Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-09-12 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. September 12, 2016 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-6:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA Property: U.S. Post Office, 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 Agency Negotiators: James Keene Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and United States Post Office Under Negotiation: Purchase and Lease: Price and Terms of Payment Study Session 6:00-7:30 PM 2. 2755 El Camino Real (16PLN-00234): Request by Windy Hills Property Ventures for a Prescreening of Their Proposal to Re-zone the Subject Property at the Corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road From Public Facility (PF) to Another Zoning District That Would Allow Development of a Building With Approximately 60 Small Dwelling Units and 45 Parking Spaces 2 September 12, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:30-7:40 PM Oral Communications 7:40-7:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 7:55-8:00 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C14153010 With Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting to add $190,001 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $975,000 for a Three Year Contract Supporting Planning Review of Individual Review Applications 4.Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Residential Housing Fund for the Rehabilitation of 110-130 El Dorado Avenue Consistent With Prior Loan Approval and Approval of an Exemption Under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 5.Authorize the Acquisition of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Unit Located at 4250 El Camino Way, Unit A310 From Wells Fargo Bank for the Purpose of Preservation for the Amount of $190,000 Plus Closing Costs and Approve a Budget Amendment in the Below Market Rate Emergency Fund and Approval of an Exemption Under Section 15326 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:00-8:50 PM 6.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines. The Guidelines Will be Used by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and City Staff When Reviewing Development Applications to Evaluate the Compatibility of Proposed Changes With the Historic Character of Professorville. The HRB Recommends Council Approval of the Guidelines. The Project is Exempt From the Provisions of CEQA per Class 8 Categorical Exemption, Which Applies to Actions Taken by Regulatory Agencies, as Authorized by State or Local Ordinance, to Assure the Maintenance, Restoration, Enhancement, or Protection of the Environment Where the Regulatory Process Involves Procedures for Protection of the Environment MEMO 3 September 12, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 8:50-10:30 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving Revisions to the Number and Wording of the Architectural Review Findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 and Approval of an Exemption Under Sections 15061 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Council Approval of the Ordinance 10:30-10:40 PM 8. Approval of the Recommended City Position for the 2016 League of California Cities Resolution Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 September 12, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Council and Standing Committee Meetings Sp. City Council Meeting Tuesday, September 13, 2016 Sp. City Council Meeting Wednesday, September 14, 2016 Sp. City/School Committee Meeting Thursday, September 15, 2016 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Significant Gifts to the City, Fiscal Year 2016 Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7152) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/12/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2755 El Camino (VTA Site Prescreening) Title: 2755 El Camino (16PLN-00234): Request by Windy Hills Property Ventures for a Prescreening of Their Proposal to Re-zone the Subject Property at the Corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road Fro m Public Facility (PF) to Another Zoning District That Would Allow Development of a Building With Approximately 60 Small Dwelling Units and 45 Parking Spaces From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a preliminary review (“prescreening”) and provide comments regarding the applicant’s request to develop the subject property with high- density, multi-family housing. In addition, staff seeks Council’s input on changes to the Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance that would be necessary to allow for this use. No formal Council action may be taken during a preliminary review, and comments provided in the course of a pre-screening are not binding on the City or the applicant. Executive Summary: The applicant seeks preliminary feedback from the City Council concerning a proposal to construct a new multi-family development of up to 60 rental units at 2755 El Camino Real. The site is a former VTA Park and Ride lot, which is zoned Pubic Facilities (PF) and is designated Major Institution/Special Facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s proposal does not neatly conform with any nearby zoning district and can be considered a “pilot project” to test the idea of micro housing units with limited parking in a transit served area. The project would include up to 60 small dwelling units and approximately 45 parking spaces on a site that is approximately half an acre. The building’s density or floor area ratio (FAR) would be approximately 2:1. As described further below, the proposed reuse of the site for multi-family housing would require amendments to two or more of the following: the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the text of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Community Design Element, the Zoning Map, City of Palo Alto Page 2 and/or the text of the Zoning Code. A prescreening review is required for these types of legislative changes prior to application submittal in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A). Pre-screenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, do not result in any formal action. Background: In 2013, the City Council reviewed an application to change the zoning on the subject property from Public Facilities to Planned Community (PC) to allow office use. Council has since suspended review of PC zoning applications. In 2015, Council evaluated a proposed rezoning of this site to a Commercial Community (CC) zone designation and its redevelopment with a mixed-use project with office space and condominiums. Council expressed concerns about this request and several Councilmembers suggested that a more appropriate use for the site would be multi-family housing with smaller units to address the community’s need for more affordable housing. One or more Councilmembers also suggested the idea of limiting on-site parking for tenants to reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles. The subject prescreening request is an embodiment of these ideas, and the applicant is seeking review and comment. Project Description The preliminary schematic drawings (Attachment B) communicate a concept plan as is appropriate for this stage of project consideration. As shown on these schematic drawings and discussed in the applicant’s project description (Attachment C), the applicant is proposing to construct a 50-foot high, four-story, multi-family apartment building that would include 30 studio units and 30 one-bedroom units. The building also includes a one-story partially below- grade parking garage with 45 parking spaces; 26 of these spaces would be provided via a “puzzle parking” lift system. A 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed for the project. The proposed project, as described, would not meet the requirements of the CS, CN, or CC zone districts because the project does not include mixed-use development; neither would it meet the RM-40 zone district requirements for Floor Area Ratio, height, or density. In the RM-40 district the development standards would limit the height to between 35 and 40 feet, the maximum floor area ratio would be 1.0:1, and the density is limited to 40 units per acre. See below for further discussion of zoning standards. Surrounding Uses The subject property is located at the northeastern corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is zoned as Public Facility (PF). It was formerly used as a VTA park and ride lot; however, the VTA Board formally deemed this site as “surplus” and subsequently sold the site. Adjacent zoning and land uses include the four-story Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Housing Facility to the northeast and the three-story Silverwood Condominium Complex to the northwest, both of which are located on parcels zoned Planned Community (PC). Across El Camino Real is the Mayfield Soccer Complex, which is zoned PF; across Page Mill Road there are retail uses, including a two-story AT&T building, and a recently approved mixed-use development project on parcels zoned Service Commercial (CS). The ten-story Palo Alto Square Office complex in the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road is zoned PC. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion: Staff has identified the following issues for Council’s consideration and comment, and summarizes each below: A. Traffic/Parking B. Conformance to the El Camino Real Guidelines C. Affordable Housing D. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation E. Zoning Code and District Map Amendments required (three options) Traffic/Parking The proposed project includes 30 studio units and 30 one bedroom units. PAMC Section 18.52.040 requires 1.25 parking spaces per studio unit and 1.5 parking spaces per one bedroom unit. In addition, the municipal code requires guest spaces equivalent to 1 space plus 10% of the total number of units if parking is unassigned and guest spaces equivalent to 33% of all units if assigned. Therefore, a 60-unit project would normally be required to provide between 90 and 102 parking spaces, and somewhat less if it qualified for a reduction because of transportation demand management features. The proposed project includes 45 covered parking spaces; equivalent to 0.75 parking spaces per unit. Exploring additional parking reductions for smaller, more affordable units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element which, under Housing Program H2.1.1, states “Amend the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units… such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards.” Housing Program H2.1.1 relates to Housing Element Policy T-1, which states “Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use.” Other Programs under this policy “encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking” and encourage the location of higher density development along transit corridors and near multi-modal transit stations. The proposed project would be consistent with these programs and policy, particularly given its proximity to the California Avenue Caltrain Station. Bike parking is not shown on the basic plans provided for Council’s review. However, the applicant would be required to provide bike parking for residents. Under the PAMC the applicant would be required to provide 60 long-term bike parking spaces (one per unit) and 6 short-term bike parking spaces (1 guest space per 10 units). Because the proposed project would not include rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) zoning, staff would not be required to make the PC approval finding that “Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining City of Palo Alto Page 4 districts.” However, the applicant is proposing to dedicate land so that Page Mill Road can be widened to increase the length of the dedicated right turn lane. This was a “public benefit” proposed as part of the earlier PC zoning proposal. Relationship to the El Camino Guidelines The 1979 El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR Guidelines) adopted by the City Council and the South El Camino Real Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines) recommended by ARB in 2002 are both applicable to this site. South ECR Guidelines The project site is located within the California Avenue Strategic Site Pedestrian-Oriented Node. In the California Avenue Area new buildings “should front El Camino Real with prominent facades.” In addition, the guidelines specify that buildings at the corner of Page Mill Road/El Camino Real “should feature a prominent corner to anchor the large-scale intersection. El Camino frontage should feature extensive windows, as well as pedestrian amenities such as an arcade or canopy, seating, and planters.” The proposed development fronts Page Mill Road rather than El Camino Real. It does provide some windows along El Camino and includes a prominent corner; however a large portion of the El Camino frontage is dedicated to the garage entrance and no pedestrian amenities such as seating, planters, or canopies are provided. The guidelines also state that the “existing park-and-ride should be incorporated into a more intensive use of the site that would take advantage of the prominent location. A mixed-use building with structures/subsurface parking would be desirable.” The proposed project would include one story of partially subsurface parking; increased subsurface parking may be more desirable. The proposed project would not include retail uses; which would be desirable in accordance with the South ECR Guidelines. ECR Guidelines The project is subject to the 1979 guidelines with respect to trees, signage, architecture and building colors. As this review is only a prescreening, limited information regarding trees and landscaping has been provided. Staff and the Architectural Review Board would assess the proposed project’s compatibility with the ECR Guidelines with respect to these features as part of architectural review if a development proposal is submitted. Affordable Housing The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element includes Policy H2.1 to “identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse.” The proposed project does not propose a mixed-use development; however, it does include smaller units that may, therefore, be more affordable than other units and that would further contribute to the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs. Under this policy the Housing Element includes City of Palo Alto Page 5 multiple programs for implementing this policy, including the following programs with which the proposed project would be consistent: Housing Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial area within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element sites within one – qarter mile of fixed rail stations. Housing Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. Housing Program H2.1.5: Use Sustainable neighborhood development criteria to enhance connectivity, walkability, and access to amenities, and to support housing diversity. Housing Program H2.1.10: As part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. perals on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines with greater densities in those nodes than in other area The timeframe in the Housing Element for implementation of Housing Program H2.1.1 states that consideration of zoning code amendments “should occur within three years of Housing Element Adoption.” The Housing Element was adopted in 2015. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation The project site is designated ‘Major Institutions/Special Facilities’ in the Comprehensive Plan, which is defined as “institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations.” Multi-family housing would not be consistent with the identified uses for this land use designation. Thus, the proposed project would either require an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Community Design Element to permit a “micro-housing pilot project” in the Major Institutions/Special Facilities land use designation, or an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The project site is located in the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Multi-family housing is not a permitted use in the PF Zone District. Thus, the project would either require a zoning code text amendment to permit a “micro-housing pilot project” in the PF zone, or a Zoning Map amendment as discussed below. Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments The Palo Alto Municipal code does not currently have a zoning designation that would allow for City of Palo Alto Page 6 the proposed development. However, at several previous hearings Councilmembers expressed interest in encouraging micro-unit housing projects, especially those within one-half mile from Caltrain, to help address the jobs/housing imbalance in the City with units that would be more affordable. Therefore, informing this discussion are Council discussions from September 15, 2015; March 21, 2016; and May 31, 2016. In the September 15, 2015 hearing discussing rezoning of the subject property to a CC Zone, a Councilmember suggested that the City needs a zoning classification that allows for micro units. Council discussion also included the idea of a “residential, low car impact project.” At the March 21, 2016 hearing, City Councilmembers expressed their interest in testing the idea of micro- units with reduced parking Downtown and asked staff to “return with a [pilot] program.” Subsequently, on May 31, 2016, staff indicated that “While it may be possible to implement a pilot project on a single site downtown if there is interest (and there may be) from a single property owner/developer, a broader program would ideally be developed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update.” Subsequently, the idea of increased housing, including small units, has been included for analysis in Comprehensive Plan Update EIR Scenarios 5 & 6. With these previous discussions and direction from council in mind, staff is presenting three possible options for Council’s consideration that could achieve the applicant’s basic project objectives as we understand them. Each of these options would involve changes to the zoning code that could be applied to future sites in addition to the proposed site, subject to City Council approval. Staff encourages City Council’s input on these options as well as any direction from Council on other options that staff should further assess. These options range from more limited applicability to more widespread applicability. Option 1: Pilot Project in the PF Zone District Under this option a Zoning Map amendment would not be required as the site would not need to be rezoned. However, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to identify pilot micro-housing projects as an allowable use in the Major Institutions/Special Facilities land use designation and an amendment to the Zoning Code definitions for the PF Zone to allow for pilot micro-housing projects would be required. The development standards for “pilot projects” in this zone would need to be developed and incorporated as a text change amendment in the zoning code. The goal would be to allow for pilot projects on limited sites in the PF zone that would further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including improving the existing jobs/housing imbalance and reducing vehicle miles traveled. This option would be the most restrictive in its applicability given that the City owns the majority of sites zoned PF and that there are limited sites zoned PF on which pilot projects may be appropriate. For all future applications, an applicant would be required to obtain Council approval for development of a pilot project within this zone; however, future map amendments, Comprehensive Plan, or Zoning Code text change amendments may not be required. Option 2: Create a micro-housing combining district overlay Under this option a Zoning Map amendment would be required to show that the site is within City of Palo Alto Page 7 the new overlay zone and it may be appropriate to rezone the subject property to a more appropriate zone for residential use, such as high-density residential (RM-40). A Zoning Code text amendment would also be required to create a new combining district under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30, “Combining Districts.” The new combining district regulations would encourage the development of small multi-family housing units in appropriate locations, such as transit-oriented areas, that would further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the jobs/housing imbalance and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. All future applications for this combining district overlay would require Council approval and would require a Zoning Map Amendment to add the combining district overlay to the site. The development standards that would be included in this combining district overlay would not include a limit on the number of dwelling units per acre; but would still include standards for FAR and height; however these would be less restrictive than current development standards under the RM-40 district. Staff understands that the applicant has explored the development standards for the Residential Transition (RT)-50 District outlined in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Plan, which does not limit the number of dwelling units per acre and allows for up to 2.0:1 FAR on sites zoned PC and up to 1.5:1 FAR on exclusively residential uses with units for rent. The RT- 50 District could serve as a model for the combining district, focusing on limiting the mass of the building through limits on height and floor area without restricting the number of dwelling units, thereby allowing for more smaller (and therefore more affordable) units. Options 3: Modify the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District Regulations Under this option, the property would be rezoned to a zone district appropriate for the proposed use that may also be combined, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.34.020, with the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District. This would require a Zoning Map amendment both to identify the new zoning for the site and to include this site in the California PTOD boundary. Modifications to text in Section 18.34 would also be considered to allow for a higher FAR and building height, with no limitation on the number of dwelling units per acre. Currently the PTOD standards include similar standards as the RM-40 district, including a 1.0:1 FAR for residential uses, a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre, and a height limit of 40 feet. Because revisions to the PTOD development standards could have broader implications, text change amendments would need to be closely evaluated, and more extensive CEQA review could be required. Next Steps: Following the prescreening review, the applicant will consider options and determine how they want to proceed. Formal applications and public hearings before the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council would be required to advance the proposed City of Palo Alto Page 8 conceptual project. Environmental Review: This prescreening is a preliminary review process in which Councilmembers may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required at this time. A full review under CEQA would be initiated with the formal filing of a development application. Following submittal of a formal application, a Traffic Impact Analysis, Noise Study, Phase I and other reports, as needed to complete the environmental review, would be prepared. Staff is aware that there is a plume in the area and the applicant has noted that a Phase I report was previously prepared which identified a risk management program for the site. Appropriate measures for use of the site as multi-family residential would be assessed closely as part of the CEQA analysis. Attachments: Atachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) 147.3' 120.0' 114.3' 3 9.9' 160.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 134.7' 1 134.7' 50.0' 142.5' 300.0' 142.5' 300.0' 112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 142.5' 100.0'142.5' 119.9' 8.0' 8.4'8.8'1 2.1'13.1' 15.0' 9.1' 85.1' 3.8' 3 9.9' 114.3' 120.0' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 145.6' 112.5' 65.6' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 471 451 2805 2865 2755 2780 450 2701 435 481 601 2790 2798 2705 2825 SHE PAGE M ILL R OAD EL CAMI NO REAL AMINO REAL PF CN PC-2293 PC-4463 PC-4831 C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Highlighted Features Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Zone District Labels 0' 74' 2775 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2016-08-16 09:43:21 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) June 28, 2016 Jodie Gerhardt, AICP Current Planning Manager City of Palo Alto Planning/Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Subject: Proposal to Amend Zoning for 2755 El Camino Real Dear Jodie: Please find attached a pre-screening application being made by Windy Hill Property Ventures to rezone the former VTA Park and Ride lot at 2755 El Camino Real. As you know, the PF zoning is specific to the quasi-government nature of the VTA property and is not reflective of other, more desirable, land uses for this prominent site. The proposal will include an applicable Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment. The redesignation of this important gateway site will facilitate the future development of the property. Project Description Windy Hill has prepared a preliminary-schematic design for zoning and Comprehensive Plan consideration only – these plans will continue to be refined based on staff, Commission and City Council direction. The proposal is for a new all- residential 60 unit apartment building. The building would be approximately 50 feet tall and contain +-39,000 square feet on a 19,563 square foot parcel resulting in a less- than 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Adjacent land uses include the Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Housing Facility (4 stories and 50 ft height) and the Silverwood Condominium complex at similar densities. Across Page Mill Road is an AT&T store as well as the recently approved 441 Page Mill project. Across El Camino Real are the City soccer fields. The southwest corner is the Palo Alto Square office complex. An application for a 45,000 square foot office project was reviewed by the City Council at a 2013 pre-screening study session for Planned Community (PC) zoning. The Council then moved to suspend any further PC zoning applications pending further staff study and legislation. A subsequent Commercial Community (CC) mixed-use project was reviewed at a City Council pre-screening meeting in 2015. That was also not well received and was considered inappropriate for the site. At these earlier meetings there was support expressed to allow this property to be developed exclusively with small unit multi-family housing with minimal parking provided. This was based on both the difficulty of establishing easily accessible vehicular access to this challenging isolated location and the City’s desire to increase the housing stock in Palo Alto to address the significant jobs-housing imbalance in the City by providing diverse small-unit housing. Issues remain, however, regarding appropriate building heights and floor area and the amount of parking needed. Verbatim minutes from this September 15, 2015 Council meeting are available online. In response, Windy Hill is now proposing a 60 unit multi-family rental apartment building. The project would include 30 studio units and 30 one-bedroom units. It would provide 45 below-grade parking spaces, with 26 of these spaces being available via a Klaus 4200 “puzzle parking” lift system. The building would be four stories with the ground floor elevated approximately five feet above the busy El Camino Real and Page Mill Road interstation for privacy and improved underground parking. Units would be carefully designed and sound- insulated to create a comfortable living environment. Windy Hill believes that studio and one-bedroom housing units provide a valuable mix of housing types in an area of extreme jobs-housing imbalance. This urban in-fill housing project will allow for walking and bicycle trips for Palo Alto employees to and from the Stanford Research Park. Additionally, this is not California or University Avenue where one would expect contiguous retail or restaurant-type businesses. Traffic Demand Management Car trips are a major concern in the region, but we believe that with a strong residential Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program Windy Hill can significantly reduce the number of car commuters that will reside at this project. These TDM programs have been successful in other regional projects and Windy Hill believes that after being fully vetted by the City it can monitored into the future for complete confidence. In addition to the few trips generated by a well-managed housing project with robust TDM measures, this major Palo Alto gateway site should be able to attract local-working residents. The project is also entirely compatible with the nearest adjacent development and development along El Camino Real in general, and will be designed to be consistent with the El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Imitative. The TDM would include such amenities as high-speed internet for residents to work at home, extensive bicycle parking and sharing, car sharing, and an on-site transportation coordinator. Other alternative transportation programs such as VTA and Caltrain passes would also be provided. Windy Hill will further look into the feasibility of restricting initial rent contracts to Palo Alto employees. Floor Area Ratio These proposed units are approximately 500 square feet on average – assuring relative affordability. Windy Hill is requesting the 2.0:1 FAR consideration. This is appropriate for this busy corner and the benefit of providing 60 needed studio and one–bedroom rental housing units. We are looking for the appropriate guidance on the zoning mechanism to achieve these housing goals. Palo Alto Housing Element Goals and Policies Further, the project would directly meet the City’s following Comprehensive Plan Housing Element goals: H2.1 POLICY Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the Zoning Code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element Sites within one-quarter mile of fixed rail stations. Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. Use sustainable neighborhood development criteria to enhance connectivity, walkability, and access to amenities, and to support housing diversity. As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. “pearls on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. Use coordinated area plans and other tools to develop regulations that support the development of housing above and among commercial uses. The City permits residential and mixed-use developments which further increase opportunities for housing in certain commercial zones and on sites identified for housing in the Housing Element. In addition, the City is developing a concept plan for California Avenue. Lastly, this property is identified in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element as being within one-half mile of the California Avenue station. This project will provide .75 parking spaces per unit. Windy Hill is requesting 60 units and 2.0:1 FAR. City planning staff may have further suggestions for appropriate zoning for this site, but please keep in mind that the PC zoning, which seems most appropriate, has been suspended and the subsequent CC mixed-use project has also been rejected by the City Council. The PF zoning is intended for public and governmental facilities and does not seem appropriate for the site any longer, but Windy Hill is open to advice. Thank you for the opportunity to work with the City on this important site and project. Very Truly Yours, Tod Spieker Jamie D’Alessandro Attachment C Hardcopies were provided to City Council members only Project plans can be reviewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2923&TargetID=319 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7162) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Mammarella contract amendment Title: Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C14153010 With Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting to add $190,001 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $975,000 for a Three Year Contract Supporting Planning Review of Individual Review Applications From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve Amendment 3 to Contract C14153010 (Attachment A) with Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting (Mammarella) for support of the City’s Individual Review program, increasing the contract limit by $190,001 for a total amount not to exceed $975,000 and find the contract amendment is exempt under Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Executive Summary The Planning and Community Environment Department (PCE) uses consultants to secure specific expertise and to help when the number of applications received creates an unusual volume of work or staff vacancies are such that assistance is required. Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting has been supporting the City’s Individual Review program, and their contract will soon be exhausted if not amended. Background & Discussion PCE has historically maintained contracts with several consultants to provide various on-call planning services. The department relies on on-call service providers to work on special projects requiring particular areas of expertise or to address increases in workload. Following a competitive solicitation and selection process, Council approved five on-call environmental and four on-call planning consulting contracts in February, 2014 (Staff Report 4018). The on-call planning consultation contracts were with: Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting; The Planning Center/DCE; Dudek; and, Metropolitan Planning Group. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On-call planning consultants from the Metropolitan Planning Group (MPG) have been used extensively as project managers to manage applications for planning entitlements, and consultants from Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting have been used extensively to support the Individual Review (IR) of two story homes for conformance with the City’s code and the IR Guidelines. Although the contracts are for a period of three years, the department initially took a cautious approach, limiting contract capacity to modest amounts. This provided the department an opportunity to see which consultant would work best with workload needs without overextending the City’s contracts. As a result, the department cancelled two of its on- call environmental contracts and the on-call planning contract with Dudek and received Council approval to amend the three remaining contracts (Staff Reports 5587 and 6013) to provide capacity through June 2016. Council also amended the Metropolitan Group contract (Staff report 7065) on June 27, 2016. The Mammarella contract has been utilized a little more slowly as the Department has assigned more and more IR applications to staff members rather than consultants. Nonetheless, the department continues to rely on these consultants and needs additional capacity in order to use the contract through its June 2017 expiration date. Staff requests expansion of the Mammarella contract limit to provide sufficient contract capacity to allow continued use of Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting services until June 30, 2017 when this contract expires. Resource Impact Sufficient funding for the contract increase is available within the Planning and Community Environment’s Current Planning contracts budget in the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Operating Budget. At the current rate of utilization, amending the Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting contract to $975,000 will provide enough capacity to cover the department’s needs through June, 2017. Environmental Review This project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelens. Attachments: Attachment A: Arnold Mammarella Architecture Contract C14153010 Amendment 3 (PDF) 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. C14153010 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ARNOLD MAMMARELLA ARCHITECTURE & CONSULTING This Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C14153010 (“Contract”) is entered into on September 9, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), ARNOLD MAMMARELLA ARCHITECTURE & CONSULTING, a sole proprietor, located at 1563 Solano Avenue, #411, Berkeley, CA, 94707, Telephone (510) 763-4332 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of planning and planning review on an on-call basis (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide on-call services in connection with the Project (“Services”); and WHEREAS, City intends to increase the Not to Exceed compensation by $190,001.00 from $784,999.00 to $975,000.00 for the continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Work; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Nine Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($975,000.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 2. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: DocuSign Envelope ID: DF1ABB22-9866-4FCE-A91A-0BF69252A835 2 Revision July 25, 2012 a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARNOLD MAMMARELLA ARCHITECTURE & CONSULTING Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: DF1ABB22-9866-4FCE-A91A-0BF69252A835 Principal Arnold Mammarella 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services, additional services, and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amount(s) stated in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services and Additional Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Professional printing copying and scanning; project supplies specifically for presentation or similar client use; shipping mailing or courier expenses; similar project expenses. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $100.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: DF1ABB22-9866-4FCE-A91A-0BF69252A835 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: DF1ABB2298664FCEA91A0BF69252A835 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C14153010 Contract Amendment No 3 .pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 8/8/2016 7:08:43 AM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Arnold Mammarella arnold@mammarellaarchitecture.com Principal Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 73.162.87.140 Sent: 8/8/2016 7:11:46 AM Resent: 8/18/2016 6:51:36 AM Viewed: 8/18/2016 1:05:06 PM Signed: 8/18/2016 1:09:17 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Robin Ellner robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org Admin Associate III City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 8/18/2016 1:09:18 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 2/11/2015 9:51:24 AM ID: efb775a7-f39e-4c9f-817a-5ec939666ecf Sherry Nikzat sherry.nikzat@cityofpaloalto.org Sr. Management Analyst City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 8/18/2016 1:09:18 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 8/18/2016 1:09:18 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 8/18/2016 1:09:18 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 8/18/2016 1:09:18 PM Completed Security Checked 8/18/2016 1:09:18 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM Parties agreed to: Robin Ellner How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7135) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Budget Amendment for 110-130 El Dorado Loan Title: Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Residential Housing Fund for the Rehabilitation of 110-130 El Dorado Avenue Consistent With Prior Loan Approval and Approval of an Exemption Under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the Residential Housing Fund by a. Increasing the Planning and Community Environment Department appropriation by $375,000 for the rehabilitation of affordable units located at 110-130 El Dorado Avenue consistent with a June 2015 loan approval; and, b. Decreasing the fund balance by $375,000. Background and Discussion On June 22, 2015, the City Council approved a $375,000 loan (Attachment A) and an associated Budget Amendment from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for the rehabilitation and preservation of affordable units located at 110- 130 El Dorado Avenue (Staff Report 5712 is available on the City’s website at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47797. In exchange for the loan, PAHC entered into a Regulatory Agreement guaranteeing the long term affordability of the project. Under the agreement, monies are to be remitted to PAHC against the funds as the rehabilitation is completed. No General Fund monies are to be used for this affordable housing activity. To support the City’s prior commitment, it is necessary to again appropriate $375,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund because the funding for the loan lapsed at the conclusion of fiscal year 2016 when none of the appropriated money had been spent. Since funding is needed immediately, staff is requesting a project-specific re-appropriation of the committed funds, City of Palo Alto Page 2 rather than addressing the issue through the regular budget re-appropriation process. It is anticipated that the rehabilitation work will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2017. Resource Impact There is sufficient fund balance available in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund (Fund 233) for the re-appropriation of $375,000. This loan from the Residential Housing In-lieu Fund was originally approved by the City Council on June 22, 2015. The appropriation for this loan lapsed at the conclusion of FY 2016. The terms of the loan include a simple interest at 3% per annum with payments deferred until the expiration of the loan term of 55 years, with a possible extension of an additional 44 years, or in the event of a default. Environmental Review The work completed under the loan agreement is in the nature of maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing facility, which is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Attachments: Attachment A: 110-130 El Dorado Avenue Loan Agreement (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 7206) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of the Purchase of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Unit Located at 4250 El Camino Way Unit A310 Title: Authorize the Acquisition of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Unit Located at 4250 El Camino Way, Unit A310 From Wells Fargo Bank for the Purpose of Preservation for the Amount of $190,000 Plus Closing Costs and Approve a Budget Amendment in the Below Market Rate Emergency Fund and Approval of an Exemption Under Section 15326 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Authorize the acquisition of the Below Market Rate (BMR) unit located at 4250 El Camino Way, Unit A310 from Wells Fargo Bank for the purpose of preservation in the amount of $190,000 plus closing costs; and 2. Approve resale as a BMR unit to a qualified BMR buyer identified by PAHC Housing Services, LLC (PAHC); and 3. Approve setting the resale price at the City’s total direct costs (approximately $195,000); and 4. Direct the City Manager or his designee to approve the final resale price, execute the certificate of acceptance and all other documents and deeds necessary to complete the purchase and the resale; and 5. Appropriate funds from Fund 230, BMR Emergency Fund in the amount of $190,000 plus closing costs to purchase the BMR unit from Wells Fargo; and 6. Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the Below Market Rate Emergency Fund by a. Increasing the expenditure appropriation by $200,000; and, b. Decreasing the ending fund balance by $200,000 7. Approval of an exemption under Section 15326 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines City of Palo Alto Page 2 BACKGROUND 4250 El Camino Way, Unit A310 is one of twelve one-bedroom BMR units in the Redwoods residential complex in the City of Palo Alto. The construction of this residential project was completed in the spring of 1983. The development consists of 105 market rate units and 12 BMR units - all of the latter are one-bedroom/one-bath units. Redwood Complex is an attractive development with average sales values for the market rate units. The BMR units are located together in one building with two similar market rate units at the rear of the complex. Unit A310 has not been occupied since late 2011. Presently the subject unit is owned by the Wells Fargo Bank (Wells Fargo) as a result of a foreclosure. The previous owner purchased the property in September 1983 from First Nationwide Savings, a Federal Savings and Loan Association. The previous owner took title subject to a deed restriction in favor of the City of Palo Alto (City), which granted the City an option to purchase the property in the event of sale or transfer of the property (hereinafter referred to as the “Deed Restriction” or “Option to Purchase). Due diligence, on the record of this property indicates that the owner subsequently over encumbered her property by refinancing in early 1993. The new lender, World Savings and Loan, issued and approved a loan in the amount of approximately $400k (this is an estimate based on a review of the loan balance when the owner lost the unit). The loan was then sold to Wells Fargo shortly thereafter. It appears that starting at some point around November of 2010, the previous owner of the property defaulted on her loan payments and homeowner association dues. Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property in August 2011 and promptly recorded a trustee’s deed (“Deed of Trust”) on August 16, 2011. The Deed of Trust indicates that previous owner’s outstanding debt at the time of foreclosure was $351,707.30. Despite the clear language in the Deed Restriction requiring notice to the City, the City received neither notice of default nor notice of the foreclosure from Wells Fargo at any time prior to the foreclosure. The City was notified of the property’s foreclosure by formal letter from Fidelity on May 4, 2012. On June 14, 2012, the City sent written notice of intent to exercise the option to purchase the property. Thereafter, Wells Fargo filed a civil action against the City in which Wells Fargo sought a judicial confirmation of clear title to the subject property, which had been previously included as part of the City’s below-market-rate (BMR) housing program. Following a lengthy legal process, the City of Palo Alto and Wells Fargo Bank reached an agreement for the sale of the property. In January 2016, Council (in closed session) authorized the City Attorney to settle the matter and to purchase and return the subject property to the City of Palo Alto Page 3 City’s BMR inventory. The City and Wells Fargo Bank have executed the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement (see Attachment A). Once the City acquires the property, it will be marketed for subsequent resale to a qualified below market purchaser. (See Attachment A CMR: 227:07). DISCUSSION Staff’s recommendation is to repurchase the unit and then resell it to a qualified BMR buyer from the BMR waiting list at a price that recoups the City’s direct costs. In general, the City’s practice has been to assume ownership of BMR units as a last resort. This would occur if there were no options to preserve the unit in the program due to financial risks and a significant increase in staff workload. As the property owner, the City would need to pay the $558 monthly holding costs for HOA dues. The City’s investment/direct cost in the unit will total a little over $195,000 once the City takes title from the Wells Fargo Bank. Purchase price, $190,000 Title and Escrow $ 1,500 HOA Dues $ 558 per month Minor cleanup & Repairs: $ 1,000 Contingencies: $ 2,000 Total City Investment $195,058 The City will purchase this property from the bank and place it again into BMR stock. Assuming the unit is being added to the BMR stock for the first time and using 90% AMI for a one person household, the unit would be sold for approximately $195,000. A waiting list applicant purchasing this unit would need to have a minimum net monthly income of $1,686 to cover housing costs. Due to the limited supply of new or one bedroom BMR units, staff believes this unit will be attractive to those on the BMR waiting list and will sell quickly. The property will be offered at the resale price to the BMR waiting list for 30 days. Fund 230, BMR Emergency Fund: This Fund may be used for activities related to the preservation of the City’s BMR ownership housing stock. In September 2002, Council authorized: 1. An assessment loan program to provide deferred payment, low interest loans to assist BMR owners facing severe financial hardship in paying major capital assessments on their condominium homes. Regular monthly homeowner’s dues do not qualify for these loans. The Director of Planning and Community Environment establishes specific eligibility criteria and procedures within the general guidelines set by Council. City of Palo Alto Page 4 2. Protection and preservation of units within the program from loss due to foreclosure, typically by legal action and / or direct purchase by the City; 3. Repair, holding, and resale costs of BMR units acquired by the City; and 4. Short-term loans to correct deferred maintenance or rehabilitate older BMR units at resale RESOURCE IMPACT The BMR Emergency Fund has sufficient funds for this transaction. This Fund will be used to pay all costs related to the preservation of the subject property which includes: the purchase price and holding and transaction costs estimated at $195,000. The proceeds from the eventual resale will be deposited back into the BMR Fund. It is projected that there would be a net decrease to the fund’s balance of approximately $5,000, which would consist of the difference between the $200,000 necessary for the purchase price, additional contingencies and transaction costs and the estimated resale value of $195,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The staff recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policy which is to protect and preserve the BMR ownership units in the City’s affordable housing stock. TIMELINE Should Council approve the staff recommendation, a purchase contract will be prepared and executed with the City as the buyer without any contingencies other than City review. Lastly, the unit will be offered for sale to the BMR waiting list. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The provision of City funds to preserve a single-family ownership unit as affordable housing is categorically exempt under Section 15326 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: Settlement Agreement Wells Fargo and CPA (PDF) ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto (ID # 6996) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/12/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines. The Guidelines will be Used by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and City Staff When Reviewing Development Applications to Evaluate the Compatibility of Proposed Changes With the Historic Character of Professorville. The HRB Recommends Council Approval of the Guidelines. The Project is Exempt From the Provisions of CEQA per Class 8 Categorical Exemption, Which Applies to Actions Taken by Regulatory Agencies, as Authorized by State or Local Ordinance, to Assure the Maintenance, Restoration, Enhancement, or Protection of the Environment Where the Regulatory Process Involves Procedures for Protection of the Environment From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to adopt the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines. Executive Summary: The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”) will provide a tool for the community to evaluate the compatibility of proposed development with the historic character of Professorville. Development of the Guidelines involved extensive input by property owners, community members, an advisory panel, and the Historic Resources Board (HRB). Public input was provided via email, at community workshops, and at HRB meetings. The Guidelines project was awarded a $37,000 grant from the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), which is reimbursable upon OHP’s receipt of the final Guidelines, provided they are received by September 30, 2016. The Guidelines are included as Attachment B to this report and are accessible on the City’s Professorville Design Guidelines webpage at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/professorville.asp. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background: The Professorville Historic District includes approximately 65 acres and 186 residential parcels (including several parcels containing more than one residence). The majority of residences within the district were constructed during the first wave of the city’s development, which took place between the 1890s and the 1930s. According to the National Register of Historic Places inventory nomination form, Professorville “reflects the unique background of the area’s origins and its early ties to the founding of both the University and Palo Alto itself. As such, the Professorville Historic District creates a strong sense of place and time expressive of Palo Alto’s intrinsic character and heritage.”1 The Professorville Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. Also at that time, the City Council adopted the Professorville Historic District to the City’s Historic Inventory. In 1993, the City Council expanded the boundary of the locally designated district east to Embarcadero Road in order to encompass additional properties that contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. Project Initiation On March 14, 2011, the City Council directed planning staff to work with the HRB, Professorville residents, and other interested community members to develop design guidelines for all projects in Professorville, including compatibility criteria for new construction, additions, and remodels in the district.2 Between 2011 and 2013, HRB members and staff conducted community workshops and meetings, during which design principles and approaches were discussed and a preliminary set of draft guidelines were prepared and posted as a draft document on the City’s website. The preliminary draft guidelines, however, were not adopted in favor of a more comprehensive design and robust outreach approach made possible through federal and state grant funding. In 2015, the City Council accepted a Certified Local Government (CLG) grant of federal funds from OHP to complete a bound volume of illustrated architectural guidelines incorporating the community’s design principles, input by homeowners, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.3 According to the CLG Grant agreement between the City and OHP, the funds are reimbursable to the City upon OHP’s receipt of the final work product by September 30, 2016. Staff selected the firm of Page & Turnbull as the consultant to develop and produce the final guidelines. HRB Review and Outreach, Current Guidelines 1 Professorville Historic District National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, 1979, page 8-2. 2 See March 14, 2011 City Council report at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/41050 and meeting transcript at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/27061. 3 See August 17, 2015 City Council report at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48441 and action minutes at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49226. City of Palo Alto Page 3 At the HRB meetings of June 9, 2016 and July 28, 2016, the HRB reviewed the draft Guidelines, received presentations from staff and the consultant, and accepted public testimony. HRB members provided comments on the draft Guidelines, including recommendations for technical revisions, updates, and additions to text and graphics, which staff and the consultant have incorporated into the currently proposed final Guidelines. At the July 28, 2016 HRB meeting, the HRB voted unanimously to recommend the City Council adopt the final revised Guidelines.4 The HRB’s efforts followed extensive research, fieldwork, and community input including: A review of the National Register of Historic Places nomination form and other literature relating to the historic architecture and landscape of Professorville; A survey of the existing conditions of the neighborhood; Walking tours by local historians; Public workshops at which the participants (including homeowners who took part in previous workshops) provided input on community design principles and the preferred approaches to historic preservation. The City staff convened an advisory panel comprised of local architects, historians, and a real estate professional, who reviewed the administrative draft and provided comments. The consultant incorporated the advisory panel’s comments, prepared a second draft of the Guidelines and resubmitted to the City. Staff posted the second draft on the City’s Professorville Design Guidelines webpage for public review and comment and held a second public workshop, to discuss the draft and conduct interactive exercises with workshop attendees. Discussion: The Guidelines are intended to allow for and manage development in Professorville while preserving the qualities that are most important to the district’s historic character. The Guidelines are not intended to prevent or slow down compatible development in the neighborhood. Qualities that are important to the district’s historic character include the ways in which homes stand on their own as examples of distinguished architecture, and also the ways in which residences and appurtenant structures relate to one another within the context of the wider neighborhood. The Guidelines take into account the following important characteristics of Professorville: Lot layout and pattern; Massing and form of buildings and structures; Material palette; Architectural styles and character-defining features; Landscape and streetscape. 4 See June 9, 2016 HRB report at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52706 and meeting transcript at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53126. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The Guidelines are designed to be applicable to all properties located within the City’s locally designated district, which is inclusive of the National Register district. How the Guidelines Will Be Used The Guidelines will provide a tool for members of the community to evaluate the compatibility of proposed development with the historic character of Professorville. For homeowners, the Guidelines will provide advice on everything from ordinary maintenance and repair of existing buildings to major new construction. Similarly, the Guidelines will provide architects and designers with advice early in the design development process regarding the community’s expectations of district compatibility, which can reduce the “guesswork” involved in designing architecturally compatible improvements, additions, and new construction. The Guidelines will also give the public a basis for understanding how decisions are made regarding the appropriate treatment of properties in Professorville. In cases where proposed work is subject to City review and approval, the Guidelines will provide the HRB and staff with specific criteria for evaluating design compatibility. The Guidelines use straightforward language and illustrations that are easy to understand to describe the historic architectural character and characteristic features of Professorville, and to make recommendations for the treatment of district properties in ways that are consistent with the design principles and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The recommendations for treatment are organized into chapters based on common scopes of work in Professorville, including: ordinary maintenance and repair; alterations and additions to older residences (1890s-1930s); alterations and additions to newer residences (1930s-present); new construction; and site improvements, landscape, and streetscape. During the development of the Guidelines, several key issues were raised by HRB members and community members. These key issues are discussed below. Relationships to Codes and Application Review The Guidelines do not include any changes to existing City codes or review procedures; nor do the Guidelines preclude making changes to City codes or review procedures in the future. The Guidelines are meant to be used in concert with the existing codes and review procedures, or with updated codes and procedures that may be adopted in the future. In Professorville, every exterior modification requiring a building permit is subject to review by the HRB, either through a discretionary permit or through the HRB’s non-binding review authority for ministerial building permits.5 Under existing codes and procedures, in cases where a development application is subject to a discretionary approval (e.g. Single Family Individual Review), the Guidelines may be used by the HRB and staff to interpret and clarify the existing Standards of Review in the Municipal Code and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. In cases where proposed exterior work requiring building permits is not subject to a discretionary approval, but is subject to HRB review and non-binding recommendation under 5 Municipal Code Section 16.49.050. City of Palo Alto Page 5 the current code, the HRB may use the Guidelines as a reference document when making non- binding recommendations to homeowners. Prior to filing a development application, homeowners, architects, and builders can use the Guidelines as a design tool early in the design development process in order to inform preliminary designs. Guidelines vs. Development Standards Guidelines are suggestions that allow for case-by-case interpretation and decision making based on several factors, including but not limited to preservation issues. Guidelines are a starting point for a conversation about historically compatible development. They do not provide answers in and of themselves. Development standards are generally more prescriptive and literal, and they are less flexible in allowing interpretation and individual decision making. Guidelines are proposed for Professorville instead of development standards in order to allow for interpretation and flexibility in decision making, based on specific circumstances. Traditional vs. Contemporary in New Construction The Guidelines recognize that the significant historical character of Professorville includes a combination of historic architectural styles that developed over a period of approximately four decades (1890s-1930s). However, the existing mélange of historic architecture does not necessarily mean Professorville can accommodate additional contemporary architectural styles without any adverse effects occurring upon its character and its relationship to the historic period. Newer development should be introduced carefully and with great forethought as to how it relates to the historic architectural character of the district. Variations in District Development Patterns The Guidelines set forth that, while there are some predominant patterns of historical development in Professorville, there are also historic variations and exceptions to the predominant patterns, all of which contribute to the character of the district. Therefore, the Guidelines avoid recommending “uniform” treatments or design solutions based on the predominant historical patterns of development in Professorville, at the expense of secondary historical patterns, variations, and exceptions from typical patterns, which may also provide unique neighborhood character. Examples include variations in lot sizes, front yard setback depths, front entry placements, and building heights. The Guidelines address these variations in historical development patterns by providing “case-by-case” recommendations for treatments based on specific circumstances, and by avoiding recommending uniform treatments. Feasibility and Practicality The Guidelines acknowledge that, in order to be useful, the recommended treatments and design solutions must be feasible and practical to implement. The Guidelines also acknowledge that, in some cases, design solutions for improvements to historic residential properties are affected by practical considerations, such as needs for off-street automobile parking and/or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Guidelines emphasize case-by-case decision making based on specific circumstances, and they include specific conditions and parameters for certain City of Palo Alto Page 6 treatments that may not be recommended in most cases, but which may be appropriate for unique situations, such as moving and lifting buildings, and adding substantial new additions to existing smaller homes. Contributors and Non-contributors The Guidelines do not affect the previously adopted designations of contributing and non- contributing structures to the district, which remain in effect. The Guidelines do apply equally to all properties in the district, in order to encourage the preservation of historic contributors, the rehabilitation and restoration of altered historic non-contributors, and the general compatibility of properties constructed after the historic period. In making recommendations for treatment, the Guidelines distinguish between properties constructed during the historic period and those constructed later, because architectural styles and construction types changed substantially after the 1930s. Timeline: The following table summarizes the project timeline, including previously completed activities and activities to be completed. Activity Date Project “kick-off” postcard notices mailed to Professorville property owners and residents* December 15, 2015 Community Workshop #1 February 23, 2016 Draft guidelines posted on the City’s website for review and comment by the general public May 2, 2016 Community Workshop #2 May 26, 2016 HRB Public Hearing – Review and Comment June 9, 2016 HRB Public Hearing – Recommend Adoption July 28, 2016 City Council Hearing – Adoption September 12, 2016 Submittal of Final Guidelines to OHP in accordance with CLG Grant Agreement September 30, 2016 (or before) *Additional separate postcard notices were mailed to all Professorville property owners and residents prior to each outreach event. Policy Implications: No new or updated policies are proposed. Similarly, no changes in existing application review City of Palo Alto Page 7 procedures or review standards are proposed. The Guidelines will be used as a design tool for interpreting and applying the currently adopted Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which the Guidelines are based upon (as described above), and the existing Standards of Review in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which mandate that alterations should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics, nor the historical, architectural or aesthetic value of buildings and sites in districts, nor the relationships of buildings, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with surroundings and neighborhood structures.6 The Guidelines are consistent with and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49), as described in the attached Resolution (Attachment A). Resource Impact: No additional City resources will be needed to conduct application review or to provide pre- application consultations using the Guidelines. The Guidelines are not anticipated to result in any increase in the frequency or quantity of development applications submitted for review, or to result in any increase in the time required for the HRB and/or City staff to review and process applications. Currently, the HRB and City staff review development applications involving historic properties for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Standards of Review in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as applicable. Also, City staff currently provides consultation on historic preservation matters to the general public on a regular basis. These current activities would continue to occur, and would be facilitated and possibly expedited by adoption and implementation of the Guidelines. According to the CLG Grant agreement between the City and OHP, the $37,000 in CLG Grant funds are reimbursable to the City upon OHP’s receipt of the final work product by September 30, 2016. If OHP does not receive the completed Guidelines transmitted from the City by September 30, 2016, OHP can withhold some or all of the $37,000 in CLG Grant funding. Currently, project funding is available to make minor changes only which may be required prior to September 30, 2016, such as errata corrections (if any). Any substantive changes to the Guidelines would require additional funding and time in order to be completed. Previously, project funding was expended to develop the draft Guidelines, as well as to complete several rounds of revisions to the draft Guidelines, in response to comments received from homeowners, community members, and HRB members. Environmental Review: The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Class 8 Categorical Exemption, which applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to 6 Muncipal Code Section 16.49.050 (b). City of Palo Alto Page 8 assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.7 Attachments: Attachment A: 0131545 RESO adoption of professorville design guidelines (PDF) Attachment B: Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines (PDF) Attachment C: Public correspondence to Council (PDF) 7 CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. NOT YET APPROVED 160822 jb 0131545 1 Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines R E C I T A L S A. On March 14, 2011, the City Council directed planning staff to work with the Historic Resources Board, Professorville residents, and other interested community members to develop design guidelines for all projects in Professorville, including compatibility criteria for new construction, additions, and remodels in the district. B. On August 17, 2015, the City Council accepted a $37,000 Grant from the California Office of Historic Preservation and adopted a related Budget Amendment Ordinance for completion of the Guidelines. C. On July 28, 2016, the Historic Resources Board reviewed the draft Guidelines, heard public testimony, provided comments to staff, and recommended the City Council adopt the final revised Guidelines. D. Upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing on September 12, 2016, the Council reviewed the Guidelines and made the following findings: 1. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, including: POLICY L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. POLICY L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. PROGRAM L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new development to maintain and support the existing character. POLICY L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory. PROGRAM L-58: For proposed exterior alterations or additions to designated Historic Landmarks, require design review findings that the proposed changes are in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. POLICY L-58: Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. 2. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with the purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49), including: Designate, preserve, protect, NOT YET APPROVED 160822 jb 0131545 2 enhance and perpetuate those historic structures, districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Palo Alto; Stablize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts and neighborhoods; Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such structures. 3. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with the Standards of Review contained in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49), including: In historic districts, the proposed alterations should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical, architectural or aesthetic value of the building and its site; or the relationship of the building, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighborhood structures. 4. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as follows: 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. 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. 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. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 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. 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. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 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 NOT YET APPROVED 160822 jb 0131545 3 and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 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. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines, which are attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. CEQA. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Class 8 Categorical Exemption, which applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines Palo Alto, California August 2016 Revised Public Review Draft Prepared by: 3 Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines Palo Alto, California August 2016 Revised Public Review Draft Prepared by: Acknowledgments City Council Patrick Burt, Mayor Gregory Scharff, Vice Mayor Marc Berman Tom DuBois Eric Filseth Karen Holman Liz Kniss Greg Schmid Cory Wolbach Historic Resources Board Martin Bernstein David Bower Beth Bunnenberg Patricia Di Cicco Roger Kohler Michael Makinen Margaret Wimmer City Sta Advisory Panel Martin Bernstein, Historic Resources Board/Architect David Bower, Historic Resources Board/ Builder (retired) Laura Jones, Director of Heritage Services, Stanford University Lee Lippert, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage/ Architect Steve Pierce, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors City Sta Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment Amy French, Chief Planning Official Matthew Weintraub, Planner Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist Special Acknowledgments to: Professorville Homeowners and Residents Dennis Backlund, City of Palo Alto Planner (retired) Prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc. 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94101 www.page-turnbull.com Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 9 Project Background 9 The Professorville Historic District 10 Purpose of the Design Guidelines 13 How to Use the Guidelines 16 Methodology for Developing the Guidelines 19 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 21 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 23 2. PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER 29 Brief History of Professorville 29 General Description of Current Conditions 33 3. GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS 53 4. GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT (C. 1890-1930S) 71 5. GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM LATER PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT (1930S-PRESENT) 87 6. GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES 97 7. GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: DETACHED SECOND UNITS, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPE, AND STREETSCAPE 113 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS 131 APPENDIX B: PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA 135 INDEX 157 Introduction 9INTRODUCTION The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines have been prepared to serve as a planning tool for residents and property owners in the Professorville Historic District, which is listed to the National Register of Historic Places and the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory. Among the earliest areas to develop in Palo Alto, Professorville is a residential neighborhood with a clear historic character, distinguished by its particular mixture of turn-of-the-twentieth-century architectural styles, consistent streetscape patterns, and verdant tree canopy. Yet, Professorville remains a living piece of Palo Alto’s urban fabric. Older residences require periodic maintenance to remain comfortable and in good condition. In addition, alterations may be desired in order to adapt the neighborhood’s early homes to contemporary tastes and lifestyles. In some cases, new residences have been constructed next to earlier buildings, and others may be in the future. All livable neighborhoods change over time, and Professorville is no exception. Project Background In 2011, the Palo Alto City Council directed the City’s Historic Resources Board and planning staff to work with the community to develop design guidelines for the Professorville Historic District, including guidance for new construction. Between 2011 1. Introduction 10 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES and 2013, Board members and staff conducted community workshops and meetings, during which design principles and approaches were discussed and preliminary guidelines were drafted. In 2015, the City Council accepted a Certified Local Government grant from the California Office of Historic Preservation to complete a bound volume of illustrated architectural guidelines incorporating the community’s design principles, input by homeowners, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (listed at the end of this chapter). The City selected the firm of Page & Turnbull as the consultant to develop and produce the final guidelines. e Professorville Historic District The Professorville Historic District is located across approximately 65 acres and several residential suburban city blocks southeast of downtown Palo Alto. Most of the homes within the district face onto one of ten city streets that form a regular grid pattern: Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Addison Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Kingsley Avenue, Melville Avenue, and Embarcadero Road. The majority of residences within the district date to the first wave of the city’s development, which took place between c. 1893 and the 1930s. The western half of the district contains many of the neighborhood’s oldest homes and is characterized by tightly spaced lots. The eastern half of the district contains several large, early homes located on expansive properties, but also a number of more recent residences that were constructed after the lots were subdivided. Additional information about the district’s historic development and architectural character is found in Chapter 2. Professorville contains a mixture of house sizes, styles, and forms. This variety is one of the neighborhood’s defining characteristics. 11INTRODUCTION Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t Co w p e r S t r e e t Linc o l n A v e n u e Bry a n t S t r e e t King s l e y A v e n u e Embarcad e r o R o a d Melv i l l e A v e n u e We b s t e r S t r e e t Em e r s o n S t r e e t Byr o n S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Chan n i n g A v e n u e Hig h S t r e e t Add i s o n A v e n u e Al m a S t r e e t Chur c h i l l A v e n u e Tas s o S t r e e t Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Kello g g A v e n u e Hom e r A v e n u e Cole r i d g e A v e n u e La n e B E a s t La n e B W e s t Kip l i n g S t r e e t Sc o t t S t r e e t Embarcad e r o R o a d 0 125 250 375 500 Feet LEGEND Local Historic District National Register Historic District Professorville Boundaries Palo Alto Professorville The locally designated Professorville Historic District expanded the boundaries of the earlier National Register district. See Appendix B for a map that includes individual property addresses. 12 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES The Professorville Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. Administered by the National Park Service, the National Register is the nation’s comprehensive inventory of historic resources. A primary benefit of Professorville’s National Register designation is the formal recognition that the neighborhood is one of the most significant places in the context of Palo Alto’s historic development. The Professorville Historic District’s nomination to the National Register identified the district as bounded roughly by Emerson Street, Addison Avenue, Cowper Street, and Embarcadero Road. One hundred and five residences were found to be contributing properties to the National Register district, based on construction dates between the 1890s and 1929. As such, they convey the initial wave of construction that filled out much of the neighborhood with stately homes. According to the National Register district nomination, Professorville “reflects the unique background of the area’s origins and its early ties to the founding of both the University and Palo Alto itself. As such, the Professorville Historic District creates a strong sense of place and time expressive of Palo Alto’s intrinsic character and heritage.”1 Chapter 16.49 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code allows the City to designate local historic districts. The City of Palo Alto adopted the Professorville Historic District to the City’s Historic Inventory in 1979. In 1993, the locally designated district’s boundaries were expanded east to Embarcadero Road, beyond the earlier identified district, encompassing additional properties that contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. The City’s expanded district contains nearly 200 residential properties. These guidelines are applicable to all properties located within the City’s expanded local district, which is inclusive of the National Register district. 1 Professorville Historic District National Register Nomination, 1979, page 8-2. 13INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Design Guidelines The design guidelines are a tool so that members of the community can evaluate the compatibility of proposed development with the historic character of Professorville. For homeowners, the guidelines provide advice on everything from ordinary maintenance and repair of existing buildings to major new construction. Similarly, the guidelines provide architects and designers with advice early in the design development process regarding the community’s expectations of district compatibility, which can reduce the “guesswork” that can be involved in designing architecturally compatible improvements, additions, and new construction. The guidelines also give the general public a basis for understanding how decisions are made regarding the appropriate treatment of properties in the Professorville Historic District. In cases where proposed work is subject to City review and approval, the guidelines provide staff and the City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board with specific criteria for evaluating design compatibility. The purpose of these guidelines is not to prevent change from happening in Professorville. Rather, the guidelines are meant to manage change while preserving the qualities that are most important to the district’s historic character. These qualities include how homes stand on their own as examples of distinguished architecture, and also how the residences relate to one another within the context of a wider, multifaceted residential neighborhood. 14 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES The guidelines take into account the following important characteristics of Professorville: • Lot layout and pattern; • Massing and form of buildings and structures; • Material palette; • Architectural styles and character-defining features; • Landscape and streetscape. Recognizing that the district’s historic character is conveyed by physical elements, natural features, and spatial relationships, this document identifies important principles that should inform future change. These principles were developed from prevalent philosophies in the historic preservation field—particularly distilled in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties—as well as from community and City staff input. These principles have led to design guidelines that should be consulted to inform any substantial changes that are proposed for properties within Professorville in the future. The ultimate goal of this document is to ensure that individual residences and the Professorville Historic District as a whole continue to express their significant and identifiable character within the neighborhood’s evolving setting in the City of Palo Alto. The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines address individual homes, as well as the neighborhood’s overall landscape character. 15INTRODUCTION The following broad principles are incorporated into the design guidelines: • Property improvements and new construction are encouraged in Professorville, in ways that are compatible with the character of the district. • The character-defining features of existing historic buildings should be retained and rehabilitated whenever possible, with an emphasis on elements that can be seen from the public right-of-way. If deterioration requires replacement, then replacement features should match the originals as closely as possible. • A historic building should not be demolished unless its rehabilitation is infeasible due to its poor physical condition. If removal of an existing historic building is necessary, then new construction should strive to retain the existing property's character-defining features, which could include salvage and reuse of materials and features. • New additions to existing historic buildings should be subordinate to the historic buildings in location, scale, and detailing. • New residences should be designed and constructed so that they are not more prominent in the district than properties built during the historic period. • The architecture of new residences should be compatible with traditional styles, materials, and building forms that characterize historic development in the district. • The massing and placement of new construction should respect the historic streetscape of Professorville. Guidelines are provided for homes dating to Professorville’s early and later periods of development. 16 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES How to Use the Guidelines The guidelines are arranged according to the age of a building and the scope of a proposed project: • Chapter 3: Maintaining, Repairing, and Replacing Historic Materials • Chapter 4: Altering or Adding to Residences From Early Periods of Development (c. 1890-1930s) • Chapter 5: Altering or Adding to Residences From Later Periods of Development (1930s-present) • Chapter 6: Designing and Building New Residences • Chapter 7: Site Improvements: Landscape, Accessory Buildings, and the Streetscape While developing their projects, Professorville residents should focus their attention on the chapter(s) appropriate to their specific goals. Each chapter introduces a number of broad historic preservation concepts, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, that should inform the thought process behind project development. These concepts are organized by feature or project scope, and are broken down into specific guidelines that will shape design decisions. Each guideline is followed by additional and clarifying points that are organized in a bulleted list. The guidelines cannot anticipate every specific case that will arise. Nevertheless, the guidelines provide design objectives that can be applied to many different situations and result in a compatible project that is integrated into its historic context. Photographs included in this document were chosen for the purposes of illustrating particular guidelines. Please note that the property represented in any one photograph may not fulfill all of the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines. 17INTRODUCTION It should also be noted that the design guidelines primarily offer principles regarding character and compatibility, rather than specific design solutions. Where applicable, this document includes references to additional resources that will help explain the technical aspects of preservation, which design teams can explore while developing their projects in order to meet the overall objectives of the guidelines. It is therefore wise to select a project team that has previous experience working in historic contexts and has encountered issues similar to what may be expected in Professorville. Components of a Design Guideline 1.1 Repairs and Alterations to Historic Buildings Historic exterior materials, whether used for cladding or decorative purposes, are critical components of a building’s architectural style and finely grained visual character. 1.1.1 Maintain original windows wherever possible. e original window type, including shape, size, and material, should be retained. • Always consider repairing original windows before replacing. If replacement is necessary, replacing in-kind and matching the original window is the preferred treatment. OVERARCHING CONCEPT, TYPE OF PROJECT, OR FEATURE OF THE BUILDING STATEMENT EXPLAINING DESIGN OBJECTIVE OR GENERAL APPROACHES THAT APPLY TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES DESIGN GUIDELINE ILLUSTRATING A PARTICULAR OBJECTIVE. OCCASIONALLY, ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN PRIORITIES FOLLOWS THE GUIDELINE BULLETED LIST WITH SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AND FURTHER INFORMATION WHEN APPLICABLE, LINKS TO ADDITIONAL PUBLISHED INFORMATION ARE INCLUDED For more information: Preservation Brief 9: "The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows,” (NPS), https://www. nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm 18 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Selecting an Architect and Contractor Given that developing a project in the Professorville Historic District should be undertaken with the design guidelines in mind, selecting a project team with the right background is a helpful first step. One consideration in selecting architects and contractors should be whether they have experience dealing with historic properties, or with properties located within historic districts. It is strongly recommended that Professorville residents interview potential firms regarding their qualifications at the onset of their projects. Possible questions include: • Is the firm familiar with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties? • Does the firm have experience designing projects that are located in and compatible with historic districts? • Is the firm knowledgeable about applying the State Historical Building Code to residential projects? The California Historical Resources Information System Consultants List compiles a number of professional architects with demonstrated expertise in historic preservation, organized by county: http://www.chrisinfo.org. This list is not exhaustive, and many additional architects in the Palo Alto area likely have backgrounds working with historic buildings. 19INTRODUCTION Methodology for Developing the Guidelines The process of developing these guidelines was a continuation of previous work conducted prior to 2015 by the community and the Historic Resources Board, which established design principles and approaches to development that encouraged the preservation of historic neighborhood character. Continuity between previous efforts and the current project was evident by the participation of community members who had taken part in the previous workshops and meetings, as well as from new participants including homeowners and members of the general public. The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines were developed following extensive research and fieldwork, as well as solicitation of community input. Research included review of the National Register nomination form and other literature relating to the historic architecture and landscaping of Professorville. The existing conditions of the neighborhood were surveyed in the field, and local historians provided walking tours and knowledge about history and architecture. To engage the community, a public workshop was held on February 23, 2016, at which the participants (including individuals who took part in previous workshops held between 2011 and 2013) provided additional input on community design principles and the preferred approaches to historic preservation. Preparation of the design guidelines involved field survey to document neighborhood character, as well as community workshops to solicit input from neighborhood residents. 20 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Following the workshop, the consultant began work on the first draft of the guidelines, which was submitted to the City for review in March 2016. City staff, in consultation with an advisory panel that included architects, historians, and real estate professionals, reviewed the administrative draft and provided comments. The consultant incorporated staff’s comments into a public review draft, which was submitted to the City in April 2016. The City posted online the draft guidelines for public review and comment on May 2, 2016. During the public review phase, a public workshop to present information and discuss the draft guidelines was conducted on May 26, 2016, and an informational presentation was given and testimony received at a Historic Resources Board hearing on June 9, 2016. City staff reviewed and responded to the public comments that were received, and the consultant incorporated applicable comments into the final design guidelines to the extent feasible. The adoption process for the final guidelines involved public hearings at the Historic Resources Board on July 28, 2016, and City Council on ____. All photographs in this document were taken by Page & Turnbull except where otherwise noted. 21INTRODUCTION Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines provide recommendations that are closely based on, and are consistent with, the National Park Service’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a treatment that allows "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.”2 The National Park Service has developed the applicable Standards, listed on the following page, to help property owners, architects, municipalities, and others to understand the fundamental concepts that would accommodates changes and new uses of buildings, districts, and landscapes while preserving historic character. Property owners in Professorville are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Standards prior to developing their projects. 2 "Standards for Rehabilitation," National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/ treatment-rehabilitation.htm. 22 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 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. 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 the property will be avoided. 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 historical properties, will not be undertaken. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 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. 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. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measure will be undertaken. 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 shall 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 environment. 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. Additional information is available at the National Park Service's website: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 23INTRODUCTION Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Question: What is the difference between guidelines and standards? Answer: Guidelines are suggestions that allow for case-by-case interpretation and decision making based on several factors, including but not limited to preservation issues. Guidelines are a starting point for a conversation about historically compatible development. They do not provide answers in and of themselves. Standards are generally more prescriptive and literal, and they are less flexible in allowing interpretation and individual decision making. Guidelines are proposed for Professorville instead of standards in order to allow for interpretation and flexibility in decision making, based on specific circumstances. Question: How do the guidelines treat diversity of architectural styles? Answer: The guidelines acknowledge that the existing character of Professorville includes a variety of architectural styles that developed during the district’s historic period of development, approximately 1890s-1930s, as well as other architectural styles that developed more recently. However, the existing architectural diversity does not necessarily mean that Professorville can accommodate additional contemporary architectural styles without having an adverse effect upon its character and its relationship to the historic period. Newer architectural styles should be introduced carefully and with great forethought as to how they relate to the historic architectural character of the district. Question: Do the guidelines differentiate between contributors and non- contributors? Answer: The guidelines are meant to apply equally to all properties in the district; therefore, they do not include radically different treatments for contributors and non-contributors. The guidelines encourage the preservation of historic contributors, the rehabilitation and restoration of altered historic non- contributors, and the general compatibility of properties constructed after the historic period. The guidelines do distinguish between properties constructed during the historic period and those constructed later, because architectural styles and construction types changed substantially after the 1930s. 24 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Question: How do the guidelines relate to City codes and review procedures? How will the guidelines be used in project reviews? Answer: The guidelines do not propose any changes to existing City codes or review procedures; nor do the guidelines preclude making changes to City codes or review procedures in the future, if so desired. The guidelines are meant to be used in concert with the existing codes and review procedures, or with updated codes and procedures that may be adopted in the future. Under existing codes and procedures, in cases where a development application is subject to a discretionary approval (e.g. Single Family Individual Review), the guidelines may be used by the HRB and staff to interpret and clarify the existing Standards of Review in the Municipal Code and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. When proposed exterior work requiring building permits is subject to HRB review and non-binding recommendation under the current code, the HRB may use the guidelines as a reference document when making non-binding recommendations to homeowners. Prior to filing a development application, homeowners, architects, and builders can use the guidelines as a design tool early in the design development process in order to inform preliminary designs. Professorville History and Character THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 29PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER Brief History of Professorville Professorville belongs to the historic core of Palo Alto. Neither the neighborhood nor the city at large existed prior to the opening of Stanford University, which Leland and Jane Stanford established on land belonging to their large horse farm in northwestern Santa Clara County. By the time Stanford University opened its doors in 1891, over 700 acres of land east of the new campus had been set aside for a townsite that could house those affiliated with the university. A number of freshly arrived faculty members wished to purchase land and build homes for their families in this new college town, known as Palo Alto. They chose the fledgling neighborhood that lay near the eastern boundary of the campus, across the Southern Pacific rail line. For its early academic residents, the neighborhood received the name Professorville. Its large lots and close proximity to the university were attractive features for early residents, and homes were steadily built there during the 1890s and first decades of the twentieth century. Professorville’s academic atmosphere fostered an appreciation for fashionable architectural styles. When faculty residents arrived in California, they imported elements of residential architecture from the areas where they had previously lived: the Eastern and Midwestern United States. Many new residences showed the influence of the Shingle, Arts and Crafts, and Colonial Revival styles, reflecting a San Francisco Bay Area 2. Professorville History and Character When Professorville was constructed, it conveyed a rustic feeling that is still experienced today. Cowper Street is seen above. Source: Stanford University Historical Photograph Collection 30 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES regional interpretation known as the First Bay Tradition. These residences frequently were clad in wood shingles and had asymmetric façades, which created a naturalistic impression throughout the neighborhood. Bernard Maybeck, one of the pioneers of the First Bay Tradition at the turn of the twentieth century, was commissioned to build a home for Emma Kellogg at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bryant Street. After this house burned, Maybeck designed its distinctive replacement, now commonly known as the Sunbonnet House. Other newly built residences in the early twentieth century showed the influence of Revival styles, such as Tudor and Spanish Colonial. Yet all exhibited a high quality of craftsmanship and design—truly notable for the somewhat isolated outpost of Palo Alto at this time. While primarily filled with residences, Professorville was also the location of the notable Castilleja Hall on Bryant Street, which housed a girls’ preparatory school during the first decade of the twentieth century and was later converted to housing. By the 1920s, much of Professorville had been largely built out with single-family homes. Most had detached automobile garages by this time, which were typically placed at the rear of the lot. The development pattern of the neighborhood, particularly in its western half, was characterized by a regular rhythm of handsome residences, each surrounded by a well-appointed lawn. The eastern half of the neighborhood, on the other hand, retained grander homes on expansive lots that resembled small estates. One element that linked both halves of Professorville was an impressive tree canopy, created in part by the immense redwood and live oak trees that predated the development of Palo Alto and were left standing in private yards as well as in public roadways. Many large trees were originally left standing within Professorville’s roadways. Source: Stanford University Historical Photograph Collection 31PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t Co w p e r S t r e e t Linc o l n A v e n u e Bry a n t S t r e e t King s l e y A v e n u e Embarcad e r o R o a d Melv i l l e A v e n u e We b s t e r S t r e e t Em e r s o n S t r e e t Byr o n S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Chan n i n g A v e n u e Hig h S t r e e t Add i s o n A v e n u e Al m a S t r e e t Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Tas s o S t r e e t Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Kello g g A v e n u e Hom e r A v e n u e Cole r i d g e A v e n u e Lan e B E a s t La n e B W e s t Kip l i n g S t r e e t Sc o t t S t r e e t Embarcad e r o R o a d 0 125 250 375 500 Feet LEGEND Professorville Historic District Year Built: 1890 - 1899 1900 - 1909 1910 - 1919 1920 - 1929 1930 - 1939 1940 - 1979 1980 - 2013 Professorville's residences have been constructed over the course of more than a century. Many of the oldest homes are located in the district's west half. 32 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Over time, several of Professorville’s larger lots were subdivided, and any parcels that remained empty were filled in the postwar period. Kingsley Court, a cluster of 10 cottages designed by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge Clark, was constructed in 1940. In the following decades, a handful of Modernist style houses were added to the neighborhood, as well as two new religious complexes: St. Ann’s Chapel (established by playwright and diplomat Clare Boothe Luce to memorialize her deceased daughter) and the First Presbyterian Church. Professorville’s residents also shifted away from the faculty who had originally built homes there, as many of the large residences were converted to student housing by mid-century. In the 1970s and 1980s interest in historic preservation increased, and over time many of the homes in the neighborhood were rehabilitated and returned to single-family residential use.1 1 The narrative in this section is informed by the following sources: Historic Environment Consultants, Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto: Inventory and Report, prepared for the City of Palo Alto, 1979; Professorville National Register Nomination; Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to America’s Historic Neighborhoods and Museum Houses: The Western States (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008). 33PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER General Description of Current Conditions Overall Visual Character As a result of its historic development, Professorville contains an outstanding variety of residential architecture set within a verdant landscape of towering trees and well-kept yards. Dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the majority of the neighborhood’s houses vary in style and scale—some modest cottages, others large and stately mansions. Yet, they share certain materials and decorative elements that create the compelling architectural aesthetic that defines Professorville’s historic character. One of the most apparent of these is the pervasive use of wood shingle siding, which relates to the lushly planted yards and streetscape and gives the neighborhood a rustic feel. At the same time, the homes feature many formal details derived from the Classical architectural vocabulary, such as columns, dentils, and cornices. The result of these repeated elements is that buildings throughout Professorville have visual similarities in spite of their differences in plan, massing, and roof forms. Most homes in Professorville face the street, creating a handsome visual impression. 34 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Site Development Patterns The homes and accessory structures that make up Professorville are physically arranged in a discernible pattern that contributes to its cohesive visual character. • Many lots are 50’-75’ in width in the most tightly spaced portions of Professorville’s west half; larger lots are typically located north and east of Waverley Street. • Early residences are set back from the street between 25’-40’, so that they have ample front yards with narrow side yards. • Most homes have one-and-one-half, two, or two-and-one-half stories. • Most garages are detached from early residences and placed at the rear of their lots, typically along the property line. • Where rear alleys are present in the western half of the neighborhood, garages and carriage houses open directly onto the alley. • Kingsley Court, the loop of cottages located alongside Kingsley Avenue, was constructed as infill development in 1940; its pattern of smaller homes with compact yards is visibly distinct from the overall siting patterns of the historic neighborhood. The complex of the First Presbyterian Church on Cowper Street is a further example of infill that presents a contrasting development pattern. 35PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER Streetscape and Landscape Patterns The idyllic character of Professorville owes much to the pattern of yards, trees, and plantings that line the neighborhood’s sidewalks and face toward the public streets. The visual impression a visitor encounters while passing through Professorville is greatly influenced by the following features and spatial relationships: • Examples of large, mature trees date prior to the neighborhood’s construction and have been left in place. These include coast live oak and valley oak. • Other mature trees and hedges appear to have been planted in the first decades of the neighborhood’s development. These include coast redwood, date palm, Southern magnolia, persimmon, camphor, Carolina laurel hedge, loquat, English yew, and hawthorne: • The front yards of many residences include edge features, such as low wood picket fences and/or hedgerows, lining the public sidewalk. • Fences and hedgerows vary in their visual permeability, i.e. some allow front yards to be totally visible from the public right-of-way while others do not. • Front yards are typically graded flat. Many are planted with grass, yet others feature eclectic planting schemes of shrubs and other low plantings. • Approach walks lead through front yards to reach front entrances; many are narrow and are perpendicular to the public sidewalk. Common materials for approach walks are brick or concrete edged in brick. • Where approach walks meet the public sidewalk, fences often feature gates, gateposts, or trellises. • Curvilinear walks paved in stone appear to be more recent alterations. • Some more recent residences (c. 1970-present) have extensive concrete or gravel paving throughout the front yard. Many front yards in Professorville are edged in low fences, which communicates a progression from public to private space. A number of early trees in Professorville have been left standing, defining the neighborhood’s landscape character. 36 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES • Historic driveways are generally wide enough for only one car and are located along one edge of the parcel. • Expansive driveways that lead in front of their respective house are generally signs of later intervention. • Parking strips have varied planting schemes but generally contain evenly spaced street trees of numerous species. • Street lights are non-historic and are mounted onto the neighborhood’s utility poles. • Older curb cuts at driveways have a tight radius. Historic Developments in Residential Landscapes Virginia and Lee McAlester's reference book A Field Guide to America’s Historic Neighborhoods and Museum Houses: The Western States identifies several broad characteristics of residential landscapes that were employed during Professorville's initial period of development in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the 1880s and 1890s, private yards were often surrounded by low ornamental fences, possibly made of wood or cast iron. Foundation plantings were not commonly used surrounding a residence, but instead homeowners inserted planting beds, shrubs, and trees in the middle of their yards. Low wood fences were still used during the 1910s, and often included trellises or other features at pedestrian entrances. At that time, it had become more common for residential yards to include profuse plantings of shrubs and other vegetation than during the Victorian era. By the 1920s, foundation plantings could be found alongside the foundation of a house; the front lawn was often left open and uninterrupted apart from trees. Throughout these periods, paving was typically limited to walkways and narrow driveways that reached detached garages and carriage houses. 37PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER Historic Architectural Styles in Professorville The character of Professorville is crucially defined by its residences. This section presents some of the most prevalent historic architectural styles found in the neighborhood and describes features that are commonly found on homes that belong to those styles. The following lists of features should not be understood to be comprehensive and complete. Rather, they are meant to assist Professorville residents to understand the stylistic qualities of their homes and to identify those elements that define their historic visual character. Gaining such an understanding will be important when using the guidelines included later in this document. Note that some residences may not have a single style but instead combine elements from more than one, so character-defining features may come from more than one list. Those residences with a combination of styles should not be thought of as “impure” examples. Instead, they should be recognized for adding to the architectural variety that is one of Professorville’s hallmarks. 38 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t Co w p e r S t r e e t Linc o l n A v e n u e Bry a n t S t r e e t King s l e y A v e n u e Embarcad e r o R o a d Melv i l l e A v e n u e We b s t e r S t r e e t Em e r s o n S t r e e t Byr o n S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Chan n i n g A v e n u e Hig h S t r e e t Add i s o n A v e n u e Al m a S t r e e t Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Tas s o S t r e e t Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Kello g g A v e n u e Hom e r A v e nue Cole r i d g e A v e n u e Lan e B E a s t Lan e B W e s t Sc o t t S t r e e t Embarcad e r o R o a d 0 125 250 375 500 Feet LEGEND Professorville Historic District Style / Influence: Shingle Style; Colonial Revival; Queen Anne; Craftsman; Prairie Spanish Colonial Revival; Mission Revival; Tudor Revival; French Eclectic Bungalows; Modern; Ranch Neoeclectic; Neotraditional; Contemporary This map displays the general distribution of different architectural styles, as explained in the following pages. Many homes exhibit the characteristic features of more than one style, so the groupings above are kept broad. 39PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER First Bay Tradition/Shingle Style The influence of the First Bay Tradition, the Bay Area variant of the Shingle style, is found throughout Professorville. The First Bay Tradition showcases the naturalistic, almost rustic elements of the Shingle style, in particular wood shingle cladding and asymmetrical arrangement of features and volumes. At the same time, homes built in this style may have classically inspired features, such as columns or dentils, and gambrel roofs that reflect the influence of the Colonial Revival style (see the following page). First Bay Tradition residences are also defined by a high level of craftsmanship, which can be seen in impressive carved wood and art glass. Common features seen on First Bay Tradition/Shingle Style houses in Professorville include: • One-and-one-half or two stories tall • Wood shingle and/or wood clapboard siding • Low-pitched roof slopes • Decorative brackets and exposed rafter tails underneath eaves • Wood-sash windows, typically with divided lites and occasionally with diamond muntin patterns • Front porches or recessed entries • Shed-roofed or hipped-roof dormers • Asymmetrical arrangement of features at façades • Cantilevered overhangs above the first story, in some instances flared outward • Angled or boxed bay windows Homes influenced by the First Bay Tradition and Shingle Style include the Kellogg House, at top, designed by Bernard Maybeck. Wood shingle siding is an important feature of these homes. 40 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Colonial Revival residences are characterized by their symmetrically arranged façades and Classical architectural details. Gambrel roofs are seen on homes throughout Professorville, reflecting the mixture of Colonial Revival and other influences. Colonial Revival Colonial Revival residences in Professorville reflect the renewed fascination with the formal Georgian architecture of the United States’ colonial era. A craze for the Colonial Revival followed the Centennial International Exposition of 1876, held in Philadelphia to celebrate one hundred years of American independence from Great Britain. Many of Professorville’s early faculty residents were recruited from the East and would have been familiar with this style. A number of the Colonial Revival’s distinctive characteristics were also employed in First Bay Tradition homes, as described on the previous page. • Two stories tall • Symmetrical arrangements of bays (often numbering five), with main entrances located at center • Side-gabled roofs (gambrel roofs indicate Dutch colonial influence) • Front porticoes at the main entrances, supported by columns • Wood-sash windows • Sidelites and fanlites surrounding front doors • Molded cornice element with dentil courses • Shutters flanking windows • Quarter-round windows flanking chimneys 41PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER Queen Anne residences take different forms in Professorville. Queen Anne Perhaps the quintessential Victorian-era architectural style, Queen Anne was extremely popular across the United States in the late nineteenth century. Homes built according to this style are often characterized by highly ornate features and sprawling, irregular footprints with trademark turrets or towers. • Two stories tall • Irregular floor plans and massing, with corner towers and/or angled bay windows • Complex, intersecting roof forms with steep pitches • Often, a prominent front-facing gable • Wood clapboard siding with areas of fishscale shingles • Ground-level wrap-around porches with spindlework balusters and carved brackets • Decorative wood detailing located within gables • Wood-sash windows • Palladian windows and wood columns (in Free Classic Queen Anne sub- type) 42 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Stucco cladding, tile roofs, and arched openings are characteristic of homes influenced by Spanish Colonial architecture. The Mediterranean Revival style is characterized by symmetricality, whereas other related styles often have asymmetrical façades. Spanish Colonial Revival, Mission Revival, Mediterranean Revival, and Spanish Eclectic A number of homes in Professorville were designed using related styles reflecting the influence of Spanish Colonial architecture in California. Unlike Professorville’s other Revival styles, Spanish Colonial Revival was not imported from the Eastern United States but instead first developed in California, in cities like San Diego and Santa Barbara. These styles are instantly recognizable in their material palette, particularly stucco and red clay tile roofs, that distinguish them as belonging to a regional vernacular. • One or two stories tall • Asymmetrical arrangements of features • Smooth stucco cladding, painted white or beige • Half-round clay roof tiles • Shaped roof parapets (specific to the Mission Revival style) • Wrought iron balconette railings • Paired wood-sash casement windows • Arched window and door openings • Tile vents within gables • Decorative chimney caps • Stucco cartouches 43PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER Prominent front gables are characteristic of the Craftsman style. Craftsman The Craftsman style, including the well-known bungalow sub-type, interpreted the cues of the somewhat elite Arts and Crafts and First Bay Tradition in California for a wider audience. Craftsman homes were meant to give the impression of high quality materials and craftsmanship, but often came from mass-produced plans. • One-and-one-half stories tall • Low-sloped gabled roofs • Decorative brackets and exposed rafter tails underneath overhanging eaves • Porches, often full-width and supported by tapered piers • Wood clapboard siding • Prominent dormers (gabled or with shed roof) over front roof slopes • Wood-sash windows • Boxed bay windows • In some instances, clipped gables 44 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Half timbering is a recognizable marker of the Tudor Revival style. Tudor Revival The Tudor Revival is seen occasionally in Professorville. Another of the Revival styles popular in the early twentieth century, Tudor looked to medieval England for inspiration and is unmistakable through its use of half timbering, which imitates the appearance of wattle and daub placed within structural wood frames. In Tudor Revival, such timbering is decorative and has no actual structural purpose. • Non-structural pattern of timbering filled by areas of stucco cladding • Asymmetrical arrangements of features • Steep roof slopes • Wood-sash windows • Often, prominent brick chimneys • In some cases, curved eaves to emulate the shape of a thatched roof 45PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER Strong horizontal massing and low-pitched roofs indicate the influence of the Prairie School. Prairie School Prairie School architecture is most often associated with Frank Lloyd Wright and the flat landscapes of the American Midwest. Its influence, however, is seen on residences throughout Professorville. Here, these homes are usually two stories tall with a rectangular plan—not as complexly designed as Wright’s, yet they emphasize their horizontal dimensions through several design strategies and features. • Two stories tall • Broad front façade • Rectangular plan • Shallowly pitched hipped roofs with widely overhanging eaves • Wood belt course located between the first and second stories • Wood-sash windows 46 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Later Changes and Development Even after the significant first wave of development in Professorville came to a close in the 1930s, residences continued to be built in the neighborhood as larger lots were subdivided. These homes were designed in the following general styles: Modern Many residences constructed in the United States after World War II reflected a departure from the materials and decorative treatments that defined Revival styles earlier in the century. Mid-century modern home designs took advantage of mass produced materials and were more austere in their use of architectural features. Ranch homes, a distinct sub-type of the modern style, are low-slung and characterized by their rambling floorplans. While these homes do not date to the first waves of construction in Professorville, many are muted in their design vocabulary and generally do not distract from the neighborhood’s historic character. The neighborhood’s two churches, St. Ann’s Chapel and the First Presbyterian Church, are also designed in this general style. • Simple arrangement of features • Flat façade planes with a variety of cladding materials: brick, wood, and/or stucco • Asymmetrical front façades • Gabled roofs • Attached garages incorporated into house volume • Large fixed windows, possibly metal-sash, placed on façades for compositional effectBuildings constructed in Professorville during the postwar period are visibly distinct from the neighborhood’s earliest homes. 47PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER Neoeclectic residences reflect modern interpretations of older architectural styles. Neoeclectic Other new residential styles introduced to Professorville after the 1960s can be referred to as “Neoeclectic.” These homes interpret earlier architectural styles, such as Colonial or Tudor Revival. Some draw upon the relatively simple designs of Mid-Century Modern, while others are more literal in their approximation of earlier styles. While these residences may take cues from the same historic architectural styles as earlier homes in Professorville, they can often be identified by their large size, loose interpretation of historic styles, and attached garages. These types of homes can vary greatly, and they may feature some of the following: • Historicist features taken from earlier Revival styles (such as large entry features, porches, and cornices) • Irregular/asymmetrical arrangement of features • Attached garages incorporated into the house volume For more information: “Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character—Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character,” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how- to-preserve/briefs/17-architectural- character.htm THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Guidelines for Maintaining, Repairing, and Replacing Historic Materials THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 53GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS 3. Guidelines for Maintaining, Repairing, and Replacing Historic Materials The guidelines included in this chapter are intended to help Professorville residents identify and retain the historic materials and craftsmanship that convey the character of their homes and neighborhood. Historic exterior materials, whether used for cladding or decorative purposes, are critical components of a building’s architectural style and finely grained visual character. As Professorville’s residences are recognized for the high quality of their materials and design, it is important that residents develop as sensitive an approach as possible while dealing with the historic fabric of their homes. The following guidelines offer recommendations to aid residents who wish to embark on maintenance and preservation projects for their homes. With these guidelines, projects can be developed in accordance with the general principle that existing historic materials should be retained and repaired wherever possible, and replaced only where necessary if severely deteriorated and/or damaged. If a historic feature or material cannot be repaired, it should ideally be replaced “in kind”—meaning the replacement should match in size/proportion, texture, and visual details to the extent feasible. When conducting a rehabilitation of a historic building, it is understood that repair of existing features and materials is not always feasible, and that exact replacement is not always possible or practical, in which case some judgment must be exercised in determining the appropriateness of replacement. The following guidelines offer broad principles and best practices that should inform the early planning stages of a project. Additional resources listed throughout the chapter should be consulted for specific technical solutions that residents can use to meet the objectives of the guidelines. 54 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.1 Historic exterior materials should be maintained and repaired whenever possible, and if deteriorated they should be replaced in kind. The materials that make up Professorville’s early residences contribute both visually and functionally to the neighborhood’s historic qualities. Repairing the existing materials is always the first approach that should be explored before a project is undertaken. If repair is not possible, investigate in-kind materials to match the old as closely as possible in order to retain the residence’s overall visual character. 3.1.1 Historic exterior wall cladding should be maintained and repaired, in order to keep it in good working condition. Deteriorated historic cladding should be replaced in kind to match the existing as closely as possible. • Retain existing wood shingle, wood clapboard, and stucco wall cladding where these types existed historically. These are common character-defining materials found throughout Professorville that often relate to particular architectural styles. • Where wall cladding has been painted or stained historically, continue to apply the same treatments to offer protection against the elements. • When cleaning or preparing to repaint historic cladding materials, do not attempt to remove existing paint or debris in a way that causes damage to the historic material. Sandblasting and other abrasive measures are not appropriate.The interplay between cladding materials is important to the character of many homes within Professorville. 55GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS • Avoid covering character-defining cladding with vinyl, aluminum, or other synthetic siding materials. If these materials have already been installed, their removal is encouraged in order to restore the historic character of a residence. • Maintain decorative stucco elements such as molded cartouches, as they are characteristic of a residence’s architectural style. • If stucco cladding is to be patched, match the existing stucco's composition and surface texture, which are often characteristic features. • Replace areas of wood shingle and clapboard siding only where they are deteriorated. Do not remove a greater number of shingles or boards than is required in order to make the repair and maintain visual consistency. • Match the replacement wood siding to the historic siding as closely as possible. Consider dimensions (size, shape), surface profile, and pattern of historic siding. • If historic shingles were manufactured using an identifiable and visually distinctive species of tree—such as redwood—attempt to use the same species for the replacement shingles. Stucco cladding is an important feature of homes designed in Spanish Colonial and Mediterranean Revival styles and should be preserved where it already exists. 56 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES For additional information: “Preservation Brief 1: Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1- cleaning-water-repellent.htm “Preservation Brief 6: Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to Historic Buildings” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/6-dangers-abrasive-cleaning.htm “Preservation Brief 10: Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/10-paint-problems.htm “Preservation Brief 14: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior- additions.htm “Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/22-stucco.htm 57GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS 3.1.2 Historic roong materials should be maintained and repaired in place. Failing roong materials should be replaced with the goal of matching the material and appearance of the original as closely as possible. • Maintain existing wood shingle and clay tile roofing materials where feasible, as they often relate to a residence’s architectural style. When necessary, attempt to replace in kind considering the color, shape, and size of the historic materials. • Inspect and repair roofing systems regularly. Water infiltration through the roof can ultimately damage features throughout a residence. • Property owners are encouraged to research the original roofing of their homes, and to consider replacing non-compatible roofing materials with historically compatible materials that match the visual character of the original. • Avoid installing standing-seam metal roofs in Professorville, as they were not found in the neighborhood historically. • Avoid covering exposed rafter tails and wood brackets with boxed-in eaves. If rafter tails are deteriorated, attempt to replace them with new members that maintain the historic profile of the original. Roofing materials are important components of a residence’s architectural style. 58 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES For additional information: “Preservation Brief 4: Roofing for Historic Buildings” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/ tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/4-roofing.htm “Preservation Brief 19: The Repair and Replacement of Historic Wooden Shingle Roofs” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/19-wooden-shingle- roofs.htm “Preservation Brief 30: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Clay Tile Roofs” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/30-clay-tile-roofs.htm 59GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS 3.2 Repair Historic Windows and Doors Whenever Feasible, and Replace in Kind Where Necessary. Wood-sash windows and partially glazed doors are traditional types in Professorville, and many are configured with muntins that divide the window sash into smaller lites. Insensitive repair or replacement of wood windows and doors may have a greater visual effect on the residence than intended. For this reason, residents should attempt to maintain historic windows and doors as much as possible and, where necessary, replace with windows and doors that closely replicate the appearance of the earlier ones. 3.2.1 Historic windows are important character-dening features and should be retained and repaired when feasible. • Provide cyclical maintenance to historic windows in order to keep them in operable condition and to prolong their lifespan. • Where one component of a window is deteriorated or broken (such as a muntin or a lite), attempt to repair or replace the individual element rather than replacing the entire window unit. If a full window must be replaced due to deterioration, match the new window to the original in dimensions, operability (such as hung, fixed, or casement), and configuration of muntins. Priority for this approach should be given to windows visible from the public right-of-way. • Where non-standard window types—for instance, windows with arched shapes or diamond muntin patterns—are deteriorated and cannot be repaired, investigate manufacturing new windows to match the appearance of the originals. Attention should be paid to the distinctive sizing, spacing, and configuration of windows on an older residence in Professorville. 60 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES • Attempt to replace specialty glass types, such as stained glass, with materials that provide the same visual effect. • Replace deteriorated window trim and other treatments to match the size and profile of the original as closely as possible. • Avoid installing new aluminum- and vinyl-sash windows, which are not necessarily the most cost effective alternatives to new wood-sash windows. Synthetic materials do not typically resemble wood, often do not closely match the proportions of the original windows, and have much shorter lifespans. • Investigate measures that increase energy efficiency for historic wood-sash windows while retaining their historic visual character. Possible solutions include weather stripping and interior storm windows. 3.2.2 e appearance and location of historic doors should be maintained. • Repair historic wood doors whenever feasible, rather than replace them. Keep in mind that hardware and glazing patterns also contribute to the historic character of a door. • If exterior doors must be replaced, choose a new door type that is compatible with the residence’s architectural style. Panel and/or partially-glazed doors are recommended, as they are appropriate to the early period of Professorville’s development. This is particularly important for street-facing doors. • Maintain historic door trim. If it is determined to be in need of replacement, match the profile and material of the original as closely as possible. • Maintain the historic location of a residence’s front entrance. 61GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS For additional information: “Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows,” (NPS), https://www. nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm “Replacement Windows that Meet the Standards,” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/ standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/windows-replacement.htm “Repair and Upgrade Windows and Doors,” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/ sustainability/energy-efficiency/weatherization/windows-doors.htm “Saving Windows, Saving Money,” (Preservation Green Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation), http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/ green-lab/saving-windows-saving-money/ The Window Sash Bible: A Guide to Maintaining and Restoring Old Wood Windows, Steve Jordan, http://painintheglass.info/pages/window-restoration-bible.php 62 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.3 Additional Character-Dening Features at Contribute to an Early Residence’s Visual Appeal Should Be Preserved. Numerous types of decorative and functional elements are found throughout Professorville and help to create its richly detailed material fabric and visual character. Such features, which are carefully arranged and organized on individual residences according to the tenets of historical styles and periods, include wood cornices, dentils, and belt courses; porches and other entry features with column supports; wrought iron window grilles; wood porch railings and balusters; and decorative wood half-timbering. Pay heed to these types of features and their role in the overall appearance and personality of a residence. 3.3.1 Retain and repair character-dening decorative features wherever possible, and if replacement is required match the new as closely as possible to the original. • Always attempt to repair historic decorative features as a first course of action. • If these features are damaged or deteriorated to the point of failure, select replacement materials matching the dimensions and appearance of the original as closely as possible. • Where deteriorated brick masonry is found, replace damaged brick with new that matches the original’s color, size, and surface texture. Additional characteristics that should be considered include the bonding and decorative patterns of the brick. Historic homes throughout Professorville have distinctive decorative features that convey their character. They should be treated sensitively whenever possible. 63GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS • If brick repointing is required, attempt to determine a compatible mortar composition in order to avoid future damage to the brick. • Prioritize in-kind repairs for features that are located near the front of a residence and are visible from the public right-of-way. 3.3.2 Consider recreating missing historic features if adequate evidence exists to determine original appearance and materials. • Residents are encouraged to recreate historic features on a building where they once existed on that building but were later removed. These projects, however, should rely on evidence such as historic documentation or the "ghosting" (physical imprint or outline) of lost features to guide an accurate recreation. • Look for historic photographs and original architectural drawings that could provide the basis for replicating missing features. 3.3.3 Do not introduce new architectural elements to a residence where they did not exist historically. • Avoid placing new stylistic elements on a residence (such as brackets or bay windows) based on conjecture rather than on research—i.e., if the chief reason is that they simply feel period appropriate. • A residence should not have new features added that represent a different historic period or architectural style than the existing property. • When selecting new features such as lighting fixtures, choose a style that is compatible with the character of a home but that may also exhibit contemporary character. 64 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.3.4 When planning to paint exterior walls and features, explore color schemes that are compatible with a home's historic context. • Aim to select paint colors for the exterior of a residence that are compatible with the historic character and period of the residence. This effort can be informed by research on period-appropriate schemes, as well as by careful investigative testing that could reveal a home's historic paint colors. • Muted colors are encouraged for the primary exterior walls, with contrasting accent colors selected for decorative elements and trim. • Avoid selecting colors or reflective sheens that contrast sharply with nearby buildings. For additional information: “Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm “Preservation Brief 45: Preserving Historic Wood Porches” (NPS), https://www.nps. gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/45-wooden-porches.htm 65GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS Solar roof panels should be placed so that they have as minimal a visual impact as possible on the publicly visible areas of a home. 3.4 e Historic Character of Homes Should Be an Important Consideration When Exploring Green Technology. Sustainability is a critical principle that can be achieved with many building types, including historic residences. “Green” building approaches and a home’s significant historic qualities are not mutually exclusive and can work in tandem. 3.4.1 Solar panels and other energy savings devices should be placed to have as small an impact on historic character as possible. • Place solar panels and skylights on roof slopes that are less visible from the public right-of-way whenever possible, as these types of features can visually contrast with the historic forms, textures, and materials of the roof. • Research new solar panel and energy capture products that attempt to replicate the appearance of wood shingles; use them where they will have the least visual and material impacts, such as away from the front of a residence when feasible. 3.4.2 Sustainable materials should be considered while planning exterior alterations. • Investigate post-consumer and salvaged materials with an eye towards replicating the historic appearance of original features and materials. • Keep in mind that repairing and retaining existing historic features where possible is an inherently green approach because it saves energy and materials. 66 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES For additional information: “Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/guidelines/index.htm "Design Guidelines for Solar Installations," (National Trust for Historic Preservation), http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/ buildings/solar-panels/design-guidelines-for-solar.html Guidelines for Altering or Adding to Residences from Early Periods of Development (c. 1890-1930s) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 71GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT 4. Guidelines for Altering or Adding to Residences from Early Periods of Development (c. 1890-1930s) It is anticipated that some projects proposed for residences in Professorville will exceed the scope of maintaining, repairing, and preserving historic features. Constructing additions and other major projects may result in obvious interventions that could distract from the historic character of a residence or its surrounding streetscape if not conducted sensitively. Such projects, however, can be planned and implemented to have a minimal impact on the neighborhood, and in some cases to enhance the neighborhood's character and visual qualities. The guidelines in this chapter are intended to give homeowners and architects a set of principles that would accommodate change—yet would also help safeguard a residence’s distinctive form, visual character, and relationship to its neighbors. These guidelines are tailored specifically for residences that date to Professorville’s earliest period of development from the 1890s to the 1930s. Residences built during these decades embody the historic district’s unique character, and most likely these are the buildings that first come to mind when a Palo Alto resident thinks of Professorville. The neighborhood’s homes from this era are stylistically varied—showcasing Arts and Crafts, Colonial Revival, and Eclectic Revival influences—yet many have similarities in terms of scale, materials, and placement on the lot. Stewardship of the distinctive character of these residences while allowing and managing change is the most important goal of historic preservation in Professorville. 72 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.1 New Additions to Early Residences Should Respect the Primacy and Historic Features of the Original Building. Professorville’s older residences are defined by their relatively uncomplicated volumes, distinctive architectural features, and strong façade planes that face the street, forming a repeated visual rhythm that is one of the neighborhood’s most memorable qualities. New additions to these homes should be designed to be subordinate to the existing buildings and support the overall appearance of the historic streetscape. 4.1.1 Additions should be placed where they will not distract from the volume of the historic residence. • Locate new additions at the rear of the historic residence whenever possible. This strategy maintains the historic view of the home as seen from its front, as well as the overall streetscape pattern as experienced in the public realm. • If a side addition is desired, design the addition so that it is set back clearly from the primary volume of the residence. Such an approach retains the primacy of the original building and continues a historic pattern of constructing subordinate additions in the neighborhood. • When designing an addition to a residence, consider where new construction would have the least impact to existing character-defining features. An area that has already experienced alterations, such as at a previously constructed addition, may be the most appropriate location for new construction. For additional information: “Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns” (NPS), https:// www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/14-exterior-additions.htm This side addition to an early home in Professorville is visible from the street but is clearly set back from the original front façade. 73GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT • Constructing new attached garages on historic homes is strongly discouraged in Professorville, as attached garages convey a later development pattern in the neighborhood (see 7.3.2). If an attached garage is deemed necessary, make every attempt to place it to the rear of the primary volume of a residence in order to minimize its visual impact as seen from the street. 4.1.2 New additions should be sized appropriately to the scale of the historic residence. • Design an addition taking into account the size that is best suited for a sensitive and compatible addition, rather than simply designing an addition to maximize the square footage on a lot. • Avoid constructing an addition that exceeds the height of the existing home, in order to ensure that the form and scale of the historic residence remain the prominent characteristics. If a taller addition is necessary to meet the needs of current occupants, such as in the case of an existing one-story cottage, explore strategies to minimize the visual and physical impacts of the addition. These strategies may include setting the addition behind the existing home, connecting the existing and new volumes with a hyphen, and mitigating the visual bulk of the addition with sloped roofs. Consider the effect of an addition's placement and height on the overall appearance of a home. A hyphen can be used to differentiate a new addition from the original house volume. 74 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES • Avoid building a rear addition that is wider than the original residence. Ideally, a rear addition will not project beyond the sides of the existing house volume. If the narrow width of an existing residence would result in a wider rear addition in order to meet the needs of current occupants, pay special heed to employing compatible massing and roof forms to minimize the visual impact of the addition. 4.1.3 If a home already has a non-historic addition, consider placing a new addition at the same location in order to alter historic character as little as possible. • Portions of a home that have already experienced change can be considered as areas of opportunity for new construction, where they pose the least risk of affecting overall historic character. • Where existing non-historic additions are incompatible with the character of a historic home, consider employing selective demolition and/or new construction to improve the form and massing of the addition and its compatibility with the historic volume. • Existing non-historic additions can generally be removed without affecting the character of the property or the historic district. Note that an addition from Professorville's early periods of development may contribute to a residence's character (see 4.5.2). 75GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT These side additions were designed to share materials and decorative features with the original home. 4.2 e Architectural Character of a New Addition Should Be Compatible with the Historic Residence. The existing character of historic properties in Professorville—as evidenced by a property's style (if any), its period of construction, its materials and ornamentation, and its level of historic craftsmanship—should be referenced in the design of new additions. The new work should not introduce new material types, new complex roof shapes or volumes, or new types of detailing that are not already present on the historic building. “Compatible but differentiated” is an achievable balance that property owners should strive toward. 4.2.1 e massing and roof forms of an addition should draw on the architectural cues of the existing residence. • Design additions with a careful eye to the original massing of the residence. • Plan the new roof forms of an addition to be similar to those of the existing home. This includes both the shape of the roof (gabled or gambrel roof, for instance) and the pitch of its slopes. • If designing a first-story addition, consider a shed roof. This form is generally compatible with a range of roof types and can extend an original roof slope without a distracting visual impact. 76 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.2.2 e characteristic materials of a residence should inform the choice of materials for a new addition. • Respect the existing residence by using cladding and roofing materials that are compatible with those that are historic. • A new addition may continue the use of character-defining features found on the residence, such as brackets and exposed rafter tails, in order to provide visual continuity. However, slight variation and/or simplification in detailing at the new addition is recommended in order to differentiate old and new (see 4.2.4). 4.2.3 e fenestration pattern of an addition should generally match that of the existing residence. • Use a surface-to-void ratio of windows and wall space that continues the pattern found on the original residence. • Design a window pattern to match the residence’s existing hierarchy of windows—considering the different sizes and heights that occur on different levels. • Construct new windows at an addition with materials (preferably wood) and sash configurations that are compatible with, although not necessarily identical to, those on the original residence. 77GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT 4.2.4 An eort should be made to dierentiate an addition from the original building. • Differentiation is an important preservation principle that allows historic fabric to be distinguished from new, in order to avoid creating a false sense of historical development. New construction should not be radically different in style or materials; however, minor differences can be used effectively to distinguish new from old. • Prioritize differentiating the architecture of an addition in some way, rather than matching the original residence so closely in materials and style that the addition could be mistaken as historic in its own right. • Consider using siding materials and decorative features for an addition that have a subtly different profile, dimensions, or spacing pattern than the historic residence. A common technique for differentiation is to use similar, but simplified, decorative details at the addition, which would allow the addition to read as subordinate to the historic building. • Where a new addition has the same number of stories as its attached residence, consider placing the addition’s eave heights slightly lower to indicate the beginning of new construction and to indicate the primacy of the original residence. • Keeping compatibility in mind, avoid designing an addition with an architectural vocabulary that contrasts strongly to the primary residence for the sake of differentiation. • Do not attempt to differentiate an addition simply by using a contrasting paint color scheme. New colors and accent schemes should be compatible with those used on the original residence. 78 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.3 New Dormers and Second-Story Additions Should Be Designed to Be Compatible with the Character of the Original Residence. Roof dormers are commonly seen in Professorville and were originally designed to allow light and additional room into upper levels that are located within the roof form of a residence. New dormers would therefore be generally compatible with the neighborhood’s historic qualities and should be designed to enhance the historic scale and character of residences. 4.3.1 New dormers should be scaled so as to retain the predominance of the original roof form and the overall character of the neighborhood. • Scale new dormers appropriately so that they do not overwhelm the primacy of the historic roof. The original roof form should be plainly visible after the dormer is in place. New dormers would be inappropriately large if they span from end to end of the original roof slope or if they reach from eave to ridge. • Center a newly constructed dormer on its roof slope, reflecting the character of Professorville’s early residences. • It is acceptable to introduce more than one dormer on a single roof slope if they are spaced evenly and do not visually crowd the roof. Constructing an appropriately scaled roof dormer can be an effective strategy to create livable space within a roof form, in keeping with the neighborhood's historic character. 79GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT 4.3.2 e architectural character of a residence should guide the design of a new dormer. • Choose a dormer’s roofing and cladding materials, as well as distinctive features like exposed rafter tails, to reflect the character of the original home. • It is not necessary to design new dormers with roof forms that match the overall roof of the residence. A shed-roofed dormer is appropriate to a side- gabled residence, for instance. • Employ minor differences in materials and features to indicate that the new dormer is not original to the residence. 4.4 A Residence Should Not Be Lifted or Moved on Its Lot Such that Its Historic Spatial Relationships are Changed. A historic building’s location on its lot and its spatial orientation and relationships to other nearby properties are important aspects of a building's historic character and the district as a whole. Lifting or moving a residence can change its overall scale and visual impression, as well as its relationship to its neighbors, which can affect the entire neighborhood. 4.4.1 Early residences in Professorville should remain at their historic elevations and heights. • If a new foundation must be constructed, attempt to construct it so that the existing home remains at the same elevation. If the new foundation will be visible, use exterior materials that are compatible with the character of the building. Raising a residence onto a substantially taller foundation may bring it visibly out of scale with its neighbors. Pay attention to the heights of surrounding floor levels and rooflines. 80 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES • If a historic residence is raised, avoid impacting its floor, eave, and roof ridge heights such that they would be out of keeping with its character and surrounding homes. • If raising a home requires alterations to an existing entry or porch (i.e., replacing an existing landing or run of steps), retain historic materials whenever possible, and take care to design alterations to be compatible with the historic character of the home. 4.4.2 Early residences should remain in their historic locations unless practical considerations necessitate relocation within their lots. If moved, a home’s character-dening orientation and setting should be maintained. • Avoid moving an early residence within its lot, as a building's original location contributes to its integrity. Justification for moving a building should be based on practical hardship rather than preference. • If an early building is to be moved, it should not be moved to a different area of its lot; rather it should be kept in the same general area (i.e. avoid moving a building from the front to the back, or vice versa). Also, avoid moving a building so that it would encroach upon characteristic landscape features or other buildings. • Avoid turning a residence on its lot so that its front façade is oriented in a different direction than it was historically, as this breaks a property's historic association to its neighbors and its streetscape. • An early residence should remain on the lot upon which it was constructed. 81GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT 4.5 Demolition of Historic Features and Volumes on an Early Residence Should Be Avoided. Selective demolition in order to accommodate new additions should be planned carefully to avoid significant impacts to the building’s historic integrity. Whenever possible, elect instead to make alterations in areas where change has already occurred (see 4.1.3). 4.5.1 Selectively demolishing character-dening features and volumes diminishes the overall historic character of a home and should be avoided. • Avoid demolishing historic features that define the character of a residence, in particular those located on the front and those that can be seen from the street. • Demolishing features located at the rear of a residence is generally less impactful, and therefore a more acceptable option, than demolition at the front or sides, which are typically visible from the public right-of-way. 4.5.2 Existing additions and alterations that occurred during Professorville’s early period of development (through the 1930s) may contribute to a residence’s historic character. • Whenever possible, avoid demolishing additions that date to the neighborhood’s historic period, as they can provide a physical record of historic development patterns in the neighborhood. • Not every older addition or alteration is character-defining. Consult with preservation professionals regarding the relative importance of any particular historic addition or alteration to an original residence. The upper dormer on this home was an early intervention and should not be considered to detract from the overall historic character. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Guidelines for Altering or Adding to Residences from Later Periods of Development (1930s-Present) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 87GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM LATER PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT 5. Guidelines for Altering or Adding to Residences from Later Periods of Development (1930s-Present) The first wave of development in Professorville came to a close during the 1930s, and subsequent home construction in the neighborhood introduced new architectural styles and materials. In certain ways, more recently constructed buildings contrast with the earlier homes of the neighborhood: they were built with mass-produced and/or more affordable materials, and they were designed when automobiles—and thus residential garages—had become even more ingrained in the lives of many Americans. Although constructed during Professorville’s later period of development, postwar residences also contribute to the surrounding streetscape. Regardless of materials and architectural style, most later residences bear a relationship to their older neighbors and respect their defining scale and features. Whereas the guidelines contained in Chapter 4 focused on strategies to maintain the integrity of the earliest properties—which are the most important in conveying the district’s historic character—this chapter offers a parallel set of guidelines that are more general in nature. Their purpose is to guide changes to later residences while minimizing the impact of changes on the overall character of the district. 88 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 5.1 Alterations to Existing Materials and Features Should Be Planned So As Not to Detract from the Overall Aesthetic Patterns of the Historic District. Later residences located within the boundaries of Professorville are usually visible as such: they have distinctive house forms and cladding materials that easily distinguish them from the earlier residences around them. It is appropriate to maintain the newer homes as they exist, but proposed alterations should be planned so that they do not create a new visual impact on the district. 5.1.1 Modern materials and features should be compatible with, yet dierentiated from, the historic character of the district. • Retain types of roofing and wall cladding that relate to the materials and textures found on earlier houses, as well as to the neighborhood’s rustic feeling. These may include modern wood shingles and board-and-batten siding. While stucco is historically present, it is not predominant in the district. • Avoid new cladding or roofing materials that are not already used in Professorville, such as stone veneer. • Do not install synthetic cladding materials, such as vinyl or aluminum, on any residence in Professorville. • If doors and windows are replaced, select the new to have simple arrangements. They should also be sized compatibly with the windows found on surrounding residences. Some newer residences are clad in wood shingles, reflecting Professorville's historic material palette. Retaining these shingles would help to relate homes from different eras within the district. 89GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM LATER PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT 5.1.2 Modern-style buildings have their own distinctive types of materials and features and should not be altered with period-inappropriate elements. • Do not add decorative features to a newer residence simply because they are characteristic of early homes elsewhere in the neighborhood, as this can create a false sense of historical development in the district. 5.2 Additions to Later Buildings Should Have As Minimal a Visual Impact As Possible and Should Respect Neighboring Residences. While not historically significant within the context of Professorville, later residences can still contribute to the district by conforming to the historic rhythms of the streetscape. Any changes in massing and form should be planned so that they continue to support the regular rhythm of houses that defines the neighborhood’s visual character. 5.2.1 New additions should be placed on their lots and scaled to be as unobtrusive as possible. • Design and site a new addition that supports the surrounding streetscape pattern; placement at the rear of the building rather than facing the street is strongly encouraged. • Design an addition that is of an appropriate scale and height to the residence and its neighbors. The addition should not change the massing of the residence so that it is incompatible with surrounding historic homes. As with historic residences, additions to more recent homes should be recessed from the front façade to strengthen Professorville's overall streetscape pattern. 90 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES • If planning to build an attached garage space, consider the overall visual impact. Avoid a new attached garage that is visible at the front of a residence, which would not be in keeping with Professorville's historic pattern of detached garages located at the backs of lots. An attached garage would preferably be side-facing and set behind the primary volume of the house. 5.2.2 An addition should be designed with an architectural vocabulary that is both appropriate to the main residence and relates to surrounding older homes. • The roof form of an addition should resemble and/or continue the roof form of the original residence. • Explore cladding and roofing materials that are similar to those of the original residence, but are differentiated slightly in size or profile. While differentiation may be less important of a concern for more recent residences than for older residences, this strategy is typically encouraged. • Windows on an addition may be of the same material as windows on the original residence, and should relate to the character of nearby older residences in terms of scale and spacing. • Consider constructing a front porch if a residence does not already have one, in keeping with the style and period of the house. This type of feature can relate newer buildings to Professorville’s earlier homes. • Paint colors chosen for a new addition should relate to the original residence and should be compatible with the appearance of surrounding historic homes. 91GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM LATER PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT 5.2.3 A second-story addition will likely be visible from the street and could change the appearance of a residence. Such an addition should be carefully designed to enhance the historic qualities of the neighborhood. • Design a second-story addition with the goal of minimizing its visual bulk. Utilize sloping roofs and overhanging eaves to mitigate bulk. • Avoid "stepping back" upper stories, which would result in a complex volume that is not characteristic of homes in the neighborhood, which typically have strong, unbroken façade planes. 5.3 Lifting or Moving a Later Building on Its Lot Should Not Interrupt the Overall Streetscape Pattern of the Surrounding Area. Professorville’s more recent homes are visually related to their neighbors and should not be substantially lifted or moved if this would affect the consistent character of the streetscape. The original location of a later residence on its lot, however, is not necessarily an important consideration to the district’s historic significance. 5.3.1 A later residence should not be raised above its existing height if this action would change the height and perceptible scale of the building to be larger than its neighbors. • If considering whether to raise a house or alter the level of a foundation, pay attention to the floor, eave, and roof ridge heights of neighboring homes. Strive for compatibility with the surrounding streetscape. 92 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 5.3.2 A later residence may be moved on its lot if it supports or enhances the district’s historic streetscape pattern. • Relocate a residence so that its new location and orientation are consistent with the setbacks, side-to-side spacing pattern, and street-facing orientation that characterize the neighborhood. 5.4 Special Note: Potential for Individual Historic and Architectural Signicance Outside of the District Context It is possible that buildings in Professorville constructed during the later development period could be determined to have individual historic or architectural significance. Properties may become eligible for historic register listing, if a good case for their significance exists. This means that later buildings in Professorville—while not strictly contributing to the historic district’s significance— could potentially be considered historic resources on the basis of their own individual architectural designs or historical backgrounds. Residents who plan to alter a later building that is found to have individual historic significance should explore project options that would preserve architectural forms and features that convey significance. These guidelines do not address design compatibility for later properties that are architecturally or historically significant. The modest cottages making up Kingsley Court were constructed after the first wave of development of Professorville, but they were designed by Birge Clark, an important Palo Alto architect. Keep in mind that later buildings in the neighborhood may have their own grounds for historic significance. Guidelines for Designing and Building New Residences THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 97GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES 6. Guidelines for Designing and Building New Residences While most lots within Professorville are currently built out, construction of new residences in Professorville may occur if and when larger lots are subdivided and further developed, detached secondary dwelling units are built on existing lots, or an existing non-historic home is replaced. As opportunities for new residential construction arise, it is critical to design new buildings to be compatible with the neighborhood’s early residences, yet also differentiated in some way in order to continue the physical record of historical development in the district. The most important considerations for compatibility include site placement, general form and massing, size and height, and fenestration patterns. Designing a home that takes into consideration these aspects of the historic character of surrounding homes would ensure that the overall appearance and feeling of Professorville remain distinguishable. 98 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 6.1 New Construction Should Avoid Demolition of Existing Buildings. New construction is anticipated in Professorville. However, existing residences should not be viewed as opportunities for demolition and new development. Most existing residences are complementary to the character of the district, even though not all residences in the district are historic contributors or date to its early period of development. Demolishing and replacing an existing residence can be disruptive to a historic, established streetscape. 6.1.1 Do not demolish an early residence. • The early homes of Professorville, constructed between the 1890s and 1930s, are the critical components of the historic district. Demolishing an early residence would adversely and permanently affect the district. • In the case of an early residence that is heavily altered or damaged, attempt to rehabilitate and/or repair it rather than pursuing demolition and replacement. 99GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES 6.1.2 Avoid demolishing later residences that are complementary to the district. • While they are not necessarily important to the historic integrity of the district, some properties constructed after the 1930s provide compatible architectural background for the historic contributors. Be cognizant of how existing later residences fit into and reinforce historic development patterns, and retain wherever feasible. • Later residences that are not compatible with the character of the district may be candidates for demolition and replacement, provided that the new construction is compatible with the district. • Please note that even later buildings could potentially have individual significance that is unrelated to the district (see 5.4). 6.1.3 Attempt to construct new residences without removing existing residences. • Seek out opportunities to subdivide existing large lots into new developable lots. • Take advantage of opportunities to construct detached secondary dwelling units on existing lots. 100 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 6.2 New Residences and Accessory Buildings Should Be Sited Within eir Lots to Reect Professorville’s Historic Development and Streetscape Patterns. New residences in Professorville should support the broader visual character and texture of the neighborhood. An important step is selecting a location on the lot that continues the overall cadence of houses on the surrounding block. 6.2.1 A new residence should be placed on its lot with a similar location, setback, and orientation as nearby residences in Professorville, which typically follow historic patterns. • Place a new residence within its lot (setback and side-to-side spacing) to follow the general pattern of homes on its block, in order not to interrupt the continuous streetscape pattern. A new home’s setback from the street should be within the range used on surrounding residences. • Always orient a new residence with its primary façade facing towards the street. When siting a new residence, pay attention to the setbacks of surrounding homes. 101GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES 6.3 Proposed Residences Should Be Designed to Match the Scale, Massing, and General Form of Older Residences. The earliest homes in Professorville are distinguished by their relatively simple forms, controlled scale, and strong front façade planes. These characteristics should guide future construction so that new homes are human-scaled and have a visual presence that is appropriate to the neighborhood. 6.3.1 e size and height of a new residence should reect Professorville’s early homes in order not to look out of place within the neighborhood. • Generally speaking, design a home that is similar in scale to surrounding early residences. Attempting to maximize the allowable floor area on a lot may not result in a house size that is most compatible with Professorville’s historic character. • Set the heights of the foundation, floor levels, eaves, and upper roofline on a new residence to be similar to the heights of those features on neighboring houses. 102 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 6.3.2 e massing and form of a new residence should be carefully planned to avoid perceived bulk that is incompatible with the neighborhood streetscape. • Design a new residence that is solidly massed with simple volumes, reflecting the forms of Professorville’s earlier homes. Rather than using unconventional massing, explore other strategies to provide visual interest. • Maintain a strong sense of the front façade plane, and do not include volumes projecting forward from it. Front porches are one important exception. • Consider designing the upper story of a residence to be contained within the roof form (i.e., a one-and-one-half-story residence), where this pattern is seen on surrounding historic residences. • Consider accommodating additional interior space through a rear wing that is not immediately visible from the street. This strategy would manage the perceived bulk and visual impact of a new residence while meeting the needs of occupants. When designing a new residence, strive to match the massing of immediately surrounding homes. While the neighborhood contains a mixture of house types and scales, compatibility will be best achieved when cues are taken from neighboring residences. Visual bulk could be managed by placing an upper story within the roof form, where neighboring residences use a similar strategy. 103GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES Simple roof forms that have precedence within Professorville are better suited to the neighborhood than roofs with many intersecting slopes. 6.3.3 A new residence should have a relatively simple roof form that references the forms found elsewhere in the neighborhood. e roof should be sized to complement the building’s proportions, not complicate them. • Select roof forms that are relatively simple and have precedence within Professorville. Do not design roofs that have many intersecting slopes, are flat, or have a form that is not found elsewhere in the neighborhood. • Consider including dormers in the roof design for a new home. Gabled, hipped, and shed-roof dormers are all appropriate to Professorville. • If a two-story residence is planned, design the roof with a low pitch to reduce overall height and visual bulk. • Break up an expansive, blank roof slope, particularly those facing the street, with dormers that complement the appearance of Professorville's early homes. 104 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 6.4 e Architectural Style of a New Residence Should Be Compatible with the Character of Early Houses in Professorville. The architectural style of a residence connects the various aspects of its visual character, including roof form, materials, and decorative features. The textured visual character of Professorville is supported in part by differences in architectural style, so no particular styles are mandated for new construction. A degree of variation is highly encouraged. At the same time, new residences should relate to the influence of surrounding residences. As with new additions to early residences, “compatible yet differentiated” is an important principle that should guide architectural designs. 6.4.1 New residences should be compatible with historic architectural inuences that are already found in the neighborhood. • Consider historic style precedents within Professorville when planning a new residence. Common styles in the neighborhood—such as First Bay Tradition/ Shingle Style, Colonial Revival, Prairie School, and various Eclectic Revival styles—are appropriate influences for new construction. No one particular style is mandated. • If a contemporary house design is desired, strive to blend it in with the neighborhood’s existing aesthetic patterns and residential forms/massing. New residences within Professorville can relate to the district's historic homes using compatible architectural styles. Contemporary architectural styles can also be used successfully, keeping in mind the general form and materials of earlier homes. 105GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES • Do not design a residence in a generally historicist style that does not have precedents in the neighborhood. • Consider using wood shingles or clapboard siding, as well as elements like bay windows, belt courses, and eave brackets, as a way to relate a new residence to the character of Professorville’s early homes and styles. • Choose stucco for exterior walls if a Spanish Colonial or Mediterranean influence is desired. In these instances, rounded clay tiles would be the appropriate roof covering. • Explore using materials that repeat the texture and visual impression of those found on historic Professorville homes. Brick and stone are seldom found on older homes in Professorville.Avoid designing a new residence with a contemporary architectural style that involves massing, roof forms, materials, and window patterns that are not compatible with the historic character of Professorville's early homes. 106 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 6.4.2 Choose strategies that dierentiate new construction from the neighborhood’s early residences. • Differentiate a new residence from its older neighbors, even when drawing on Professorville’s historic styles. Subtle differentiation strategies are encouraged. • More noticeable differentiation with modern materials may be possible if the scale, roof forms, and perceived massing of a proposed residence still reflect the basic character of surrounding homes. The balance of “compatible yet differentiated” should be achieved. • If a new residence is constructed on a lot that has been subdivided from a larger lot, take heed to retain the primacy of the original house on the lot. This can be accomplished through a modest scale and more restrained use of architectural features. 6.4.3 Paint and stain colors for the exteriors of new homes should generally be compatible with historic homes in Professorville. • Aim to select colors for the exterior of a residence that are compatible with the historic character of the district. • Muted colors are encouraged for the primary exterior walls, with contrasting accent colors selected for decorative elements and trim. • Avoid selecting colors or reflective sheens that contrast sharply with nearby buildings. 107GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES 6.5 e Entrances and Fenestration Patterns of New Residences Should Be Designed to Connect a New Residence to the Established Visual Character of the Neighborhood. Doors and windows are key elements that establish the human scale of a residence. The traditional patterns of window and door openings in Professorville should remain important influences while a new residence is being designed. 6.5.1 Doors and porches should relate directly to the public realm and support the historic character of the streetscape. • Always place the primary entrance on the front façade, facing the street. • Select door types that are compatible with the house style and overall character of the neighborhood. • Consider incorporating a first-story porch into a new house design, reflecting the majority of early homes in Professorville. These features are welcoming, and they allow an understandable progression from the public realm of the neighborhood into the private space of the home. • If a porch design is being developed, select a roof form that relates to the roof of the overall residence. Porches can also be recessed behind the front façade plane, if appropriate to the new house design. • Include additional stylistic elements, such as exposed rafter tails, in a porch if they relate to the architectural style of the residence.New residences in Professorville can use front porches effectively to reflect the character of historic homes in the neighborhood. 108 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES New residences should not be designed with surface-to-void ratios that contrast strongly with their historic neighbors within Professorville. • Avoid double-height entrance features that accentuate the height of the residence and are out of scale with the entrances found on surrounding houses. • Avoid two-story porches in new residential designs, as they did not exist in Professorville in the past. 6.5.2 Window types and arrangements on new construction should reect traditional patterns within Professorville. • Arrange windows so that a new residence has a surface-to-void ratio (i.e., amount of glazing in relation to walls) similar to that of early homes in the neighborhood. • When feasible, select wood-sash windows with lite configurations that are compatible with windows found elsewhere in Professorville. • Design the fenestration pattern so that there is an understandable hierarchy of window sizes and/or types from the base of the house to the top. Avoid window types, sizes, and locations that appear randomly assigned. • Avoid oversized windows that are out of character with the house and the neighborhood. Guidelines for Site Improvements: Landscape, Accessory Buildings, and the Streetscape THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 113GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE 7. Guidelines for Site Improvements: Detached Second Units, Accessory Buildings, Landscape, and Streetscape The guidelines in this chapter address the historic qualities of the Professorville Historic District's landscape, streetscape, and accessory buildings, which complement the architecture and character of the neighborhood's historic residences. Those who live in and travel through Professorville recognize that the neighborhood is not simply a collection of private homes: its distinctive historic and aesthetic characteristics are also supported by a generous tree canopy and plant life, fences and other yard features, walks and drives, and accessory buildings like carriage houses and garages. All of these elements contribute to the textured and shaded impression that distinguishes the neighborhood. The landscape of Professorville is part of the public realm, and it can be experienced and enjoyed by all who enter the neighborhood. For this reason, the guidelines in this chapter focus on the overall character of the neighborhood that can be seen from public areas, specifically its streetscape and pattern of front yards. The aim of this chapter is to provide guidance to property owners, as well as to the City of Palo Alto, regarding the landscape features and materials that are located among Professorville’s houses and alongside the neighborhood’s roadways. While the quality of the streetscape is addressed in earlier chapters (for instance, the appropriate placement of houses within their lots), this chapter provides recommendations specifically for site features, plant materials, and circulation patterns. Property owners should refer to these guidelines when they consider making substantial changes to their yards, trees, 114 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES accessory buildings, and paved areas, to ensure that their proposed plans enforce the neighborhood’s historic character. Guidance is also provided for the City of Palo Alto, so that potential changes to Professorville's public infrastructure can be developed with the historic character of the neighborhood in mind. The ultimate goal of these guidelines is to preserve and enhance Professorville’s experience and overall historic character for the neighborhood’s residents, pedestrians, and bicyclists who experience it on a recurring basis. 115GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE The open, planted quality of many front yards in Professorville is an appropriate model for new landscaping. 7.1 Professorville’s Historic Pattern of Yards and Plantings is a Critical Component of the Neighborhood’s Visual Character and Should Be Maintained. Natural features are found in every corner of Professorville. Yards and parking strips are the visible open spaces of the neighborhood, acting as connective tissue between the residences. The varied yet consistent character of the landscape includes diverse yard types, plantings, and tree species that contribute to the historic feeling of the district as much as its individual buildings. Large native trees visible to the street are considered to be of high value. 7.1.1 Lot grades and ground cover should generally be consistent with the neighborhood’s historic character. • Maintain a generally flat grade in front yards. Do not introduce berms or other distracting features that can be seen from public areas. • Preserve predominant areas of openness in front yards to reflect the historic character of the neighborhood’s landscape. • To prepare for possible drought conditions, explore xeriscaping options that use low, water efficient plants to convey a lush character. • Avoid installing synthetic ground coverings in residential yards, as they do not sufficiently replicate the appearance of natural turf. Instead, consider using permeable surfaces comprised of natural materials (i.e., stone, gravel, pavers) in order to reduce water usage. 116 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 7.1.2 Fences, hedges, and other boundary features should be appropriately designed and scaled to convey a visual progression from public to private space and to preserve Professorville’s historic landscaping patterns. • Recognize that yards in Professorville have historically supported a visual progression from public to private space. In addition to delineating private property lines, fences and hedges have historically allowed a visual relationship between private residences and the public sidewalk and street. • Attempt to retain wood fences and hedges that follow the boundaries of front and side yards, including along the public sidewalk. These features mark the boundaries of private property and support the neighborhood’s idyllic character. • Where a new fence or hedge is required, choose a configuration and materials that are compatible with the style of the property and the neighborhood’s historic precedents. Low and visually permeable boundary features, such as wood picket fences, are strongly recommended alongside the public sidewalk. • Avoid tall and visually impenetrable fences and hedges surrounding front yards, which can limit visual access to the architecture of the district. • Do not install fences made of metal chain link, plastic, or other materials that are incompatible with the neighborhood’s historic character. • Stucco-clad walls may be appropriate if chosen to match a residence that has stucco cladding, but these walls should remain low. Fences or hedges with a more permeable visual character, however, are preferred. Low fences and hedges are both good strategies to delineate front yards while allowing a visual relationship to public areas. 117GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE For additional information: City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (City of Palo Alto), http://www. cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/ documents/6436 “Urban Canopy” (City of Palo Alto), http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/ sustainability/trees.asp “City Tree Regulations” (Canopy), http://canopy.org/about-trees/trees-in- palo-alto/city-tree-regulations/ Professorville's historic leafy character should be preserved through sensitive treatment of trees.Source: Stanford University Historical Photograph Collection • Gates of pedestrian scale may be incorporated into the front fence at walkways, but avoid elaborate gate or trellis designs that may visually compete with the residence, including at vehicle entrances. • If it is determined appropriate for residences alongside Embarcadero Road to have taller and/or solid fences, in order to reduce the visual and audible impacts from automobile traffic, use materials and construction techniques that are consistent with the character of the district. 7.1.3 Trees should be maintained to convey the neighborhood’s existing leafy setting whenever possible. • Attempt to retain mature trees where they occur in private yards, unless proven to be unhealthy, as they contribute to Professorville’s overall tree canopy. The oldest trees, including native live oaks and redwoods, have been retained for over a century during the growth of Professorville. • When a new building addition, accessory building, or residence is planned, take into account the location of mature trees on the lot during project planning. Avoid removing these trees when feasible. • Where front and rear yards lack trees, consider introducing new trees to reinforce the urban forest. Use native and regionally appropriate species. • Consult with City staff with questions regarding tree health, appropriate tree species, safety issues, and protected tree regulations. 118 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 7.1.4 Planting beds along house foundations are common features in Professorville and should be retained when possible. • Introduce shrubs and other ornamental plantings within beds lining house foundations, and retain where they already exist. This strategy supports the neighborhood’s rustic character and enforces the existing pattern of edges and spacing between homes. 7.1.5 New site improvements that could aect historic landscape patterns should be placed so as to be minimally visible from the public right-of-way. • Place air conditioning units, generators, and features that require excavation (such as window wells and basement stair wells) within a lot where they are not immediately visible from the public sidewalk and street. The best location for these features is at the back of a residence. • If located at a side façade, place excavated features and mechanical equipment at the rear half of the residence, away from the front of the property. Investigate planting schemes that screen these elements from public view. 7.1.6 Residents of older properties in Professorville are encouraged to research historic landscaping patterns that are period appropriate to their homes. • Where interest exists, conduct research on planting schemes, species, and circulation patterns that were used for residences in the Palo Alto area during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This research can inform future landscaping plans at historic residences, if desired, that enhance the historic character of Professorville. See Chapter 2 for additional information on historic residential landscape design. Side yards are typically visible from public areas and contribute to the character of Professorville. The visual impact of mechanical equipment and other distracting elements in these locations should be minimized. 119GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE Ribbon driveways offer an effective way to provide automobile circulation within a property while minimizing visual impact. 7.2 Driveways, Walkways, and Other Paved Elements Should Have As Little Visual Impact on the Overall Landscape As Possible. Paving is often viewed as a functional circulation feature, but it may affect a property’s landscape character and relationship between house and street. As modest walkways and one-car-width driveways are historic features within the neighborhood, new paving should ideally have a similar, minimal visual impact. If a paved surface is too expansive, the neighborhood’s pedestrian-centered experience will be diminished. 7.2.1 e location, size, and materials of a driveway should be carefully selected in order to preserve the broader visual patterns of the neighborhood. • Retain existing one-car driveways (approximately 8’ or 10’ wide) where they currently exist. • Where a new driveway is required, attempt to locate it alongside one edge of the lot. It should preferably be of single-car width until it approaches a detached garage or other designated parking space, where it may widen out. • Consider driveway materials and configurations that decrease surface runoff and minimize visual impact. Ribbon or “Hollywood” driveways (two strips of concrete), permeable brick paving patterns, and turf blocks are all effective options that are already found in Professorville. 120 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES • Explore alternatives to monotonous patterns of paving such as poured concrete. Choose materials that promote a degree of visual variety, and consider options that offer differences in paver coloration and size. Brick is particularly encouraged. • Be mindful of the visual impact of semicircular approach drives or other additional areas of paving. Introducing such an element would be appropriate if proven to reflect a property's historic conditions. 7.2.2 In Professorville, private walkways have often been located at the center of front yards to allow direct access between a residence’s front entrance and the sidewalk. Walkways of this type support the visual progression between public and private spaces and should be maintained. • Attempt to maintain existing walkways that have a low visual impact on the front yard. • In cases of new residential construction or landscape design, plan a new walkway that directly connects the public sidewalk and the front entrance. Straight walkways that are perpendicular to the public sidewalk are preferred, in keeping with historic precedents. • Consider paving materials that are found elsewhere in the neighborhood and provide a degree of visual variation, such as brick or flagstone. • Use connecting or secondary walkways located along the front façade of a residence to provide access between the front entrance and the driveway, garage, or other parking area. Narrow brick walkways provide visual interest to front yards without creating a monotonous paved surface. 121GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE 7.2.3 Ramps or lifts, where required, should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of a residence, to the degree that is feasible. • When planning to add an access ramp or lift, consider issues like visual impact, removability in the future, and whether character-defining features are affected. 7.2.4 Patios placed within a front yard are discouraged, as they often involve paving and other features that interrupt the historic character that is desired for front yards in Professorville. • Attempt to place patios to the side or rear of a residence where possible, to support the open character of Professorville's front yards and the visual progression of landscape to streetscape. • If a patio is placed to the front of a residence, strive to use permeable pavers or other materials that reduce the visual impact of the patio surface. Avoid enclosing front yard patios with low walls or fences. 122 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 7.3 e Rehabilitation and Construction of Garages and Other Accessory Buildings Should Be Planned in Order to Enhance the Historic Character of Professorville. Accessory buildings such as carriage houses and automobile garages have existed throughout Professorville since the neighborhood's earliest years. Whether historic or recent, these types of buildings are important components of their properties: they contribute to the neighborhood's pattern of site layouts, and they convey the neighborhood’s historic development. They also provide opportunities for growth and development in Professorville. Existing accessory buildings can be converted for other purposes while retaining historic character. New secondary dwellings are also encouraged in locations where they support the neighborhood's overall streetscape pattern. Secondary dwellings warrant sensitive planning. 7.3.1 Historic accessory buildings such as garages and carriage houses are important components of early properties and should be preserved whenever possible. • Always make an effort to retain historic accessory buildings and to rehabilitate them sensitively if a new use is desired. • When a rehabilitation project is pursued, retain the building’s original form, materials, and character-defining features to the highest degree feasible. These historic elements will help relate the building to its associated residence. (Refer to Chapter 3 for appropriate guidance on treating the features and materials of a historic accessory building.) Historic garages and carriage houses are important elements of their properties and should remain in use where possible. 123GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE • If possible, retain the existing automobile or carriage door to allow the building to convey its original purpose. • Avoid moving an original garage or carriage house within the lot such that it would alter its spatial and functional relationship with its associated residence. However, moving a historic building is always preferable to demolishing it or making incompatible alterations. 7.3.2 New accessory buildings and secondary dwelling units within Professorville should be placed at the rear of lots so as not to distract from the existing pattern of homes in the neighborhood. • New livable buildings such as detached offices and secondary dwelling units should be placed towards the rear of a lot, preferably in a location that is not directly visible from the public-right-of-way. • New garages should be detached and placed at the rear of the lot whenever possible. This is an important development pattern and defining characteristic of Professorville, as early homes in the neighborhood were typically constructed with detached garages at the backs of lots. (If a new attached garage is considered necessary, see 4.1.1 and 5.2.1 for appropriate guidance on the placement of new attached garages on early and later homes, respectively.) • If an alley is present along the rear boundary of a lot (found within the western half of Professorville), place the new garage directly adjacent to the alley. The alley should serve as the primary access route to the garage, as this was its traditional purpose within the block. Avoid using driveways where alleys exist. Detached garages at the backs of lots are preferred for new residences in Professorville, as this pattern was used historically. 124 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 7.3.3 New garages and other accessory buildings should be designed so that they respect and are compatible with the main residence. • Design a new secondary dwelling or accessory building to be compatible with the general architectural character (massing, roof form, materials, and features) of its residence. Keep in mind that a historic characteristic of Professorville is the vernacular appearance and architectural simplicity of its accessory buildings in comparison to the more elaborately styled houses. • A new secondary dwelling or accessory building should have basic forms, be one story in height, and be otherwise visibly subordinate to its associated residence. An accessory building should be scaled so that it cannot be seen over the roof of the primary residence.New detached garages can be designed with materials and doors that relate to historic residences in Professorville. 125GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE 7.4 Take Into Account Professorville’s Historic Character When Making Changes to the Neighborhood’s Streetscape and Infrastructure. Public infrastructure is closely tied to the quality of Professorville’s streetscape and public realm. Future changes to Professorville’s infrastructure should attempt to support the qualities that distinguish the district. 7.4.1 Professorville’s sidewalks, parking strips, and street trees should be maintained in a manner that enhances the historic district’s streetscape and sense of place. • Maintain the existing pattern of public sidewalks running parallel to the neighborhood’s streets, with planter strips located in between. Minimize new paving in parking strips as much as possible. • Retain existing street trees that stand in parking strips whenever feasible. If street trees are removed for any reason, replace them with similar species and continue the overall spacing pattern seen in the neighborhood. • Attempt to preserve historic trees that currently encroach into roadways, a pattern that occurred in Palo Alto around the turn of the twentieth century. This phenomenon strongly conveys the city’s early development. • Plan new landscape design to screen utilities elements, such as required backflow units, using appropriate shrubs or tall clump grass. Mature native trees have been accommodated throughout Professorville's historic development. 126 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Identification signage has been used in many historic districts to enhance a sense of arrival and neighborhood identity. This curb cut with a tight radius reflects an earlier era of Professorville and could serve as a template for future improvements. 7.4.2 Upgrades to Professorville’s utilities and roadway infrastructure should be developed with the neighborhood’s historic character in mind. • Investigate sensitively moving utilities infrastructure, such as power lines, underground to remove visually distracting poles and wires. Yet, also consider the potential effects that ground disturbance could have on the landscape of the neighborhood. • Design new curb cuts at driveways to repeat the tighter radius of older curb cuts found in Professorville. • Plan upgrades to public roadways in a manner that respects the historic streetscape of the neighborhood as much as possible. Avoid adding new roadway features that did not exist historically and that may be considered visually distracting. • Conduct research in order to identify types of streetlights that may have existed in Professorville during the early twentieth century, with the possible goal of replacing the existing streetlights with historically appropriate fixtures. 7.4.3 Public place-making and education strategies should be considered to enhance the neighborhood’s identity as an important historic district in Palo Alto. • Consider designing and installing signage in appropriate locations near district boundaries that announces the Professorville Historic District. • Investigate a new design for street signs located in Professorville that is distinguished from the City's Standard street signs, and that would augment the district's unique sense of place. Appendices THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 131APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF TERMS Cartouche: A decorative relief located on a façade, often of molded stucco and representing a shield or crest. Casement window: A window with the sash hinged on the jamb (vertical side member). Clapboard siding: A siding material consisting of narrow wood boards applied horizontally, with the lower edge overlapping the board below. Clipped gable: A gable that features a partial roof slope (hip) that meets the ridge; also known as a jerkinhead. Cornice: The common name for the decorative projecting element at the top of a façade; commonly bracketed and located above a frieze. Dentils: Small tooth-like blocks set in rows (dentil courses) used in Classical cornices. Dormer: A minor projection on a pitched roof, usually bearing a window on its front face. Dormers can have a variety of roof forms. Eave: The lower edge of a roof slope that intersects with the exterior wall. Façade: An exterior building face. Façade plane: The predominant plane at which the physical features of a façade are arranged. Fanlight: A semi-circular or round arched window located above a door, often with radiating muntin patterns. Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Asphalt composition shingles: Shingles made from roofing felt coated with asphalt and mineral granules. Baluster: Small turned or cut out posts that form a railing. Bay window: The common term for a minor projection containing a window that extends beyond the surrounding façade plane. Belt course: A projecting horizontal member across a façade or around a building. Bracket: A feature that supports, or appears to support, a projecting element such as cornice, eave, or window hood. 132 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Fenestration: The physical arrangement of windows on a building’s exterior walls. Fixed window: A window sash that does not move or open. Gable: The upper area of an exterior wall that is located between the roof slopes. Gambrel roof: A roof form characterized by two roof slopes: one shallower near the ridge, the other steeper near the eaves. Half-timbering: Exposed wood framing infilled with contrasting materials, such as plaster or masonry. In the Tudor Revival style, false half-timbering is used for aesthetic rather than structural purposes. Hipped roof: A roof form where all sides slope between the roof ridge and eaves. Historicist architecture: Architecture that is heavily influenced by past movements, sometimes freely interpreted. Hung sash window: A window in which one or more sashes move vertically. Hyphen: A minor volume that connects two larger volumes. Infill: New construction located within an existing, historic setting. Landscape: The physical and aesthetic setting of a place, typically defined by natural features but also incorporating spatial relationships, views, furnishings, and circulation routes. Lite: A piece of glass located within a window. Massing: The distribution of a building’s volume through space. Muntin: A narrow member that separates the lites within a window sash. Palladian window: A window in the form of a round arch flanked on either side by narrower rectangular windows. Parapet: The area of a building’s exterior walls where they extend above a roof; it can be flat or stepped/shaped. Parking strip: The narrow area containing grass, plantings, or paving that is located between a roadway and its parallel sidewalk. Porch: A component of a building that shelters a building entrance and contains occupiable space. Portico: An exterior structure that shelters a building entrance; it is differentiated by a porch because it covers only the entrance and stoop and does not contain occupiable space. Rafter tail: The exterior expression of a roof structure below the eaves. Rafter tails are sometimes applied decorative elements and commonly have shaped or scrolled ends. 133APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF TERMS Setback: The distance between a property line and a building, especially at the front of a lot. Shed roof: A roof form characterized by a single slope. Sidelight: Any window that flanks a door; typically a tall narrow window that spans the full height or partial height of the door. Streetscape: The visual character of a roadway’s setting, including paving, plant life, and adjacent buildings and structures. Stucco: An exterior finish composed of some combination of portland cement, lime and sand, which are mixed with water and applied to a wall in a wet coating and allowed to dry. Surface-to-void ratio: The proportional relationship between solid wall areas and window/door openings. Window sash: The overall frame that contains the glazing and possibly muntins of a window. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 135APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA Appendix B: Professorville Property Data APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-28-062 271 Addison Avenue 1896 Vernacular Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-28-061 281 Addison Avenue 1904 Colonial Revival/ Classical Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-17-085 301 Addison Avenue 1902 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-002 310 Addison Avenue 1938 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-17-084 319 Addison Avenue 1902 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-18-003 326 Addison Avenue 1907 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-17-083 327 Addison Avenue 1902 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-004 342-352 Addison Avenue 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 136 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-18-005 354-362 Addison Avenue 1896 Queen Anne Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-006 370 Addison Avenue 1904 Prairie School/ Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-007 376 Addison Avenue 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-28-059 940 Bryant Street 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-17-087 943 Bryant Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-28-060 944 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-17-086 951 Bryant Street 1898 Colonial Revival/ Shingle Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-28-061 960 Bryant Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-18-001 1001-1005 Bryant Street 1892 Colonial Revival/ Shingle Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Frank Angell House 120-29-002 1008 Bryant Street 2001 Neotraditional Professorville Professorville - Non- contributing 120-29-003 1010 Bryant Street 1903 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-040 1017-1023 Bryant Street 1893 Colonial Revival/ Shingle Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing Augustus Murray House Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 137APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-29-004 1020 Bryant Street 1902 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-039 1027 Bryant Street 1898 Colonial Revival/ Queen Anne/ Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-005 1028 Bryant Street 1902 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-18-038 1033-1037 Bryant Street 1901 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-006 1036 Bryant Street 1920 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-007 1044 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing Varian House 120-29-008 1052 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-037 1061 Bryant Street 1899 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Sun-Bonnet House by Bernard Maybeck 120-29-009 1100 Bryant Street 1903 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Kimball Residence 120-29-010 1106 Bryant Street 1997 Neotraditional Professorville*Professorville - Contributing* *Contributing property replaced by new construction 120-29-011 1116 Bryant Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 138 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-18-062 1121 Bryant Street 1892 Colonial Revival/ Classical Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing Castilleja Hall; Nardyne Apartments 120-29-012 1130 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman Chalet Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-061 1135 Bryant Street 1910 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-013 1140 Bryant Street 1903 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-18-060 1143 Bryant Street 1912 Prairie School Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-014 1148 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-015 1160 Bryant Street 1910 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-20-009 1200 Bryant Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-20-008 1201 Bryant Street 1966 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-007 1225 Bryant Street 1966 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-010 1250 Bryant Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Historic address 281 Embarcadero Road 120-06-021 1055 Cowper Street 1910 Mission Revival Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 139APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-06-078 1107 Cowper Street 1997 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-048 1140 Cowper Street 1955 Modern Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Non-contributing 120-07-044 1211 Cowper Street 1963 Ranch (multi-story) Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-07-043 1225 Cowper Street 1948 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-005 1236 Cowper Street 1920 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-006 1238 Cowper Street 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-07-101 1247 Cowper Street 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 1 Individual property listing Norris House 120-19-008 1300 Cowper Street 1958 Contemporary Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-009 1312 Cowper Street 1910 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-07-094 1325 Cowper Street 1915 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-010 1330 Cowper Street 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 140 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-07-093 1335 Cowper Street 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-011 1336 Cowper Street 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 1 Individual property listing Pettigrew House 120-07-092 1345 Cowper Street 1908 Craftsman Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-07-091 1357 Cowper Street 1907 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-012 1390 Cowper Street 1937 Tudor Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-013 1400 Cowper Street 1924 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-08-001 1401 Cowper Street 1901 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-08-058 1415 Cowper Street 1927 French Eclectic Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-08-057 1425 Cowper Street 1903 Tudor Revival Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-013 223 Embarcadero Road 1923 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing Also addressed as 222 Kingsley Avenue 120-20-012 235 Embarcadero Road 1906 Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 141APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-20-011 251 Embarcadero Road 1906 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-20-025 359 Embarcadero Road 1900 Prairie School Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-016 425 Embarcadero Road 1907 Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-015 427 Embarcadero Road 1907 Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-014 473 Embarcadero Road 1988 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-29-044 1101-1103 Emerson Street 1906 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-30-009 1102 Emerson Street 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-043 1111 Emerson Street 1903 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-30-010 1118 Emerson Street 1914 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman/ Prairie School Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-042 1121 Emerson Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-30-011 1128 Emerson Street 1907 Colonial Revival/ English Cottage Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 142 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-29-041 1129 Emerson Street 1908 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-055 1133 Emerson Street 1976 Contemporary Shingle Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-30-012 1134 Emerson Street 1903 Prairie School/ Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Elmore Residence 120-29-054 1135 Emerson Street 1975 Contemporary Shingle Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-30-051 1174 Emerson Street 1980 Neotraditional Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-30-052 1176 Emerson Street 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-20-014 200 Kingsley Avenue 1906 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-056 221 Kingsley Avenue 1901 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Fowler Residence 120-20-013 222 Kingsley Avenue 1906 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing Also addressed as 223 Embarcadero Road 120-20-015 252 Kingsley Avenue 1908 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-016 257 Kingsley Avenue 1904 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-20-016 262 Kingsley Avenue 1908 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 143APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-18-059 303 Kingsley Avenue 1963 Ranch Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-18-058 319 Kingsley Avenue 1908 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-69-006* 325-365 Kingsley Avenue 1940 Bungalows Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-006 334 Kingsley Avenue 1904 Classical Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing 120-20-005 356 Kingsley Avenue 1893 Vernacular Professorville - Category 1 Professorville - Contributing 120-20-004 360 Kingsley Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-20-003 364 Kingsley Avenue 2008 Neotraditional Professorville Contributing (does Not apply to new construction) 120-20-002 374 Kingsley Avenue 1905 Craftsman Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-050 405 Kingsley Avenue 1929 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-18-064 425 Kingsley Avenue 1975 Contemporary Professorville Professorville - Non- contributing 120-19-002 430 Kingsley Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-063 433 Kingsley Avenue 1899 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Hutchinson House Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 144 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-19-003 450 Kingsley Avenue 1895 Colonial Revival/ Shingle Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Sanford House 120-18-048 457-459 Kingsley Avenue 1914 Tudor Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing 120-19-004 490 Kingsley Avenue 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing Blake Wilbur Residence 120-07-001 500 Kingsley Avenue 2000 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Also addressed as 1201 Cowper Street 120-06-075 501-505 Kingsley Avenue 1897 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Fleugel Residence 120-29-045 225 Lincoln Avenue 2013 Neotraditional Professorville - Category 3*Professorville - Contributing**Contributing property replaced by new construction 120-29-034 251 Lincoln Avenue 1904 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Charles House 120-18-041 308 Lincoln Avenue 1903 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-042 318 Lincoln Avenue 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-036 329 Lincoln Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival (altered) Professorville Professorville - Non- contributing 120-18-035 331 Lincoln Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 145APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-18-043 332-334 Lincoln Avenue 1896 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-034 333-345 Lincoln Avenue 1890 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-044 356 Lincoln Avenue 1896 Craftsman Professorville - Category 1 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-032 365 Lincoln Avenue 1896 Craftsman/ Shingle Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Hoskins-Thomas Residence 120-18-070 381 Lincoln Avenue 1890 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-025 405 Lincoln Avenue 2012 Neoeclectic Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-18-024 409 Lincoln Avenue 1922 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-023 427 Lincoln Avenue 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-047 436 Lincoln Avenue 1920 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-022 439 Lincoln Avenue 1929 French Eclectic Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-021 451 Lincoln Avenue 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 146 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-18-020 467 Lincoln Avenue 1926 Tudor Revival Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-06-080 510 Lincoln Avenue 1930 French Eclectic Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-017 305 Melville Avenue 1901 Queen Anne Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only Also addressed as 1251 Bryant Street 120-20-018 311-315 Melville Avenue 1903 Queen Anne Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-019 321 Melville Avenue 1902 Queen Anne/ Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-029 325 Melville Avenue 1961 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-027 330 Melville Avenue 1900 Vernacular Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Historic address 345 Embarcadero Road 120-20-028 335 Melville Avenue 1958 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-026 340 Melville Avenue 1987 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-021 353 Melville Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival/ Vernacular Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-022 363 Melville Avenue 1904 Queen Anne Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 147APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-19-028 409 Melville Avenue 1901 Queen Anne Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-027 433 Melville Avenue 1894 Queen Anne/ Shingle Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-021 440 Melville Avenue 1926 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-022 450-458 Melville Avenue 1983 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-035 465 Melville Avenue 1898 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-024 467-469 Melville Avenue 1910 Craftsman (altered) Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-007 475 Melville Avenue 1911 Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only Huff House 120-19-023 480 Melville Avenue 1958 Contemporary Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-07-045 500 Melville Avenue 1906 Craftsman Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only Stark Residence 120-07-102 541 Melville Avenue 1951 Modern Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-29-028 1000 Ramona Street 1905 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 148 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-29-001 1001 Ramona Street 1907 Craftsman Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-028 1004-1006 Ramona Street 1905 Vernacular Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-027 1013 Ramona Street 1908 Vernacular (altered) Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-29-029 1020 Ramona Street 1907 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-026 1021 Ramona Street 1907 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-030 1024 Ramona Street 1914 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-025 1029 Ramona Street 1907 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-031 1030-1032 Ramona Street 2012 Neotraditional Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-29-024 1037 Ramona Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-032 1040 Ramona Street 1914 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-023 1047 Ramona Street 1907 Classical Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-033 1048 Ramona Street 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 149APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-29-022 1057 Ramona Street 1906 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-035 1102 Ramona Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-021 1103 Ramona Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-036 1106 Ramona Street 1905 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-037 1112 Ramona Street 1905 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-020 1115 Ramona Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-038 1116 Ramona Street 1902 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-019 1125 Ramona Street 1902 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-057 1132-1156 Ramona Street 1910 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-018 1139 Ramona Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing 120-29-017 1147 Ramona Street 1906 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-29-016 1155 Ramona Street 1904 Vernacular/ Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-18-008 1010 Waverley Street 1922 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 150 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-18-030 1020 Waverley Street 1902 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-031 1022 Waverley Street 1905 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-18-071 1050 Waverley Street 1926 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Non-contributing 120-18-046 1101 Waverley Street 1922 Colonial Revival/ Period Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-18-045 1110 Waverley Street 1993 Neotraditional Professorville*Professorville - Contributing**Contributing property replaced by new construction 120-18-054 1130 Waverley Street 1900 Vernacular/ Rustic Bungalow Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-18-053 1135 Waverley Street 1926 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-055 1136 Waverley Street 1893 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-056 1146 Waverley Street 1893 Queen Anne Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-18-052 1155 Waverley Street 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 151APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-18-051 1177 Waverley Street 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-19-033 1207 Waverley Street 1904 Colonial Revival (altered)Professorville Professorville - Contributing Historic address 1221 Waverley Street 120-20-001 1220-1224 Waverley Street 1898 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing 120-19-034 1221 Waverley Street 1993 Neoeclectic Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing 120-20-023 1240 Waverley Street 1905 Classical Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-19-029 1245 Waverley Street 1902 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-024 1248 Waverley Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing 120-19-020 1303 Waverley Street 1912 Mission Revival Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-032 1321 Waverley Street 1916 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-030 1327 Waverley Street 1988 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-19-031 1329 Waverley Street 1988 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 152 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES 120-19-017 1331 Waverley Street 1950 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-020 334 Whitman Court 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only 120-20-002 373-375 Whitman Court 1905 Craftsman Category 4 Professorville - Non-contributing Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or 4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. 153APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t Co w p e r S t r e e t Linc o l n A v e n u e Bry a n t S t r e e t King s l e y A v e n u e Melv i l l e A v e n u e We bst e r S t r e e t Em e r s o n S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Cha n n i n g A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Tas s o S t r e e t La n e B E a s t Sc o t t S t r e e t 1140 4903 6 5 433 1247 11 0 7 433 450 35 6 45 0 46 5 359 1336 34 5 221 43 9 425 33 4 33 4 51 0 35 3 40 9 427 430 44 0 34 2 467 501 1201 36 3 54 1 111 0 1250252 12 0 0 35 8 473 10 6 1 110 1 105 5 500 301 40 9 43 6 1327 33 1 42 5 32 6 318 132 1 303 235 40 5 122 5 30 8 120 7 500 140 0 112 1 251 1118 11 4 6 251 134 5 101 7 222 1329 405 122 1 34 01225 1176 1052 115 5 26 2 111 5 1125 1136 334 47 5 121 1 257 113 5 1335 1325 116 0 28 1 26 9 124 0 12 4 8 1057 1047 113 0 1000 1020 32 7 48 0 117 7 115 6 1121 1330 141 5 11 3 5 112 9 1091 113 3 31 9 1357 117 4 130 0 114 7 124 5 1116 427 451 330315 356 374364 321 360 200 1027 1220 1251 329 1425 335325 1135 13031143 1020 1033 1022943951 1005 381 376370 319 469 1312 1331 1130 1401 1112 1102 1101 1102 1134 1106 1128 11161111 944940 1029 1139 1100 1037 1040 1008 1106 1103 1028 1148 1021 1030 1010 1036 1048 10131001 10241020 1010 1236310 1390 1140 1044 1238 1050 353 335 333 363 355345 325 343 365 327 0 90 180 270 360 Feet° The adjacent map shows the addresses associated with properties located within the boundaries of the Professorville Historic District. 154 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 0 20 40 60 80 100 1980-Present1940-19791930-19391920-19291910-19191900-19091890-1899 The graph on this page displays the number of buildings in Professorville, organized by period of construction. Green bars represent those periods considered to be the early periods of development, while the gray bars represent later periods of development. 155APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA Colonial Revival; Classical Revival; Craftsman; Queen Anne; Vernacular (1890-1938) Spanish Colonial Revival; Mission Revival; Prairie; French Eclectic; Tudor Revival (1893-1937) Bungalows; Ranch; Contemporary; Modern (1940-1976) Neotraditional; Neoeclectic (1980-2013) Colonial Revival; Classical Revival; Craftsman; Queen Anne; Vernacular (1890-1938) Spanish Colonial Revival; Mission Revival; Prairie; French Eclectic; Tudor Revival (1893-1937) Bungalows; Ranch; Contemporary; Modern (1940-1976) Neotraditional; Neoeclectic (1980-2013) This graph displays the distribution of architectural styles and influences in Professorville, organized according to broad groupings of related styles. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 157APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA Index Accessory buildings (new) Design, form, and scale 7.3.3 Placement 7.3.2 Additions (historic) 4.5.2 Additions (new) to early residences Differentiation from original residences 4.2.4 In place of existing non-historic additions 4.1.3 Lot placement 4.1.1 Massing 4.2.1 Materials (cladding, roofing) 4.2.2 Roof form 4.2.1 Size and scale 4.1.2 Windows 4.2.3 Additions (new) to later residences Lot placement 5.2.1 Materials (cladding, roofing) 5.2.2 Roof form 5.2.2 Size and scale 5.2.1 Windows 5.2.2 Air conditioning units and generators 7.1.5 Brick masonry Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.3.1 Cladding materials Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.1.1 Repairing/replacing on later residences 5.1.1 Decorative features New features on early residences 3.3.3 Reconstructing where missing 3.3.2 Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.3.1 Demolition Historic buildings 6.1.1 Historic additions and features 4.5.1 Later residences 6.1.2 Disability access ramps 7.2.3 Doors Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.2.2 Repairing/replacing on later residences 5.1.1 Location on early residences 3.2.2 158 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Dormers (new) on early residences Location 4.3.1 Materials 4.3.2 Size and scale 4.3.1 Driveways 7.2.1 Garages (historic) 7.3.1 Garages (new) Attached to historic residences 4.1.1 Attached to later residences 5.2.1 Lot placement for new detached 7.3.2 Fences 7.1.2 Hedges 7.1.2 Lifting residences Early residences 4.4.1 Later residences 5.3.1 Modern-style homes, alterations to 5.1.2 Moving and turning residences Early residences 4.4.2 Later residences 5.3.2 New residential construction Architectural style 6.4.1 Differentiation from early residences 6.4.2 Doors and porches 6.5.1 Lot placement and orientation 6.2.1 Massing 6.3.2 Materials 6.4.1 Roof form 6.3.3 Size/scale 6.3.1 Windows 6.5.2 Painting Color schemes for historic homes 3.3.4 Color schemes for new residences 6.4.3 Color schemes for additions to later residences 5.2.2 Historic cladding 3.1.1 Patios 7.2.4 Planting beds 7.1.4 Porches Historic 3.3.1 New, on later residences 5.2.2 Post-consumer products 3.4.2 Roof materials Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.1.2 Repairing/replacing on later residences 5.1.1 Sandblasting 3.1.1 Sidewalks (public) 7.4.1 Skylights 3.4.1 Solar panels 3.4.1 Stucco 3.1.1 159APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA Synthetic siding On early residences 3.1.1 On later residences 5.1.1 Trees In planting strips 7.4.1 In private yards 7.1.3 Walkways 7.2.2 Windows Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.2.1 Replacing on later residences 5.1.1 Window wells 7.1.5 Wood shingles Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.1.1 Roofing on early residences 3.1.2 Yards Grade 7.1.1 Ground cover and plantings 7.1.1 Historic landscaping schemes 7.1.6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/31/2016 1:02 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:01 AM To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Council, City; Weintraub, Matthew; French, Amy; Silver, Cara; Michelle Arden Subject:Re: Comments on the Proposed Professorville Design Guidelines On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:41:10PM +0000, Gitelman, Hillary wrote: | Thanks for these detailed comments and for participating in this | long‐running project. Staff will review your comments and prepare a | response to the issues you have raised in advance of the City | Council's meeting on September 12th. Thanks for your followup! I should emphasize that these issues aren't last‐minute surprises. I raised all of them (and others) in my emails to Planning over the past year, in discussions at the Design Guidelines Workshops, or at the first HRB hearing for the Guidelines. Some are more than 15 years old. Given that there's already been plenty of time and opportunity to take the issues into account, I don't expect Planning to make any substantive changes in the proposed Guidelines at this point. Clearly the direction for the project was set in stone at least a year ago. If Planning is working on new initiatives that aren't generally known, like a significant change in Individual Review or Historical Review, it would be wonderful to hear about them. However, it wouldn't change my request that Council table the proposed Guidelines until we understand exactly how an improved review process would work and how any set of Guidelines would be used in it. For example, I wouldn't want Council to approve them only to learn a year from now that these voluntary Guidelines with all their shortcomings suddenly will become mandatory. | I really appreciate your attention to this issue, just as I appreciate | Matt Weintraub's efforts to bring a complex project that he inherited | to a conclusion. The way you've phrased that puts the problem in a nutshell. The goal wasn't to bring a "project" to a "conclusion". The goal was to fix some of the fundamental issues with design review in Professorville. At least that's apparently how Planning understood it in 2011. Council might be able to clarify its intent. For me, the touchstone is usually "Would this have prevented the problems on my project?" With respect to the proposed Guidelines the answer is pretty clearly "no". My first house design was based on recommendations from Planning, but the City's historical architecture consultant threw it out. (Recall that this was the same architect whose staff developed the first Professorville Design Guidelines.) The house was redesigned over the course of a year during which he had veto power over everything, from the site plan to the paint. But after the design was complete and the EIR had been drafted, he decided he wanted more changes. When it was time for IR, the City's IR consultant also demanded redesign of significant parts of the house. When it was time for historic review, the HRB was upset that Planning didn't give them the opportunity to redesign it as well. We had reached the point where the changes made by some reviewers were the motivation for changes by other reviewers. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/31/2016 1:02 PM 2 An illustrated list of common features in Professorville is not a fix for that situation. A better‐organized review process might be. Best Regards, Allen Background This August marks the 9th year I've studied the Professorville Historic District and the rules for building there. This is the third set of design guidelines for the District in which I've participated in some way. I paid for the first, helped research and write the second, and now I'm offering advice on the third. The design guidelines projects were motivated in part by the experience with my house at 405 Lincoln Avenue during 2007-2010. Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff, Council Member Holman, and Council Member Schmid will remember it. A court decision against the City in the Juana Briones House case, the lack of a City process for CEQA review of single-family houses, and conflicts between the City's reviewers wound up costing me over $500K and requiring 3.5 years. In the interim the property was in limbo – unusable and unsellable. For the history of the project, see allenakin.com/405lincoln.html . Part of that time and expense went into the development of the first set of design guidelines by Garavaglia Architecture, the City's historical architecture consultant on the project. These guidelines were abandoned during EIR development when it became clear that they failed to capture the defining features of the District accurately enough to be used for a CEQA review. In 2011, Julie Caporgno, Steve Turner, and Dennis Backlund of Planning responded to Council's direction by taking measures to fix the problems faced during my project. One of their actions was to create the Professorville Design Guidelines Committee to produce the second set of guidelines. Julie recruited eight Committee members from the HRB, from Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, and from Professorville's residents. She asked me to participate because of what I had learned concerning preservation policies and related law during my project. The group in Planning decided to combine design review for Professorville with the existing Single Family Individual Review (IR) process. This had two major advantages. First, it made review enforceable. (Compliance with HRB review is voluntary, but compliance with IR is mandatory. IR is discretionary, so CEQA review is triggered when necessary.) Second, it consolidated the two existing reviews into a single action. (Julie had seen on my project that a great deal of delay, expense, and mis- design resulted from multiple uncoordinated reviews.) The Committee was charged with listing the defining characteristics of Professorville and using them to propose Professorville-specific requirements for the Individual Review guidelines. To understand why this is a problem without a simple solution, see What Is Professorville? For three years the Committee held open hearings, researched the defining characteristics of the District, considered the review process, and discussed the balance between preservation and property rights, among other things. In 2013 it produced a set of minimalist guidelines and recommendations for small changes to the ordinance for IR. You can find my explanation of the Committee's work and recommendations here: arden.org/professorville/index.html . The final draft of the Committee's additions to IR can be found at DraftIrGuidelinesBooklet.Professorville.pdf . It's about ten pages long. Julie and Dennis retired, Steve moved on to Redwood City, and as a consequence the Committee's 1 of 13 proposal was left in limbo. In 2015 Matt Weintraub of Planning started a new guidelines project from scratch. I learned about it by chance from an item on the Consent Calendar. There was no attempt to contact the Committee to discuss its rationale or what it had learned from the community during its effort. Contrary to what you may read in the new Guidelines, the entire Committee proposal, including the enforcement mechanism chosen by Planning itself in 2011, was discarded. It's not surprising that the names of the Committee members don't even appear on the new acknowledgements page. A few “workshops” with “interactive activities” were held by Planning as part of this new project. While these were fun (I attended all of them), they were pro-forma and sparsely attended. Only the first took place before the new Guidelines had been drafted, and even that one occurred after Page & Turnbull had already completed most of its field research. Although I raised many substantive issues in letters to Matt and at the workshops and at an HRB hearing, only a few were addressed. Several disclaimers were added, and some of the simple factual errors were corrected, but the approach and outcome were foregone conclusions. Evaluating the Proposed Guidelines Design review involves interpreting rules that are in part subjective. There will never be universal agreement about them. See The Craftsman Style Is Bad Taste and Waste However, I believe we can agree on some objective goals. Review should incorporate the applicant's needs; be based on the real, measurable District; be legally defensible; be fairly applied; and be efficient. The newest Guidelines don't do well in those respects. I've provided some explanation in Comments on the Proposed Guidelines In brief: The proposed Guidelines do nothing to resolve the lack of a defensible definition for the District, but add to the confusion by erasing the legally-important distinction between contributing houses and non-contributors. They do nothing to simplify multiple conflicting review processes, and even add complexity to them. They do nothing to close a legal loophole that subverts historic preservation and imposes burdens on residents inconsistently. They provide a false sense of security to residents who are concerned about preservation, because although they may appear to be requirements, they are actually voluntary and unenforceable. And they discard the already-existing proposal from Planning and the Committee that would have made progress on most of those issues. For those of you who were on the Council in 2011: If it was your intent for Planning to clarify and simplify the design review process, as Planning apparently understood at the time, then these proposed Guidelines are not the solution you were looking for. What We Should Do In the short term, the right thing to do is table these Guidelines because they don't fix the problems that actually need fixing. A cynic would say that they're a perfect example of the Palo Alto Process: Adding 2 of 13 more than a hundred pages of inconclusive criteria to a process that's already too slow and complicated. In the long term, Council could direct Planning to start fixing the fundamental problems. (Perhaps for the second time, if Planning recently misinterpreted what Council intended in 2011.) We've spent five years on this already, so clearly it's not urgent; we can take the time to do things well. •Compatibility with “the District” is not well-defined. We should strive for compatibility over neighborhoods or block faces; areas that are neither too large nor too small, but are self- consistent. Compatibility within the Professorville core could be stronger. •Focus on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Existing City policy and the CEQA Guidelines require these as the basis for determining whether a project is acceptable. •Fix the lack of documentation for the houses in the District. This can be done a little at a time to help manage the expense. •Determine objective standards that can be used to assess significance and compatibility. Many of these already exist, but are not being applied consistently or cannot be applied because of lack of documentation. •Using those, choose a definition and boundaries for the District that are legally defensible. •Eliminate the known legal loopholes. •Consolidate design review processes so that there is one enforceable review. This is necessary for both efficiency and fairness. The proposed new Guidelines are not without value, and once this improved process is in place, we may find them useful. The final result would strengthen the preservation of genuinely historic houses and neighborhoods while leaving owners throughout the District with enough flexibility to adapt to changes in their own lives and in the environment. As we anticipate construction of taller buildings nearby, reduced water supply, increased traffic, increased noise from rail, and so on, we will need it. Thank you for your patience in working through a long letter on an esoteric subject (that has absorbed far more of my life during the past nine years than I ever expected). Best Regards, Allen Akin 405 Lincoln Ave 3 of 13 What Is Professorville? Professorville has a “core” where the vast majority of the early professors lived, nearly every house is built in one of just a few architectural styles, most of the individually-significant houses are concentrated, and about 80% of the houses were built in the two decades between 1891 and 1911. The stone markers for Professorville were placed inside it in 1969. It's essentially the portion of the National Register Historic District west of Waverley Street, shown in red here: This is the area with the features most people have in mind when they imagine Professorville. But the Local Historic District we have today is the result of expansions over the years to include areas that are not so closely related. Often they were added for superficial reasons (we have good documentation for this). Today's Local District lacks strong unifying architectural and historical principles like the core has. Only about a quarter of the houses have a connection to the early Stanford professors. Depending on how you count them, some 15 architectural styles (including Eichlers!) are represented, and even within a given style there is major variation in overall design, detail, and size. Today Professorville contains areas that are no longer distinct from nearby parts of University South or even Community Center and Crescent Park slightly farther away. 4 of 13 Professorville west of Waverley Street is a collection of historic houses built in consistent architectural styles with intrusions of non-historic houses in other styles. Professorville east of Waverley is a collection of less- or non-historic structures (houses and others) built in more recent architectural styles wrapped around a modest number of historic houses in a variety of styles. I doubt it's appropriate or even workable to apply a single set of detailed guidelines to both sections. The Dames and Moore study of Palo Alto historic resources in 1999 observed that the Professorville National Register District defined in 1979 wouldn't meet modern standards: The documentation "does not include the kind of information and the amount of detail that is required today and that is needed in regulating a historic district, whether as a NRHP [National Register of Historic Places] district, or a city district." It went on to note specific problems in defining significance, characterizing architecture, applying the National Register Criteria, defining the period of significance, establishing a defensible boundary, assessing integrity, documenting individual buildings, and completing original research. This has practical implications in the real world. My project met its legal requirements in part because the property had none of the defining characteristics listed for the National Register District. The Local District of today has even less strength than the National Register District. In January, 2014, Dennis Backlund explained: "...while the National Register sector of the district was professionally designated, this was not the case with the 1993 extended Professorville. In 1993 there was no historic CEQA review process in the City and no historically trained staff members in the Planning Department. In a nutshell, the extended District sector was an unprofessional and improper designation (due to nearly 50% non- contributors in the extended sector at the time of designation) that is often problematical due to today's historic CEQA review. In 1993 all historic review in the City whether discretionary or not was entirely voluntary compliance (due to the absence of the mandatory historic CEQA review which was not practiced by the City until 1994 --triggered by the 1994-95 Varsity Theater-Borders project where the concerned public uncovered in consultation with the State Preservation Office the requirement for historic CEQA review in the Planning Department). The extended District did not raise issues at first because historic review was then harmless to property rights--nothing was actually required of historic properties except zoning and the Building Code. The solution to the extended Professorville problem would be a formal evaluation of the extended District which would definitely require a professional reconfiguration of the extended District boundaries so as to include a significant majority of contributors." We have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done to put the definition of the District on a sound foundation. The Dames and Moore study laid out the key requirements more than 15 years ago. 5 of 13 The Craftsman Style Is Bad Taste and Waste A lesson in how there will never be universal agreement about design, using one of the defining styles in Professorville. 6 of 13 Comments on the Proposed Guidelines Applicant's Needs When most people consider a building project, they begin with a functional need, and then ask what they're allowed to do. For instance, “I want another bedroom so my parents can stay with us. Can I expand my second floor?” Or “I suffer from seasonal affective disorder. Can I add skylights to bring in more natural light?” The proposed Guidelines are essentially about art; they have a lot to say about aesthetics without considering the applicant's needs for function. They're disingenuous about their authority, as well; aside from some half-hearted disclaimers they express their recommendations as if they were requirements. Applicants should be forgiven for not understanding what is permitted and what isn't! Under current law, a project is acceptable if it's consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Those Standards are more permissive than the proposed Guidelines. Interpreting the Standards for each particular case, and including the needs of the applicant, is the essential purpose of a review. The best way to meet an applicant's needs, therefore, is to make a professional-quality review by architects easier, faster, and more conclusive, not to elaborate the existing process with more than a hundred pages of non-binding advice. 7 of 13 Real-World Basis To avoid overwhelming you with details, I'll cite just a few examples where the Guidelines get into specifics that fail to respect the ground truth. I sent others to Planning a few months ago. •On page 9 it's mentioned that Professorville is “distinguished by...its consistent streetscape patterns...”. In fact, measurements show that Professorville is less consistent than the nearby neighborhoods of Crescent Park and Community Center. This would be expected from the way properties were subdivided. Good places to appreciate this are the 300 blocks of Lincoln, Kingsley, and Melville (where the lots are large and irregularly-sized) and the 1000 and 1100 blocks of Bryant and Ramona nearby (where the lots are small and regularly-sized). Enforcing a new consistency where it didn't exist historically would be a change to the character of the District. •Page 34 states “Early residences are set back from the street between 25’-40’...” A scale map of Professorville plotted by the City's GIS suggests that very few of the small properties have setbacks this large, and perhaps a little more than half of the large properties do. So this may be incorrect. In practice, it's likely irrelevant and doesn't need to be in the Guidelines. Zoning requirements (particularly the contextual setback) are going to override it, so it can't serve as guidance to accept or reject a project. •On page 123, “early homes in the neighborhood were typically constructed with detached garages at the backs of lots.” Originally this read “all early homes in the neighborhood were constructed with detached garages” [emphasis added], which was corrected after I pointed out exceptions. But how common are other garage designs? Would you reject an application for a new attached garage if only 5% of Professorville houses had them? How about 20%? What if the percentages differed for houses on alleys as opposed to houses elsewhere? An historical architecture consultant once told me that assertions about house features in historic districts always need to be quantified, or you can't be sure how true they really are. The last item above is one example of the ways the proposed Guidelines misrepresent the district by oversimplifying and overgeneralizing it. Professorville includes traditional styles and Eichlers, cottages and mansions. This variety is undeniably one of the defining characteristics of the District. As a result the Guidelines' sweeping statements about particular features can be wrong for a good percentage of the houses in the District. As was the case with the first set of Guidelines many years ago, this tends to make the new Guidelines unhelpful for design reviews and for resolving CEQA questions, because you can always find counterexamples to support a particular position. 8 of 13 Here's one of the four Category 1 (most significant) houses in the District: It violates the new Guidelines in at least four areas: window design, main entrance placement, streetscape patterns, and landscaping. And it's not alone. Other individually-significant houses in the District violate one or more of the Guidelines, as do many non-significant houses. If the proposed Guidelines don't accurately capture what's already in the District, how can you use them to decide whether a new project is compatible with the District? Keep in mind that the Secretary's Standards are already so restrictive that had they been in force from the beginning, Professorville as we know it today could not have been built. This house is a good example. Today we recognize it as one of the most significant in the City, but when it was built it was incompatible with the core Professorville houses in massing and materials. That would have violated the Standards. It might be ideal to have definitive requirements, but for a District that doesn't have consistent architecture or history, laundry-lists of guidelines are not the best substitute. The Committee's recommendations depended on the review process to balance compatibility and change. 9 of 13 Another way the proposed Guidelines overgeneralize is by misleading readers about the amount of similarity in the District. There's a good illustration of this on page 38: A map of the District where areas are colored by architectural style. I think that most people, seeing this, would get the impression that large areas of Professorville are very similar architecturally. But is this true in reality? Here are two houses that are both colored dark green on the map: 10 of 13 Here are two more, this time from the light-green areas: If you built an addition to one house of each pair using the style of the other, would it be compatible? Is it misleading to imply that they're the same style by portraying them the same way in the map? The Guidelines supposedly describe the defining features of Professorville. Are they complete enough to explain why a given house is appropriate for the District, and a neighbor across the District boundary isn't? Here are two houses, adjacent to one another in the middle of their block. One is inside the District and the other isn't: Architecturally, neither one seems very different from other houses in the District, so it's not obvious why they aren't both in the District. Perhaps one is “historic,” and the other isn't? But just down the street, you'll find this house, which is also next to the District boundary but wasn't included in the District: 11 of 13 In fact, most houses in the District aren't significant individually, and plenty of nearby houses that are significant individually are not in the District. Many houses in the District are not obviously different from houses outside it. Again, if the Guidelines aren't strong enough to show why existing houses belong or don't belong in the District, how are they valid for showing why a new house or an addition belongs or doesn't belong in the District? Legal Defensibility The new Guidelines have no legal force, so I doubt they have to be defensible per se. However, they do nothing to help resolve the essential CEQA question of whether a project in Professorville presents significant unmitigatable impacts on the historic resource that comprises the District. If the City cites them among its reasons to block a project, it might be challenged on the basis of issues like those described in this letter. Age alone is not enough to confer significance; anything that simply survives eventually becomes old, whether or not it's individually valuable or a meaningful part of a larger whole. That's why the Department of the Interior requires historic districts to have unifying principles in addition to age. The decision of the new Guidelines not to differentiate between contributing and non-contributing houses in the District, and to use age alone, is a fundamental error. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it offers another path to a legal challenge, perhaps to the District itself. 12 of 13 Fairness The new Guidelines fail to address a major loophole: Today you can freely demolish an historic house and build a one-story replacement of your choice. HRB recommendations are non-binding. Individual Review doesn't apply to one-story houses, so there's no discretionary action involved, and CEQA doesn't apply. Therefore the constraints are significantly more severe for two-story houses than one- story houses. This loophole has been used; 225 Lincoln (a one-story spec house constructed in 2013; ironically, pictured as a positive example in the new Guidelines) exists because a Category 3 historic house was demolished in order to build it. The Committee's recommendations, on the other hand, would have modified Individual Review to apply it to single-story houses in Professorville and thus treated one- and two-story houses fairly. Dennis Backlund documented that many of the properties added in the 1993 expansion don't contribute to the District. The Guidelines before you impose the same constraints on those properties that they do on the contributors. This is clearly unfair (and perhaps challengeable). Efficiency The new Guidelines offer no improvement in this respect. All the conflicts between City reviewers that I dealt with in my project are still possible, and likely to happen again for someone else. The Committee's approach would have consolidated multiple reviews, reducing the potential for inconsistency, and streamlined the process. An HRB member once told me that Guidelines should be brief and general. The more non-binding specifics that are added, the greater the chance they will be misunderstood or misused. The proposed new Guidelines definitely fail that test. Sometimes less is more. 13 of 13 Background This August marks the 9th year I've studied the Professorville Historic District and the rules for building there. This is the third set of design guidelines for the District in which I've participated in some way. I paid for the first, helped research and write the second, and now I'm offering advice on the third. The design guidelines projects were motivated in part by the experience with my house at 405 Lincoln Avenue during 2007-2010. Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff, Council Member Holman, and Council Member Schmid will remember it. A court decision against the City in the Juana Briones House case, the lack of a City process for CEQA review of single-family houses, and conflicts between the City's reviewers wound up costing me over $500K and requiring 3.5 years. In the interim the property was in limbo – unusable and unsellable. For the history of the project, see allenakin.com/405lincoln.html . Part of that time and expense went into the development of the first set of design guidelines by Garavaglia Architecture, the City's historical architecture consultant on the project. These guidelines were abandoned during EIR development when it became clear that they failed to capture the defining features of the District accurately enough to be used for a CEQA review. In 2011, Julie Caporgno, Steve Turner, and Dennis Backlund of Planning responded to Council's direction by taking measures to fix the problems faced during my project. One of their actions was to create the Professorville Design Guidelines Committee to produce the second set of guidelines. Julie recruited eight Committee members from the HRB, from Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, and from Professorville's residents. She asked me to participate because of what I had learned concerning preservation policies and related law during my project. The group in Planning decided to combine design review for Professorville with the existing Single Family Individual Review (IR) process. This had two major advantages. First, it made review enforceable. (Compliance with HRB review is voluntary, but compliance with IR is mandatory. IR is discretionary, so CEQA review is triggered when necessary.) Second, it consolidated the two existing reviews into a single action. (Julie had seen on my project that a great deal of delay, expense, and mis- design resulted from multiple uncoordinated reviews.) The Committee was charged with listing the defining characteristics of Professorville and using them to propose Professorville-specific requirements for the Individual Review guidelines. To understand why this is a problem without a simple solution, see What Is Professorville? For three years the Committee held open hearings, researched the defining characteristics of the District, considered the review process, and discussed the balance between preservation and property rights, among other things. In 2013 it produced a set of minimalist guidelines and recommendations for small changes to the ordinance for IR. You can find my explanation of the Committee's work and recommendations here: arden.org/professorville/index.html . The final draft of the Committee's additions to IR can be found at DraftIrGuidelinesBooklet.Professorville.pdf . It's about ten pages long. Julie and Dennis retired, Steve moved on to Redwood City, and as a consequence the Committee's 1 of 13 proposal was left in limbo. In 2015 Matt Weintraub of Planning started a new guidelines project from scratch. I learned about it by chance from an item on the Consent Calendar. There was no attempt to contact the Committee to discuss its rationale or what it had learned from the community during its effort. Contrary to what you may read in the new Guidelines, the entire Committee proposal, including the enforcement mechanism chosen by Planning itself in 2011, was discarded. It's not surprising that the names of the Committee members don't even appear on the new acknowledgements page. A few “workshops” with “interactive activities” were held by Planning as part of this new project. While these were fun (I attended all of them), they were pro-forma and sparsely attended. Only the first took place before the new Guidelines had been drafted, and even that one occurred after Page & Turnbull had already completed most of its field research. Although I raised many substantive issues in letters to Matt and at the workshops and at an HRB hearing, only a few were addressed. Several disclaimers were added, and some of the simple factual errors were corrected, but the approach and outcome were foregone conclusions. Evaluating the Proposed Guidelines Design review involves interpreting rules that are in part subjective. There will never be universal agreement about them. See The Craftsman Style Is Bad Taste and Waste However, I believe we can agree on some objective goals. Review should incorporate the applicant's needs; be based on the real, measurable District; be legally defensible; be fairly applied; and be efficient. The newest Guidelines don't do well in those respects. I've provided some explanation in Comments on the Proposed Guidelines In brief: The proposed Guidelines do nothing to resolve the lack of a defensible definition for the District, but add to the confusion by erasing the legally-important distinction between contributing houses and non-contributors. They do nothing to simplify multiple conflicting review processes, and even add complexity to them. They do nothing to close a legal loophole that subverts historic preservation and imposes burdens on residents inconsistently. They provide a false sense of security to residents who are concerned about preservation, because although they may appear to be requirements, they are actually voluntary and unenforceable. And they discard the already-existing proposal from Planning and the Committee that would have made progress on most of those issues. For those of you who were on the Council in 2011: If it was your intent for Planning to clarify and simplify the design review process, as Planning apparently understood at the time, then these proposed Guidelines are not the solution you were looking for. What We Should Do In the short term, the right thing to do is table these Guidelines because they don't fix the problems that actually need fixing. A cynic would say that they're a perfect example of the Palo Alto Process: Adding 2 of 13 more than a hundred pages of inconclusive criteria to a process that's already too slow and complicated. In the long term, Council could direct Planning to start fixing the fundamental problems. (Perhaps for the second time, if Planning recently misinterpreted what Council intended in 2011.) We've spent five years on this already, so clearly it's not urgent; we can take the time to do things well. •Compatibility with “the District” is not well-defined. We should strive for compatibility over neighborhoods or block faces; areas that are neither too large nor too small, but are self- consistent. Compatibility within the Professorville core could be stronger. •Focus on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Existing City policy and the CEQA Guidelines require these as the basis for determining whether a project is acceptable. •Fix the lack of documentation for the houses in the District. This can be done a little at a time to help manage the expense. •Determine objective standards that can be used to assess significance and compatibility. Many of these already exist, but are not being applied consistently or cannot be applied because of lack of documentation. •Using those, choose a definition and boundaries for the District that are legally defensible. •Eliminate the known legal loopholes. •Consolidate design review processes so that there is one enforceable review. This is necessary for both efficiency and fairness. The proposed new Guidelines are not without value, and once this improved process is in place, we may find them useful. The final result would strengthen the preservation of genuinely historic houses and neighborhoods while leaving owners throughout the District with enough flexibility to adapt to changes in their own lives and in the environment. As we anticipate construction of taller buildings nearby, reduced water supply, increased traffic, increased noise from rail, and so on, we will need it. Thank you for your patience in working through a long letter on an esoteric subject (that has absorbed far more of my life during the past nine years than I ever expected). Best Regards, Allen Akin 405 Lincoln Ave 3 of 13 What Is Professorville? Professorville has a “core” where the vast majority of the early professors lived, nearly every house is built in one of just a few architectural styles, most of the individually-significant houses are concentrated, and about 80% of the houses were built in the two decades between 1891 and 1911. The stone markers for Professorville were placed inside it in 1969. It's essentially the portion of the National Register Historic District west of Waverley Street, shown in red here: This is the area with the features most people have in mind when they imagine Professorville. But the Local Historic District we have today is the result of expansions over the years to include areas that are not so closely related. Often they were added for superficial reasons (we have good documentation for this). Today's Local District lacks strong unifying architectural and historical principles like the core has. Only about a quarter of the houses have a connection to the early Stanford professors. Depending on how you count them, some 15 architectural styles (including Eichlers!) are represented, and even within a given style there is major variation in overall design, detail, and size. Today Professorville contains areas that are no longer distinct from nearby parts of University South or even Community Center and Crescent Park slightly farther away. 4 of 13 Professorville west of Waverley Street is a collection of historic houses built in consistent architectural styles with intrusions of non-historic houses in other styles. Professorville east of Waverley is a collection of less- or non-historic structures (houses and others) built in more recent architectural styles wrapped around a modest number of historic houses in a variety of styles. I doubt it's appropriate or even workable to apply a single set of detailed guidelines to both sections. The Dames and Moore study of Palo Alto historic resources in 1999 observed that the Professorville National Register District defined in 1979 wouldn't meet modern standards: The documentation "does not include the kind of information and the amount of detail that is required today and that is needed in regulating a historic district, whether as a NRHP [National Register of Historic Places] district, or a city district." It went on to note specific problems in defining significance, characterizing architecture, applying the National Register Criteria, defining the period of significance, establishing a defensible boundary, assessing integrity, documenting individual buildings, and completing original research. This has practical implications in the real world. My project met its legal requirements in part because the property had none of the defining characteristics listed for the National Register District. The Local District of today has even less strength than the National Register District. In January, 2014, Dennis Backlund explained: "...while the National Register sector of the district was professionally designated, this was not the case with the 1993 extended Professorville. In 1993 there was no historic CEQA review process in the City and no historically trained staff members in the Planning Department. In a nutshell, the extended District sector was an unprofessional and improper designation (due to nearly 50% non- contributors in the extended sector at the time of designation) that is often problematical due to today's historic CEQA review. In 1993 all historic review in the City whether discretionary or not was entirely voluntary compliance (due to the absence of the mandatory historic CEQA review which was not practiced by the City until 1994 --triggered by the 1994-95 Varsity Theater-Borders project where the concerned public uncovered in consultation with the State Preservation Office the requirement for historic CEQA review in the Planning Department). The extended District did not raise issues at first because historic review was then harmless to property rights--nothing was actually required of historic properties except zoning and the Building Code. The solution to the extended Professorville problem would be a formal evaluation of the extended District which would definitely require a professional reconfiguration of the extended District boundaries so as to include a significant majority of contributors." We have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done to put the definition of the District on a sound foundation. The Dames and Moore study laid out the key requirements more than 15 years ago. 5 of 13 The Craftsman Style Is Bad Taste and Waste A lesson in how there will never be universal agreement about design, using one of the defining styles in Professorville. 6 of 13 Comments on the Proposed Guidelines Applicant's Needs When most people consider a building project, they begin with a functional need, and then ask what they're allowed to do. For instance, “I want another bedroom so my parents can stay with us. Can I expand my second floor?” Or “I suffer from seasonal affective disorder. Can I add skylights to bring in more natural light?” The proposed Guidelines are essentially about art; they have a lot to say about aesthetics without considering the applicant's needs for function. They're disingenuous about their authority, as well; aside from some half-hearted disclaimers they express their recommendations as if they were requirements. Applicants should be forgiven for not understanding what is permitted and what isn't! Under current law, a project is acceptable if it's consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Those Standards are more permissive than the proposed Guidelines. Interpreting the Standards for each particular case, and including the needs of the applicant, is the essential purpose of a review. The best way to meet an applicant's needs, therefore, is to make a professional-quality review by architects easier, faster, and more conclusive, not to elaborate the existing process with more than a hundred pages of non-binding advice. 7 of 13 Real-World Basis To avoid overwhelming you with details, I'll cite just a few examples where the Guidelines get into specifics that fail to respect the ground truth. I sent others to Planning a few months ago. •On page 9 it's mentioned that Professorville is “distinguished by...its consistent streetscape patterns...”. In fact, measurements show that Professorville is less consistent than the nearby neighborhoods of Crescent Park and Community Center. This would be expected from the way properties were subdivided. Good places to appreciate this are the 300 blocks of Lincoln, Kingsley, and Melville (where the lots are large and irregularly-sized) and the 1000 and 1100 blocks of Bryant and Ramona nearby (where the lots are small and regularly-sized). Enforcing a new consistency where it didn't exist historically would be a change to the character of the District. •Page 34 states “Early residences are set back from the street between 25’-40’...” A scale map of Professorville plotted by the City's GIS suggests that very few of the small properties have setbacks this large, and perhaps a little more than half of the large properties do. So this may be incorrect. In practice, it's likely irrelevant and doesn't need to be in the Guidelines. Zoning requirements (particularly the contextual setback) are going to override it, so it can't serve as guidance to accept or reject a project. •On page 123, “early homes in the neighborhood were typically constructed with detached garages at the backs of lots.” Originally this read “all early homes in the neighborhood were constructed with detached garages” [emphasis added], which was corrected after I pointed out exceptions. But how common are other garage designs? Would you reject an application for a new attached garage if only 5% of Professorville houses had them? How about 20%? What if the percentages differed for houses on alleys as opposed to houses elsewhere? An historical architecture consultant once told me that assertions about house features in historic districts always need to be quantified, or you can't be sure how true they really are. The last item above is one example of the ways the proposed Guidelines misrepresent the district by oversimplifying and overgeneralizing it. Professorville includes traditional styles and Eichlers, cottages and mansions. This variety is undeniably one of the defining characteristics of the District. As a result the Guidelines' sweeping statements about particular features can be wrong for a good percentage of the houses in the District. As was the case with the first set of Guidelines many years ago, this tends to make the new Guidelines unhelpful for design reviews and for resolving CEQA questions, because you can always find counterexamples to support a particular position. 8 of 13 Here's one of the four Category 1 (most significant) houses in the District: It violates the new Guidelines in at least four areas: window design, main entrance placement, streetscape patterns, and landscaping. And it's not alone. Other individually-significant houses in the District violate one or more of the Guidelines, as do many non-significant houses. If the proposed Guidelines don't accurately capture what's already in the District, how can you use them to decide whether a new project is compatible with the District? Keep in mind that the Secretary's Standards are already so restrictive that had they been in force from the beginning, Professorville as we know it today could not have been built. This house is a good example. Today we recognize it as one of the most significant in the City, but when it was built it was incompatible with the core Professorville houses in massing and materials. That would have violated the Standards. It might be ideal to have definitive requirements, but for a District that doesn't have consistent architecture or history, laundry-lists of guidelines are not the best substitute. The Committee's recommendations depended on the review process to balance compatibility and change. 9 of 13 Another way the proposed Guidelines overgeneralize is by misleading readers about the amount of similarity in the District. There's a good illustration of this on page 38: A map of the District where areas are colored by architectural style. I think that most people, seeing this, would get the impression that large areas of Professorville are very similar architecturally. But is this true in reality? Here are two houses that are both colored dark green on the map: 10 of 13 Here are two more, this time from the light-green areas: If you built an addition to one house of each pair using the style of the other, would it be compatible? Is it misleading to imply that they're the same style by portraying them the same way in the map? The Guidelines supposedly describe the defining features of Professorville. Are they complete enough to explain why a given house is appropriate for the District, and a neighbor across the District boundary isn't? Here are two houses, adjacent to one another in the middle of their block. One is inside the District and the other isn't: Architecturally, neither one seems very different from other houses in the District, so it's not obvious why they aren't both in the District. Perhaps one is “historic,” and the other isn't? But just down the street, you'll find this house, which is also next to the District boundary but wasn't included in the District: 11 of 13 In fact, most houses in the District aren't significant individually, and plenty of nearby houses that are significant individually are not in the District. Many houses in the District are not obviously different from houses outside it. Again, if the Guidelines aren't strong enough to show why existing houses belong or don't belong in the District, how are they valid for showing why a new house or an addition belongs or doesn't belong in the District? Legal Defensibility The new Guidelines have no legal force, so I doubt they have to be defensible per se. However, they do nothing to help resolve the essential CEQA question of whether a project in Professorville presents significant unmitigatable impacts on the historic resource that comprises the District. If the City cites them among its reasons to block a project, it might be challenged on the basis of issues like those described in this letter. Age alone is not enough to confer significance; anything that simply survives eventually becomes old, whether or not it's individually valuable or a meaningful part of a larger whole. That's why the Department of the Interior requires historic districts to have unifying principles in addition to age. The decision of the new Guidelines not to differentiate between contributing and non-contributing houses in the District, and to use age alone, is a fundamental error. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it offers another path to a legal challenge, perhaps to the District itself. 12 of 13 Fairness The new Guidelines fail to address a major loophole: Today you can freely demolish an historic house and build a one-story replacement of your choice. HRB recommendations are non-binding. Individual Review doesn't apply to one-story houses, so there's no discretionary action involved, and CEQA doesn't apply. Therefore the constraints are significantly more severe for two-story houses than one- story houses. This loophole has been used; 225 Lincoln (a one-story spec house constructed in 2013; ironically, pictured as a positive example in the new Guidelines) exists because a Category 3 historic house was demolished in order to build it. The Committee's recommendations, on the other hand, would have modified Individual Review to apply it to single-story houses in Professorville and thus treated one- and two-story houses fairly. Dennis Backlund documented that many of the properties added in the 1993 expansion don't contribute to the District. The Guidelines before you impose the same constraints on those properties that they do on the contributors. This is clearly unfair (and perhaps challengeable). Efficiency The new Guidelines offer no improvement in this respect. All the conflicts between City reviewers that I dealt with in my project are still possible, and likely to happen again for someone else. The Committee's approach would have consolidated multiple reviews, reducing the potential for inconsistency, and streamlined the process. An HRB member once told me that Guidelines should be brief and general. The more non-binding specifics that are added, the greater the chance they will be misunderstood or misused. The proposed new Guidelines definitely fail that test. Sometimes less is more. 13 of 13 1 Gitelman, Hillary From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:01 AM To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Council, City; Weintraub, Matthew; French, Amy; Silver, Cara; Michelle Arden Subject:Re: Comments on the Proposed Professorville Design Guidelines Categories:FollowUP On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:41:10PM +0000, Gitelman, Hillary wrote: | Thanks for these detailed comments and for participating in this | long‐running project. Staff will review your comments and prepare a | response to the issues you have raised in advance of the City | Council's meeting on September 12th. Thanks for your followup! I should emphasize that these issues aren't last‐minute surprises. I raised all of them (and others) in my emails to Planning over the past year, in discussions at the Design Guidelines Workshops, or at the first HRB hearing for the Guidelines. Some are more than 15 years old. Given that there's already been plenty of time and opportunity to take the issues into account, I don't expect Planning to make any substantive changes in the proposed Guidelines at this point. Clearly the direction for the project was set in stone at least a year ago. If Planning is working on new initiatives that aren't generally known, like a significant change in Individual Review or Historical Review, it would be wonderful to hear about them. However, it wouldn't change my request that Council table the proposed Guidelines until we understand exactly how an improved review process would work and how any set of Guidelines would be used in it. For example, I wouldn't want Council to approve them only to learn a year from now that these voluntary Guidelines with all their shortcomings suddenly will become mandatory. | I really appreciate your attention to this issue, just as I appreciate | Matt Weintraub's efforts to bring a complex project that he inherited | to a conclusion. The way you've phrased that puts the problem in a nutshell. The goal wasn't to bring a "project" to a "conclusion". The goal was to fix some of the fundamental issues with design review in Professorville. At least that's apparently how Planning understood it in 2011. Council might be able to clarify its intent. For me, the touchstone is usually "Would this have prevented the problems on my project?" With respect to the proposed Guidelines the answer is pretty clearly "no". My first house design was based on recommendations from Planning, but the City's historical architecture consultant threw it out. (Recall that this was the same architect whose staff developed the first Professorville Design Guidelines.) The house was redesigned over the course of a year during which he had veto power over everything, from the site plan to the paint. But after the design was complete and the EIR had been drafted, he decided he wanted more changes. When it was time for IR, the City's IR consultant also demanded redesign of significant parts of the house. When it was time for historic review, the HRB was upset that Planning didn't give them the opportunity to redesign it as well. We had reached the point where the changes made by some reviewers were the motivation for changes by other reviewers. 2 An illustrated list of common features in Professorville is not a fix for that situation. A better‐organized review process might be. Best Regards, Allen City of Palo Alto (ID # 7086) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/12/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Ordinance Revising AR Findings with PTC and ARB input Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving Revisions to the Number and Wording of the Architectural Review Findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 and Approval of an Exemption Under Sections 15061 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Council Approval of the Ordinance From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) modifying the Architectural Review approval findings. Executive Summary The proposed modifications to the Architectural Review (AR) findings are intended to improve the quality and consistency of staff’s analysis and preparation of written findings, reduce writing and reading fatigue, focus the ARB’s deliberations, and make it easier for applicants to understand the City’s objectives, and for decision makers to evaluate the applicant’s success at meeting those objectives. Attachment A reflects the revised findings as recommended by staff, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Attachment B, the PTC staff report of August 10, 2016, includes several draft ordinances showing the iterative revision process as explained in that report. The proposed ordinance includes further changes recommended by the ARB in June 2016 and supported by the PTC in August 2016 following Council review in April 2016. Attachment A reflects the suggested modifications after review by staff, ARB, and PTC. Background This effort was initiated by staff to focus and improve upon the existing AR findings as part of a code “clean up” ordinance. The goal was to eliminate repetitive findings, combine similar concepts, and remove outmoded or redundant language. These amendments are intended to City of Palo Alto Page 2 improve the quality and consistency of staff’s analysis and preparation of written findings, reduce writing and reading fatigue, focus the ARB’s deliberations, and make it easier for applicants to understand the City’s objectives, and for decision makers to evaluate the applicant’s success at meeting those objectives. Council Action Modifications to the AR findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.02 were included in the 2015 “code clean-up” ordinance, and Council pulled the AR findings and continued the hearing of these changes to 2016. During the April 11, 2016 Council meeting, Council modified the draft AR Findings ordinance for adoption on first reading; however, Council directed that these additional modifications be forwarded to the ARB for review and adjustment as needed, prior to the next reading of the modified Ordinance. In summary, Council modified: the preamble to make sure the reader understood each of the applicable findings would need to be met to allow approval; Finding #1 to add ‘coordinated area plans;’ Finding #2 to insert adjectives such as “existing,” replace “appropriate” with “relevant,” insert nouns such as “size” and “mass,” and insert the compatibility criteria from the SOFA II document; Finding #3 to add phrases reflecting desirable “aesthetically holistic design…” and undesirable “avoid superficial and “applied”…; Finding #5 to use “complements and enhances” verbiage instead of “suitable, integrated, compatible” verbiage, and to insert “indigenous” to refer to native plant materials and a phrase regarding “providing desirable habitat;” and Finding #6 to remove the word “sensible.” Planning and Transportation Recommendation In the fall of 2015, the PTC had reviewed the AR findings that were presented in the context of multiple proposed “clean up” changes to the PAMC. At that time, the PTC did not recommend any changes to the proposed AR findings and did not expand upon the merits of making changes to the draft AR findings. At its August 10, 2016 meeting, the PTC recommended (on a 4-1-1 vote) that Council adopt the draft ordinance (Attachment A). There were no speakers at the hearing. The PTC report is attached (Attachment B) to this report, as are draft excerpted meeting minutes (Attachment C). Several PTC members noted appreciation for the objectives of this effort. Architectural Review Board Recommendation The ARB had reviewed draft revised Architectural Review findings on two occasions during development of the earlier “code clean up” ordinance (September 3 and October 1, 2015). The City of Palo Alto Page 3 April 11, 2016 Council staff report, found at this link (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51728) provides links to the two ARB staff reports and meeting minutes; these links were also provided to the PTC in the staff report and are also provided again below: ARB 9-3-15 report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48766 ARB 9-3-15 minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49026 ARB 10-1-15 report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49218 ARB 10-1-15 minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49410 At its June 16, 2016 meeting, the ARB discussed the City Council’s April 11, 2016 request and additional wording provided by staff for the ARB’s review and deliberation. The June 16 ARB staff report can be found at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52834. Excerpt draft ARB minutes of June 16, 2016 were provided to the PTC and are contained in that report attachment. The ARB approved the full meeting minutes on August 4, 2016; they are found at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53305. Substantive changes are summarized in the Discussion section below. Generally, the ARB and staff built upon Council’s suggested language in order to address the following goals: To reduce excess language and inject “compatible” and “compatibility” into findings #1 and #2 to more succinctly address Council’s concern for compatible development citywide, and To use industry terms such as “integrated” and “climate appropriate” as appropriate (in findings #3 and #5). Discussion Substantive changes, as noted in the PTC report, are summarized below: The ARB embraced staff’s suggestion to insert ‘(including compatibility requirements)’ following Council’s insert ‘Coordinated Area Plans’ into AR Findings #1 to address a concern about compatibility. This structure parallels ‘zoning code (context based design criteria)’ as an alternative to some of the Council-added wording for AR Finding #2, which duplicated language already found in the SOFA II Coordinated Area Plan. In AR Finding #2, the ARB added “is compatible with its setting” to address the fact that ROLM, GM, MOR, RP, and PF zones do not have context based design criteria nor compatibility criteria embedded in the zoning code (as do Commercial, Multifamily Residential, and SOFA). The ARB also added back the phrase “and land use designations” that Council deleted, since the ARB generally looks at Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations as well as zoning. In AR Finding #3, the ARB added “integrated” to ensure that materials are appropriate to the building design and context. City of Palo Alto Page 4 In AR Finding #5, the ARB supported the addition of the terms “climate appropriate” and “when feasible” to improve the clarity of the requirements. Staff understands a Council desire for California native plants, so the draft ordinance was further amended after the ARB and PTC reviews. With these changes, the finding reads: “The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, utilizes climate appropriate plant material capable of providing desirable habitat when feasible (and preferably California natives), and can be appropriately maintained.” In addition to the substantive changes, the ARB also proposed a minor modification to AR Finding #4 (use of ‘traffic’ instead of ‘access’) and proposed to eliminate ‘green building’ in Finding #6 to eliminate redundancy. Policy Implications The proposed changes to the Architectural Review findings will not change the substantive review of projects, and the revised findings are in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Resource Impact Other than staff time, no additional fiscal or economic impacts are anticipated. Timeline If Council adopts these revisions or further modifications on first reading, the second reading would be scheduled as a consent calendar review for adoption. Any ordinance adopted on second reading would become effective 31 days from second reading. Environmental Review The April 11, 2016 report to City Council included the reasons the modifications to the existing AR findings are 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. The report cited CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption) and 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because: (1) the activity (rewording of Architectural Review findings) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment, and (2) this ‘minor alteration in land use limitations’ does not result in any changes in land use or density. Attachments: Attachment A: PTC Recommended Ordinance (PDF) Attachment B: PTC staff report of August 10 including attachments (PDF) Attachment C: PTC 8 10 16 excerpted draft minutes (PDF) Not Yet Approved 160713 jb 0131537 1 Ordinance No. _______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. As part of the City’s annual Zoning Code update, the City desires to improve its Architectural Review findings to ensure robust design review, to eliminate repetitive findings and to remove outmoded and unnecessary findings. B. On September 3 and October 1, 2015, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the draft updated architectural review findings and provided input. Subsequently, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the AR findings and recommended that Council approve them without any changes. C. On April 11, 2016, the Council reviewed the draft findings, suggested revisions and directed staff and the ARB to review the updated language and offer approval, feedback or changes. D. On June 16, 2016, the ARB reviewed the updated findings and provided additional comments. E. On August 10, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the updated findings and concurred with the ARB and Staff’s comments. F. On September 12, 2016, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the current draft of the updated architectural review findings. SECTION 2. Subdivision (d) of Section 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 18.76.020 Architectural Review. *** (d) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elementsprovisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable), coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Not Yet Approved 160713 jb 0131537 2 (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic local resources of the area when relevant, (c) is compatible with its setting, (d) provides harmonious transitions in scale and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and (e) enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes climate appropriate plant material capable of providing desirable habitat when feasible (and preferably California natives), and that can be appropriately maintained. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; Not Yet Approved 160713 jb 0131537 3 (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15) ITie project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E) Use sustainable building materials; (F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G) Create healthy indoor environments; and (H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). SECTION 3. Adoption of this ordinance is found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)because: (1) the activity (rewording of Architectural Review findings) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment, and (2) this ‘minor alteration in land use limitations’ does not result in any changes in land use or density. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Not Yet Approved 160713 jb 0131537 4 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7101) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/10/2016 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-3221 Summary Title: ARB Findings Ordinance Title: Public Hearing and Recommendation for Council Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Architectural Review Findings contained in Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15601(b)(3) and 15305 From: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance (Attachment B) to the City Council. Background Proposed are modifications to the Architectural Review (AR) findings that eliminate repetitive findings, combine similar concepts, and remove outmoded or redundant language. These amendments will improve the quality and consistency of staff’s analysis and preparation of written findings, reduce writing and reading fatigue and, focus the ARB’s deliberations. The changes would reduce the number of findings from 16 to six, and would also make it easier for applicants to understand the City’s objectives, and for decision makers to evaluate the applicant’s success at meeting those objectives. Modifications to the Architectural Review findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.02 were included in the “code clean-up” ordinance recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission in 2015. The City Council, during its review of that ordinance on April 11, 2016, directed additional modifications for the ARB to consider. Staff conveyed the Council’s request to the ARB and offered additional comments for its review and deliberation. Attachment A reflects findings that had been recommended by the ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission in 2015, with annotated edits showing changes proposed by Council in 2016. Attachment B is the recommended draft Ordinance including further changes recommended by the ARB. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Architectural Review Board Recommendation The ARB had reviewed draft revised Architectural Review findings on two occasions (September 3 and October 1, 2015). The April 11, 2016 Council staff report, found at this link (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51728) provided links to the two ARB staff reports and meeting minutes. The links to these ARB staff reports and minutes are also provided in this report: <https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48766> (9-3-15 report) <https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49026> (9-3-15 minutes) <https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49218> (10-1-15 report) <https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49410> (10-1-15 minutes) On June 16, 2016, the ARB discussed the Council’s proposed edits and recommended the changes in Attachment B. The ARB staff report can be found at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52834. Draft excerpt minutes are provided as Attachment D. Substantive changes are summarized below: The ARB embraced staff’s suggestion to insert ‘(including compatibility requirements)’ following Council’s insert ‘Coordinated Area Plans’ into AR Findings #1, to address a concern about compatibility. This is a logic structure to parallel ‘zoning code (context based design criteria)’ as an alternative to some of the Council-added wording for AR Finding #2, which duplicated language already found in the SOFA II Coordinated Area Plan.1 In AR Finding #2, the ARB added “is compatible with its setting” to address the fact that ROLM, GM, MOR, RP, and PF zones do not have context based design criteria nor compatibility criteria embedded in the zoning code (as do Commercial, Multifamily Residential, and SOFA). The ARB added back the phrase “and land use designations” that Council deleted. Zoning designations are also important to the ARB – a site’s designation may be different than the current use of the site. In AR Finding #3, the ARB added “integrated” to ensure that materials are appropriate to the building design and context. In AR Finding #5, the ARB supported the addition of the terms “climate appropriate” and “when feasible” to improve the clarity of the requirements. With these changes, the finding reads: “The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes climate appropriate to the extent practical indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat when feasible, and that can be appropriately maintained.” 1 The Council-added wording that already appears in the SOFA II Plan and is therefore not recommended for inclusion is: “is compatible within the context of existing development in that it establishes design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained at a minimum by: Siting, scale, massing, materials; The rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; The sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; The location and treatment of entryways where applicable;” City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Planning and Transportation Commission In the fall of 2015, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed and recommended changes to the AR findings after the ARB had completed its review. The PTC recommended that Council approve the changes along with other code changes. Staff is seeking the PTC’s recommendation on the revisions to the original draft ordinance and requests that the PTC forward the revised ordinance to the City Council for consideration and adoption. As the PTC did not comment on the wording of the draft revised AR findings during the 2015 review, staff does not anticipate the PTC will have extensive comments on the wording at this time. Environmental Review The April 11, 2016 report to City Council included the reasons the modifications to the existing AR findings are 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. The report cited CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption) and 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because: (1) the activity (rewording of Architectural Review findings) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment, and (2) this ‘minor alteration in land use limitations’ does not result in any changes in land use or density. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 29, 2016. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Attachments: Attachment A: Council's Version (DOCX) Attachment B: Draft Ordinance (PDF) Attachment C: ARB Edits to Council's proposed draft (PDF) Attachment D: 06-16-16 ARB excerpt minutes discussion on AR findings (DOCX) Attachment A Council Proposed Findings Annotated to Show Council Revisions “(d) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: 1. The design is consistent with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable), coordinated area plans, and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, and preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant appropriate, and provides harmonious transitions in size, mass, scale and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, is compatible within the context of existing development in that it establishes design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained at a minimum by: a. Siting, scale, massing, materials; b. The rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; c. The sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; d. The location and treatment of entryways where applicable; and enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, is an aesthetically holistic design of massing and materials (intended to avoid superficial and “applied” appearance of design), using high quality materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle access and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings is suitable, integrated and compatible with the building and the surrounding area, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, indigenous drought- resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat and that can be appropriately maintained. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability and green building requirements in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning and sensible Not Yet Approved 160713 jb 0131537 1 Ordinance No. _______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. As part of the City’s annual Zoning Code update, the City desires to improve its Architectural Review findings to ensure robust design review, to eliminate repetitive findings and to remove outmoded and unnecessary findings. B. On September 3 and October 1, 2015, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the draft updated architectural review findings and provided input. Subsequently, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the AR findings and recommended that Council approve them without any changes. C. On April 11, 2016, the Council reviewed the draft findings, suggested revisions and directed staff and the ARB to review the updated language and offer approval, feedback or changes. D. On June 16, 2016, the ARB reviewed the updated findings and provided additional comments. E. On August 10, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the updated findings and concurred with the ARB and Staff’s comments. F. On September 12, 2016, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the current draft of the updated architectural review findings. SECTION 2. Subdivision (d) of Section 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 18.76.020 Architectural Review. *** (d) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elementsprovisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable), coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Attachment B Not Yet Approved 160713 jb 0131537 2 (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic local resources of the area when relevant, (c) is compatible with its setting, (d) provides harmonious transitions in scale and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and (e) enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes climate appropriate plant material capable of providing desirable habitat when feasible, and that can be appropriately maintained. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; Not Yet Approved 160713 jb 0131537 3 (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15) ITie project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E) Use sustainable building materials; (F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G) Create healthy indoor environments; and (H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). SECTION 3. Adoption of this ordinance is found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)because: (1) the activity (rewording of Architectural Review findings) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment, and (2) this ‘minor alteration in land use limitations’ does not result in any changes in land use or density. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Not Yet Approved 160713 jb 0131537 4 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 6/16/16 ARB Edits of 4/11/16 City Council Recommendation KEY: Council edits accepted by ARB ARB Edits (including ARB-accepted Staff edits) Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: (1) The design is consistent with applicable elementsprovisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable), coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic local resources of the area when relevant, (c) is compatible with its setting, within the context of existing development in that it establishes design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained at a minimum by: a.Siting, scale, massing, materials; b.The rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; c.The sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; d.The location and treatment of entryways where applicable; (d) provides harmonious transitions in size, mass, scale and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and (e) enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated is an aesthetically holistic design of massing and materials (intended to avoid superficial and “applied” appearance of design), materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle access traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical indigenous drought- resistant climate appropriate plant material capable of providing desirable habitat when feasible, and that can be appropriately maintained. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability and green building requirements in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD JUNE 16, 2016 VERBATIM MINUTES DRAFT EXCERPT Item No: 4: ARB Review of Council-Revised Architectural Review Approval Findings Amy French reported the Council did not adopt the findings but asked staff to return with a Council item for the findings. The Council then offered modifications. The Council requested the ARB's input on the modifications. Ms. French reviewed the Council's modifications. Board Member Furth understood the Council's major concern was that the adoption of context-based review standards did not achieve the desired results. In response, the Council added the SOFA CAP findings to Finding Number 2. It was helpful that the Mayor affirmed that a modern building located next to a much older building could be successful. The Council indicated that the ARB did not seem to think that all findings had to be made. She wondered whether the problem was the eight or nine findings and perhaps three dozen possible ways of achieving a project that met the standards. The goal of ARB comments was to communicate to property owners, neighbors and the community how a project would be judged. Verbiage should be eliminated. The ARB should consider adopting language that would inspire confidence in a review in court. She questioned whether the ARB had decision-making powers that allowed it to carry out the Council's wishes. She supported fewer standards organized around particular principles. The Council delivered a good message by saying only applicable rules mattered. The Council delivered a good message by saying the City should have coordinated area plans, but the staff messed it up by including compatibility requirements. There were two separate issues. One was whether the standards were adequate. The second was whether the ARB was applying them in a way that the Council considered to be appropriate. She recommended deleting "including Context Based Design Criteria" and "including compatibility requirements." Putting natural features and the historic character in the same subparagraph messed up the standards a bit. She was puzzled by the inclusion of "existing" natural features. Ms. French suggested it was added to clarify that it was what was there already. Board Member Furth thought the addition of "contributing positively to the site" was a good addition, because she hadn't realized trees were included as natural features. She suggested that Paragraph b end after "contributing positively to the site," and have a new Subparagraph c of "preserve, respect and integrate the historical character of the area including local historic resources, if any." She questioned deletion of the power to require that the project be compatible with adjacent land use designations. Ms. French indicated the Council deleted that language. Board Member Furth urged the Council to put it back, because the ARB dealt with many neighborhoods in transition. With respect to Finding Number 3, she supported the staff's formulation as it was clear and easy to apply. With respect to Finding Number 4, she questioned whether the language was sufficient for the ARB to address bicycle and pedestrian access along as well as to a site. Ms. French referred to language of ease and safety. Board Member Furth suggested replacing the word access with traffic. With respect to Finding 5, she expressed concern that by referring to native or indigenous plants, they could do something undesirable. She would support staff's proposed language. She did not believe the City Codes were adequate regarding sustainability. Finding 6 could be read to mean that only meeting the Code was fine. That was not what she had in mind. Ms. French suggested objectives could capture ideals. Board Member Furth clarified that the project should be sustainable. Chair Gooyer added that the language was applicable 5-6 years ago, but now was the norm. Ms. French indicated there were green points for innovation. Chair Gooyer suggested language of meeting LEED levels. The bar should be raised from what was done 5 years ago. Board Member Furth wanted to utilize "achieves maximum feasible sustainability," but that was a tough standard. Board Member Baltay noted the City had increased sustainability standards above CALGreen. To go beyond requirements of the Municipal Code was probably duplicitous. Board Member Furth advised that new things evolved and the Code did not catch up. Vice Chair Lew explained that net Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 2 zero was the new target. The State committed to doing that; therefore, he did not know if the City had to do more. He asked if Board Member Furth wanted to keep the issue as a discussion point in the findings. Board Member Furth did not want to approve a project that would not improve the environment, because there was no sustainability finding. Board Member Baltay referred Board Member Furth to the finding of "incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability." Board Member Furth suggested ending the sentence after "sustainability." Ms. French suggested eliminating green building requirements. Board Member Furth concurred. She questioned whether another finding specifically about compatibility was needed. Context Based Design Criteria and compatibility requirements should not be singled out in the first finding, because they were integral parts of the Code. Chair Gooyer would prefer not to have another finding regarding compatibility. Ms. French explained that she attempted to reduce the wording in the Council proposal for Finding 2. Board Member Furth suggested the only change in Finding 1 would be to talk about the applicable provisions rather than the applicable elements. Ms. French stated provisions would include elements, policies, and programs. The Board agreed with changes as shown in the preamble. In Finding 1, Board Member Furth suggested substituting "provisions" for "elements" in the second line. The Board agreed. In Finding 2, Board Member Kim felt "internal sense of order" could be confusing. Ms. French indicated it referred to the interior of the site. Board Member Kim asked if that should be specifically stated. Board Member Furth felt it could be deleted, because the Board reviewed the whole project. Ms. French asked if the Board wanted to delete "internal" and retain "sense of order." Board Member Baltay asked if the language on the screen was the complete finding in placement of the larger paragraph. Ms. French reported it was staff's suggestion, because they placed compatibility requirements relating to coordinated area plans in Finding 1. Board Member Baltay suspected the Council would insist on adding something contextual, that word. Board Member Furth suggested "is compatible with the context of existing development." Chair Gooyer inquired whether she meant "provides compatibility in scale and character to adjacent land uses." Board Member Furth suggested a new "c" of "is compatible with its setting," "d" would be "provides harmonious transitions," and "e" would be "enhances living conditions." Vice Chair Lew noted the Board had not discussed that large sections of the City were not subject to the Compatibility Code. This would add it to the Research Park, General Manufacturing, Public Facility zones. Ms. French explained that the language acknowledged that large sites might not have the pattern that was found in an urban setting as far as building articulation, rhythm and those kinds of things. Vice Chair Lew remarked that a house in a residential district next to an office building in a commercial district triggered a daylight plane. A house in a business district did not automatically trigger a daylight plane. This would give some discretion over that. Ms. French indicated a better way would be to amend the Code. The Board agreed to changes as discussed. In Finding 3, Chair Gooyer preferred "integrated" over "holistic." The Board agreed to changes. In Finding 4, Board Member Kim recalled the suggestion to change "access" to "traffic." The Board agreed to changes. In Finding 5, the Board agreed to changes. In Finding 6, the Board agreed to changes. Board Member Baltay inquired whether a Board Member could attend the Council discussion to represent the Board's views. Ms. French advised if discussion was needed, then an ARB Member would be invited to attend the hearing. MOTION: City of Palo Alto Page 3 Board Member Furth moved, seconded by Board Member Baltay, to approve the Findings as discussed and agreed. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 August 10, 2016 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 1. Public Hearing and Recommendation for Council Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the 7 Architectural Review Findings contained in Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; 8 Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15601(b)(3) and 15305 9 10 Chair Fine: Let's get on to it then, so Item Number 1 is a public hearing and recommendation for 11 Council adoption of an ordinance amending the Architectural Review Board (ARB) findings 12 contained in Chapter 18.76. And let's get started with the report. 13 14 Ms. French: Yes, good evening; Amy French Chief Planning Official. We are here tonight for this 15 item to discuss the proposed architectural review findings revisions. We are doing this to 16 ensure that projects are compatible, have coherent design, use quality materials, are 17 functional, well landscaped, and sustainable. We’ve recaptured the key aspects of existing 18 findings in the purpose section of the existing ordinance for architectural review and we've 19 included key verbiage to clarify and enhance the public's understanding of the findings. The 20 PTC had seen a previous iteration of these findings back in 2015 as did the ARB. The Council in 21 April of this year proposed further edits to this effort and suggested that we bring those back to 22 the ARB, which we did. And in June they provided additional revisions which are included in 23 Attachment B. The Council did not say go back to the Planning Commission, but of course 24 Planning Commission's purviews is over Title 18 changes so we came back given the extent of 25 the changes. 26 27 So the summary of the recommended changes by the ARB, we ask that you concur with those 28 changes and here they are. The preamble to the finding, this is from the Council. Underlined 29 text, ARB took no issue with that. In Finding 1 the phrase “including compatibility 30 requirements” is proposed to be a parallel construction or logic to go with coordinated area 31 plans as context based design criteria go with zoning codes. That seems to go with that. 32 Finding 2 the ARB added Item C is compatible with its setting, put in the word “local” with 33 respect to historic resources and reinstated the what the code says now about land use 34 designations as an important factor. The Council had a significantly longer statement regarding 35 compatibility that was drawn from the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) compatibility verbiage 36 and we all feel that the compatible with its setting along with Finding Number 1 regarding 37 compatibility requirements handles that. Finding 3 the ARB suggested the word “integrated.” 38 And Finding 4 the word “traffic” to replace “access” in this context makes sense. Finding 5 39 “climate appropriate plant materials” rather than “indigenous plant materials” which is a 40 different way of looking at things and then that the red words on the screen as you see. Finally, 41 Finding 6 saying rebuilding is really irrelevant or redundant rather. 42 43 And that's it. So we are available for questions. And I don't know that we have anyone from 44 the ARB but, I think the record speaks for itself. 45 46 2 Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Do we have any speaker cards on this issue? None? Ok. So 1 this as Amy was describing is a review of the ARB findings where they have to get all six right in 2 order to move a project forward. And we are essentially looking at Attachment B, which is the 3 proposed ordinance to the Council and to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance of 4 course we can make comments, ask questions, all the kind of good stuff. So I’d just like to open 5 it up to start with questions from the Commission. Commissioner Rosenblum. 6 7 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, thanks for preparing this. It seems the core of the intention is 8 around compatibility so both with relevant zoning and with the setting. This always seems 9 confusing to me. So this is one of those areas and when many land use items come up 10 discussion often comes down to one group saying, “Well, it meets all [pickle] requirements” 11 and others say, “Well, not compatibility” and they have their of their own view of compatibility. 12 13 I’m wondering is it possible for you or have you seen this done in other cities guides to 14 compatibility that can be referenced? So i.e. using examples of this we consider to be 15 incompatible i.e. there are those who make their own definitions saying, “Oh, I looked at the 16 building across the street,” but they say, “But you didn’t look kitty corner, the next block down 17 is the one you really should be looking at.” And to say that we consider this out of scope things 18 that are more than say one block away. We consider the average of the adjoining end blocks to 19 be the relevant standard for compatibility on height or setback and so we’ve looked at things 20 like setback where there are actual standards around the number of parcels that are used to 21 look at compatibility for things like setback, but I'm wondering how extensive can these 22 guidelines get? Because I think this is where people get tripped up. 23 24 Ms. French: Well as suggested by the findings I mean the context based design criteria 25 referencing this specifically in Finding Number 1 gives us all a good head start on that discussion 26 the ARB and staff and the public so for many or most of the projects that come through the ARB 27 process they are subject to those context based design criteria. Projects in the Research Park, 28 projects on public facility zoned properties do not have those standards, but so compatibility 29 might be something a little bit looser. But I think we still generally rely on those contacts based 30 design criteria which are very extensive and provide examples of what to do, articulation, and 31 following the plate heights and alignments and there's quite a host of specifics that are found in 32 those. Again, I would say 95 percent of the projects that go through the ARB do have… yeah, 33 are covered by those. 34 35 Chair Fine: Commissioner Waldfogel. 36 37 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thanks. I want to say that I'm actually pretty excited about these 38 changes. I really like the direction they're going. I like the Provision 2, the unifying coherent 39 design concept. And I like introducing the idea of high aesthetic quality. I mean that's 40 something that I think we badly need is… as a criteria. So I'm very supportive and very excited 41 about this. 42 43 Chair Fine: Other Commissioners? Vice‐Chair. 44 45 3 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So when I was reading this I recalled the words of former Mayor 1 Holman when she was talking that [unintelligible] aftermath of the design process and it may 2 be the case and I know that she was very concerned and she was very engaged in this project. 3 And when I think about this what she said I also think about what we do here because we of 4 course we don't want to be a space, be an aftermath of a design process, a planning design 5 process, right? So that's we would like to have a quality space as well as the quality 6 architecture, but it’s a tough thing to resolve. 7 8 And in general when I was preparing for this meeting I searched through a different municipal 9 codes. I went to Santa Monica and I couldn't find any anything comparable. I went to two 10 other cities and I couldn't find anything comparable either. And so I was wondering as my 11 colleague Eric if you could just provide example of how others are resolving this to have the 12 space and architecture somehow being cohesive. We know that there are detailed plans that 13 are prepared for the key areas that pretty much tie architects, developers, and others with the 14 specific regulations that provide detailed guidelines. Regulation like this has a concern because 15 it keeps a check on the designing party because it's broad enough that pretty much any 16 argument may be brought against the designer or the owner saying that this building is not 17 compatible because there will be many perspectives of this what this is compatible, what's 18 compatible, what's not compatible. So that's my general concern in this perspective. 19 20 And then when I think about this, this document actually ties to the Individual Review (IR) that 21 we're going to have later on today. And so when you were listening to Dan Garber you may just 22 tie his comments about IR to this and then think how this two items should work together in 23 terms of just providing us with the quality space in architecture. 24 25 Ms. French: Through the Chair? Just to put a point on that architecture review findings are 26 generally unrelated to the IR process and program. The only time that they would intersect 27 would be when there are three or more homes coming through the architecture review 28 process. So the architecture review findings would be relevant there. Staff would also provide 29 an analysis with the, of the project with respect to those IR guidelines. 30 31 Vice‐Chair Gardias: I didn't mean legal overlap. I meant planning and space overlap. So that's 32 where they intersect, right? Because they have the same set of the thinking rules that impacts 33 our space and buildings. 34 35 Chair Fine: Any other comments or questions yet? Ok. So I'm generally in agreement with 36 Commissioner Waldfogel here. I think these changes are fairly exciting, their kind of minor, 37 some are a little bit bigger. A few questions and comments; while I agree it's important for the 38 City to have high aesthetic quality and put that into this code I was a little concerned that there 39 was a phrase “aesthetically holistic” and I was wondering if that's a bit prescriptive in terms of… 40 it just made me think are there buildings that maybe we don't want a holistic aesthetic where 41 there may be a few different design styles that make a great building. So I was a bit 42 [unintelligible]. Is that the older draft? 43 44 Ms. French: So that's what the Council Members suggested we take to the ARB and we did, but 45 we came up with something that we feel is will be have greater use and flexibility. And so that 46 4 would be Finding 3 I believe in Attachment B. So we should be all looking at Attachment B 1 which is the proposed ordinance. 2 3 Chair Fine: Ok. Two other quick questions, one is about desirable habitat. Is that for animals? 4 Insects? 5 6 Ms. French: As had been suggested the whole indigenous thing is that's a word that's 7 associated with animals whereas (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Fine: Ok. 10 11 Ms. French: Yeah, so how it reads now and we did consult with our landscape architect that 12 works for the City in Public Works and kind of hammered out this expression that's in the 13 Attachment B ordinance which talks about climate appropriate. That's the lingo used these 14 days to refer to the right species in the right location with the right water needs, etcetera. 15 16 Chair Fine: Ok. Is the climate appropriate language what's replacing the previous like drought 17 tolerant stuff? 18 19 Ms. French: Correct. 20 21 Chair Fine: Ok. That actually addresses my main concern because I was a little concerned that 22 we were removing the drought tolerant language which I think is pretty important in our 23 current situation. 24 25 Ms. French: And then if, and if I might add to that as well Finding 6 does talk about water 26 conservation with respect to sustainability. So if it hasn't been perfectly clear in climate 27 appropriate then it is made more clear with respect to water and Finding 6. 28 29 Chair Fine: Ok. I'm happy to have any other questions or comments otherwise I'm willing to 30 entertain… Commissioner Tanaka. 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: I have a really quick question. So I just want to make sure I understand 33 this. So one thing that was added to this was each of the following applicable findings is met. 34 So that’s kind of like I just want to understand the process before and process, the proposed 35 process. So was the proposed process, there was a process before that if any one of those 36 were met that was ok or is it now all of them have to be met and it’s ok? 37 38 Ms. French: I think it reads as applicable so and this is no different from how we've been 39 applying these findings. No matter what it says at the top in the preamble we've been applying 40 all that apply to the project. I mean you might have a project that's only landscaping so 41 anything that talks about building may not apply to that project. So we do look at each one of 42 those findings as they apply to each project that comes through. And so that's the intent is 43 they should meet all the projects, all the findings that apply to that project. 44 45 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so why was that phrase added? 46 5 1 Ms. French: That was added by Council for clarity. 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Ok, so basically the same kind of rigor as before it’s just trying to 4 clarify that? 5 6 Ms. French: Yes. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 9 10 Chair Fine: Questions, comments, Motions? Commissioner Alcheck. 11 12 Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to make a few comments about this, these changes which is 13 that I think that we're talking about commercial property, commercial projects here. And in 14 some well, I shouldn’t say commercial projects. I'm, we're talking about projects that would be 15 subject to the review of the ARB which could in theory be residential if they were what, 16 multifamily? I think that so these six criteria to me are incredibly abstract. I think that I've been 17 in a position where I've had to articulate concepts like this and it's like it's very laborious, right? 18 You go through this process of trying to like be specific and yet unspecific to hint at what you're 19 looking for without being too constricting. And I think sometimes when you're trying to 20 evaluate statements like this it's, it helps to understand sort of the context behind the change 21 which is in my opinion the context behind these changes is essentially a response to the 22 commercial development in Palo Alto, right? So there is this sense that our development has 23 been out of character, has been uncompatible, incompatible. I… one of… to me there we've 24 taken a lot of steps in this to essentially create greater hurdles for commercial and multifamily 25 development in town including the office cap. And to me this is yet another effort to create a 26 set of guidelines that would just make the process… 27 28 I mean look, I understand the ARB’s been involved and I do really appreciate the feedback of 29 the ARB. I, my biggest concern is that some of this stuff is very big and abstract and I wouldn't 30 say it's that it's vague to suggest that it incorporate landscaping that has that is energy efficient 31 or conserves water, but here's a good example of something that's not within these guidelines: 32 does the design serve its purpose well? And I don't mean does it allow for pedestrian and 33 bicycle traffic outside of the project I mean does it, does it maximize the use of the land? Let's 34 say it's a multifamily project. Does it house people in an efficient manner? I mean we're sort of 35 creating these, to me when I read these it has to do with look and feel from externally and to 36 me it just seems like we're creating a greater toolset, a greater vague toolset to provide 37 inconclusive feedback to projects, right? So a project will come up to City Council… my concern 38 is a project will come up City Council they'll just suggest issues based on these design criteria or 39 concerns with these design criteria and they'll be vague and it'll be very hard to satisfy this 40 design criteria because it maybe in the eyes of the… it's like a, it’s almost personal some of 41 these issues. That's my big concern. And I don't know that there's really any answer that you 42 can provide, but I… 43 44 6 Chair Fine: So if I can just interject for a second? I do kind of agree with you. These are vague 1 standards, but this is just an update to what the City has been doing for years and luckily this is 2 on the ARB, it’s not on the PTC. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: Agreed, agreed. I'm just I’m sharing these comments. Well you and 5 Commissioner Waldfogel both said you're really excited about these changes and I think the 6 assumption there is that you feel like the process is really broken or maybe I shouldn’t go that 7 far to assume that, but I don't know what you're so excited about. It’s not clear to me that the 8 current process has yielded such poor results. It is clear to me that the, that we've developed 9 we've grown a tremendous amount and we're feeling the growing pains. I don't know 10 necessarily that that has anything to do with the general aesthetics of any of the buildings that 11 have been developed and that's my concern. 12 13 We have an ARB which reviews aesthetics, massing. We're not this isn’t really setbacks. This is 14 much vaguer than that. Harmonious transitions in scale and character to adjacent land uses. 15 To me this is: look, stop building and let's make it even more, let's… look, I think you 16 understand what I’m trying to say. To me there’s, this is… to me to be excited about this means 17 that there's some serious problem in the aesthetics and transitions of the buildings and I don't 18 know if the case has been made for that. It's a comment. I’m not suggesting that it's worth 19 debate, but (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Fine: So I just think the language has gotten a little tighter around some of those 22 parameters, but I see lights from Vice‐Chair and I believe Commissioner Waldfogel as well. 23 24 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So I think that this document as well as IR that we're going to 25 just review two topics from now it just addresses our struggle about what to do with the space. 26 And in some cases its deteriorating so citizens ask about the Single‐Story Overlay (SSO) because 27 they disagree with the destruction of their of their privacy by the two‐story house that’s built 28 next to them. Some other folks may not be happy with some commercial development that 29 totally ignores the existing space. And then there is a variety of comments that you can read 30 throughout the newspapers or gather from this meetings or Council meetings that just brings 31 this understanding that we just don't necessarily like this what's happening around us. And I 32 know that we are trying with this document we're trying to improve this process, but I just 33 don't really think that this is going to address it. 34 35 Look when you when you think about just the basic premise about of a building and of a city 36 none of those were based on any regulations. The greatest cities were developed either by the 37 kings or monarchs or were developed based on the commerce concept. There was no 38 regulation like this or any other whatsoever, right? With all respect to this what we're doing, 39 right? And this was the same with the building. The building was developed based on the 40 commerce premise and not on the architectural regulation. The greatest buildings that were 41 developed throughout Europe in the [unintelligible] cities were pretty much based on the 42 commercial agreements and regulations that were that were related to the to the trades 43 establishment not to the space per se, but they resulted with the development of the great 44 space. That's how it's pretty much developed throughout the centuries or millennia. So it's just 45 7 that it’s maybe greater statement, but it just addresses the that I understand totally what we're 1 trying to do here, but I'm not really sure if that is going to resolve anything. 2 3 And then on the other hand, right, it's not our document it's the ARB’s document, but I hope 4 that they will read it and perhaps we're going to one day we're going to meet together with 5 ARB and we are going to just think about just a greater good or [some] that will result with 6 some project how to truly address the public space and how to truly address the good 7 architecture in the City. And with the whole respect I don't think that improvement to this 8 document is going to address it. That's probably a subject of a separate process. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Fine: Thank you very much. 11 12 Mr. Lait: Is it possible to offer a couple of comments? 13 14 Chair Fine: Oh, please. 15 16 Mr. Lait: So thank you Commissioners for all those comments. I just wanted to clarify sort of 17 how we got here and I understand sort of the backdrop of the conversation about development 18 in general and concerns that people have expressed about commercial development. And I 19 would say that that conversation followed this effort which began in early 2015. This is a staff 20 driven initiative and the reason staff has requested these changes is to not change the 21 substantive meaning of the finding, findings, but to collapse the 16 findings that we have today 22 so that we can be more efficient in our review of processing of applications. This was not a 23 response to commercial development. This is a staff, this is staff asking Council for help to be 24 more efficient in how we review and process applications. It gives us a chance to eliminate 25 some outmoded references, tailor it to some issues that we think are repeating themes that 26 happen, and that really is the focus here is to just sort of give us a chance to focus on the 27 quality of the analysis because before we've been criticized of not paying as much attention to 28 all of the details of the 16 findings. And I will tell you as a former staff writer of many reports 29 writing trying to be creative and come up with 16 findings for 100 plus projects year after year 30 is difficult. So the ability to tailor and focus our discussion is really what this is about. And this 31 started in early 2015. I think the growth meter ordinance came around in late 2015, I think 32 December 2015. I understand that since this problem… this and this matter has just kind of 33 lingered on and we haven't been able to resolve it yet. But this is this is not a response 34 necessarily to some of the dialogue that has been taking place in the community. 35 36 MOTION 37 38 Chair Fine: Thank you. I think we're ready to have a Motion to move this forward or otherwise. 39 So the floor is open. Alright, I’ll make a Motion. So I would like to move that we recommend 40 adoption of the proposed ordinance Attachment B to the City Council and that staff please 41 submit our full minutes to them as well. 42 43 SECOND 44 45 Commissioner Rosenblum: I second. 46 8 1 Chair Fine: So there's Motion on the floor. I'm not going to speak to the Motion. Would you 2 like to? 3 4 Commissioner Rosenblum: I’ll just I’ll reflect Commissioner Waldfogel’s comment. I'm excited 5 for this. I understand some of the concerns that this may inject a subjective bar that may be 6 stunting, but I also think that staff’s explanation for the purpose of cleaning this up, simplifying, 7 etcetera makes a lot of sense. And I also think that the objective is clear and exciting. So I'd like 8 to see this move forward and I support the recommendation. 9 10 VOTE 11 12 Chair Fine: Thank you. Any last comments or should we just call a vote? Alright, all those in 13 favor? Those against? Abstaining? Alright, the Motion passes. Alright, thank you all very 14 much. That's Item Number 1. 15 16 MOTION PASSED (4‐1‐1, Commissioner Alcheck against, Vice‐Chair Gardias abstained) 17 18 Commission Action: Motion by Chair Fine to recommend approval for Council adoption of 19 an Ordinance amending the Architectural Review Findings contained in Chapter 18.76 of the 20 Palo Alto Municipal Code; Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 21 15601(b)(3) and 15305. Second by Commissioner Rosenberg, vote 4‐1‐1 (Commissioner 22 Alcheck against, Vice‐chair Gardias abstained) 23 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7272) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/12/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2016 League of California Cities Resolutions Title: Approval of the Recommended City Position for the 2016 League of California Cities Resolution From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Recommendation Authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote on the one (1) resolution to be considered at the annual League of California Cities (LOCC) conference to be held in Long Beach, CA from October 5-7, 2016 and approve the general guidance provided below. Background Each year, the LOCC accepts resolutions from member cities and elected officials to be voted on at its annual conference. This year one resolution has been introduced for consideration at the conference and referred to appropriate LOCC Policy Committees. The voting delegates at the annual business meeting make the final determination on the resolution. The resolution to be considered by the League’s Policy Committees are subject to change in their current form. By approving the recommendation for the resolution, our City LOCC representatives, Council Member Kniss (delegate) and Vice Mayor Scharff(alternates), will have the Council's general guidance for the vote to be taken on the resolution and are authorized to vote on amendments in the manner they deem to be in the best interest of the City. Attached for your review is the 2016 LOCC Annual Conference Resolution Packet. The packet contains the original language of the resolution in its current form along with LOCC analysis and letters of support. Below for your convenience is a table containing the resolution title, the recommended City position, and the impacted City department(s). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Resolution Title Resolution committing the League of California Cities to supporting Vision Zero, toward zero deaths, and other programs or initiatives to make safety a top priority for transportation projects and policy formulation, while encouraging cities to pursue similar initiatives. Recommended Vote Yes Impacted City Departments Planning and Community Environment, Police, Public Works, Community Services Discussion Vision Zero is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City Council’s focus on a Healthy City/Healthy Community. Vision Zero is also explicitly mentioned in the draft update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with long-standing City programs such as Safe Routes to Schools. Staff recommends supporting the League resolution. Resource Impacts The City’s capital and operating budgets already include significant investments in traffic safety, including implementation of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian plan, educational programs such as Safe Routes to School, data collection to support data- driven decision making, and enforcement activities. Attachments: Attachment A: League Resolutions (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 7163) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 9/12/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Gift to the City, FY 2016 Title: Significant Gifts to the City, Fiscal Year 2016 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services This is an informational report and no Council action is required. Discussion The City of Palo Alto’s Policy and Procedure 1-18, Gifts and Donations to the City of Palo Alto, (Attachment A) requires annual reports to the City Council regarding significant gifts that have been accepted on behalf of the City. This policy was updated in October 2014, to help clarify reporting of significant gifts over $5,000 only. In compliance with this policy, Attachment B lists all of the significant gifts (over $5,000) received during Fiscal Year 2016. All gifts had a designated purpose as stated under the “Use of Gift” column. Staff monitors designated restrictions to comply with the Donor’s request. In addition, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulates gifts to employees. The regulations contain guidelines on when these types of gifts should be disclosed as gifts to the City. Gifts required to be disclosed pursuant to this regulation are now also reported on FPPC Form 801, and that gift information is now posted to the City Clerk’s web page as required by the FPPC. Annual reports of gifts will continue to be provided to the Council, and Form 801 information will be available on the City Clerk’s website throughout the year as gifts are received. Attachments: Attachment A: Policy and Procedures 1-18 Gifts and Donations to the City of Palo Alto (PDF) Attachment B: Significant Gifts over $5,000 (PDF) POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-18 Revised: October 1, 2014 Effective: December 1, 1989 GIFTS AND DONATIONS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO POLICY STATEMENT The purpose of this policy is to: • Establish uniform procedures for the receipt of gifts to the City of Palo Alto; • Cultivate and maintain an environment where residents and businesses want to contribute to the City's programs and facilities; • Promptly acknowledge and express appreciation for the gifts; • Assure the gifts are properly inventoried, and Comply with the Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices Commission Regulations. It is essential that gifts be properly reported and reviewed carefully for impact on the City's resources and for consistency with City policies and procedures concerning cash handling and inventory. City employees are prohibited from accepting personal gifts (see Section 1301, Merit System Rules and Regulations). Gifts to elected and appointed City officials and “designated” City employees (see Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 2.09) are also regulated by the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission. Applicability of this Policy The procedures stated in Section A apply to gifts offered or given to the City, gifts actively solicited by the City, and gifts from community groups that support various City operations (e.g. Friends of the Library, the Recreation Foundation, etc.). They do not apply to minor individual contributions which will be quickly consumed in a City- sponsored event, work contributed by individual volunteers, sponsorship of a City activity, or donations of advertising, publicity, graphics, etc. in exchange for City acknowledgment. The procedures are consistent with those applicable to grants and other funding requests (see Policy and Procedures 1-12). The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted requirements (2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18944.2) for reporting payments made to agencies that would otherwise constitute gifts to public officials. Payments may be considered gifts to the City when the City receives and controls the payment, uses the payment for official business, and identifies the recipient. Such payments must be reported as provided in section B of this policy. Table 1 summarizes acknowledgement and reporting requirements for gifts. PROCEDURES A. City Requirements for Accepting and Acknowledging Gifts Department heads, including Council Appointed Officers, are authorized to accept gifts tendered by cash or cash equivalents or by electronic funds transfers (e.g., ACH transfer, credit card payment or online gifts) on behalf of the City. The City Clerk’s Office will report on behalf of the City Council. Implementation of this policy is the responsibility of the department head, including Council Appointed Officers. Thresholds for implementation of the procedures vary with the category of the gift, as shown in Table 1. The estimated value of a gift is based on the donor's estimate. The City will not independently assign a value to the gift unless it is cash. Gifts accepted by the City become the property of the City of Palo Alto and are to be used for public benefit. Unless a special agreement concerning the ultimate disposition of the gift is entered into at the time the gift is accepted, it is understood that the City has sole authority to determine the use, transfer, handling, or disposition of the gift. Gifts made to officials directly or for which the donor donors designates by name, class, or other title the official who may use the payment are not gifts to the City, but rather individual gifts that may be required to be reported on FPPC Form 700. Employees may not accept individual gifts. Department heads should review material gifts to: • determine what the estimated costs to the City will be for any related installation, maintenance, operation, storage or liability that may be incurred by acceptance of the object; • ensure that the gift is properly documented, catalogued, and/or inventoried in the department and division records; • prepare and install an appropriate sign or nameplate consistent with the City’s naming policy; • ensure that the object will be satisfactorily maintained. Acknowledgment of Gifts The manner in which a gift is acknowledged must be appropriate to the nature of the gift and consistent with the donor's wishes. 1. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a gift, the department head must send an acknowledgment letter if the gift is worth $100 or more, thanking the donor on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. a. The letter should clearly identify the gift and confirm the placement of the object that has been given to the City, or the use to which the gift will be devoted. b. Gifts to a governmental entity are treated similarly to charitable contributions for purposes of tax deductions. However, the donor will be responsible to the Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board for substantiating his or her own tax deduction. The City will not provide any tax services to donors. c. Except for gifts of cash or cash equivalents, where the donor amount is apparent, no dollar amount should be stated in the letter. Instead, the letter should contain the following paragraph: Your gift may be tax deductible. To determine the amount you may properly deduct for tax purposes, you should consult your tax preparer or tax attorney. d. The department head or his/her designee will sign the letter and forward a copy to the ASD Director. e. For a particularly significant gift (over $5,000), recipient department head in consultation with the ASD Director may ask that a letter be prepared for the Mayor's signature. 2. The recipient department head, in consultation with the ASD Director, will determine if the gift warrants a public announcement and in what manner it should be made. The donor will be notified in advance of any announcement, and has the right to request anonymity. 3. The ASD Director is responsible for: a. maintaining a record of all gifts that are accepted, including a description of the gift, the donor’s name and address (unless anonymous), the date the gift was received, and the disposition of the gift. b. reporting annually any significant gifts over $5,000 to the City Council regarding the gifts that have been accepted on behalf of the City. 4. Each department should also maintain a record of all gifts that are accepted, which includes a description of the gift, the donor's name and address, the date the gift was received, and the disposition of the gift. B. Fair Political Practices Commission Requirements for Accepting and Reporting Gifts to the City In addition to the requirements listed above, departments receiving gifts to the City must comply with Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations section 18944.2, summarized below: Payments or similar gifts that are controlled by the City and used for official City business may be considered gifts to the agency rather than gifts to an individual although the individual may receive a personal benefit from the payment, if all of the following requirements are met:. (1) City controls use of payment: The city manager or designee must determine and control the City’s use of a payment. The donor may identify a purpose for the payment, but may not designate by name, title, class, or otherwise, the official/employee who may use the payment. The City Manager or designee shall select the individual(s) who will use the payment any may not select himself or herself as the user. (2) Official City business. The payment must be used for official City business. (3) Reporting. Within 30 days after use of the payment, the head of the department of the official/employee who used the gift must report the payment on the Form 801 and forward it to the City Clerk. Form 801 is available at the Fair Political Practices Commission website online at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/forms/801.pdf. The City Clerk shall post a copy of the form or the information in the form on the City website, and shall maintain the forms for a period of not less than four years. (4) Limitations on payments for travel. Payments for travel, including transportation, lodging, and meals, are not gifts to the City but are considered personal gifts or income that the official or employee may be required to report on his or her FPPC Form 700 (a) if the donor designates by name, title, class, or otherwise, the official or employee who may use the payment, (b) if the City Manager or designee has not preapproved the travel in writing by signing the Form 801 or other travel pre-approval in advance or the trip, and/or (c) to the extent that such payments exceed the City’s reimbursement rates for travel, meals, lodging, and other actual and necessary expenses. NOTE: Questions and/or clarification of this policy should be directed to the Administrative Services Department. Questions and/or clarification of the Form 801 reporting requirements should be directed to the City Clerk or City Attorney’s Office. Attachments: Attachment A: Table 1- Summary of Gift Categories and Reporting Requirements Attachment A Table 1 Summary of Gift Categories and Reporting Requirements Gift Category Acknowledge‐ ment Letter Copy of acknowledge‐ ment to ASD? Account information re deposit to ASD? Form 801 to City Clerk? Other Requirements Cash or cash equivalent that will be used for official City business over $100 (cash, check, money order, travelers check, cashier’s check or online donation) X X X Cash or cash equivalent that will be used by an individual employee for official city business X X X X For payments used for official travel, see limitations set forth in policy section B(4). Stocks, other securities X X Contact ASD re deposition of this type of gift. The City’s investment policy (1‐39) precludes purchase of stocks, but the City may accept them as gifts if sold within a reasonable amount of time and ASD Director determines that cost of sale will not exceed cost of stock. Services (skilled services performed by a business or professional firm) X X Department head evaluates services to determine impact to department’s operating budget or CIP. Contact City’s Risk Manager to determine potential liability exposure. Material Gifts (Objects of art, equipment, property, other tangibles) X X If item has a value of $5,000 or more, also provide ASD Director with documentation regarding value of gift for fixed assets accounting. Real Property (Privately owned land and/or land improvements) All gifts require approval from ASD Real Estate Division and should be referred there. Real Estate/ASD will submit a written recommendation to the City Council for acceptance or rejection of the gift. Attachment BDate Donor Dept Description of Gift December 1, 2015 Pacific Library Partnership Library $12,500 December 1, 2015 Palo Alto Art Center Foundation CSD $81,000 January 7, 2016 Palo Alto Art Center Foundation CSD $50,000 March 28, 2016 Maxine Halverson Trust CSD $64,490 April 13, 2016 Estate of Robert J Prevaux CSD $12,137 June 16, 2016 Palo Alto Art Center Foundation and the Peery Foundation CSD $45,000 June 30, 2016 Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo CSD $423,489 Varies Friends of the Palo Alto Library Library $66,430 Varies Friends of the Palo Alto Library Library $63,570 Use of Gift Support for youth and adult programs at all libraries (Friends paid performers and associated program supplies throughout the year); includes $7,000 for purchase, throughout the year, of refreshments at staff meetings and staff supplies, supplies for staff break rooms, and other small items of staff recognition. Collection replacement To support a sign at the corner of Newell and Embarcadero to mark the site of the Rinconada Library and Palo Alto Art Center To support children’s education staffing positions at the Palo Alto Art Center Received a $12,500 grant for installation of two bike repair stations; Safe Routes to Libraries map; matching grant for bike trailer; and supplies, education and outreach. To purchase plants and materials to augment habitat restoration efforts in the Baylands To support the Junior Museum & Zoo To support the Junior Museum & Zoo To support children’s education staffing positions at the Palo Alto Art Center