not make a formal decision on these public requests at the meeting; staff indicated they will return with documents and timelines for further consideration.

Next steps: Staff will provide contract addenda and the revised DPR materials for commissioners’ review at a future agenda item; commissioners suggested on-site inspections and a study-session format for public review.