Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-23 City CouncilCity of Palo Alt4 City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:FEBRUARY 23, 1998 CMR:138:98 SUBJECT:PROPOSED ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN REVISING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE REPORT IN BRIEF This report presents for Council review and consideration a number of possible revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in order to provide direction to the staff in preparing a draft revised ordinance that will be presented to the City Council for action in April 1998. The topics being proposed for consideration include: (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Scope of Historic Preservation Ordinance revision limited to treatment .of historic properties Revised categories of historic resources Creation of a list of non-designated properties of potential historical merit Property owner-initiated requests for inclusion on historic inventory Regulation of demolition Regulation of exterior alterations Incentives Qualifications for Historic Resources Board members Property owner-initiated Neighborhood Conservation Areas Transition period for completion of historic survey CMR:138:98 Page I of 31 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council: Review and discuss the proposed revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance presented in the staff report. Provide direction to staff regarding which elements to include in the draft revised Historic Preservation Ordinance by affirming, modifying or rejecting each of the numbered items and sub-items (1) through (10) that are presented in the report and summarized on pages 4-5. BACKGROUND Palo Alto’s .Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter. 16.49; Palo Alto Municipal Code) and historic inventory were initially adopted in 1979 and have undergone only minor revisions and additions in the intervening years. In June 1996, the City Council approved a work program for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and historic inventory. Concerned that the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance and historic inventory did not adequately protect certain historic resources in the City, Interim Regulations were adopted by the Council on October 28, 1996, and extended on August 11, 1997, to remain in effect until May 30, 1998, while the Historic Preservation Ordinance and historic inventory were being revised and updated. In August 1997, the City Council approved a contract with Dames & Moore Group to conduct an update of the historic inventory and prepare revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The first task to be undertaken was an initial "windshield survey" of approximately 6,000 structures in the City constructed before 1948, to establish a basis for planning and conducting the more in-depth intensive survey. The initial survey has been completed and the intensive survey, supported by over one hundred trained volunteers, is now under way. Work was begun in mid-October on the revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, with meetings between the consultant and the Historic Resources Board (HRB), City staff, and the seven-member Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Group appointed by the City Manager, as provided in the project scope of work. Two public workshops were held on December 3 and December 6, 1997. The first focused on real estate issues and the second covered more general issues related to the revisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. A third workshop, held on January 27, 1998, addressed architect/builder issues, particularly codes and standards that apply to projects involving historic buildings. Minutes of these three workshops were distributed to the Council on February 12 with Information City Manager’s Report, CMR: 139:98. The topic of the fourth workshop, scheduled for March 7, will be the general directions for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance. provided by the City Council at its February 23 meeting. CMR:138:98 Page 2 of 31 At its November 24, 1997 meeting, Council reviewed broad policy issues related to revising the historic ordinance and posed questions about those issues to staff and the consultants. Council directed staff to return in February for direction, after the public workshops had been held. In 1991, the City Council applied for Certified Local Government (CLG) status for the City’s historic preservation program, and the State Office of Historic Preservation granted the certification in April 1992. The CLG program is a federal program, admimstered by the states, that was established in 1980 to expand the role of local governments in the protection of historic resources and provide a link between local planning and development activities and the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-two jurisdictions in California are CLG’s, including seven cities in Santa Clara County; a CLG application from the County of Santa Clara is currently pending. In fulfillment of the CLG Agreement, Palo Alto has adopted an approved Historic Preservation Ordinance and agrees to enforce the ordinance and to obtain prior approval of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before amending the Ordinance. When the draft revised ordinance is prepared, it will he forwarded to the SHPO for written comments on the proposed revisions. The City’s current historic preservation program, as carried out under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, is in compliance with the CLG Agreement, and the framework for Ordinance revisions outlined in this report would continue this compliance. Some of the possible changes to the current Ordinance identified in this report would more fully meet the objectives of the CLG Agreement, such as greater protection of properties on the historic inventory from demolition and review of exterior alterations to all historic resources. DISCUSSION The discussion section is organized around ten main topic areas that are being considered for inclusion in the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. The bold numbered items (1) through (10), and the numbered sub-items, are decision points for the Council’s consideration. Staff is requesting that the Council provide staff with direction on each of these items by affirming, modifying or rejecting each of the proposals, and identify preferred options where multiple options are provided or specify a different option. Following is a complete summary of all staff recommendations and their location within the report. This is being provided both as a reading guide and to serve as a basis for Council action. CMR:138:98 Page 3 of 31 (1) (2) (4) (5) (6) Summary_ of Staff Recommendations Limit scope of Historic Preservation Ordinance revisions to treatment .........6 of historic properties Replace existing four categories of historic resources with two new categories: Landmarks and Significant Resources (2A)Reassign properties currently on the b_istoric inventory to the two new categories (2B)Reevaluate properties identified under the Interim Regulations (2C)Identify process of adding properties to the historic inventory from the 1998 survey .. 7 Create a list of non-designated properties of potential historical merit ........11 following completion of the 1998 surcey Facilitate property, owner requests to add their qualified properties to the ......12 historic inventory Prohibit demolition of designated historic resources on the historic ..........12 inventory, except in unusual circumstances (5A) Require a building permit for a replacement structure prior to demolition of buildings on the historic inventory (5B) Provide for salvage of historical building materials Regulate exterior alterations to buildings on the historic inventory ........... 14 (6A) Require review of all exterior alterations to buildings on the historic inventory, except exempt projects (6B) Provide different regulations and process for single family properties than for multifamily/nonresidential properties (6C) Provide for staff review of minor projects (6D, 6D-l, 6D-2) For exterior alterations to single family properties on the historic inventory, require that Landmarks comply with the recommendations of the HRB or staff, but for Significant Resources, compliance with recommendations will be voluntary (6E)For single family properties, provide for limited review of landscape/ site features for Landmarks and no review of landscape/site features for Significant Resources (6F)For single family properties, provide for limited review of exterior paint color for Landmarks and no review of exterior paint color for Significant Resources CMR:138:98 Page 4 of 31 (7) (8) (9) (lO) Provide incentives to support and encourage historic preservation ........... 20 (7A)Facilitate use of the State Historical Building Code (TB)Modify land use regulations to provide exceptions for historic properties that would support preservation. Based on certain findings and conditions: (7B-l) Allow a separate dwelling unit where otherwise not allowed (7B-2) Allow creation of a subdivision where otherwise not allowed (7B-3) Reduce parking requirements (7B-4) Do not count existing basements toward the floor area ratio (7B-5) Allow coverage limits to be exceeded to support a one-story addition instead of a two-story addition (7C)Streamline the review process (7C- 1) Provide for staff review of minor exterior alterations (7C-2) Have Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) decided by the Director of Planning and Community Environment with the recommendation of the HRB (7C-3)Limit required notification for HIE and DEE to neighboring properties adjacent to and across the street from the site (7C-4)Have HRB, rather than HRB and ARB, review projects on multifamily/nonresidential properties on the historic inventory (TD) . Develop an incentive-based fee schedule (7D-l, 7D-2, 7D-3) Charge no fee for minor projects; modest fees based on amount of new square footage for major projects; and full cost recovery for demolition applications (7D-4) Do not have City fees for HIE when the application is part of a project being reviewed by the HRB (TE)Provide information arid assistance in using the Federal Investment Tax Credit Program (7F)Use Mills Act contracts in limited situations that meet criteria established by the City Council Increase from three to four the number of HRB members that must be ........24 ¯ architects or other design professionals, and delete the requirement that one member own an historic structure Direct staff to investigate options for a process, similar to the single story .....25 overlay zone process, that would enable property owners to initiate establishing Neighborhood Conservation Areas Until Council takes action on the proposed additions to the historic inventory .. 26 in final quarter of 1998, prohibit demolition of Study Priority 1 properties. CMR:138:98 Page 5 of 31 (1)Scope of the Historic Preservation Ordinance Revisions Affirm that the scope of the revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance is to address historic properties and historic districts, and will not address the more general issue of design review to achieve neighborhood compatibility. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, not the Interim Regulations) applies only to historic properties and historic districts. Staff recommends that this continue to be the case for the revised Ordinance. The Interim Regulations were developed to serve a dual purpose: 1) to provide added protection for certain historical buildings while the historic inventory and the Historic Preservation Ordinance are being updated; and 2) to respond to residents’ concerns with the design quality and general neighborhood compatibility of some of the new houses that are replacing older houses in the community. The adoption of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance and the updated inventory will only address the first of these concerns. If the second of the two issues is to continue to be addressed after the Interim Regulations expire on May 30, 1998, a new ordinance or other planning mechanism would need to be provided. Item (9), below, proposes a possible approach to assisting residents to address neighborhood compatibility issues in intact traditional neighborhoods that include historic properties already on the historic inventory or properties that will be identified, during the historic survey as potentially eligible for the inventory.. The proposal is for a property owner- initiated program; modeled after the Single Story Overlay zone; thus, it would be implemented as a zoning ordinance, not as part of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Reasons for the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance to apply only to designated historic resources, and not to include design review for non-historic buildings outside historic districts include: (1) Legal distinctions. Designated historic buildings and historic districts. are, as a category, treated differently than non-historic buildings under.various ~State and Federal codes, including environmental protection regulations, historic preservation laws, and some tax codes. (2)Acceptable degree of change.. The philosophical basis for historic preservation is different from other design review objectives. For structures and districts designated as historically significant, a public purpose is presumed to be served by preserving the resource relatively intact for future generations. On the other hand, neighborhood compatibility objectives can be met in ways which accommodate a much higher degree of change. (3) Standards for review. In conformance with the CLG Agreement, and consistent with established preservation practice, the standards to be used in reviewing proposed changes to historic resources in order to accommodate contemporary use are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. These Standards would not be appropriate for design review of non-historical projects where the objective is general neighborhood compatibility. CMR:138:98 Page 6 of 31 (2)Categories of Historic Resources Replace current Historic Inventory organizational categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 with two new categories, Landmark and Significant Resource. Following are the criteria in the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance for including properties on the historic inventory. No substantial changes are being proposed to these criteria. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with’ important events in the city, state or nation; The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; 5.The architect or builder was important; The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. In the existing ordinance, all of the resources on the historic inventory are assigned to one of the following four categories. In the revised ordinance, these categories would be replaced by two new categories, Landmark and Significant Resource, Historic Resource categories in the Existing Ordinance Category 1: "Exceptional building" means any building or group of buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. Category 2: "Major building" means any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. CMR:138:98 Page 7 of 31 Category 3 and 4: "Contributing building" means any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which, relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. Historic Resource Categories proposed for the Revised Ordinance Landmark: (conceptual definition to be further developed during preparation of the ordinance) Properties or groups of properties that are: Listed, or determined eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or Extraordinary or exceptional examples of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship or planned landscapes; and/or Associated with outstanding persons, or historical or cultural events important to the history of the city, state or nation, Significant Resource: (conceptual definition to be further developed during preparation of the ordinance) Properties or groups of properties that are: Embodiment of outstanding or unusually good attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship or planned landscapes; and/or Exemplary of a particular architectural style or way of life important to the City’s history; and/or Identified with persons or groups of persons who contributed significantly to the culture and development of the City There seems to be community consensus that certain properties should be singled out as more important than other historic resources. It would be appropriate to provide a special Landmark category for these especially important or outstanding resources for two reasons: to honor them as special places, and to regulate them more rigorously than other resources. The regulatory impact of Landmark status could be to require a high level of conformance with Standards of Rehabilitation, and to"require more rigorous fmdings for demolitions. All other resources on the historic inventory will be in the Significant Resource category. CMR:138:98 Page 8 of 31 (2A)Reassign properties currently on the historic inventory to the two new categories, Landmark and Significant Resource, as shown in Table 1. Category 1 properties would be assigned to the new Landmark category. Category 1 has been reserved for relatively few individual properties (24, see Attachment A), indicating that these buildings are considered to be unique or special. Both Categories 1 and 2 m Downtown would be put m the Landmark category, since these are the only buildings in the existingordinance where demolition may be prohibited, indicating the importance the City has previously placed on these structures. All properties that make up the two National Register Historic Districts (Professorville and Ramona Street) would be Landmarks, except any non-contributor properties located within the districts. Properties listed on the State Register of Historical Resources also would be assigned to the Landmark category. Experience over the years has indicated confusion about the meaning of Categories 2, 3, and 4. The category assignments do not appear to have been based on assessment of merit by the 1979 survey team. In the 1979 survey, 56 properties outside Professorville were identified by the survey team as Appears Eligible for the National Register; but at least 13 of these were assigned to Categories 3 or 4. Some of them have been subsequently upgraded and some have been demolished. All of the Category 2, 3 and 4 properties outside Professorville (approximately 300) will be reviewed to see if there are any that qualify for Landmark status; if not, they will be assigned to the new Significant Resource category. CIVlR:138:98 Page 9 of 31 TABLE 1 PROPOSED NEW ORGANIZATIONAL CATEGORIES FOR THE HISTORIC INVENTORY LANDMARK Reassign from the existing historic inventory: Listed, or determined eligible for listing, on National Register or State Register of Historical Resources (individual properties and districts) Downtown Categories 1 and 2 Other Category 1 Certain Category 2,3 and 4 that meet Landmark defmition, as recommended by HRB and adopted by City Council SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE Reassign from the existing Historic Inventory: All Category 2 (except Downtown), and Category 3 and 4, unless determined to be a Limdmark Note: Structures that have been demolished or have lost historic integrity will be removed from the Historic Inventory, While it is necessary to reassign properties on the existing historic inventory to one of the new Landmark or Significant Resource categories, the consultants’ advice is that it is not necessary to reevaluate the existing inventory to determine if the properties are historically significant. These properties were selected by well-regarded experts as the best structures representing the City’s early history. (Fifty-five percent of Category 3 and 4 structures were built before 1919 and 87 percent were built before 1929). The fmal report for the 1979 survey that summarizes the survey methodology and the consultants’ final assessment of the inventory properties indicates that the consultants considered all of the properties identified for inclusion on the inventory as structures of significance. They are described as a significant and irreplaceable resource of the. City, important and valuable architectural resources selected from btfildings representative of the period from the founding of the City to the end of the first phases of its development when the visual and architectural qualities of Palo Alto were permanently established. (See Attachment B, Historical. and Architec.tural Resources of the City of Palo Alto, pages 1, 2, 3, 16, and 76, PrePared by Paula Boghosian, architect, and John Beach, architectural historian.) CMR:138:98 Page 10 of 31 (2B)Reevaluate properties identified as Landmarks or Contributing Structures under the Interim Regulations, as described below: Staff proposes that properties that were evaluated in Merit Screening under the Interim Regulations program be treated in the following ways with regard to assessing whether they will be included on the revised historic inventory: Properties designated Landmark." The Dames & Moore team will review and recommend assigning to either the Landmark or Significant Resources categories of the revised historic inventory. Propeeties designated Contributing Structure: The definition of Contributing Structure in ’the Interim Regulations program was very broad and intended to indicate both residences of some historical importance, though not Landmarks, and those that contributed to neighborhood character. In conducting the historic survey, the Dames & Moore team will evaluate these properties in the same way all other properties not currently on the historic inventory are being evaluated. (2C)Follow the process described below for adding properties that are identified in the 1998 survey as historically significant to the historic inventory. The proposed process for adding properties studied in the 1998 survey to the historic inventory is the following: The consultants will identify properties that appear to be eligible, either individually or as part of an historic district, for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, other properties may be identified that meet the City’s criteria for listing on the local historic inventory as a Landmark or Significant Resource. The Historic Resources Board will review the consultants’ recommendations and forward to the City Council a list of properties that it recommends be added to the historic inventory and its recommended classification as Landmark or Significant Resource. The City Council will then approve or disapprove adding of the properties to the inventory, including the classification of the properties. (3)Create a list for non-designated properties determined to have potential historical merit but not listed on the historic inventory Establish a list of non-designated properties that are identified in the 1998 historic survey, or in subsequent surveys or research, as having potential historical merit, but which have not been designated historically significant. Several of the ordinances of other cities that were reviewed by staff include a similar non- designated category, such as. a Structures of Merit category in Pasadena and a Study List CMR:138:98 Page 11 of 31 category in Alameda. Staff recommends creation of such a list as a useful mechanism to serve the following purposes: ~ 1) 2) Provide a "holding area" for properties identified in the 1998 survey as potentially historically significant but for which research could not be completed within the .scope of the survey project. Continued identification and acknowledgment of the potential historic importance of these properties helps to maximize the benefits from the City’s investment in 1998 survey. Provide a focus for HRB activities in keeping ~he inventory up to date. In the future, as properties are identified as potentially historically significant, they can be added to this list while research on their historical merit is being conducted. 3) (4)~ Provide an "interfage" with the historic inventory: owners of properties or groups of properties in this pool who believe their properties are historically significant and want the benefits of historic designation could petition to have their properties added to the historic inventory. Since the properties have been recognized as potentially having historic merit, there could be a presumption in the owner’s favor that the properties qualify for the inventory. (See item (4) below, property owner-initiated requests for inclusion on the historic inventory.) Facilitate property owner requests for historic designation Make provision in the ordinance to facilitate property owner-initiated requests for their properties to be added to the historic inventory, for those who want to enjoy the same rights, benefits and obligations as other designated historic properties. The new Ordinance should include a provision that if owners of properties that have been identified aspotentially having historical merit request that their property be added to the historic inventory, the presumption will be that the properties are historically significant and qualify for inclusion on the inventory, as discussed in item (3) above. (5)Demolition Regulations Prohibit demolition of designated historic resources listed on the historic inventory, except in unusual circumstances. One of the primary problems identified by the HRB and members of the public with the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance is the lack of protection from demolition resulting in the loss of historic buildings. Data gathered by the historic survey consultants during the "windshield" survey indicates that more than 20 properties currently listed on the historic CMR:138:98 Page 12 of 31 inventory have been demolished. In Palo Alto’s existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, approximately 40 percent of the structures on the historic inventory may be demolished with no review by the City required. For all other structures on the inventory, except approximately 30 structures in the Downtown, demolition can be delayed, but not denied. Demolition regulations under the existing Ordinance and the number of buildings to which various levels of control apply are shown on Table 2. TABLE 2 EXISTING DEMOLITION REGULATIONS HISTORIC P~SERVATION ORDINANCE (PAC SECTION 16. 49) No Demolition Control (Approximately 220 structures) Time-Limited Delay of Demolition (Approximately 310 structures) Demolition Prohibited Except in Unusual Circumstances (Approximately 3 0 structures), Category 3 and 4 not in Historic District or Downtown Professorville; Category 1 and 2, not Downtown; Downtown category 3 and 4, except Ramona Street Historic District Downtown Category 1 and 2; Ramona Street Historic District Staff recommends that the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance prohibit demolition of all designated historic resources listed on the historic inventory, except in unusual circumstances. This is consistent with the treatment of historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it is consistent with policy directionin the Draft Comprehensive Plan to protect historic resources. Any regulation of designated historic resources which allows the City to exercise.discretion triggers CEQA review. An application to demolish a designated historic resource over which the City exercises discretion would require an Environmental Impact Report. Demolition could be approved if the City Council finds that overriding economic and social considerations outweigh the loss of the historic resource. An altemative to prohibiting demolition, that could be applied to some or all of the resources on the historic inventory, would be to require no discretionary review of those resources. For example, compliance with any review of proposed alterations would be voluntary and there would be no control on demolition. Staff does not recommend this alternative, because it is not consistent with Draft Comprehensive Plan policies and programs that call for ensuring the effectiveness of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to maintain and preserve CMR:138:98 Page 13 of 31 historic resources, and for strengthening the design review process and discouraging demolition. Any demolition prohibition would not apply in cases of an imminent safety hazard. Demolition prohibitions also would not apply if it would result in no economically viable use of the property. In cases of natural disasters, procedures established in the State Public Resources Code would be followed, as provided for in Draft Comprehensive Plan Policy L-59, (5A)Require a building permit for a replacement structure prior to issuance of a demolition permit for buildings on the historic inventory. Not infrequently, projects that are planned and even approved by the City are not buik due to problems with fmancing or for other reasons. In these cases, requiting the historic building to remain until a building pen~t is issued leaves the building in place for a future buyer who may see a benefit in retaining it. (5B)Provide for salvage of historical building materials. As provided in Draft Comprehensive Plan Program L-59, when a demolition is permitted, require the owner to make building materials on the site available for a specified minimum time with minimum prior notice to licensed contractors for salvage. (6)Regulation of exterior alterations Provide direction on how exterior alterations to properties on the historic inventory should be regulated by the City by affirming; modifying or rejecting the following recommended proposals and options, or by specifying different options. Standards for review The basis for review of designated historic projects is the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The purpose of the Standards for Rehabilitation is to accommodate contemporary use in a way that retains the integrity of historic properties. There are other separate Standards for Preservation, Restoration and other special treatments for museum-type propea~es. The Standards for Rehabilitation address the most prevalent treatment for properties in everyday use, and are the Standards most commonly used by local jurisdictions when reviewing historic properties. The City Council adopted use of the Standards for Rehabilitation for reviewing all properties on the historic inventory in 1987, and the CLG Agreement requires the review body’s recommendations to be "substantially consistent with" the Standards. In historic ordinances written within the last few years, such as those in Alameda, Half Moon Bay, Redwood City, South San Francisco, and Pasadena, these Standards are referenced as the basis for reviewing projects. CMR:138:98 Page 14 of 31 The Standards and Guidelines are nonprescriptive. They state objectives and recommend actions to take and actions to avoid to achieve those objectives, but they do not prescribe how work is to be done on a particular project. Hence, the Comprehensive Plan Program L-60 specifying that Landmarks are to be in "compliance’" with the Standards will be interpreted such that Landmark properties will be required to meet "a high level of conformance" with the Standards. Projects on Significant Resource properties will be required to "substantially conform" to the Standards for Rehabilitation in order to be approved. In developing a possible framework for City review of exterior alterations, the following issues were considered: a) need for review of all exterior alterations, except certain exempt projects; b) distinction between single family property and multifamily/nonresidenfial property; c) distinction between major and minor projects, and staff review of minor projects to speed review and provide a setting for supportive interaction with applicants; d) whether compliance with recommendations should be required or voluntary; e) the appropriate level of review of landscape/site features for single family.properties; and f) the appropriate level of review of exterior paint color for single family properties. Following are staff l:ecommended actions in these areas. (6A)Review all exterior alterations to properties on the historic inventory, except exempt projects. Exempt projects are certain types of projects that the Director determines cannot have a negative impact on the historic qualities of an historic resource. Under the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, exterior alterations to Category 3 and 4 properties that are not in Downtown or Professorville do not require review by the HRB. These properties comprise approximately 40 percent of the historic inventory. This absence of any review for a large part of the inventory has been cited as a concern by the HRB, representing a lost opportunity to help homeowners avoid work that is detrimental to historic qualities of the building and which, over the long term, threatens the historic integrity of the City’s .historic resources. In seventeen ordinances of other jurisdictions reviewed by staff, essentially all require a permit from the City prior to altering the exterior of a designated historic resource. Exempt projects would include such activities as replacement in-kind of foundations and roofs, certain minor alterations at the rear of the build,g, and other work that does not modify character-defining features of the building. CMR: 138:98 Page 15 of 31 TABLE 3 EXISTING REGULATION OF EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS HISTORIC P~SERVATION ORDINANCE (PAC SECTION 16, 49) No review of exterior alterations (approximately 220 structures) Exterior alterations reviewed, but compliance voluntary (approximately 340 structures) Compliance required (0 structures) Single family Category 3 and 4, not in Downtown or Professorville *Downtown; Professorville; other single family Category 1 and 2; *other multifamily/nonresidential Category 1 and 2 None *Compliance with recommendations may be required through the authority of the Architectural Review Board. (6B)In the regulation of exterior alterations, provide a different set of regulations, and a different process for single family properties ~than for multifamily/nonresidential properties. Distinguishing between single family properties and other properties when regulating exterior alterations is being proposed for two reasons: 1) to tailor regulation of single family properties in ways that protect the privacy of homeowners and make participation in the regulatory process less burdensome, and 2) to continue with few modifications the regulations that currently apply to multifamily/nonresidential properties. Exterior alterations to historic multifamily and nonresidential properties are currently subject to review by ARB, and are referred to HRB for a recommendation to ARB. A proposal to require review of these projects only by the HRB, rather than both Boards, is discussed in item (7C-4) under Streamlining Measures on page 23. (6C)Establish a category of minor projects that will be reviewed by staff rather than the HRB. The definition of minor projects will be determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, with the advice of the HRB. The HRB will review all major projects. Identifying certain types of minor projects that can be reviewed by staff provides opportunities to streamline the review process as discussed in (7C-1) on page 22. It also provides for the possibility of distinguishing between large and small projects with regard CMR:138:98 Page i6 of 31 to whether compliance with recommendations is required or voluntary, as discussed in (6D), below. (6D)Voluntary vs. Required Compliance: For exterior alterations to single family properties on the historic inventory, require that Landmarks comply with the recommendations of the HRB and staff, but for Significant Resources compliance with recommendations will,be voluntary. Under the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, compliance with the HRB’s recommendation on all projects is voluntary (see Table 3). People who have served on the HRB in the past and current members have expressed different opinions about the need for required compliance with the Board’s recommendations. Some believe that voluntary compliance is high among those who come before the HRB. Others believe that, particularly in the current economic climate, mandatory compliance is needed to protect historic buildings and assure that all applicants are held to the standard that most comply with voluntarily. The options for voluntary versus required compliance for Landmarks and for Significant Resources are presented in (6D-l) and (6D-2), below. (6D-l)For single family Landmark properties on the historic inventory, staff recommends Option 1, that compliance be required for both major and minor projects. Major Projects: **Option No. 1 -- Compliance required Option No. 2 -- Compliance voluntary Minor Projects:,2 Option No. 1 -- Compliance required Option No. 2 -- Compliance voluntary Identifying appropriate compliance regulations is essentially a question of finding the level of regulatory control that will protect the City’s historic resources and that will be an acceptable level of governmental regulation to the community. Staff is recommending that compliance with recommendations be required for Landmark properties, since these have been recognized by the community as unusually important and so the highest level of protection would presumably be acceptable. CMR:138:98 Page 17 of 31 ’ (6D-2)For single family Significant Resource properties on the historic inventory, staff recommends Option 2, that compliance be voluntary for both major and minor projects. Major Projects: Option No. 1 -- Compliance required *~ Option No 2 -- Compliance voluntary Minor Projects: Option No. 1 -- Compliance required *~ Option No. 2 -- Compliance voluntary For Significant Resources, staff is recommending that compliance be voluntary. The digadvantage of voluntary compliance is the possibility of historic resources being lost due to unsympathetic alterations. In conducting the historic survey, the consultants have observed that some buildings currently on the historic inventory have lost their historic integrity due to inappropriate alterations. These include buildings that were reviewed by the HRB, but compliance with the Board’s recommendation was voluntary. The advantage of voluntary rather than required compliance is that the level of support in the community for the Historic Preservation Ordinance may be greater to the .extent that voluntary compliance is seen as being less inlxusive and posing fewer restrictions on how owners use their property. (6E)For single family properties that are Landmarks, limit review of landscape/site elements to those features that are important in defining the historic character of the property and that can be seen from the public right of way, or private access road, such as fences, walls, gates, hedges, trees and paving (and special features that may be identified on the State Historic Inventory Form for the property). Do not review landscape/site features on Significant Resource properties. In the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, the standards for review apply to characteristics of "the building and its site" (Sect.. 16.49.050,(a)(1)(C); 16.49.050(b)(1), (2)(A)). "Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such structures" is given as one of the purposes of the ordinance (Sect. 16.49.010(d)). Including the site as well as structures in reviewing designated historic properties is consistent with 13 of the 17 ordinances of other cities reviewed by staff, and with the Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, in which the property, including the buildings and their setting, is considered to be the historic resource to be protected. The Standards and Guidelines include recommendations for protecting character-defming site features, as described in the Building Site chapter, pages 68-74. CMR:138:98 Page 18 of 31 " Limited review of landscape/site features is being proposed to protect the privacy of single family homeowners by limiting review to substantial elements that are important to the setting and public presentation of the house. As shown in (6E-1)and (6E-2) below, options for review of historic landscape/site features include: review of all such features on t.he site (Option 1); limiting review to substantial historic features visible from the public right-of-way (Option 2); or no review of these features (Option 3). (6E-l)For single family Landmark properties, staff recommends Option 2, limited review Option No. 1-- Full review of all historic landscape/site features Option No. 2-- Limited review of historic landscape/site features as described in (6E) above Option No. 3-- No review of landscape/site features (6E-2)For single family Significant Resource properties, staff recommends Option 3, no review Option No. 1-- Full review of all historic landscape/site features Option No. 2 -- Limited review of historic landscape/site features as described in (6E) above Option No. 3 -- No review of landscape/site features Staff recommends Option 2 for Landmarks and Option 3 for Significant Resources. Since, in most cases, no building permit or other permit from the City is required to alter landscape features, it would be difficult to be sure all owners of historic buildings were aware of the need for review of such changes, resulting in the possibility of owners being informed of this requirement after a project was under way. However, in the case of Landmarks, and especially in historic districts, protecting the historic integrity of the site is sufficiently important to require review, and owners of Landmark properties are more likely to expect that such review is required. (6F)For single family properties that are Landmarks, limit review of exterior paint color to a general color palette that is appropriate to the historic building and district. Do not review exterior paint color on Significfint Resource properties. As with site features discussed above, the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance includes color in the standards for review (Sect. 16.49.050(b). In the Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation (page 14), the recommendation regarding exterior paint color is "repainting with colors that are appropriate to the historic building and district." CMR:138:98 Page 19 of 31 (6F-l) (6F-2) (7) For single family Landmark properties, staff recommends Option 2, limited review Option No. 1-- Full review of exterior paint color ** Option No. 2 -- Limit review of exterior paint color to a property owner proposed general color palette that is, determined to be appropriate to the historic building and district Option No. 3 -- Exterior paint color not subject to review For single family Significant Resource properties, staff recommends Option 3, no review Option No. I-- Full review of exterior paint color Option No. 2-- Limit review of exterior paint color to a property owner proposed general color palette that is determined to be appropriate to the historic building and .district ** Option No. 3 -- Exterior paint color not subject to review Incentives Indicate which of the following incentives should be pursued. Some would be in the revised ordinance and others in separate ordinances. Some of these incentives would require changes to other sections of the Municipal Code and will not be completed at the time the Historic Preservation Ordinance is submitted to the Council for consideration. (7A)Facilitate use of the State Historical Building Code (SHBC) for qualified historic buildings by working with applicants to support and assist them in using the Code. In some circumstances, use of this special Code can relieve the applicant who is rehabilitating .an historic building from having to make intrusive modifications to the building that would be required under the regular Building Code. State law requires that it be available as an alternative to the regular Code on "qualified" buildings, i.e., those that are on a local, state or national historic list. It is a performance-based code that allows the structure to be evaluated as a whole, and allows accommodation of non-compliance as long as there is not a hazardous condition. Under the SHBC, historic buildings are not required to meet California Energy Efficiency Standards. It allows work to be limited to the area where changes are being made, while "triggers" in the regular Code might require more extensive changes to be made to other parts of the building. The ability to use this alternative Code can be a.valuable benefit of historic designation. Some of the ways that the City can facilitate use of the SHBC include: 1) identifying projects that qualify for use of the Code when they are submitted to the City for review; CMR:138:98 . Page 20 of 31 2) providing dose interdepartmental coordination by staff specially trained in the SHBC in the review of historic projects; and 3) conducting training and information seminars on use of-the SHBC for City staff and for architects, builders and owners of historic properties. An educational outreach program being developed by the State Historic Building Safety Board is expected to be available to local Communities next year. (7B)Modify existing land use regulations to allow exceptions for properties on the historic inventory, as provided in (7B-l) through (7B-5), below. Relief would apply when certain findings can be met, including but not limited to the following: 1)The project would substantially conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; 2)The total floor area in the project would not exceed the maximum floor area otherwise allowed on the property; 3)The project would not have a significant adverse impact on neighboring properties; and 4) The project complies with all recommendations of the review body. For exceptions to cottage and subdivision requirements, review would be by the Zoning Administrator, with the recommendation of the HRB. Exceptions to all other Code requirements would be reviewed by the HRB, with recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, based on the same fmdings as for cottages and subdivisions. (7B-l)Allow a separate dwelling unit on the property even though a cottage is not otherwise allowed. (7B-2)Allow creation of a subdivision where it otherwise would not be allowed. Under certain circumstances, this could be a flag lot. The possible provision of a second dwelling unit, or even of a separate lot, where one 10t with one dwelling would be allowed by the zoning and subdivision ordinances, is being proposed as a way to facilitate historic preservation in situations Where the amount of development or general intensity of use on the property is substantially less than what is allowed under existing regulations. An example would be a small historic house located on an unusually large lot. In some cases, the amount of building area allowed on the lot is two or three times the size of the existing house. This discrepancy between actual and allowed use can create enormous economic pressure to demolish the small historic house and replace it with a large house. In some cases, the ability to increase the use of the property by constructing a second unit, or by subdividing the property, would be an attractive alternative CMR:138:98 Page 21 of 31 to the property owner. In many situations, these alternatives would not be appropriate, either because of unacceptable impacts on character-defining features of the historic property or impacts to neighboring properties. However, various types of outbuildings and ancillary structures, including second dwelling units, as well as unusual lot patterns such as small lots and flag lots are part of the historic pattern in the City’s residential neighborhoods. Permitting unused development potential to be realized by the construction of a cottage or the subdivision of a separate parcel, instead of demolition and replacement with a larger house, may help to achieve preservation objectives, especially preservation of small, modest houses. (7B-3) Reduce parking requirements and modify parking standards. (7B-4)Do not count existing basements or new basements that do not result in the house being raised toward the floor area ratio, so long as any grade change at the base of the structure is minimal and is consistent with the historical appearance of the structure. (7B-5)Allow coverage limits to be exceeded to accommodate a one-story addition to a one-story house where a second-story addition would otherwise be allowed. In many instances, one-story additions are preferable to two-story additions because they resuk in less impact on the massing and other significant characteristics of the historic house. (7C)Streamline the review process. (7C-1)Provide for staff review of minor projects. This would speed review and allow the opporttmity to provide applicants with.information about alternatives available under the Code, and to work collaboratively with applicants in an informal setting. Staff review would be optional -- any project could be submitted for review by the HRB instead of staff either by the applicant or by staff, with no penalty or prejudice to the applicant. (Other aspects of the minor project category are discussed at item (6C) Exterior Alterations, page 16, and below under item (TD-1). (7C-2)Reviews for Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design Improvement Exceptions (DEE) for designated historic properties will be conducted by the HRB instead of the Zoning Administrator. Under current regulations, the zoning administrator refers HIE applications for historic properties to the Historic Resources Board for comment before making a decision. Under certain conditions, a second heating is conducted by the Zoning Administrator, requiting the applicant to go through two public reviews. The HIE is limited to very minor exceptions to ClvIR:138:98 Page 22 of 31 the Zoning Ordinance and requires a finding that the exception is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character. The HRB is qualified to review these applications. HRB review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for action would result in one public review rather than two for the applicant. Limit required notification for HIE and DEE only to adjacent properties and .to properties directly across a public right-of-way or private access road, rather than notice within 300 feet as currently required. (7C-4)For multi-family/nonresidential properties on the historic inventory that are subject to both HRB and ARB review under the current ordinances, review will be only by the HRB under the revised ordinance. The CLG agreement requires that the review body for projects on designated historic properties have certain special expertise in historic preservation and related fields. The HRB meets these special requirements, while the ARB does not. All aspects of the building and site would be subject to review by the HRB, as they are now subject to review by the ARB. Currently, there are four licensed architects on the HRB. Item (8) below proposes that the professiona! requirements for HRB members be modified to reflect the current majority of design professionals to assure the Board’s continued ability to meet this expanded design review role. (7D)Develop an incentive-based fee schedule for review of proposed exterior alterations and for demolition applications. (7D-l)For review of proposed exterior alterations, provide review of minor projects at no charge. (7D-2)For major exterior alterations, charge a moderate fee, rather than full cost recovery, that is based on the amount of new square footage being added (e.g., fifty cents per square foot). (7D-3)For an application to demolish a structure on the historic inventory, charge full cost recovery for processing the application, or charge the major alteration review rate based on the size of the house, whichever is greater. (7D-4)Do not have City fees for an HIE if the application is part of a project reviewed by the HRB, so that the applicant is not paying two fees for the review. (7E)Provide information and other assistance to applicants regarding use of the Federal Investment Tax Credit program. CMR: 138:98 Page 23 of 31 This program is available to a property t.hat is: a) on the National Register or in National Register Historic District, and b) is income-producing property. A non-profit developer can partner with a for-profit partner/developer to realize the benefits of this tax credit program. This arrangement has been used effectively to rehabilitate historic buildings for affordable housing. (7F)In limited situations that meet criteria established by the City Council, use Mills Act contracts to support historic preservation. During City Council review of an application for a Mills Act contract for 420 Maple Street, Council Members expressed serious reservations about the use of this tax relief program to support historic preservation because of the resulting loss of revenue to the School District. The same concerns were expressed by the Historic Resources Board in its review of the application. Based on these comments and on comments made by the HRB and by members of the public in regard to the 420 Maple Street application and at other forums in the Historic Ordinance revision process, staff is submitting the following proposed criteria for consideration of future Mills Act applications: a)The contract ~should not be granted retroactively for rehabilitation work already completed; b)The project should provide a benefit that will be enjoyed by the general public, and should serve an educational purpose for the students of the Palo Alto schools; c)The contract should encourage the preservation of a structure/property whose preservation is threatened; and d)The contract should be used in situations where the tax savings will be used to offset an unusual economic burden of rehabilitating the structure that is due to unusual characteristics or circumstances of the structure or property, such as structural problems .or poor condition not resulting from lack of care by the present owner. (8)Changes to qualifications of the HRB members. The requirement in the current Ordinance that three of the seven HRB members be architects or other design professionals should be increased to require that four members have such credentials. Also, delete the requirement that onemember, shall be an owner/occupant of a Category 1 or 2 historic structure, or of a structure in an historic district. The HRB ;s function will be significantly different underthe proposed ordinance. As the HRB moves away from a predominantly advisory role to a stronger design review function, CMR:138:98 Page 24 of 31 ¯ having a majority of the Board be licensed architects or other design professionals is appropriate (the current Board has four licensed architects). All of the current HRB members meet CLG agreement qualifications and, in addition, several are owners of historic properties. However, in the future, the ownership requirement could preclude the appointment of otherwise qualified applicants. (9)Property owner-initiated Neighborhood Conservation Areas Direc[ staff to investigate options for establishing a process to allow property owners in intact traditional neighborhoods to initiate Neighborhood Conservation Areas, based on the process used to establish Single Story Overlay zones. If so directed, staff would, present possible options for how such zones could be established at the time the revised historic inventory is presented to City Council in the final quarter of 1998. Through the historic survey, many intact period neighborhoods are being identified that include some .buildings that may qualify for the historic inventory and other buildings of historical merit, but most of these areas will not meet the qualifications for an historic district. These neighborhoods provide the context for the City’s historic structures and have an "interface’.’ relationship between the historic preservation effort and the general issues of neighborhood compatibility being faced throughout the City. The compatibility issue is controversial and difficult to solve, primarily for two reasons: 1) although some property owners believe that their interests would be best served by compatibility review, others are ambivalent or believe that it would be an infringement of their property rights; and 2) developing appropriate review standards and selecting a suitable design review process is a complex task, and requires the commitment of substantial resources. However, if there- is strong interest among an overwhelming number of property owners in a neighborhood with an intact traditional character, a program consisting of basic design guidelines could be more easily accomplished. The City’s involvement could be limited to providing a process, similar to the process used for Single Story Overlay zones, through which interested property owners could pursue the possibility of establishing a Neighborhood Conservation Area in their neighborhood. Various options would need to be considered regarding how to establish the boundaries of the Neighborhood Conservation Area, what design guidelines should be used, what projects would be subject to review, whether compliance would be voluntary or required, and what the review process would be for projects within the Neighborhood Conservation Area. CMR:138:98 Page 25 of 31 (10) Transition Period. During the remainder of the historic survey period (i.e., May 30, 1998 to final quarter, 1998) prohibit demolition of Study Priority 1 properties that are being considered in the historic survey for possible inclusion on the historic inventory. These regulations would be in effect until the City Council adopts the revised historic inventory, or until another time specified by the Council. Based on information gathered in the initial survey, the consultants have established a research methodology and prioritized properties for research. From approydmately 6,000 structures built before 1948 that were included in the initial survey, approximately 600 properties have been identified as Study Priority 1, and approximately 2,700 are identified as Study Priority 2 for purposes of the intensive survey. Due to the non-linear nature of the research, and because the assignment of study priority was based only on visual assessment prior to completion of other research, some properties will be shifted between the two study priority groups as research progresses. Study Priority 1 properties retain integrity, and by virtue of aesthetic design, building type, structural characteristics, use of materials, or other features evident during the windshield survey, or any combination of these things, together with year of construction, have been identified as the first group of properties to be further researched and studied in order to assess National Register eligibility. When the research and evaluation are completed, many of these properties will have been evaluated as appearing to be individually eligible for the National Register or as contributing elements to an historic district. Study Priority 2 properties retain integrity and while they do not appear individually eligible for the National Register on the basis of visual characteristics alone, many of these properties may prove to be eligible on the basis of historic associations, such as a significant owner(s) or event(s). A lower proportion of these properties are likely to be individually eligible, but some may be found to be contributing elements to an historic district. The consultant contract provides for the consultant’s work on the historic survey to be concluded in August 1998. The consultant’s main responsibility is to identify individual properties and districts that appear eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Research will be conducted for as many properties as possible within the time allowed and with the number of volunteers available. It is recognized that it will not be possible during the contract period to complete the historical and field research necessary to determine possible National Register eligibility for all of the properties that are potentially eligible. In August, the consultant will provide the City, for review by the HRB and the City Council, a list of properties that appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register. For each property, there willbe a completed State Historic Inventory Form, with relevant historical CMR:138:98 Page 26 of 31 data about the property and a statement of the reason for its significance. In addition, the consultants -will complete a fmal report that will further explain the basis for the evaluation of historical significance. The HRB will recommend to the City Council that some or all of these National Register eligible properties be added to the historic inventory. The HRB may also recommend that other properties that meet the City’s historic inventory criteria but do not appear eligible for the National Register be added to the inventory. Properties will be added to the inventory only by action of the City Council. It would be prudent to protect from demolition -at least the Study Priority 1 properties that are the subject of the on-going survey research effort until the consultants have concluded their work in August 1998, and the Council has concluded its review and action on the proposed additions to the historic inventory. The City is making a substantial fmancial investment (approximately $150,000) in conducting the historic survey, and approximately 110 volunteers have been specially trained and are giving several thousand of hours of their time to this effort. The full benefit of this investment will not be realized if buildings that are subjects of the study are demolished while the work is underway. Also, expiration on May 30, 1998 of demolition controls now in place through the Interim Regulations for residential buildings built before 1941 could be followed by a rush to demolish buildings that are seen as likely to be designated to the historic inventory, and thus possibly more difficult to demolish after the new regulations are in place. TABLE 4 TRANSITION PERIOD REGULATIONS FOR STUDY PRIORITY #1 AND STUDY PRIORITY #2 PROPERTIES CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW IN THE HISTORIC SURVEY STUDY PRIORITY #1 STUDY PRIORITY #2 OPTION 1 Demolition prohibited Demolition prohibited OPTION 2 Demolition prohibited **OPTION 3 Demolition prohibited Limited time delay of demolition to assess eligibility for the historic inventory Demolition allowed CMR:138:98 Page 27 of 31 Three options for protecting Study Priority properties from demolition while the historic survey is being completed are shown in Table 4 above. Staff recommends Option 3, which is marked with double asterisks (**), Study Priority 1. In all three options, staff recommends that demolition be prohibited for Study Priority 1 properties, since many of these properties-are likely to be determined eligible for the National Register, either individually or as part of an historic district, and recommended for inclusion on the historic inventory. Demolition prohibition would preclude demolition applications during the Transition period. Study Priority 2. Three different options are presented for treatment ot~ Study Priority 2 properties during the Transition period. Option 1 prohibits demolition. This option offers protection for properties that may be discovered to be historically significant during the course of the survey research, but the disadvantage is that demolition restrictions would be applied to over 3000 properties, the majority of which will not be found to be historically significant. Option 2 provides for Study Priority 2 properties to be evaluated prior to demolition to determine whether they are eligible for the historic inventory. If they are found not to be eligible, they could then be demolished. This option would provide the greatest flexibility to property owners while at the same time protect potentially significant historic resources. However, the disadvantage is that during the survey period .the resources of the city would be directed to assessing the merits of individual properties that are proposed for demolition; as in the current Merit Evaluation process, rather than being focused on completion of the historic survey. Option 3 prohibits demolition of Study Priority 1 properties, including those that are being considered for eligibility on the National Register either individually or as part of National Register historic districts, but allows Study Priority 2 properties to be demolished, Staff recommends this option because it protects the properties that are most likely to be determined historically significant, while leaving demolition of the large number of Study Priority 2 properties unrestricted. POLICY IMPLICATIONS. Draft Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs On December 2, 1997, the City Council tentatively approved changes to the Draft Comprehensive Plan, which will return to Council for adoption. The Draft Plan contains the following policies and programs for historic preservation. CMR:138:98 Page 28 of 31 Program L-57: Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and preservation df historic resources, particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Program L-58: Maintain and strengthen the design review procedure for exterior remodeling or demolition of historic resources. Discourage demolition of historic resources and severely restrict demolition of Landmark resources. Program L-59: Encourage salvage of discarded historic building materials for re-use by the community. " Program L-60: For proposed exterior alterations or additions to designated Historic Landmarks, r~quire design review findings that the proposed changes are in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Program L-61: Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation. Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior will be maintained. Policy L-57: Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all zones. Program L-65: Streamline, to the maximum extent feasible, any future processes for design review of historic structures to eliminate unnecessary delay and uncertainty for the applicant and to encourage historic preservation. Program L-66: Encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in fmding ways to adapt and restore these buildings, including participation in state and federal tax relief programs. Policy L-59: Follow the procedures established in the State Public Resources Code for the protection of designated historic buildings damaged by earthquake or other natural disaster. Program L-67: Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordinances to older buildings. Use the State Historic Building Code for designated historic buildings. Program L-68: Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as needed to minimize constraints to adaptive re-use, particularly in retail areas. Additional Draft Comprehensive Plan policies related to proposed Historic Preservation Ordinances revisions include: CMR:138:98 Page 29 of 31 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-13: Evaluate altemative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing oppormnities. RESOURCE IMPACT File research of HRB applications during the five-year period 1992-1997 shows that there were an average of 34 applications per year. There are approximately 340 properties on the historic inventory that are currently subject to review by HRB. Thus, about 10 percent of the properties subject to review could be expected to submit-an application in any one year. The precise staffing needs of the future historic preservation program cannot be determined until the regulatory framework to be provided in the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance has been determined.. However, staff’s estimate at this time is 1.5 professional FTE plus .5 clerical FTE would be required to administer an historic program that requires review of exterior alterations of all properties on the historic inventory and includes an educational and community support component. Specific staffmg needs will be presented to City Council with the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. TIMELINE The draft revised Historic Ordinance is tentatively scheduled for Council consideration on April 13, 1998. If Council approves the draft Ordinance on that date, and with second reading on April 27, the effective date will be May 27, 1998. The Interim Regulations are scheduled to expire on May 30, 1998. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental assessment will be completed and made available for public review at the time the draft revised historic preservation ordinance is prepared. ATTACHMENTS A.Category 1 Properties Listed on Historic Building Inventory B.Pages 1, 2, 3,16, and 76, from Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto, prepared by Paula Boghosian, architect, and John Beach, architectural historian C.,Glossary PREPARED BY:VIRGINIA WARHEIT APPROVED BY: KENNETH R. SCHR~IBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:138:98 Page 30 of 31 CITY MANAGER .APPROVAL: ~LrN~. LEMIN--G ~-~. City Manager Historic Resources Board Architectural Review Board Planning Commission Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Group Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Palo Alto Historical Association Board of Realtors, Palo Alto Chapter Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce CMR:138:98 Page 31 of 31 Attachment A CATEGORY 1 PROPERTIES LISTED ON HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY Address 367 Addison Avenue 423 Chaucer Street 1531 College Avenue 706 Cowper Street 1247 Cowper Street 1336 Cowper Street 1950-1928 Cowper Street 1990 Cowper Street 1009 Forest Court 380 Hamilton Avenue 356 Kingsley Avenue 356 Lincoln Avenue 601-603 Melville Avenue 1305 Middlefield Road 4155 Old Adobe Road 520-526 Ramona Street 533-539 Ramona Street 25, 27 University Avenue 95 University Avenue 456 University Avenue 860 University Avenue 900 University Avenue 2101 Waverley Street. 100/110 Waverley Oaks s Aplan~pladiv\cmr~histatt.wpd District/Historic List Status California Registered Historical Landmark National Register of Historic Landmarks Professorville Historic District/National Register of Historic Landmarks Professorville Historic District/National Register of Historic Landmarks Professorville Historic District Professorville Historic District California Registered Historic Landmark Ramona Street Architectural District Ramona Street Architectural District California Registered Historical Landmark and National Register of Historic Landmarks National Register of Historic Landmarks California Registered Historical Landmarks and National Register of Historic Landmarks National Register of Historic Landmarks I I I I I I I Attachment B ! Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto | | INTRODUCTION Palo Alto is a unique and interesting city. It has an unusual history that extends in time from associations with early Mexican land grants to the establishment of Stanford University by Leland Stanford, one of the Central Pacific Railroad’s "Big Four" and one-time Governor of the State. Since that time, the city’s geographical attributes, cul- tural background, and economic base have helped create its physical appearance. These growth-determining circumstances have combined with Palo Alto’s history, its location and climate, and its social and cultural composition and background to create the highly individualistic and handsome visual character of the city today. The environmental resour,ces that comprise that character, both man-made and natural, contribute very strongly to its qualities and provide an historic context vital to the understanding of that community. The architectural resources of a city provide much informa- tion about that community: about the regional materials and the natural resources of the area, its economic richness, the sophistication and attitudes of its citizens, and the cultural values of eras represented within its boundaries. Indlvldual buildings, and their congregation into nelgnbor- hoods, provide a key to a city’s past and an understandlng of its evolution and history that can be achieved in no other manner. The City of Palo Alto, recognlz~ng it possessed such re- sources, has recently completed an inventory of those resources, and plans, to utilize the inventory in future community planning activities. The Survey, made possible by matching funds from the State Office of Historic Preservation, was conducted essentially within the area outllned on the’accompanying map, and treated structures of significance built prior to 1940. Buildings listed on the preliminary fleld survey of each bl-ock in the area were then researched for historical importance and their architectural values noted. Groups of structures and the nelghborhoods they create were evaluated as to their architectural integrity and significance. Areas of particular merit were either noted in the Report or deslgnated as potential Historic Districts. The integrity of or;ginal design and structural conditlon of each Du!Iding were also observed. Volunteers from the community performed the research nec- essary to determine the h~storic s~gn~ficance of the pro- posed structures, and complete the Inventory forms, Students from Stanford Uni~ers~ty, which played such a c~uc~al role in establishing the architectural patterns of Palo Alto, also assisted in research act~v~zies. One of the goals of compiling such a !isz of important resources is to incorporate ~he information ~nto future planning activities of ~he City. Anothe~ principal purpose -2- i | | | I for the development of an Inventory is the planning of a program designed to protect and retain those identi.fied resources. A proposed program, geared to the needs of the City of Palo Alto, accompanies this report, The Inventory was compiled through joint City, private, and citizen enthusiasm and effort. It is hoped that this identi~ ficati, on and recognition of Palo Alto’s special histor~ .and valuable architectural resources will encourage the develop- ment of a City preservation program to assist both city.and citizens alike in retaining this important heritage and the environmental character it provides. All requirements of the State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, regarding performance of the survey and completion of the Report must be met in order to comply with regulations governing matching grant funding. I I I -3- By the beginning of the second World War, most of the avail- able building s~tes in the surveyed a~ea-were occupied, and after the long moratorlum on non-essentlal building imposed during the War, an entirel~ different set of images and styles became popular. Thus the buildings of the survey area represent a discrete five decade ep~sode,, stretching from the founding of.the city as an entity to the end of the first phases of its development, the period during which the ambience, the visual and architectural qualities of Palo Alto were permanently established. HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF PALO ALTO’S ARCHITECTURE When Palo Alto was incorporated in 1893, Its neighbors to the north and south, Menlo Park and Mayfleld, were already well-established. Early city street grids included ~he area bounded by San Francisquito Cree~, Alma, Embarcadero, Boyce, and Channing Streets~ Subsequent late nineteenth and early twentieth century annexations to the original grid included additions known as the Ashby Addition, the Boyce Addition, Clara Vista, Alba Park, and South Palo Alto. College Terrace was subdivided in 1888 and its earliest buildings date from the late 1880’s and the early 1890’s. The area surrounding the original Palo Alto grid grew to the north, souzh, and east, expanding beyond El Camino Real and ’ including the Southgate area, Evergreen Park, Barron Park, the Seale Addition, the original town of Mayfield (by now divided ~nto~several subdivisions and tracts), and the area north to the current bayshore freeway, Highway I01. PROPOSED Implementation of Inventory PROGRAM Palo Alto possesses an interesting and unique historic and architectural legacy that ranges from Spanish land grant origins, through important early Bay Area tradition images, impressive Period Revival representatives and a rich array of Spanish Colonial Revival architectural expressions. The Inventory pro.duct of a recent historic/architectural survey, lists noteworthy representatives of the work of important individua~ designers and architectural eras and traditions, as well as structures whose background is associated with the history of the city region, or important events. The structures represent significant and irreplaceable resources of the city, and as such, should receive some special planning and protective considerations. Such an inventory provides an important opportunity for several activities to occur: the retention of valuable city resources and the enhancement of neighborhoods the preservation of the visual and historic character and fabric of the community GLOSSARY Attachment C Character-Defining Features Those aspects or elements of a historic property which account for its integrity, and whose retention are critical to conveying its significance. Such aspects or elements include location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Designated Historic Resource A property listed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources based upon review and recommendation of the Historic Resources Board and action by the City Council. Historic Property A historic resource, which is a building, site, district, object or structure evaluated as historically significant. Integrity The ability of a property to convey its historical significance by retaining important aspects of original location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. National Ri~gister of Historic Places A property that appears eligible for listing in the National RegiSter of Historic Places is a historic resource which satisfies one or more program criteria regarding historical significance and which possesses integrity. A property that is determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places is a historic resource whose formal evaluation as to historical significance and integrity has been accepted by. the Keeper of the National Register. A property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places is a historic resource which the Keeper of the National Register officially recognizes and thereby enters into the National Register of Historic Places. s Aplan~pladiv\cmflhista.wpd