HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-03 City Council (14)TO:
City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 13
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AGENDA DATE: AUGUST3, 1998 CMR:336:98
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL OF (1) REVISIONS TO
INTERIM HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS AND
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS, (2) USE OF AN
OMBUDSMAN AND A PUBLIC OUTREACH CONSULTANT
REGARDING THE CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PROGRAMS, AND (3) BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE IN
ASSOCIATION WITH THE INTERIM HISTORIC REGULATIONS
ADMINISTRATION AND THE HIRING OF AN OMBUDSMAN AND
A PUBLIC OUTREACH CONSULTANT
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report forwards to the City Council recommendations from staff for review and action
on a) revisibns to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance and to the Historic
Preservation Regulations and b) use of an ombudsman and a public outreach consultant in
order to improve the City’s historic preservation programs. The Ordinance and Regulations
revisions are in response to the actions of the City Council on July 13, 1998, and to other
recommendations received from the public and staff involved in administration of the Interim
Ordinance and Regulations.
This report also includes information about the scopes and costs for consultants needed to
staff the revised historic preservation programs through the extended Interim Historic
Preservation Ordinance period and to provide improved public and staff training and
information services. Specifically, the report details duties and costs for an ombudsman to
assist applicants and staff involved in historic preservation application procedures and for a
public outreach consultant to devise effective means for the City to communicate with .the
CMR:336:98 Page 1 of 12
public and individuals and organizations interested in the City’s existing and future historic
preservation programs.
The anticipated total funding requested in a Budget Amendment Ordinance to be forwarded
to the Council for consideration on August 10, 1998, ranges from approximateIy $165,000
to $270,000, depending on which interim program is adopted by the Council. Program
Option A provides for interim historic consultants, in addition to interim planning consultants
to backfill for reassigned Planning Division staff, with the Interim Ordinance in effect
through March 31, 1999, and continued Compatibility Review of Contributing Structures.
Program Option A includes an ombudsman and a public outreach consultant. Program
Option B also provides for the ombudsman and the public outreach consultant, and for the
Interim Ordinance to be extended through March 31, 1999, but requires substantially less
historic and planning consultant time due to the elimination of Compatibility Review. Staff
is recommending Program Option B.
CMR:336:98 Page 2 of 12
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council endorse Interim Historic Preservation Program Option B
and adopt the revisions to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance ("Interim Ordinance")
and the Resolution approving modifications to the Historic Preservation Regulations
("Interim Regulations"). Staff also recommends that Council authorize staff preparation of
a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO), consistent with the selected Program option, for
consultants to implement the interim programs, backfill for reassigned Planning Division
staff and perform ombudsman and public outreach services. That BAO will be scheduled
for Council approval on August 10, 1998, so staff can move immediately to secure
authorized consultant services.
BACKGROUND
Legislative History of Interim Ordinance and Regulations
In the fall of 1996, Council adopted the Interim Ordinance and adopted by Resolution the
Interim Regulations. On March 23, 1998, the Council extended the Interim Historic
Regulations to August 31, 1998. On May 26, 1998, Council directed staffto delay adoption
of the new permanent Historic Ordinance and to extend the Interim Ordinance and
Regulations in order to complete work on the proposed Historic Inventory. On July 6, 1998,
Council reviewed the extension of the Interim Ordinance and Regulations. After hearing
public testimony and closing the public hearing, Council continued consideration of the item
to July 13, 1998. On July 13, 1998, Council discussed and extended the Interim Ordinance
and Regulations through March 30, 1999. A more detailed chronology concerning Palo
Alto’s historical preservation regulations is included in Attachment C.
Recent City Council Direction to Staff
On July 13, 1998, the Council directed staff to (1) include amendments proposed by Council
in the revised Interim Ordinance and Regulations, (2) streamline the process and minimize
uncertainty for residents, (3) work on the development of incentives and benefits intended
to compensate homeowners for regulatory burdens, and (4) identify ways to improve
outreach to applicants and the public regarding historic preservation. The related City
Council colleagues’ memorandum dated June 25, 1998 is attached for reference
(Attachment D).
Updated Report on the Interim Ordinance and Regulations
A chart summarizing Interim Ordinance and Regulations permit activities is provided in
Attachment E. As can be seen in that report, approximately 300 Historic Merit Evaluations
have been completed since December 1996. Roughly a quarter of those evaluations resulted
in determinations of"No Historic Merit," and only 5 percent have resulted in identifying
"Landmark Residences." Almost three-quarters of the evaluations have resulted in
determinations of "Contributing Residences," with approximately 200 residences in that
category. Over 50 Compatibility Reviews have been performed since December 1996.
CMR:336:98 Page 3 of 12
There have been 23 applications for Variances or Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE)in
that same time period. All such applications involving Landmark and Contributing
properties have been approved. A more detailed status report has not been prepared due to
the lack of a computerized permit tracking system in the Planning Division, the loss of the
services of the Historic Architect who administered the programs and prepared previous
status reports, and staff’s short-term inability to secure replacement consultant services.
The City’s contract with Preservation Architect Barbara Judy, initiated on December 2, 1996,
was later amended by Council on July 7, 1997. On June 22, 1998, Council amended Ms.
Judy’s contract to retain her services.through September 30, 1998, and authorized distribution
of Requests for Proposals for additional consultant(s) to administer the Interim Regulations
through September 1998. On the same date, the funding ($35,000) for consultant services
through September 1998 was approved by Council.
On July 15, 1998, Ms. Judy notified the Chief Planning Official that she was terminating her
contract with the City. The Historic Architect’s termination of her contract immediately and
significantly affected the operations of the Planning Division and the processing of historic
preservation applications. Development review staff has been reassigned to historic
preservation to oversee the handling of the accumulating backlog of historic preservation
applications and to pursue the hiring of qualified consultants consistent with the Council’s
prior authorization. The staff reassignment results in development review staffing being
reduced, with the ARB process particularly affected. Staff time for ARB drop-in and
scheduled appointments has been reduced.
Since so much public and media attention has focused on the City’s historic preservation
programs and proposals recently, it has become difficult to secure qualified consultant
services. After solicitation of numerous consultants, staff has identified only one firm and
one individual (who may not be available due to recent health concerns) interested in
conducting Merit Evaluations and screenings and two architects in a joint practice interested
in Compatibility Review ’work. Staff is particularly concerned about the lack of consultants
interested in Compatibility Review work, the most time-intensive and controversial part of
the interim program to date. Such a small pool of interested consultants leaves the City’s
historic preservation programs vulnerable to upset and delay if the consultants are not
available due to vacations, illnesses or unexpected terminations. Staff is continuing to
identify qualified consultants; however, the pool of available candidates is limited.
Historic Inventory Update - Dames & Moore Contract
A separate staff report (CMR:337:98) for consideration on August 10, 1998, is being
prepared concerning extension and modification of the Dames & Moore contract for
continuing the Historic Inventory update pastthe contract’s current expiration date of August
31, 1998. The optionsavailable for continuing and completing various components of the
Historic Inventory will be discussed in detail in that report. However, Dames & Moore has
CMR:336:98 Page 4 of 12
demonstrated to staffthat enough meaningful inventory data and reports can not be produced
in a time frame to make a December 31, 1998 sunset for the Interim Ordinance feasible.
DISCUSSION
Response to Council Colleagues’ Memorandum
Brief summaries of both the items in the Council colleagues’ memorandum dated June 25,
1998, and staff responses are provided below. Texts of the many recommended changes are
contained in the attached draft Ordinance and Resolution (Attachments A and B).
Incentives
The Council asked staff "to create powerful incentives and benefits so that the homeowner
has clear reasons to choose preservation over demolition" and to "begin the community
dialogue on the specifics of creating incentives under direction of the Planning Commission
(PC) in order to integrate historic preservation with the City’s residential development laws."
The following benefits were presented in the June 25, 1998 colleagues’ memorandum, and
staff has included notations about the status of each.
Facilitate use of State Historic Building Code (flexible code requirements).
Currently used by the City," staff, PC and Historic Resources Board (HRB) will
consider ways to extend and publicize use of this important incentive.
Allow a separate dwelling unit where otherwise not allowed. Referred to PC and
HRB.
o
°
Allow creation of a subdivision where otherwise not allowed. Referred to PC and
HRB.
Reduce parking requirements. Referred to PC and HRB. ’
Do not count existing basements toward the floor area ratio. Referred to PC and
HRB.
Allow coverage limits to be exceeded to support a one-story addition instead of two-
story addition. Referred to PC and HRB.
Provide for streamlined staff review of minor exterior alterations. Referred to PC and
HRB. Also included in recommended changes to lnterim procedures.
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. Referred to PC and HRB.
CMR:336:98 Page 5 of 12
10.
Limit required notification for HIE and DEE to neighboring properties adjacent to and
across the street from the site. Referred to PC and HRB.
Have HRB, rather than HRB and ARB, review projects on multifamily/nonresidential
properties on the historic inventory. Referred to Architectural Review Board (ARB),
PC and HRB.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Develop an incentive-based fee schedule. Referred to PC and HRB,
Charge no fee for minor projects; modest fees based on the amount of new square
footage for major projects with full cost recovery for demolition applications.
Referred to PC and HRB.
Do not have City fees for HIE when the application is part of a project being reviewed
by the HRB. Referred to PC and HRB.
Provide information an~t assistance in using the Federal Investment Tax Credit
Program. Referred to PC and HRB.
15.Use Mills Act contracts in limited situations that meet criteria established by the City
Council. Referred to PC and HRB, and requires substantial staff research and
consultation with other affected taxing entities.
On July 13, 1998, the Council also discussed low interest loans as a possible incentive.
Since the July 13, 1998 Council meeting, staff scheduled the matter of incentives for
Planning Commission consideration. Attachment F is the staff report for the Planning
Commission meeting of July 29, 1998, when the Commission considered how to proc.eed
with this Council assignment. Staff identified ways the Commission can make
recommendations to the’Council on historic preservation incentives/benefits by October
1998. As noted in Attachment E to that Planning Commission report, staff has reviewed
historic preservation regulations from almost 20 other cities. Only five of those communities
include incentives as part of their historic preservation programs. Staff, the Commission and
the HRB, which will also be involved in recommending incentives to the Council, will
consider the Council recommendations, examples from other communities and public input
received on the subject in the past and over the next two and one-half months while this
matter is being actively considered by staff, the PC and the HRB,
Interim Ordinance Amendments
Amendments to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance proposed by the Council
colleagues’ memorandum are discussed below, with notations on responses to and
recommendations for these Council proposals.
CMR:336:98 Page 6 of 12
Permit Appeals - Appeals of staff compatibility review determinations should be to
the HR and City Council. lncluded in staff-recommended changes, with retention
of the existing staff appeals board Only three appeals have been f!led to date, and
all were approved.
Definition of Demolition - Create a readily understandable (flexible) standard so that
insignificant front facade modifications do not unnecessarily throw a homeowner into
the compatibility process, lncluded in the staff-recommended changes.
6
Landmark Alteration Review - Applications for minor alterations should be handled
by staff, so minor projects are not subject to public and HRB review unless that
review is sought via an appeal. Included in the staff-recommended changes.
Fees - Reduce or eliminate the $500 fee for Landmark Alteration Reviews for minor
projects, since the inconvenience and potential for hardship is too high for minor
projects, lncluded in the staff-recommended changes.
Items 1-4 have been addressed in the Draft Revised Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance,
attached to this report as Attachment A.
Interim Regulations/Processing Amendments
Amendments to the Interim Regulations proposed by Council colleagues’ memorandum are
discussed below; staff annotations are included.
The degree of required conformity to one style for alterations and replacement of
structures should be relaxed to avoid rigidly applied style mandates (allow "wiggle
room"). Included in staff-recommended changes.
Provide assistance to property owner in the way of orientation, training, advisory
guides and related preTapplication materials, including benefits/incentives currently
in place, so as to prevent misunderstandings related to style and design standards.
Training to be made available to Landmark and Contributing property owners. See
following descriptions for recommended ombudsman and public outreach consulting
services,"
Provide more staffing and support services to meet customer service goals. Included
in Program Option B.
Expand the use of the staff review committee for compatibility style and design
review, and for staff appeals. Included in the staff-recommended changes.
Amendments to the Compatibility Review Standards proposed by Council include the
CMR:336:98 Page 7 of 12
following content changes. Although staff recommends eliminating Compatibility Review,
the noted changes have been drafted for Council consideration.
Simplify the formula for calculating the prevailing setback and provide convenient
options to assist homeowners and designers in measuring the setbacks of neighboring
structures when this information is needed. The formula has been recommended for
change, if retained. The public outreach consultant and ombudsman could
recommend options to assist homeowners and designers.
Evaluate and revise the requirement that attached garages on comer lots be recessed
two feet behind the main front ’ facade to allow garages to be flush with the front
facade when desirable architecturally. Staff has provided revised language.
Revise the list of permitted driveway materials to permit precast interlocking concrete
pavers that replicate cobblestones and brick. Staff has provided revised language.
Evaluate and revise limitations on the number of special windows that may be
allowed on the street-facing facade. Staffhas provided revised language.
Revise the written description of the required depth of window recesses to reflect
construction tolerances and modem building practices. Staffhas provided revised
language.
10.Revise and expand the list of acceptable roofing materials to include all shingle style
products that have a compatible visual appearance, including modem composite
shingles. Staff has provided revised language.
Other Proposed Changes to Interim Ordinance and Regulations
Staff has also reviewed public comments made at hearings, direct input to staff via letters,
and via e-mails over the past several months. Many of the comments included specific
suggestions for ways to improve the Interim Ordinance and Regulations and to approach a
permanent Historic Ordinance. Staff recommends the following additional changes to the
Interim programs and has included the changes in the attached draft Ordinance and draft
Resolution:
1)
2)
The definition of "Compatibility Review Standards" in the Ordinance [16.50.020 (b)]
has been revised to exempt architectural features or design elements not visible from
a publicly-accessible location.
Procedures are recommended to require a prospective applicant to have a
pre-application meeting prior to submittal of an application.
CMR:336:98 Page 8 of 12
3) Revison is recommended to eliminate HRB review of certain minor projects.
Staff-recommended Program Option
On July 13, 1998, although extending the Interim Ordinance through March 31, 1998, the
Council directed staff to prepare information about how to implement a December 31, 1998,
expiration date. Working backward from December 31, 1998, there would be sufficient time
for legal noticing and public hearings of the draft Permanent Ordinance. There would not
be time for ample and quality opportunities for public input to and review of the draft
Ordinance. Such a schedule cannot accommodate delays for end-of-summer vacation and
Fall start-of-school conflicts or November and December holidays.
The first reading and adoption of the Ordinance could occur no later than late October/early
November, with a second reading of the Ordinance required no later than the end of
November/beginning of December. That leaves only the remainder of August and all of
September for staff to prepare a draft permanent Ordinance. Staff does not anticipate being
able to retain a public outreach consultant until mid-September, although work to prepare a
Request for Proposals has already begun.
In response to the difficulties inhei’ent in a December 31, 1998 sunset, staff has developed
two interim historic program options for Council consideration with the March 31, 1998
sunset date of the ordinance adopted July 13, 1998. Program A continues existing activities
related to Historic Merit Evaluations, Compatibility Reviews and mandatory review of
Landmarks, with the various revisions described above. Program A would sunset the Interim
Ordinance on March 31, 1999. Program B includes Historic Merit Evaluations and
mandatory review of Landmarks, while eliminating Compatibility Review. Program B
would sunset the Interim Ordinance on March 31, 1999. Refer to Attachment G, a matrix
describing and comparing the two programs in detail.
Staff strongly recommends that Compatibility Review be eliminated from the interim
program, per Program Option B. Planning staff resources remain below the levels
recommended by the Zucker report. If the Council authorizes, on August 10, 1998, the
hiring of additional staff for the Planning Division, staff resources will remain impacted for
several months. It will take until the end of the year/beginning of next year to hire the new
positions and to train the new staff. Ironically, after the hiring of the new staff, total staff
capability will be reduced for several weeks to a few months while the new staff is trained
by existing staff. Additionally, staff has not been successful in identifying a pool of qualified
consultants interested in performing Compatibility Review work for the City, as discussed
above.
If the City continues to require Compatibility Review as part of its Interim Historic
Preservation programs, per Program Option A, significant impacts to the Planning Division
and its service to the public will occur. Those impacts would regard development review and
CMR:336:98 Page 9 of 12
ongoing important assignments like the PAMF/SOFA study, completion of the permanent
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Inventory, public outreach associated with the
Inventory and permanent Ordinance, and initiation of the Residential Neighborhoods Study.
However, the colleagues’ memorandum items 1-10 pertaining to Compatibility Review will
be addressed in revised regulations and procedures if the Council decides to continue such
review on an interim basis.
Ombudsman and Public Outreach Consultants
Two additional types of consultant services are recommended to implement the City’s
historic preservation programs. A Public Outreach consultant is proposed to provide a
variety of services during the Interim Historic Ordinance and possibly through the transition
period next spring from the Interim Ordinance to the permanent Ordinance. Staff proposes
an authorization for up to $50,000 to be spent on the Public Outreach consultant services
through June 30, 1999. Attachment H details the expected services to be provided by that
consultant to upgrade significantly the City public outreach efforts.
Staff also recommends that an ombudsman be hired to assist applicants and facilitate staff
interaction with applicants and persons affected by the Interim procedures. The ombudsman
will also be in a unique position to provide suggestions and guidance on ways to make the
permanent Ordinance more user-friendly. Staff proposes an authorization for up to.$60,000
to be spent on the ombudsman services through June 30, 1999. Refer to Attachment I, the
proposed Scope of Work for the recommended Ombudsman. Former Assistant Planning
Official George Zimmerman, who retired from City service in 1993, is available to perform
such sensitive work. An extremely experienced planner, well known and respected in the
community, Mr. Zimmerman retired prior to initiation of the current interim historic
preservation program.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Council previously authorized up to $35,000 to be expended on consultant services related
to the Interim Ordinance and regulations thrOugh the end Of September. Due to the early
termination of Barbara Judy’s contract and staff’s inability to get other consultants hired to
date, those funds remain mostly unexpended.
If Compatibility Review is eliminated as recommended by staff, per Program Option B,
leaving Historic Merit Evaluations and mandatory review of Landmarks, staff estimates that
2 to 3 consultants would be needed for 20 hours per week, with 10 hours spent as counter
time. The estimated cost per month for such a reduced level of consultant services is $5,600.
A total of 10 hours per week of staff time would be required for consultant and program
oversight.
If Compatibility Review is continued, staff estimates that 3 to 4 consultants are needed for
a total of 60 hours per week, including a minimum of 20 hours per week of counter time.
CMR:336:98 Page 10 of 12
The estimated cost per month for such level of consultant services is $16,800. A total of 30
hours per week of staff time would be required for consultant and program oversight.
Attachment J compares the staff, consultant, cost, and other differences of the two options.
The estimated funding needed for staff-recommended Program Option B through June 30,
1999, is $163,200. The estimated costs for implementation of Program B are as follows:
¯Additional resources to complete Historic Merit Evaluations and mandatory review
of Landmarks is estimated at $5,600 per month, for a total cost of $33,600 through
(October-March) March 31, 1999.
¯Consultant services or contract planners to assist/backfill development review needs
based upon displacement of one staff person. The estimated monthly cost is $2,800,
for a total cost of $19,600 through (September-March) March 31, 1999.
¯Public information/outreach/consultant sessions -- estimated costs are $50,000
through June 30, 1999.
¯Ombudsman -- estimated costs are $60,000 through June 30, 1999.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The requested approvals are consistent.with the direction of Council provided in the.June 25,
1998 City Council colleagues’ memorandum.
There has been and continues to be sound basis in the Comprehensive Plan for the City’s
historic preservation programs. The Land. Use and Community Design Element of the
recently adopted 1998- 2010 Comprehensive Plan includes numerous policies and programs
under Goal L-7: Conservation and Preservation ofPalo Alto’s Historic Buildings, Sites and
Districts. Specific programs mandate the City’s update of its Inventory of Historic Resources
and the reassessment of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Other programs call for
streamlining future processes for design review of historic structures and for assisting owners
of historically significant buildings (refer to Attachment K).
TIMELINE
If Council approves the revisions to the Interim Ordinance before the Council vacation, the
second reading would be in September after the Council break. Final adoption would take
effect in October, 30 days after the second reading. Modifications to the Historic
Preservation Regulations, adopted by resolution, can take effect immediately. The schedule
of historic preservation program activities includes the development and implementation of
incentives as directed by the Council. Planning Commission work on that assigmnent started
on July 29, 1998. Recommendations for incentives are expected to be forwarded to Council
from the Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board in October 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The requested approvals for funding, staffing and consultant scope of work amendments are
not projects under the California Environmental Quality Act.
CMR:336:98 Page 11 of 12
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance
B. Resolution
C. Detailed Chronology
D. June 25, 1998 Council Colleagues’ Memorandum
E. Chart Summarizing Interim Ordinance and Regulations Permit Activities
F. July 29, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission
G. Matrix Describing and Comparing Program A and ProgramB
H. Scope of Services: Historic Preservation Outreach Consultant
I. Scope of Services: Ombudsman
J. Options for the Historic Inventory
K. Goals, Policies & Programs for Historic Preservation from Comprehensive Plan
PREPARED BY:Amy French, Associate Planner
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
Anne Cronin Moore, Interim Director
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
ANNE CRONIN MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
REPORT COORDINATOR:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
CMR:336:98 Page 12 of 12
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING CHAPTER 16.50 OF THE PALOALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING INTERIM REGULATIONS GOVERNING
HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES BUILT BEFORE 1940
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION i. Legislative Findings. The Council finds and
declares as follows:
A.To further the protection, enhancement,
perpetuation, and use of structures, districts, and neighborhoods
of historical and architectural significance within the City of
Palo Alto, the Council on October 28, 1996, adopted Ordinance No.
4381, adding Chapter 16.50 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Chapter 16.50 contains interim procedures and requirements
governing historic designation and demolition of residential
structures built before 1940, and review of the design quality and
neighborhood compatibility of replacement structures ("Interim
Ordinance").
B.Since the effective date of the Interim Ordinance,
it has been determined that certain provisions are difficult and
expensive for the City to administer. Moreover, certain provisions
create burdens on property owners which now appear to be
unnecessary to achieve the purposes and objectives of the Interim
Ordinance.
C.In May 1998, the City notified~ each affected
property owner of the completion of Study Priority Lists 1 and 2.
The Study Lists identified properties constructed before 1948 which
could have historic merit so as to be potentially affected by
proposed permanent historic preservation regulations.
D.The~ City Council has directed extensive
modifications of the Historic Preservation Regulations and
Compatibility Review Standards promulgated under the Interim
Ordinance in order to streamline the process for property owners
and the City.
E.The City Council finds and declares that the
amendments contained in this ordinance will protect the public
health, safety and welfare by assuring reasonable protection of
potentially historic residences until such time as the City has
completed permanent regulations, while at the same time permitting
remodeling and, in many circumstances, demolition of residential
structures at the request of the property owner.
980729 bdc 0052043
$.~/9J~_~. Section 16.50.020 of Chapter 16.50 of Title 16
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is~hereby amended to read:
16.50.020 Definit±ons. For the purposes of this Chapter,
the following definitions shall apply:
(a)"Aggrieved Person" shall mean a person entitled to
appeal specified decisions and determinations made pursuant to this
chapter, and shall include only the owner of a. Protected Residence,
or other person acting with the owner’s written consent, or a
residential property owner or resident who owns or resides in
property within three hundred feet of the Protected Residence. A
member of the city council, city staff or any city board or
commission member shall not be deemed to be an Aggrieved Person
unless they are an applicant under this chapter.
(b) "Compatibility Review Standards" means design
criteria and compatibility standards promulgated pursuant to
Section 16. 050.110 which shall be applied by City staff in a
ministerial review of the design quality ~of a Contributing
Residence replacement structure. The Compatibility Review
Standards shall assure that the replacement structure is compatible
with the pattern of the existing neighborhood and that it is at
least equal in design quality to the existing structure. In order
to accomplish this, the Standards may include provisions for minor
adjustments to front setback, garage placement, and daylight plane
requirements where necessary to achieve the goals of the Standards
include an exception process to provide hardship relief when site
conditions cause, unusual circumstances that make application of
such Standards an unreasonable burden.
(c)~Contributing Residence" means any Protected
Residence that is not a Historic Landmark Residence, but which is
determined to meet the applicable Standards for Historic
Designation pursuant to this chapter.
(d)"Demolition" means removal of more than fifty
percent of the perimeter walls, or removal of
portion of a street-facing facade
~~i!ii!i~iiiiii~iiiiii~9, of a protected residence other than a
historic landmark residence. Demolition does not include the
removal and replacement in kind of deteriorated, non-repairable
materials required for the restoration and rehabilitation of the
historic structure and resulting in no change to its exterior
appearance or historic character.
2
980729 bde 0052043
(e)~Historic Landmark Residence" means any residential
~Significant Building" as defined by Section 16.49.020, and any
Protected Residence that is determined to meet the applicable
Standards for Historic Designation pursuant to this chapter.
(f)~Historic Landmark Residence Alteration" means any
alteration to the exterior of a Historic Landmark Residence,
including but not limited to removal or modification of siding,
roofing materials, windows, chimneys, walls, or any other
architectural features.
(g)"Historic Landmark Residence Demolition" means an
act or process, including neglect or failure to maintain, that
destroys or razes in whole or in part a Historic Landmark
Residence. Demolition does not include the removal and replacement
in kind of deteriorated, non-repairable materials required for the.
restoration and rehabilitation of the historic structure and
resulting in no change to its exterior appearance or historic
character.
(h)"Historic Merit Evaluation" means the director of
planning and community environment’s or his or her designee’s
written determination of whether a Protected Residence will be
designated as a Historic Landmark Residence, Contributing
Residence, or Structure without Historic Merit, which determination
shall be reached upon the basis of a recommendation of the historic
resources board which has been developed during a public hearing
noticed pursuant to Section 16.49.040.
(i)~Historic Merit Screening" means a preliminary
review and written determination of the historic merit of a
Protected Residence, conducted by the director of planning and
community environment or his or her designee, for the purpose of
determining whether there is no possibility that the Protected
Residence could meet the Standards for Historic Designation.
(j)"Minor Project" means a project involving a
Protected Residence, other than a structure or site which has been
placed on the City’s Historic Inventory pursuant to Chapter 16.49,
that does not affect a street-facing facade, does not affect the
half of any side facade which is nearest the street, does not
affect more than ten percent (10%) of the exterior perimeter walls,
and is limited to the first floor.
(k) "Protected Residence" means a residential structure
that was originally constructed before 1940.
(i)"Residential structure" means a structure currently
or most recently used for residential purposes, and which was
originally constructed for residential use.
980729 bdc 0052043
(m)~Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark
Residences" means criteria and standards promulgated pursuant to
Section 16.50.110 which govern Historic Landmark Residence
Alteration, and which shall include and be based upon, at a
minimum, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
and the ~idelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as they
may be amended.
(n)"Standards for Historic .Designation" means criteria
and standards promulgated pursuant to Section 16.50.110 for the
determination of whether a Protected Residence shall be designated
as a Historic Landmark Residence, Contributing Residence, or a
Structure without Historic Merit.
(o)"Structure without Historic Merit" means a Protected
Residence that is neither a Historic Landmark Residence or
Contributing Residence.
SECTION 3. Section 16.50.080 of Chapter 16,50 of Title 16
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read:
16.50.080 Compatibility Review for Replacement of
Contributing Residences. No building, demolition or other permit
for the demolition of any contributing residence shall be issued
unless the proposed replacement structure complies with the
compatibility review standards.
16.50.090 Alteration review for historic landmark
residences.
(a)No building, demolition or other permit for the
alteration of any historic landmark residence shall be issued
except upon the director of planning and community environment’s or
his or her designee’s written determination that the proposed
alteration meets the standards for alteration of historic landmark
residencesi~i ~ ~iiiii~~i!ii~ determination shall be reachedupon the basis of a recommendation of the historic resources board
which has been developed during a public hearing noticed pursuant
to Section 16.49.040
980729 bdc 0052043
(b)The director of planning and community environment’s
determination shall be either to accept the historic resources
board’s recommendation or to return the application to the board
for reconsideration.
(c)alteration review determinations shall be appealable
directly to the city council by an aggrieved person as provided in
Section 16.50.120(b).
SECTION 4. The City Council has determined that it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this
ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment because
the construction and reconstruction of single family homes on lots
of record is itself an exempt activity.
SECTIQN 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon the
commencement of the thirty-first,day after the date of its adoption
and shall remain in effect until the earlier of its repeal or
the last day Ordinance No. 4381, as it may be amended from time to
time, is.in effect.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
City Attorney
Interim Director of Planning
and Community Environment
980729 bde 0052043
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS
INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1996, the Council adopted an
ordinance entitled, "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO A!)DING CHAPTER 16.50 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TOESTA]gLISH INTERIM REGULATIONS GOVERNING HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND
DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES BUILT BEFORE 1940 AND REVIEW
OF THE DESIGN QUALITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY OF REPLACEMENT
STRUCTURES"; and
WHEREAS, the above-referenced ordinance required the
Director of Planning and Community Environment to promulgate
written Historic Preservation Regulations to facilitate
implementation of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Regulations must include
Compatibility Review Standards and Standards for Historic
Designation; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1996, the Council adopted
Resolution No. 7631, which approved Historic Preservation
Regulations including the Compatibility Review Standards which were
Exhibit "A" to that resolution, and Standards for Historic
Designation which were Exhibit ~B"; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 1997, the Council adopted Resolution
No. 7660, which amended the Historic Preservation Regulations
including the Compatibility Review Standards; and
WHEREAS, Council has directed and staff has recommended
modifications to the Historic Preservation Regulations in order to
accomplish several streamlining and process improvement objectives;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the proposed amended
Historic Preservation Regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION I. The amended Compatibility Review Standards
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" are hereby approved.
These Standards replace in their entirety the Compatibility Review
Standards approved by Council by Resolution No. 7660.
1
980729 bdc 0052044
SECTION 2. The Historic Preservation Regulations approved
by this Resolution shall be published and distributed to the public
as an appendix to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this resolution does not
constitute a project subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
City Manager
City Attorney
Intsrim Director of Planning
and Community Environment
2980729 bde 0052044
EXHIBIT ~A’
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE REPLACEMENT OR SUBSTANTIAL
ALTERATION OF PRE-1940 CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCES
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment Department
December 1996
Revised and Updated April 1997
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
I.How to Use These Compatibility Review Standards .........2
II.Remodeling a Pre-1940 House ........................10
HI.Requirements and Recommendations for Designing a Compatible
Replacement House ............................... llA
Part 1: Streetscape & Neighborhood Character ........12
Part 2: Architectural Style .....................27
IV.Completing the Compatibility Worksheet: Identifying
Neighborhood Character and Architectural Style ..........41
V. Guide to Palo Alto Architectural Styles & Other References 45
VI. Corn ~atibility Worksheet ............................50
INTRODUCTION
Background and Purpose of the Compatibility Review Standards
In the first nine months of 1996, permits were granted for 62 single
family houses in Palo Alto to be demolished and replaced with new
houses. Thirty-four of these houses were constructed before 1940 and
located mostly in the city’s older, more traditional neighborhoods.
Concerned that the loss of so many older houses would erode the
distinctive character of these neighborhoods, the City Council adopted
Interim Regulations to limit or restrict demolition of houses that have
historic significance, either as Landmarks or as Contributors to the
historic character of the neighborhood, to encourage sensitive
rehabilitation of older homes, and to assure that in cases where these
houses are demolished the houses that replace them will contribute the
same quality of design and compatibility with neighborhood
characteristics as the original houses. These provisions help to assure
current and future residents that the character of their neighborhood will
not undergo radical change, and to protect the investments that residents
have made in their houses and neighborhoods.
When do the Compatibility Review Standards Apply?
The Compatibility Review Standards apply to new construction that
replaces a house that was built before 1940 and has been determined to
have historic significance as a Contributing Residence. In addition, the
Standards apply to extensive remodels of Contributing Residences when
50% or more of the exterior walls or part of the front facade are being
removed. In rare instances where a Landmark building is permitted to
be removed or demolished, the replacement structure also would have to
comply with these Standards. See Section I. for more details about how
to determine whether the Compatibility Review. Standards apply to your
project.
The Compatibility Review Standards do not apply to remodels of
Landmark Historic Residences and buildings within historic districts
such as Professorville: these buildings are subject to The Secretary of
the lnterior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ol
SECTION I:HOW TO USE THESE COMPATIBILITY REVIEW
STANDARDS
Consider the option of an addition to or remodel of your house
rather than demolition and replacement.
An addition to or remodel.of your older house that is sensitive to its
original characteristics will help to preserve the distinctive historic
architectural qualities of Palo Alto. Before you decide to demolish and
replace your house, consider whether an addition or remodel will meet
your household’s needs.
Read Section II, which discusses in more detail the opportunities and
benefits of a successful addition or remodel. As you complete the
Compatibility Worksheet in Section Iii, consider the special
characteristics of your house and how it contributes to the special
character of the neighborhood.
If you decide to retain at least 50% of the exterior perimeter walls of
your house, including the front facade, you are not required to comply
with the Compatibility Review Standards. Instead, use the information
provided in the Compatibility Review Standards and the Compatibility
Worksheet exercise to help you identify the essential~ characteristics of
your house and neighborhood and to design your addition or remodel in
a way that will celebrate and enhance the style of your house and the ’
special qualities of the neighborhood.
e Determine whether the Compatibility Review Standards are
mandatory for your project.
Your project must comply with the Requirements of the Compatibility
Review Standards if both of the following apply:
The original house that is being replaced or extensively
,remodeled was constructed before 1940 and has been determined
to be an Historic Landmark Residence or a Contributing
Residence
The proposed construction plans will result in removal of 50% or
more of the exterior walls or part of the street facing facade(s) of
the original house. The street-facing facade consists of all
architectural features, including walls, architecturally featured
roofs and awnings, porches, columns, eaves, trims, windows,
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE
HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS
doors, and architectural appurtenances that create a coherent
architectural composition on a plane facing the street. The extent
of the street-facing facade shall continue back ten feet back from
the primary front street-facing wall of the composition.
Find out if your house is an Historic Landmark Residence or
Contributing Residence, or is located in an historic district (The City
Council-adopted criteria for evaluating historic merit are available
at the Planning Department.).
1)First, verify that your house was constructed prior to 1940.
Consult the Assessor’s data, available on microfiche in the
Planning Department, which will show the date of construction
for your house.
2)Next, consult the City of Palo Alto’s current Historic Inventory,
and fmd out whether it has been identified in the Inventory as a
structure with historic architectural or cultural significance.
Structures identified as Category 1 or 2 are considered to be
Historic Landmark Residences, but structures identified as
Category 3 or 4 will require an Historic Merit Evaluation to
assess their level of historic significance.
Because the Inventory has not yet been updated to assure that all
structures with historic, architectural or cultural merit are
identified, the house may still have historic merit even if it is not
identified in the Inventory.
3)If your house is not on the Inventory, you must request a Historic
Merit Screening by Planning staff to determine whether the house
could possibly be considered to be a Contributing Residence or a
Historic Landmark Residence.
4)If based on the Historic Merit Screening, it appears your post-
1940 house could not meet the Standards for Historic
Designation, then you are not required to follow the requirements
which apply to demolition, alteration and replacement of
Contributing Residences.
You may wish, however, to follow the recommendations in order
to help assure your house is compatible with the quality and
character of other homes in your neighborhood.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE .3
I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS
5)If it appears, based upon the Historic Merit Screening, that your
house may meet the Standards for Historic Designation, a
Historic Merit Evaluation will be required. This evaluation will
include a recommendation by the Historic Resources Board to
the Planning Director regarding the determination that a pre-1940
house is either a Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing
Residence.
Figure 1: Contributing Buildings support the historic character of a neighborhood or
district.
6)
7)
If the house is determined to be a Historic Landmark
Residence, no application for demolition will be approved during
the current interim regulations, except under special
circumstances. Any remodel or additions will need to be
approved by the Historic Resources Board according to National
Standards and Guidelines. See Planning Department staff for
more information about these Standards.
If your house is determined to be a Contributing Residence, you
must comply with the Compatibility-Review Standards and
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE -4
HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS
obtain approval for a remodel or for a replacement structure prior
to demolition or alteration of the Contributing residence.
Demolition is defined as removal-of more than fifty percent of
the perimeter walls, or removal of all or part of the street-facing
facade. Demolition does not include removal and replacement in
kind of deteriorated, non-repairable materials required for the
restoration or rehabilitation of the structure and resulting in no
change to its exterior appearance or historic character.
o Review the Requirements and Recommendations section of the
Compatibility Review Standards, and Complete the Compatibility
Worksheet
1)Look over the Requirements and Recommendations section
(Section HI) to become familiar with their goals and general
content. Make sure the architect or designer you may hire to
assist you in designing your addition or new home is familiar
with them as well.
2)Complete the first sections of the Compatibility Worksheet
(Section VI.), which helps you assess the elements of the
"streetscape" which help contribute to the character of your
neighborhood. You may want to photograph elements you feel
give your neighborhood special appeal. Use Section IV to guide
you in completing the Worksheet.
Complete the second section of the Compatibility Worksheet,
which helps you assess the architectural character of your home
and other homes in your neighborhood. Refer to Section IV and
to the Guide to Palo Architectural Styles and other references in
Section V for help in determining the predominant style of your
house and neighborhood.
4)As you begin reviewing your options and developing your plans,
jL~s recommended that you make a pre-application appointment
to meet with the ci _ty’s preservation architect, who can help you
in complying with the Compatibility Review Standards and assist
you with your application.
After you have learned more about your house’s architectural
style, take a hard look at the possibility of retaining some or most
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE
I. HOW TO USE THESE STAlffDARDS
6)
of your Contributing residence, and accommodating your needs
for additional space and updated amenities with an addition or
remodel. See Section II for a discussion of some of the
advantages of doing so. Retain any sketches you make from this
stage and attach them to your Compatibility Worksheet, whether
or not you decide to retain part or elements of the existing home.
Having decided the amenities you wish to include in your new
home and the elements of the original home you wish to retain,
work with your designer to produce a design which meets the
Compatibility Standards. Although ’,’recommended practices" are
not absolutely required, by trying to fulfill them wherever
possible you will have a greater oppommity to produce a house
which is compatible with neighborhood streetscape and
architectural character.
7)Upon completion of your design, complete Sections 3 and 4 of
your Compatibility Worksheet, which ask you to describe your
proposed design in relationship to Neighborhood Character and
Streetscape Patterns, and to Palo Alto architectural traditions and
the original house. If you notice ways to refme the design to
increase its compatibility with neighborhood and architectural
character during this process, do so, noting your efforts on the
Worksheet.
Submit an application for Compatibility Review of your proposed
remodel or replacement Residence
When you have completed the Compatibility Worksheet and have
assembled the other Submittal Requirements identified below, make an
appointment with the city’s preservation architect to submit your
application for Compatibility Review to the Planning Department.
You will be given a date by which the assessment of your design’s
compatibility will be available. This written assessment will include a
determination of approval, approval with conditions, required and
recommended design or application revisions before a determination can
be made, or denial of approval. If you have any questions about the
recommendations or requirements, contact the city’s preservation
architect.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS ~PAGE o6
I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS
Submittal Requirements for Design Compatibility Review (note." this is
a partial list - refer to the complete checklist available from the
Planning Division.):
Photographs:
a.Photo montage of the block, both sides of the street
b.Photographs showing all sides of the original
house, garage, and any other structures on the site
Photographs of architectural details of the house
and other buildings
All photographs should be 4 x 6 inches
mounted on cardboard sheets 81/2 x 14 inches
with property address on each sheet, or
unmounted, with property address on the back of
each photograph
Completed Compatibility Worksheet, assessing character of
the neighborhood and showing how th~ replacement house
meets the requirements of the Compatibility Review
Standards.
Plans:
a.Schematic design plans showing all proposed
development
Site plan showing location of all existing and
proposed structures and all existing trees on the
site, the location of adjacent structures, and the
location of all existing curbs, curb cuts, paving, and
other infrastructure including street trees located in
the Public Right of Way.
Consult the Submittal Checklist, available from the Planning
Department, for more specific direction about information to
be included on development plans.
Aerial photo or Sanborn Map excerpt (~vailable from the
Planning Division and Building Divisions, respectively.)
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE
I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS
Figure 2: Bungalow courts found in older Palo Alto neighborhoods include several
small dwellings grouped together on a large lot or a collection of very small lots.
These courts and other multifamily residential buildings may require flexibility in
applying the Compatibility Review Standards, particularly regarding driveway and
garage treatment.
6.Exceptions to the Compatibility Review Standards.
In cases where unusual site conditions make the strict application of the
Compatibility Review Standards an unreasonable burden, exceptions to
the Standards may be considered. For example, in cottage courts or
other sties with multiple units, driveway and garage requirements in the
Standards may not be appropriate. The Exception review process will
involve a hearing opportunity and a decision by the Planning Director or
his designee.
proposed alternative better achieves design quality and compatibility
with the existing neighborhood than would the strict application of the
requirements of the Compatibility Standards, "
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE .8
I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE .9
SECTION H: REMODELING A PRE-1940 HOME
Remodeling or adding on to an existing house may be the best alternative for
households that need more space or have changing requirements. There may
be an opportunity to improve the layout of the entire house and to enhance
compatibility with the neighborhood. By retaining elements of the original
homes and continuing their architectural character in additions, remodeled
homes can preserve Palo Alto’s precious architectural heritage and the charm
and desirability of older neighborhoods. You may also want to explore tax
incentives for restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings.
Figure 3: This well-designed remodel added desired additional space while respecting
and enhancing the character of the original home.
In remodeling a pre-1940 home, keep the following thoughts in mind:
The first step in planning an addition is. to study the Zoning Ordinance
regulations to determine what may be built. Be aware that you can
apply for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) if you fred that you
cannot adhere to the strict provisions of the zoning ordinance for site
development regulations such as setbacks, daylight planes, height, lot
coverage and incidental amounts of floor area. Home Improvement
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o10
II. REMODELING OF A PRE-1940 HOME
Exceptions rapply to projects where 75% of exterior walls and 25% of
existing roof area is maintained, and are intended to help sustain the
integrity of the existing house design concept or neighborhood
character.
If you are remodeling a Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing
Residence, you may also be eligible to use the State Historical Building
Code. This code provides added flexibility in meeting the intent of the
code where strict interpretation of the Uniform Building Code could
adversely affect the preservation of historic buildings.
Next step, review these recommendations and requirements, recognizing
that if you retain more than 50% of exterior walls including the street-
facing facade, the requirements are not mandatory. In either case,
following the recommendations will help you assure that your
remodeled home preserves its original architectural character and
enhances your neighborhood character. You may also wish to consult
an architect to help you with the planning and design process.
Use the Worksheet in Section VI and the reference materials in Sections
V to identify distinguishing characteristics of the neighborhood and
patterns which contribute to the streetscape. Refer to the _Guide to Palo
Alto Architectural Styles and the reference materials in Section V to
identify the original architectural style of your house.
As you design your addition, look for ways to continue the architectural
character and features of the original home in the remodeled portion.
Be sure that if you are adding at the ground floor or second story that
the overall building massing is consistent with the house’s architectural
character. Be sure to continue streetscape patterns that help def’me
neighborhood character as well.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE .11
SECTION 1II: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of these Compatibility Review Standards is to guide design and
construction of new residential structures or substantial alterations to pre- 1940
residential structures to preserve the special and desirable qualities of the
neighborhood.
Defining Characteristics of Pre-1940 Palo Alto Neighborhoods
These special qualities come from characteristic patterns of building
placement, open space, landscaping and architectural detail. These patterns are
similar throughout Palo Alto’s pre-1940 neighborhoods, even though the styles
of architecture may be varied.
The repetition of these qualities in hundreds of houses, each one different yet
conforming to the essential pattern, gives these neighborhoods their strong
character, cohesion, and visual richness.
Essential characteristics of these neighborhoods can be identified in the
following six points.
The main focus of each house is on the design of the front facade,
particularly the entry, and its connection to the front garden and to
the street.
Regularly spaced street trees and planting strips line the streets,
helping to define the street and sidewalk area while providing shade
and unifying the streetscape.
The houses are located in a "garden" setting, with planting, open
space and views between buildings.
Garages and car parking are located at the back of the site and do
not dominate the front or side street facades.
The architecture shows careful attention to scale, balance,
proportion, detail, materials and craftsmanship.
Architectural styles reflect the history of Palo Alto, local materials,
lifestyle and climate.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ llA
REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 4: Houses are located in a "garden" setting.
Organization of the Requirements and Recommendations Section
This Section is divided into two parts. Part 1: Streetscape and Open Space
includes those elements that determine the view from the street and the
arrangement of buildings and open spaces. Part 2: Architectural Character
includes those elements that comprise the design of the individual structures,
which in turn contribute to the character of the neighborhood as a whole.
Each section describing one of the characteristic elements is organized in the
following way:
A description of the Existing Pattern and how this element
contributes to the special character of the pre-1940 neighborhood
An outline of "Recommended Practices" that will help to
preserve and enhance that character.
o A list of the "Requirements" that each project will have to meet
regarding this element in order to be approved.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯12
m. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Part 1: Streetscape and Open Space Recommendations and Requirements
The front yard, sidewalk, street trees, fences, driveways, landscaping,
everything in front of the house, all contribute to our experience as we
walk or drive down the street. This combination of elements constitutes
the streetscape. The streetscape of older Palo Alto neighborhoods is
characterized by a high degree of architectural variety and pedestrian
detail, unified by certain characteristic patterns of landscaping and
building placement.
Figure 5: Street trees and buildings with similar setbacks define the street edge and
frame the sidewalk area, while porches, from gardens and architectural details add
human scale and pedestrian interest.
FRONT AND STREET SIDE SETBACKS/FRONT DAYLIGHT PLANE
Existing Pattern:
The front setback is the distance from the front of the house to
the front property line (not the sidewalk). The minimum setback
established by the zoning regulations is 20 feet. However, in
historic neighborhoods with a different setback pattern a smaller
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 13
IN. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
or larger setback pattern may prevail, and should be respected by
new construction.
Many traditional house styles have tall front facades that cannot
meet the Front Daylight Plane requirements in the zoning
regulations.
Recommended Practice:
Maintain the existing setback pattem by building to the
prevailing setback line. Notice that comer houses may be
located closer to the street than other houses on the block.
Requirements:
Locate at least 50% of the front facade of the house at
the prevailing setback line, with the remainder of the
front facade at or behind that link ~
setback "" ..... "- - "-’-- e-chrst, st-~ - ~" ........... -"’- " ~ " - ~
~:::::::-.~::::::
It is not necessary to comply with the Front Daylight
Plane requirements in the Zoning regulations.
e If the house is on a corner and the original house is
located closer to the street than the prevailing setback
line, then the required front setback is the front setback
of the original hous~ Side setback requirements set by
zoning apply unless the original street side facade is
being retainecL
If the front facade of the original house is being
preserved, the setback of the original house may
alternatively be the allowed setback.
Similarly, if the street side facade of a house on a corner
lot is preserved, the setback of the original house is
considered the allowed setback.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ° 14
III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GARAGES
Existing Pattern:
In most pre-1940 neighborhoods, garages are separate from the house and
located at the back of the lot. This pattern continues the outbuilding
relationship to the main house that carriage houses had in a previous era. It
has a powerful impact on the character of these neighborhoods in at least five
ways:
Figure 6, 6a. Location and design of garages and driveways are an important
component of neighborhood character:
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ° 15
REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GARAGES (continued)
1) the amount of paving in the from yard is the minimum required for access; 2) the
most prominent design element on the facade of the house is the entry or a major
window rather than the garage; 3) side driveways provide open space and separation
between houses; 4) cars can be parked in the driveway while still being out of the front
yard; 5) the difference in size between houses and garages establishes a pattern of
variety in building volumes, rather than mostly large, uniformly sized buildings.
Recommended Practices:
Locate the garage to minimize its visibility from the street.
Design the garage to be architecturally compatible with the
house but not competing with the house as the primary focus.
Figure 7: Attached garage in rear, partially screened by front of house, provides
similar appearance to traditional detached rear garage and is permitted with certain
conditions.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 16
REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GARAGES (continued)
Requirements:
Locate the garage at the rear of the site and detached
from the house by at least 12 fee~ If located at least 75
feet from the front property line, zoning allows the
garage to be located adjacent to the side and rear
property line
Figure 8: Diagram of permitted attached garage location
for standard size non-comer lots.
Alternatively, the garage
may be attached to the
house, provided that it is
located no closer than 60
feet from the front
property line, and that a
side setback as
determined by current
zoning ordinances is
maintained. The garage
may project no more
.than ten feet (*) from the
side facade of the house,
when viewed from the
street, thus partially
screening view of the
driveway and garage
from the streeL No part
of the second story can
extend over the garage
within lO feet of the
garage side wall The
garage must have a
separate roof that is the
same pitch as the house
roof, or less. In this case,
second floor balconies
are not permitted over
the garage, in order to
protect the privacy of the
adjacent property.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 17
Ill. REQLrlR.EMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
If the house is located on a corner, the garage may be
placed in the rear yard setback and accessed from the
side street. The garage must be located at least 16feet
from the street side property link Alternatively, garages
on corner lots may be attached if located outside the rear
yard setback. The front of the garage must be recessed
¯ at least 2feet behind the street-facing side facade of thehous ii
Figure 9: Many existing houses on comer lots have detached garages located in the
rear yard with access from the street. These Standards permit garages in this location,
which can provide better access between the house and garden than an attached
garage.
In a single car garage, use a garage door that is 8feet
wide, or less. In a double car garage, use two doors not
more than 8feet wide separated by a vertical support at
least 8 inches wide, or use one door not over 16feet
wide Where three car garages are permitted by
ordinance, use one door eight feet wide and one door 16
feet wide, or less.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE -lS
m. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Design garage doors with square or vertically
proportioned elements to minimize the apparent w~dth of
the doors. If the door is more than eight feet wide,
design the door so that it has the appearance of being
divided vertically into two distinct sections. Do not use
Rancher style doors, because the strong horizontal
proportions emphasize the width of the door. Do not use
steel garage doors. Do not use non-rectangular or
decorative windows on garages or garage doors.
If the garages on the two adjacent properties and the
garage for the original house are on the same sides of
their respective houses, then locate the driveway for the
new house in this same way so that the pattern of open
space between houses is preserved.
If alleyway access is provided, required parking shah be
accessed from the alley and the garage shall be located
within 5feet of th.e rear property line
On substandard lots less than 50feet wide or 80feet
deep, and where no alley access is available, only one
on-site parking space is required and a single car
attached garage is allowed. The front of the garage
must be recessed at least two feet behind the main front
facade of the house If two parking spaces are provided,
one must be tandem.
Carports are not permitted, unless they are located where
the open sides cannot be seen from a public street.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯19
~,REQUIREMENTSANDRECOMMENDA~ONS
DRIVEWAYS
Existing Pattern:
Driveways at nearly all ofPalo Alto’s pre-1940 houses are
between 6.5 and 10 feet wide, with 9 feet being the most
common width. They are typically located several feet from the
side property line and several feet from adjacent building walls;
usually this space is planted with a hedge or other landscaping.
Tradifionally~ driveway surfaces are treated in one of two ways.
The most common treatment is a simple, unobtrusive surface of
asphalt or poured cement. In other cases, the driveway is
surfaced with bricks, cobbles, stones, rubble or gravel, and adds
textural interest and an element of craftsmanship to the front
garden.
Figure 10: Not permitted. This 20 foot wide driveway with attached walk reduces the
from yard landscaping dramatically and displaces street trees and curbside planting.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ~ 20
DRIVEWAYS (continued)
Recommended Practice:
]!I. tLEQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Treat the driveway as a garden element. Minimize the
width of the driveway and the amount of paving on the
site. "Hollywood" strips, with.planting between the wheel
tracks, may be used instead of solid paving. Use simple,
traditional paving materials, and provide planting that will
help to frame the site and screen the paving.
Requirements:
Make driveways 9feet wide or less. Driveway curb cuts
must have a vertical curb and be no more than lO feet
wide with a 3foot radius. Within 27feet of the garage
doors, driveways may widen to no more than the width of
the garage door(s) plus 2feel However, no driveway
may be more than 12feet wide within 5feet of the public
sidewalk. Interior sidewalks, patios, etc. may adjoin the
driveway for no more than 6 linear feeL
Locate .driveways at least 1. 5feet from the side or rear
property line and at least 1.5feet from the side of the
house to provide space for planting on both sides of the
driveway, except that no planting space is required
between the driveway and the back half of the hous~
(An illustration or diagram will be provided)
Use the following materials for driveway surfaces:
asphalt; poured cement with a troweled or exposed
~tgg~~ish;.real brick, cobbles, or stone; rubble;
, ¯ ¯
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW ’STANDARDS PAGE.° 21
DRIVEWAYS (cominued)
m. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 11: By providing a low hedge, wall or fence and by setting garages back from
the closest street facing wall, the view of driveways and garage entries can be
screened. This attached garage is on a comer lot and accessible from a side street.
If the driveway widens to more than 18feet at any
location inside the property line that is visible from a
public street, provide a wall, fence or hedge along the
property line to screen the paving.
STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
Existing Pattern:
Street trees are one of the most striking features of Palo Alto’s
older neighborhoods. Trees provide shade and canopy and help
defme the street and sidewalk areas. They also provide a
unifying element to the streetscape of older neighborhoods, while
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 22
IlL REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (continued).
the variety of tree species used provide a range of shade, color
and other characteristics.
The planted area within the strip between sidewalk and street
provides water and nutrients to street trees and additional visual
interest for the pedestrian, while screening views of the street
paving from within the house.
Figure 12: Street trees and planting in the strip between sidewalk and street define a
pedestrian zone and provide a unifying element to the streetscape of older
neighborhoods.
Recommended Practice:
Note the location, spacing and type of street trees on the street
and take this into consideration in the design of the new house,
locations of garage and driveway and the design of landscaping
and paving in the front yard and planting strip.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 23
IlL REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (continued)
Requirements:
Do not relocate, realign or widen a driveway to within l O feet
of any existing street tree, unless it is not possible to access
the site and still meet this requirement.
If street trees are missing along the property frontage on the
street, locate the driveway to allow replacement of the
missing trees at approximately 25feet intervals.
Limit paving or hard surfaces within the parking strip to no
more than $. 5 linear feet per street frontage, not including
the driveway apron.
Provide irrigated planting of ground cover or small shrubs in
the parking strip.
If there is a fence or wall along the property line, provide
irrigated planting in the space between the sidewalk and the
fence or wall
LANDSCAPING
Trees provide shade and canopy and provide an asset to both the individual
property owner and the neighborhood. Mature trees and other large plant
material are a part of the special quality of older neighborhoods.
Recommended practice :
Locate and identify all mature trees and shrubs on the property.
Observe their characteristics and what benefits they may be
providing in terms of shade, seasonal color, etc. Consider that
some may be old species no longer generally available in the
trade and therefore rare. Retain and protect mature vegetation
where possible.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE . 24
LANDSCAPING (continued)
2.
Ill. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Consistent with neighborhood patterns, fence materials and
design should be compatible with the house’s architectural style
and neighborhood character. Solid fences and fences over four
feet tall should be avoided, except to provide backyard privacy.
Locate perimeter fences or walls behind the property line to
Figure 13: The proportion and details of this redwood fencing are compatible with the
Craftsman house.
allow planting to sot’ten the appearance of the fence. If there is
an uninterrupted sweep of lawn across several properties,
maintain this pattern.
Design the landscape to be compatible, with the house design
and neighborhood. Be aware that irrigated front lawns are the
main source of water for many street trees, so if drought
tolerant landscaping is used, consider providing irrigation to the
street trees. If irrigation to the front yard is being turned off
during construction, use soaker hoses to water street trees.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE
m. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LANDSCAPING (continued)
Requirements:
All valley oak and live oak trees over 11. $ inches in diameter
or 36 inches in circumference measured 4. 5feet above
natural grade that are located in required setbacks are
protected under the City’s street tree ordinance and must be
retained.
2.Prior to demolition and during construction, provide
protective fencing and frequent deep watering to all plant
materials that are being retained, including street trees.
Figure 14: Planting is used to define the edges of garden areas and to screen garages
and paving.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 26
’ I[I. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PART 2: ARCItITECTURAL CItARACTER
Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods are characterized by a combination of
architectural styles, with certain styles predominant in each neighborhood.
Each of these historic house styles is composed of a coherent and consistent
combination of materials, window treatments, building massing, ornamentation
and roof treatment. While individual details mayvary, these characteristics
provide a sense of unity within each house and with others of the same style.
Additions and remodels of pre-1940 houses should be compatible with the
style of the original structure. A first step in designing a remodel or addition is
¯ therefore to identify the architectural style of the original home.
Common Architectural Styles in Palo Alto Houses
A number of architectural styles predominate in Palo Alto homes built before
1940. Illustrations anddescriptions of character-defining elements of these
styles can be found in Section V. These houses represent the history of this
area, dating from the founding of the town of Mayfield and Palo Alto through
the start of World War II. While there are some other architectural styles
represented in pre-1940 buildings, the list below includes the most common
styles. This list is in approximate chronological order, with related styles
grouped together. Within theses groups, styles influenced each other and are
sometimes blended in a single building.
Italianate Victorian
Queen Anne Victorian
Colonial Revival
Shingle Style
Craftsman
Bungalow
Spanish Colonial/Mediterranean
Mission Revival
Spanish Eclectic
Tudor
French Eclectic
Modeme
Prairie Style
Minimal Traditional
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯27
REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 15: Shingle style and Craftsman details are blended in shingle-covered houses
with prominent overhanging roof lines. Skilled builders and architects used locally
available redwood and created indoor/outdoor living areas suited to the area’s mild
climate.
Some of the predominant styles are particularly well adapted to the area’s
climate and building materials, such as the Craftsman, Shingle and Spanish
Colonial Revival styles. Prominent California architects such as Julia Morgan
and Birge Clark have designed local homes in these, styles which are an
important part ofPalo Alto’s distinctive architectural heritage.
For further information on Palo Alto and Bay Area architectural traditions,
consult the following references, available at the Planning Department and the
Public Library, and local book stores:
¯Section V: Guide to Palo Alto Architectural Styles
¯Historic and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto
¯Rehab Right; How to Utilize the Full Vialue of Your Old House
¯Single Family Residential Design Guidelines
¯A Field Guide to American Houses., by Virginia and Lee McAlester
°House Styles in America, by James C. Massey and S Shirley Maxwell
°Dover Reprints of late 19th and early 20th century house design books
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 28
m. REQUIREMENTS AND RECO~ATIONS
COMPATIBLE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
Existing Pattern:
Each ofPalo Alto’s older neighborhoods gets its distinctive character
from a blend of architectural styles. Some neighborhoods and blocks
are more eclectic and others are more homogeneous. Often there is a
predominant style, such as the shingle style or bungalow style,, which
gives the neighborhood a sense of unity and distinctiveness.
Recommended Practice:
Where possible, significant architectural features and street
facades of the original house should be retained and the
architectural style of the new construction should continue the
materials, details, proportions and craftsmanship of the original
house to produce a unified overall character.
Figure 16: Simple, symmetrical design of original Colonial Revival house is continued
in an architecturally compatible second story addition.
New residential construction should be compatible with the
architectural character of the neighborhood. Each house should
be designed with an understanding of the characteristic elements
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE . 29
IlL REQU’IR.EMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMPATIBLE AKCI-ffTECTUKAL STYLE (continued)
of the particular style selected for the house and with careful
attention to scale, balance, proportion, detail and craftsmanship.
When using characteristics of a traditional architectural style,
use these characteristics in a consistent manner, rather than
combining characteristics of a different style in a.single
structure. For example, Mediterranean/Spanish style stucco
houses should not employ neocolonial details such as shutters
or steep roofs. Where characteristics of related styles are often
combined in Palo Alto homes, elements of these related styles
can be combined into a unified composition.
Requirements:
Plans which use traditional architectural features are
required to identify a style from the references: Section V:
Common Palo Alto Architectural S~_ les; Historic and
Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto; R_ehab
~" Single-Family Des~n Guidelines, A Field Guide the
American Houses, House S~_ les in America, or Dover
Reprints. " ~ "
WINDOWS
Existing Pattern:
Windows contribu(e a great deal to the character of the house. An
addition that uses windows that are significantly different from those
used in the original house will severely disrupt the character of the
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯30
REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WINDOWS (continued)
house. For instance, using sliding aluminum windows in a house that
has wood double hung windows would detract from the architectural
character of the house.
Certain distinctive window shapes, such as round, arched, pointed, fan-
shaped or diamond-shaped windows, need to be used sparingly so that
they complement the architectural style and do not overwhelm the
proportions of the facade. Extremely tall windows can also disrupt the
scale of the house. Most older residential styles did not use non-
rectangular and oversized windows at all, or used them only for
emphasizing the major living area or an entry.
Figure 17: Palladian window in this Mission Revival home highlights the main living
area.
Recommended Practices:
Each architectural style is characterized by specific window
proportions, materials, mullion detailing, trim and placement. Refer to
the description of common architectural styles and examples of original
houses for models of appropriate window treatment for the
architectural style of your proposed design.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE.- 31
III. REQLrI1LEMENTS AND 1LECOMMENDATIONS
WINDOWS (continued)
Figure 18: Many older houses have a distinctive muntin pattern which is repeated in
windows throughout the house, True divided lites provide shadow and depth.
Requirements:
Where the architectural style of the original house is being
retained, reuse or match original window materials.
Maintain proportions, detailing and materials of original
windows.
2.
No windows on street facades can
be taller than the top of the first floor of the building. Where
non-rectangular windows are used~ they must be compatible
with the architectural character of the house and .
neighborhood. This limitation does not apply to windows
located on the front door.
V~ndows must be wood, wood with vinyl or metal cladding,
or steel. V~nyl or aluminum windows will be allowed for
bathrooms and basements but must have the same or similar
finish to other windows. Windows must have clear glass,
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯32
REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WINDOWS (continued)
except that glass block or frosted glass may be used in
bathrooms or for privacy along property lines.
Windows with divided lights must be true divided lights, or
double pane windows with full size (minimum 3/8" deep)
muntins attached to the exterior and interior of the glass.
Recessed windows: In stucco walls, recess windowpane a
minimum of 2. 5 inches behind the outside wall surface, not
including trim around the windows, in order to enhance the
impression of the massiveness of the walls. In other types of
wa~[~ a minimum recess,~ l.5 inches is required. ~
Dormer windows may be used only where, they open directly
into habitable spac~ This does not preclude small,
"eyebrow" type roof vents, where compatible with the
architectural style.
FRONT PORCHES AND ENTRY FEATURES
Existing Pattern:
Entry features in Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods include front
porches, alcoves, loggias, terraces, and covered or uncovered stoops.
Front porches can be viewed as covered entry features which are open
on two or more sides. These front porches and entries often provide a
seating area as well as an entryway, and become an important scene for
neighborly interaction while providing visual interest to the passerby.
They also provide a transition in scale between the house and the
outdoors at the pedestrian scale.
The materials, proportions and location of front porches, entries and
primary windows should be compatible with the house style and
neighborhood character.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯33
WINDOWS (continued)
REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 19: New house incorporating front porch and other patterns which enhance
street.
Requirements:
1. If there is an establishedpattern of porches on the block, (50
% of houses on the block face or on both sides of the street
combined), then provide a front porch.
If a porch is not incorporated, include an entry feature or
principal window (larger than other windows) in a main
living area on the front of the housa
Design porches with a minimum dimension of at least 6feet .
in depth and an area of at least 60 square feet to provide both
an entry area and usable seating area.
Entry feature openings and roof eaves cannot be higher than
the top of the first floor of the building.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 34
m. REQUIR.EMENTS AND ILECOMlv~NDATIONS
BUILDING MASSING (continued)
Figure 20: Arched entry and accent window and roof projection call attention to front
door without exaggerating entry and facade proportions.
BUILDING MASSING
Existing Pattern:
Building massing is a fundamental ingredient of architectural style and
neighborhood character. While many houses in Palo Alto’s older
neighborhoods are two stories, they often contain a number of elements
which serve to decrease the visual impact of the two story volume with
a one story portion, roof or gable details, articulated walls, or entry
features. These features provide apedestrian scale. The taller
building elements and trees help define the larger scale of the street.
Together these elements contribute to the overall character and
richness of the streetscape. Building massing is also a key concern of
neighbors, where two story dements can affect sunlight access, views
and privacy for adjacent properties~
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 35
m, REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BUILDING MASSING (continued)
Figure 21: New two-story house which uses dormer windows in a steeply sloping roof
to reduce the apparent height and bulk of the house from the street.
Recommended Practices:
.¸
o
Employ one story dements such as porches, entry features, and
arcades to create a transition in scale between the street and
two story building dements.
Consider neighbor’s needs for sunlight, privacy and views.
Use setbacks or sloping roofs to reduce shadows and
intrusions on neighbor’s windows and open spaces.
Building massing should be compatible with the house’s
architectural style and neighborhood character. For
example, for bungalow designs and other traditionally
single-story houses avoid two story elements unless they
are set back at least ten feet from front and rear walls.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯36
¯ ’ m, REQUIREMENTS A.N-D RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 22: Second story addition is set behind front part of the house to preserve
single story scale from sidewalk. Roof detailing is repeated to unify design.
ROOF DESIGN
Existing Pattern:
Roof lines and the detailing of roof design and construction
contributes to the character of Palo Alto’ s older neighborhoods.
Generally, the existing pattern is houses composed of simple
shapes with simple roof forms. Some newer houses have
introduced a profusion of roofs over individual building
elements, which clutter the facade. Roofs should not over-
emphasize the garage or entryway to the detriment of the overall
facade.
Roof forms found in Palo Alto vary fromthe shallow to moderate
slopes of bungalow, shingle and Spanish Eclectic houses to the steep
forms of Tudor and Victorian houses. Deep roof overhangs and details
such as exposed rafters and repeating roof forms are distinctive features
of Craftsman and Bungalow style houses, while other styles are
characterized by different patterns of overhang and detailing.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯37
Compatibility with neighborhood patterns and the specific architectural
styles of the house should be continued in new construction.
Traditional roof materials in older Palo Alto neighborhoods depended
upon the architectural style. Shingle style houses used wood shingles
and shakes; Spanish style houses used genuine clay tile, or tar and
gravel for fiat roofs; Tudor and neocolonial houses sometimes used
slate.
Recommended Practices:
Where roofs are specially highlighted as a prominent design feature, use
authentic, high quality materials such as wood shake, wood shingle,
clay tile or slate.
Requirements:
Roof line, roof details and roof materials must be compatible
with the architectural style of the house to produce an
overall, unified architectural styl~ For traditional styles, the
style must be identified and the roof features must be
Figure 23: Compatible second story addition preserves the cascading roof lines and
horizontal massing typical of the bungalow style, repeating original Roof line and
detailing,
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 38
lII. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ROOF DESIGN (continued)
consistent with those described for that style in the following
references: Section V: Guide to Palo Alto Architectural
~" Historic and Architectural Resources of the Cir. of
Palo Alto; Rehab Right: or Single-Famil_v Des~n Guidelines.
Alternatively, if an applicant can provide a local example of a
pre-1940 residence with the same combination of
architectural style and roof characteristics they may utilize
that combination of characteristics in their own plans.
The roofs over entry features must have the same roof pitch
and detail as the rest of the hous~ Eaves on entry feature
roofs must be located no higher than the top of the first floor
of the building.
For roofs, use asphalt shingles, wood shingles, wood shakes,
genuine clay tile, genuine slate, standing seam metal roofs,
or tar and gravel
W~LSANDF~S~S
Existing Pattern:
An important characteristic of older neighborhoods is the generally high
level of quality and craRsmanship used in construction and finishing of
wall surfaces. Often the variations in color or texture resulting from
hand craftsmanship add to the appeal and interest of the finished wall.
In addition, certain styles were marked by specific finishes, such as
white, cream or.other light colored paints on stucco for Spanish style
houses, and unpainted redwood shingles and beams on Shingle Style
houses.
Requirements:
Stucco must be applied by hand Do not use spray-on finish
materials or textured paints. Use a traditional stucco finish
texture found on pre-1940 buildings in Palo Alto, such as
Float, Spanish, Mission, Monterey, Californian or English.
Do not use Lace or heaD, textures.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯39
111. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Use real wood siding, not composite products, vinyl or
aluminum siding.
Figure 24: Stucco texture shows the hand of the craftsman and adds visual interest to
large wall expanses found in Spanish Colonial homes.
Change from one wall material to another only where there
is a change in wall plane and at an interior corner, not at an
exterior corner, since this gives the appearance that the
material is only applied to the surface and not integral to the
structure of the wall
Where remodeling, use same materials and finishes as
existing house. If documentation exists showing that the
house originally had a different finish, then that finish may
be usecL
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 40
SECTION IV.COMPLETING THE COMPATI~I:LITY WORKSHEET
Completion of the Compatibility Worksheet in Section VI is required for your
application for approval of a major remodel or construction of a new structure to
replace a Contributing Residence. The Worksheet should be completed at the very
beginning of the design process, so that information you assemble regarding the
character of the neighborhood and the house can guide your design decisions.
There are several major steps in completing the Worksheet:
1.Identify Neighborhood Character and Streetscape Patterns.
Identify the Architectural Character of Your Home and Other
Homes in the Neighborhood.
Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement home
in relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape
patterns.
Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in
relationship to the Palo Alto architectural traditions and the
original house.
Describe your proposed design in terms of its design objectives,
internal consistency, proportions and harmony.
1.Identify Neighborhood Character and Streetscape Patterns
Attach your photographs of the streetscape, patterns of planting, and fencing, and
other dements which give the neighborhood its unique character and charm. Study
the patterns which contribute to the richness of the neighborhood and choose those
that are consistent with the character of your home.
Identifying and defining each neighborhood by its own special character helps to define
important design criteria for an individual project. Here are some broad characteristics
to define and distinguish the neighborhood character and streetscape patterns in
various districts in Palo Alto where most pre-1940 houses are located.
Craftsman
Examples: Professorville, Community Center and Old Palo Alto
- Most of the homes were built prior to the 1940s.
- Streets are lined with mature trees,, which provide a tmifying feature.
- Landscape strips exist with street trees between sidewalk and street.
- Lots are generally narrow with houses consistently set back on the lot.
- Predominant architectural styles include the bungalow and craftsman style.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 41
IV. COMPLETING THE WORKSHEET
- Front porches are common as are low fences with houses visible from the street.
- Garages are generally detached and located in the rear of the lot with a narrow
driveway to the street, minimizing views of parking areas and pavement.
Mixed
Examples: College Terrace, Ventura, Old South Palo Alto, Downtown North
- Mixed or eclectic neighborhoods are the least uniform in Palo Alto.
- Amount of landscaping varies as does type and placement of street trees.
- Mixed density and architectural style. On some blocks, there is no uniform pattern
with respect to number of stories, lot size or garage location.
- Nonetheless, elements of building appearance, size, placement on a lot and/or
landscaping help unify diverse character and scale.
Estates
Examples: Crescent Park, some parts of Old Palo Alto
- Lots are very wide and large, with substantial houses set back 40 feet or more from
the street, having large side setbacks.
- Trees and lush landscaping dominate the streetscape:
- Planter strips add to the rich greenery along the street.
- Predominant styles include Tudor, Colonial Revival and Mediterranean.
- Houses are two and three stories.
- Garages are detached in the rear.
Rural
Example: Barron Park
- The character of rural neighborhoods.is dominated by trees and foliage.
- There are many trees, but no uniform street tree type.
- The rural character is emphasized by the lack of curbs and sidewalks.
- Streets are rambling and narrow.
- The architecture is varied, but most houses are small, one story and set back from the
street.
Identify the Architectural Character of Your Home and Other Homes
in the Neighborhood
Architectural character is derived from the harmonious combination of a number of
character defining elements. These elements include materials and finishes, roof slope,
ornamentation, massing, and window design and placement. Most pre-1940 houses
are built in a distinctive architectural style, which combines these elements in a
characteristic pattern.
Use Section V as a reference to help identify the character and distinguishing features
of your house.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 42
Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement home in
relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape patterns
Using the Worksheet, describe how your design fulfills the Streetscape and Open
Space requirements and recommendations in Section III. Attach photographs or
sketches to show models you used in designing your house.
Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in
relationship to the Palo Alto architectural traditions and the original
house.
Using the Worksheet, describe how your design fulfills the Architectural Character
requirements in Section III. Identify any portions or features of the original house
which are being retained and integrated in the new design. Use photographs or
sketches as needed. Attach any preliminary designs which explored option for
retaining portions of the original house and explain why the proposed design was
chosen.
5.Describe your proposed design.
Explain your design objectives and any unusual constraintS. Describe how the design
is internally consistent, including the proportions of its facade and harmony of
materials and elements.
COMPATIBILITY. REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 43
SECTION GUIDE TO PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
AND OTHER REFERENCES
REFERENCES
The Compatibility Standards are based on the following three reference documents.
You may pick up copies of_Hi,rio ~nd Architectural Resources of the City_ of Palo
Alto and the ,Single Family Design Guidelines at the City Planning Department. All
three references are also available at the Main Library. Additionally, several field
guides and reprinted pattern books are available and provide useful information about
historic residential buildings.
Historic and Architectural Resources of the City_ of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto,
1979. Historical description of Palo Alto architectural styles and neighborhoods.
Rehab Right. How to Realize the Full Value of Your Old House, Helaine Kaplan
Prentice and Blair Prentice, City of Oakland Planning Department, 1978, 1986
Single Family Design Guidelines, City of Palo Alto Planning Department, 1991.
A Field Guide to American Houses, McAlester, 1996.
Reference guide defining house architectural style using major characteristics.
House Styles in America, Massey, 1996.
Reference guide defining house architectural style using major characteristics.
Dover Reprints, 1890s to 1930s, various authors.
House design guide books published from the 1890s to the 1930s, and reprinted by
Dover Publications, Inc.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 44
V. GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES
PALO ALTO ARCHITEC~ STYLES
The following text and illustrations provide a brief overview of some of the
characteristics of the major architectural styles of houses found in Palo Alto. It draws
on the suggested reference materials, particularly the publication "Historical and
Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto:" A number of the styles depicted
below reflect influences of other styles from the same or earlier periods. This guide
describe styles which are predominant in Palo Alto or which represent unique local
conditions and traditions.
ITALIANATE VICTORIAN
Predominant style in: College Terrace, Downtown. Examples throughout older
neighborhoods.
- 2 stories typical
- Frequent large front entry porch substantially above grade
- Unusual massing with dormer projectionS, bay windows and porches
- Vertical emphasis
- Fanciful wood trim and siding
- Materials: varied painted redwood siding and trim with shingle roof
QUEEN ANNE VICTORIAN
Predominant style in: College Terrace, some parts of Old Palo Alto
- 1, 2 or 3 stories
- Steep roof pitch, complex roof forms
- Picturesque asymmetrical plans, sometimes with corner towers, gables and bays
- Porch or veranda common
- Lacy wood ornament and trim with fish scale shingles, variety of textures
- Materials: contrasting wood siding materials with shingles
COLONIAL REVIVAL
One of several styles in Professorville, Crescent Park and Old Palo Alto
- 1 or 2 stories
- Medium to steep roof pitch, with hip or gambrel roofs
- Stately, regular massing, revival of Georgian plan. s and forms
- Use of Classical details such as pediments with columns, Palladian windows
- Raised pedimented portico entry
- Materials: horizontal wood siding or shingle siding, with shingle roof and wood
window shutters
- Related styles: Greek Revival, Georgian Revival, Dutch Revival
SHINGLE
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 45
V. GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES
Predominant style in: Professorville, Old Palo Alto, Community Center
- Late 19th century architectural style with New England influences
- 1 or 2 stories with simple massing
- Walls and roofs are covered in unpainted redwood shingles and include curving
surfaces
- Brackets common at eaves, along with deep overhangs
- Emphasis on wood craftsmanship
and details
- Shingle siding with no comer
trims, roofing originally shingles as
well
- Irregular asymmetrical facade
with steeply pitched roof, cross
gables, and overhanging eaves
sheltering extensive porches
- Wood windows with divided
panes of glass
CRAFTSMAN
Predominant style in:
Professorville, Community Center
- Materials: unpainted redwood
shingles and siding with massive
redwood timbers, boulders, and
clinker bricks
- Massing: generally low and
horizontal
- Roofs: Repeated shallow gabled
roofs with wide sheltering
overhangs, exposed rafters and
supporting roof brackets
- Architectural style arising from
the late 19th and early 20th
century Arts and Crafts movement
which combined a respect for
craftsmanship and natural material
Figure 25: Sensitively designed new house incorporates
with a life lived close to nature the overhanging eaves, roof brackets and exposed rafters,
- Most often found in bungalows use of unpainted wood shingles and trellises and other
and two story structures employing details of the Craftsman/Shingle style.
overhanging roof lines with a horizontal emphasis.
- Related to the Shingle Style, which
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 46
V. GLIBDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES
also uses redwood shingles and simplified details
- Frequent use of redwood in simple pergolas, fences and other built elements which
continue building style and blur the distinction between indoors and outdoors
BUNGALOW
.Predominant Style in: Boyce Addition, Community Center, Downtown North
- Approximate original construction date 1900s to 1940s
- Generally 1 story
- Slightly raised large, deep entry porch on from of house
- Shallow roof pitch and generally horizontal massing
- Wood detail prevalent in details such as roof brackets, exposed rafters
- Materials: wood siding, stucco, or shingles
- Windows: true divided light windows, generally horizontal or square in shape,
often with unusual mullion patterns repeated throughout house
Figure 26: This Spanish Colonial Revival Style house exhibits the massive stucco
walls, decorative ironwork and red barrel tile roof characteristic of the style and
suited to Paid Alto’s bright sunlight and Mediterranean climate.
SPANISH COLONIAL/MEDITERRANEAN
COMP
Predominant Style in: Old Palo Alto, Crescent Park, Community Center
ATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ~ 4’7
V. GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES
Popular style in 1915-1940 in California
- Many fine examples designed by Birge Clark, prominent local architect, which
feature massive stuccoed walls with carefully irregular fenestration and
ornamentation with colored tiles and wrought iron.
- Asymmetrical building massing of one or two stories, often partially enclosing
courtyards and incorporating arcades and pergolas.
- Use of stucco or timbered arcades to create shade and indoor/outdoor transition
- Massive looking walls with recessed windows
- Shallow pitch tile roof, with hip or gabled roofs, some flat roofs with tile-covered
shed roofs over windows and doors.
- Colors - Light colored walls, red clay roof tiles, frequent use of colorful glazed
tile as accent-Materials: stucco walls with heavy wood timbers, wood or wrought
iron railings and clay tile roof
- Windows: Occasional use of heavily recessed arched windows,
sometimes in series.
- Windows generally composed on multi-panned metal or wooden casements.
- Related styles: Mission Revival, Monterey style, Spanish Eclectic.
TUDOR
Found throughout Crescent Park, Community Center and Old Palo Alto.
Characteristic of "estate" neighborhoods with traditional, more formal styles.
- 20th century interpretation of English Tudor architectural style
- 1 or 2 stories typical
- Vertical emphasis
- Steeply pitched roof, prominent front cross gable, all with shallow overhangs
- Sense of mass in walls with recessed windows
- Grouped windows with vertical emphasis, often casements, with multi-pane
glazing
- Materials: stucco walls, often with wood trim (half-timbering common) and
accents
- Massive chimneys with one or more chimney pots
-Related styles: French Eclectic
MODERNE
-Popular in 1930s
-Streamlined and/or geometric detailing, often with curved lines
-Simplified detailing
- Asymmetrical massing
-Generally flat roofs with parapet terminus.
-Materials: generally smooth stucco walls, metal windows, horizontal emphasis
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 48
¯ ¯ V. GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES
- Related styles: Streamlined, Prairie, Minimal Traditional
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS
PAGE ¯ 49
SECTION VL COMPATIBHATY WORKSHEET
Please complete this worksheet and submit with your proposed remodel or replacement home
design for review according to the Compatibility Standards. Attach any requested or relevant
photographs or sketches and other information.
Some items on this Worksheet apply only to replacement residences, while others apply
only to remodeled residences; consult with the City’s designated planner for assistance in
editing the Worksheet to address only the items that are applicable to your project.
Property Address:
Assessor’s Parcel No.
Property Owner:(phone)
(address)
Architect/Designer (phone)
(address)
Proposed Action:Alteration with removal of over 50% of exterior walls
_____~teration with removal or alteration to street-facing facade
____ Demolition of Contributing residence and construction of
replacement residence
Alteration of less than 50% of exterior walls with retention
of street-facing facade (s) (Advisory only, review not required)
1.Identify Elements of Neighborhood Character
(Attach Photo montage of block face and other relevant photographs)
NEIGHBORHOOD LOT SIZE PATTERN
Neighborhood Name(s)
Predominant Lot Size
Your Lot Size
Special features of your lot
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 50
VI. COMPATIBILITY WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTIC FRONT (PREVAILING) SETBACK
Setback of existing residence
Neighbors Front Setback house on let~ (when facing the house)
house on right
Setbacks for houses on your side of the street (your block only)
House number Measurement to major planar surface
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Setbacks for houses on other side of the street (your block only)
House number Measurement to major planar surface
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Note: measure from sidewalk, then subtract distance from sidewalk to property line)
Prevailing Setback (Note." this is the line behindwlgich 75% of the houses are located):
NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE PLACEMENT PATTERN
Number of houses on your block, counting both sides of the street, with each type of placement
pattern:
1.Detached rear ~/ard:
Detached with alley access:
Attached behind front facade:
Attached in front facade:
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯51
NEIGHBORHOOD "GARDEN FRONT" and PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PATTERNS
Driveway Patterns (summarize typical placement, width, materials):
Street Trees (summarize typical type, planting interval, width, materials):
Planter Strips (summarize typical irrigation & planting treatment):
Landscaping: (summarize existing patterns for lawn, style, materials, presence of mature
trees/fence height, design, materials, location)
2.Identify Architectural Character of the Original Home, if it is being retained.
Provide photographs to illustrate the following elements:
Include Historic Photographs, if any are available.
Date of Construction (note source of information) ¯
Name of Architect and/or builder
Historical Events/Associations, if known
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 52
Identify Architectural Style of Original Home:
Other Stylistic Influences:
Distinctive Features:
Entry Features (front porch or other entry form):
Building Massing (one or two story, massing and form):
Roofs (materials, piteh~ gable hip or other form, detailing):
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 53
Walls and Finishes (materials, paint):
Windows (shape, materials, mullion designs):
Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement residence in
relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape patterns
Neighborhood Pattern
Prevailing Setback:
_Proposed
Driveway:
Width and Material
Public Right of Way:
Street Trees
Planting Strips
Landscaping
Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in relationship to Palo
Alto architectural traditions and the original house
Architectural Style of Original House (if being retained) i
Architectural Features of Original House to be Retained
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 54
Materials or other Elements to be Reused
Architectural Style of Proposed Design (if replacement residence is proposed)
Predominant Architectural Styles in Neighborhood
Explain how the following elements of the Proposed Design relate to elements found in the
neighborhood and/or the original house:
Windows
Entry ’Features
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 55
Building Massing (note setbacks, roof desi~n and other measures to reduce apparent bulk)
Building Massing (note efforts to reduce privacy and shade impacts on neighbors)
Roof Design
Walls and Finishes
(Note: show materials and finishes on development plans)
Cite sources for the architectural features included in your design; include Xeroxes from sources
listed in the Compatibility Review Standards~ photographs of local examples, etc.
5.Proposed Design: Internal consistency and relation to design objectives
What were the design objectives for this house:
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE o 56
How were they achieved:
What elements and characteristics contribute to the consistency of the design (materials,
construction techniques~ etc.):
If an exception is requested from any aspect of the standards, describe here the Site Condition
that is a basis for the exception request, and explain how the proposed design better provides for
Neighborhood Compatibility and Design Quality:
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 57
CREDITS
Palo Alto City Council
Gary Fazzino
Joseph Huber
Liz Kniss
Dick Rosenbaum
Micld Schneider
Lanie Wheeler
Planning and Community Environment Department Staff
Virgi~a Warheit, Se~or Pla~er
Compatibility Review Standards Preparation
Alison Kendall, AICP, AK Planning & Design
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto
Dan Solomon, FAIA, Solomon, Inc.
Palo Alto residents provided some of the photographs and contributed much other helpful
information for the development of the Compatibility Review Standards.
COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ° 58
Attachment C
CHRONOLOGY
Palo Alto’s Historic Preservation Regulations
This attachment to CMR:336:97 will be distributed to Council Members at places at the
meeting of August 3, 1998, and with the Council packet of August 6, 1998.
Office of the City Council
MEMORANDUM
Attachment D
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 25, 1998
City Council Colleagues
Vice Mayor Schneider, Council Members Sandy Eakins, Lanie Wheeler and Liz
Kniss
Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
In the pages that follow, we are asking the Council, in conjunction with the extension of the
Interim Historic Ordinance, to give staff direction to make ,several important amendments. In
brief these may be described as changes to the Compatibility Review Standards and the Ordinance
itself to give applicants more flexibility; provision of additional information and training to
applicants; amendments to the review process to streamline minor modifications and to allow
appeal of staff decisions to the HR.B and Council.
o0o
Extending the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance will be before us once again on July 6. As
elected officials we often try to seek balance -- balanced benefits, balanced burdens and,
ultimately, a balanced community. Before voting on the extension, we believe the Council must
reweigh several elements of the Interim Ordinance to assure retaining the balance we all want.
. We initially intended the interim ordinance to be in effect for about a year. Given that relatively
short original life span, and the extensive initial exemptions we created to relieve hardship for "in-
process" projects, we felt comfortable that any burdens upon demolition and remodeling were
clearly outweighed by the community-wide benefits of retaining and enhancing the community
character that makes Palo Alto more than just a collection of incongruous subdivisions.
We will be extending the interim ordinance until June 30, 1999, or about two and one-half years
after we originally ventured into community-wide historic preservation policy development. This
is necessary for reasons well known to all of us. But we should recognize that the interim
ordinance has had, and will continue to have, real impacts on many residents.
Before we turn to specific proposals to address the impacts, it is important to remember that we
have focused almost exclusively upon the rules needed to assure historic preservation, and left the
crucial discussion of incentives and benefits as a small print footnote. The incentive and benefit
programs alre_ady approv, ed by the Council are real and substantial. Indeed,~ part of our reason for
City Council Colleagues
June 25, 1998
Page 2
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
delaying the permanent ordinance was to meet our direction that the incentives and benefits are on
the books at the same time as the ordinance becomes effective. Our objective should be to create
powerful incentives and benefits so that the homeowner has clear reasons to choose preservation
over demolition. The homeowner benefits of historic preservation will include the following:
Facilitate use of the State Historical Building Code (fiexible code requirements)
Allow a separate dwelling unit where otherwise not allowed
Allow creation of a subdivision where otherwise not allowed
Reduce parking requirements
Do not count existing basements toward the floor area ratio
Allow coverage limits to be exceeded to support a one-story addition instead of a two-
story addition
Provide for streamlined staff review of minor exterior alterations
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
Limit required notification for HIE and DEE to neighboring properties adjacent to and
across the street from the site
Have I-IKB, rather than I-IKB and ARB, review projects on
multifamily/nonresidential properties on the historic inventory
Develop an incentive-based fee schedule
Charge no fee for minor projects; modest fees based on the amount of new square footage
for major projects with full cost recovery for demolition applications
Do not have City fees for HIE when the application is part of a project being reviewed by
the I-IRB
Provide irfformation and assistance in using the Federal Investment Tax Credit Program
Use Mills Act contracts in limited situations that meet criteria established by the City
Council
We believe these incentives and benefits will more than compensate historic homeowners for any
regulatory burdens. But the community dialogue on the specifics of creating these incentives
must begin promptly, under the direction of the Planning Commission, in order to integrate
historic preservation with our residential development laws. We encourage the Planning
Commission to work with staffto undertake our March 23, 1998, referral of these issues.
We request support from our colleagues for the following changes.
City Council Colleagues
June 25, 1998
Page 3
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
1.Compatibility Review Standards and Historic Preservation Regulations
We knew we would learn from the quickly-prepared interim ordinance as a policy experiment. As
a result, we made much of the interim process administrative, i.e., governed by guidelines and
regulations rather than ordinances, so that staffcould adapt quickly as we learned.
Unfortunately, the loss of key staff, El Nifio, and the overwhelming press of our exploding local
economy have combined to slow implementation of our original intent. As a result, we have not
yet adapted the administrative rules and processes to match our experience.
The City Council adopted the Historic Preservation Regulations and Compatibility Review
Standards by resolution. This means that the Council can modify policy direction for the
guidelines without rewriting the body of the ordinance. We can make adjustments in both of two
ways - one is for the required degree of uniformity and the other is for some content changes.
Our specific proposals for amendment are set forth below:
The Compatibility Review Standards generally compel conformity to one consistent
stylistic theme on any given home. Some relaxation in the degree of required conformity
to one consistent style needs to be made for both alterations and replacement structures.
We created the program for compatibility review to prevent the proliferation of confused-
looking interpretations and awkward mixtures of styles in both alterations and replacement
structures in Palo Alto’s older and mostly harmonious neighborhoods. There is strong and
continued support to preserve graceful streetscapes and to protect the public realm from
the dominance of overly bold, awkward and attention demanding interpretations. On’the
other, hand, rigidly applied style mandates are simply too heavy handed. As policy makers,
we often fall back on the term, "wiggle room," to convey our desire for such relaxation.
The compatibility review program needs a little "wiggle room" now. This does not mean
discarding the program, or so diluting it to the point that it is meaningless.
More orientation and training are needed for the next year of compatibility review. This is
Palo Alto’s first sizable attempt at residential design regulation. For several reasons, not
the least of ~vhich is the robust economic situation, there is increasing concern that
continued and additional design regulation may be desirable to promote orderly change
and to preserve neighborhood harmony. It is not harmonious, however, if property
owners feel that they have no way of preparing themselves for the experience of design
regulation. We are all familiar with stories about applicants who feel frustrated that the
design that they have produced with intense attention and expense does not fit the
compatibility review program in one or more aspects. We need to help the property
owner more so as to prevent more style and design standard related misunderstandings
from developing~ We would propose that staff prepare advisory guides and related
City Council Colleagues
June 25, 1998
Page 4
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
materials for pre-applicants, including a full list of the benefits and incentives that are
already in place. Training should also be available for both Landmark and Contributing
property owners who want to know about preserving and maintaining their homes.
More staffing and support resources are needed to meet our customer service goals.
We must expand the use of the staff review committee for compatibility style and design
review, and for staff appeals.
A sample list of changes in the standards follows. These changes should make it easier for both
the applicant and the staff to accomplish the goals of the program without facilitating the negative
design features that caused so much concern about replacement structures in 1996. There may be
others that could be offered in the same spirit, and we would direct staff’to identify these and
other possible amendments to the Compatibility Review Standards and Historic Preservation
Regulations. The possibilities include:
Simplify the formula for calculating the prevailing setback and provide convenient options
to assist homeowners and designers in measuring the setbacks of neighboring structures
when this information is needed.
Evaluate and revise the requirement that attached garages on comer lots be recessed two
feet behind the main front facade to allow garages to be flush with the front facade when
desirable architecturally.
Revise the list of permitted driveway materials to permit precast interlocking concrete
pavers that replicate cobblestones and brick.
Evaluate and revise limitations on the number of special windows that may be allowed on
the street-facing facade.
Revise the written description of the required depth of window recesses to reflect
construction tolerances and modern building practices.
Revise and expand the list of acceptable roofing materials to include all shingle-Style
products ,that have a compatible visual appearance, including modern composite shingles.
City Council Colleagues
June 25, 1998
Page 5
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
2.Revisions to the Interim Ordinance
Some changes must reach the text of the interim ordinance. We would propose directing staff to
return promptly with the following changes after the extension has been enacted.
¯Permit appeals of staff compatibility review determinations to the HRB and City Council.
¯Definition of Demolition
The current definition of demolition includes any alteration to a street facing facade. We
believe this has proven to be too rigid. While it may be difficult, we must create a readily
understandable standard so that insignificant front facade modifications do not
unnecessarily throw a homeowner into the compatibility review process.
Landmark Alteration Review
Staff should handle applications for minor alterations. Minor projects would not be
subject to HRB review under the draft permanent ordinance and should not have to be
subject to public and t-lILt3 review under the interim ordinance, unless that review is
sought via an appeal.
Fees
Our standard application fee deposit for Landmark Alteration Reviews is $500.00, which
is very high for minor projects and should be reduced or eliminated. Even though the
unused amount is’ refunded to the applicant, the inconvenience and potential for hardship is
too high for minor projects.
3.Updated Report on the Interim Ordinance
Finally, it would be useful to have an updated report on the activities and results of the Interim
Ordinance activities. The last report was in September of 1997.
Please join us in supporting the foregoing actions.
Attachment E
Interim Historic Regulations
Program Activity for December 1996 through May 1998
Total Number of Historic Merit Evaluations completed
No Historic Merit
Landmark Residences
Contributing Residence
Total Number of Compatibility Review projects
274
64
13
197
52
(23%)
(05%)
(72%)
Contributing Residence or Landmark Status Cited in Findings
for Granting Variance or HIE
Total
Applications
6
17
23
Type of Historic Description
Landmarks
Contributing Landmarks
Variance
Granted
1
2
3
HIE
Granted
5
15
20
*Exceptions requested and granted included floor area, setbacks, daylight plane, garage
location, lot coverage, height and parking requirements.
PLANNING
Attachment F
COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Pla~g Official
AGENDA DATE: July 29, 1998 DEPARTMENT:
SUBJECT:
Plan~fing
Discussion of the Process and Schedule for the Drafting of the
Incentives and Benefits of the Proposed Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1) Review and discuss in preliminary form possible incentives that could be enacted
in association with revised Historic Preservation Ordinance; and,.
2) Recommend Alternative 2 as the preferred review process methodology/schedule.
~KGROUND
Actions to date relative to the p " ’’ ""
Palo Alto’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49, Palo Alto Municipal Code)
and the Historic Inventory were initially adopted in 1979 and have undergone only minor
revisions and additions in intervening years. In June 1996, the City Council, approved a
Work Program for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Inventory.
The concern at that time was 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 have been
extended on several occasions to remain in effect until August 31, 1998. The intent in the
Interim Regulations was to allow consultants to complete the historic inventory and to
allow city staff to complete the drafting of the historic preservation ordinance. On July
S:PlanlPladiv [PCSR [Incent.sr Page 1
13, 1998, during discussion of the proposed extension to the Interim Ordinance, City
Council directed staff to begin discussions with the Planning Commission about proposed
incentives to be included in the permanent historic preservation ordinance.
A list of possible incentives was included in the City Manager’s staff report forvcarded to
City Council on March 23, 1998 (Attachment A). The minutes of the March 23, 1998
public hearing are attached as Attachment B. Additional incentives were also identified
in the June 22, 1998 colleagues memo prepared by four Council members (Attachment C).
The staff report as well as the colleague’s memo were provided to the Planning
Commission at the July 8, 1998 meeting.
DISCUSSION;
As noted in the March 1998 staff report, various incentives have been identified and City
Council directed staff to begin discussions with the Planning Commission to draft potential
incentives. The intent of the incentives is to promote the preservation of historic resources
within the City and thereby, maintain the historic fabric of the City. Some incentives
would be included in the revised ordinance and others in other portions of the Municipal
Code. Some of these incentives would require changes to other sections of the Municipal
Code and in all likelihood not be completed at the time the Historic Preservation Ordinance
is submitted to the Council for final consideration.
The incentives discussed to date by Staffand City Council and a detailed explanation
and/or comment on each is listed below. The proposed incentives include:
State Historical Building Code (SHBC). Facilitate the use of the SHBC for
qualified historic buildings by working with property owners to support and assist
them in using the Code.
In some circumstances,, the use of these flexible code requirements can relieve a
property owner who is rehabilitating a 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 for "qualified" buildings, ie. , those that are on a local, state or
national historic lists. It is a performance-based code that allows the structure to
be evaluated as a whole, and allows accommodation of a noncompliance as long as
there is not a hazardous condition. Under the SH-BC, 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
S:Plan[Pladiv I PCSR [ Incent.sr.Page 2
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
a.
Co
the ways that the City can facilitate use of the SHBC include:
Identifying projects that qualify for use of the Code when they are
submitted to the City for review;
Providing close interdepartmental coordination by staff specially trained
in the SHBC in the review of historic projects; and,
Conducting training and information seminars on use of the SI-IBC for
City staff and for architects, builders and owners of historic pi’operties.
An educational outreach program is being developed by the State Historic
Building Safety Board and is expected to be available to local communities
next year.
Staff has included a memorandum from the Fred Herman, Chief Building Official
outlining the background, specifics of the code and the use within the City to date
(see Attachment D).
°Development exceptions. Modify existing land use regulations to allow exceptions
for properties on the historic inventory. Possible exceptions could include:
a. Allow a separate, dwelling unit on the property where otherwise not
allowed. The possible provision of a second dwelling unit, or even of a
separate .lot, where one lot 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 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 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
S:PlanlPladiv { PCSRI Incent.sr Page 3
bo
Co
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 house, may help to achieve preservation objectives,
especially preservation of small, modest houses.
Allow creation of a subdivision where it otherwise would not be allowed.
Under certain circumstances, this could be a smaller lot or flag lot, also
a typical historic pattern in the City’s residential neighborhoods
Reduce parking requirements and/or modify parking standards.
Do not count as floor area existing basements or new basements that do
not result in the house being raised so long as any grade change at the
base of the structure is minimal and is consistent with the historical
appearance of the structure.
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 result in less impact on the
massing and other significant characteristics of the historic house.
Staff intent is to allow those exceptions only if the following findings can be
demonstrated during the processing of an application:
a. The project would substantially conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation;
b.The total, floor area in the pi~oject would not exceed the maximum floor
area otherwise allowed on the property;
c.The project would not have a significant adverse impact on neighboring
properties;-and,
d.The project complies with all recommendations of all applicable review
bodies.
Streamline the historic_ review process. Provide for streamlined staff review of
minor exterior alterations to include the following:
a. Provide for staff review of minor projects. This would speed review and
allow the opportunity to provide property owners with information about
alternatives available under the Code and to work collaboratively with
applicants in an informal setting. Staff review would be optional -- any
projectcould 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.
b.Reviews for Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design
Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) for designated historic properties will be
S:PlanlPladiv I PCSR ] Incent.sr Page 4
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 hearing is conducted
by the Zoning Administrator, requiring the applicant to go through two
public reviews. The HIE is limited to very minor exceptions to 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. HR. 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 150 feet for HIE’s and 300 feet for DDE’s as
currently required.
For multi-family/nonresidential properties on the historic inventory that are
subject to both HRB and ARB review under the current ordinances, staff
recommends review be conducted by the HRB. The Certified Local
Government 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 licensed architects on the HRB. The proposed
Historic Preservation Ordinance proposes that the professional 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.
o Incentive-based fees.. Develop an incentive-basedfee schedule for review of proposed
exterior alterations and for demolition applications. This could include:
a. Exterior alterations of minor projects. No fee will be assessed for proposed
exterior alterations of minor projects.
b.Major exterior alterations. Assess 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).
c..Demolition. Applications to demolish a structure on the historic inventory
would be charged full cost recovery for the processing the application, or
charge the major alteration review rate based on the size of the house,
S:PlanlPladiv } PCSR { Incent.sr Page 5
whichever is greater.
Applications for Home Improvement Exceptions. No fee would be
assessed 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.
o Mills Act contracts to support historic preservation. In limited situations that meet
criteria established by the City Council, the use of Mills Act contracts to support
historic preservation has been discussed.
During City Council recent review of an application for a Mills Act contract, several
Council members expressed concerns about the use of this tax relief program to
support historic preservation because of the resulting loss of revenue to the School
District. These same concerns were expressed by the Historic Resources Board in its
review of the application. Based on these comments and comments by members of
the public in regard to the application and at other forums in the Historic Ordinance
revision process, staff is researching proposed criteria for consideration of future
Mills Act applications. These criteria include the following:
a.The property/project should provide the following:
o Benefits that will be enjoyed by the general public and that should
serve an educational purpose for the students of the Palo Alto schools;
and,
°Encourages the preservation of a structure/property whose preservation
is otherwise threatened.
b.The conlxacts would 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.
c.The contracts would not be granted retroactively for rehabilitation work
already completed.
Staff would note implementation and monitoring of Mills Act contracts can be very
labor intensive dependent upon the type of program and criteria established.
°Federal Investment Tax Credit program information distribution. Provide
information available from the Federal Government to property owners regarding the
use of the Federal Investment Tax Credit program. This program is available to a
property that is on the National Register or in a National Register Historic District and
is an income-producing property. A nonprofit 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.
S:PlanlPladiv ] PCSR ] Incent.sr Page 6
Process/schedule to f’malize the discussion of incentives
Staff has provided two alternatives for the process/schedule to secure the Planning
Commission’s final recommendations regarding the development of incentives. The
alternatives include:
1)The Planning Commission appoints a subcommittee made up of four Planning
Commission members to discuss possible incentives and report the findings back to
the full Planning Commission within a specified time frame. If the Commission
desires, staff could request a member or members of the Historic Resources Board
be included as a part of the subcommittee; or,
The Planning Commission as a whole discusses possible incentives and the item be
scheduled as a public hearing item for the next two to three regular meetings.
Additional meetings could be scheduled if required.
The process/schedule for Alternative 1 would be as follows:
July 29, 1998
September 30, 1998
October 7, 1998
October 14, 1998
Date to be determined
Planning Commission discusses in preliminary form potential
incentives, additional research required, etc.
Planning Commission selects four Planning Commission members
as subcommittee. Determine if a member or members of the
HRB should be a part of the subcommittee.
Determine what dates/times the subcommittee can meet. Staff
suggests a minimum of three meetings be scheduled.
Recommendations of the subcommittee be forwarded for the
Planning Commission to discuss and make preliminary
recommendations.
Planning Commission recommendations are forwarded to the
HRB for input and comment.
Planning Commission makes final recommendation to the City
Council with HRB input and comments.
City Council consideration.
The process/schedule for Alternative 2 would be as follows:
July 29, 1998
August 12, 1998
August 26, 1998
September 9, 1998
October 7, 1998
October 14, 1998
Planning Commission discusses in preliminary form potential
incentives, additional research required, etc.
Further/continued discussion of incentives.
Further/continued discussion of incentives.
Further/continued discussion of incentives (if required).
Planning Commission recommendations are forwarded to the
HRB for input and comment.
Planning Commission makes final recommendation to the City
S:PlanIPladiv I PCSR I Incent.sr Page 7
Date to be determined
Council with HRB input and comments.
City Council consideration.
v elat’v ~v
Staff has preliminarily reviewed 19 historic preservation ordinances and notes only five
Cities reference or provide incentives as part of the ordinance. Attachment E indicates the
Cities which provide incentives in each ordinance. Staff will contact each City and secure
a copy of all applicable incentives and present the findings at the next meeting.
RESOURCE IMPACT:
Resource impacts will b-e assessed as incentives are lrmalized.
Providingincentives for historic structures is consistent with Policy L-52, Policy L-57,
Program L-63, Program Lo65, Program L-67 and other parts of the 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan.
Timeline is dependent upon alternative selected by Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL~
Development of a list of possible incentives is not a project under CEQA.
To provide the Planning Commission a better overview as to the process to-date,
background, etc. staff has included numerous attachments which include the following:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
City Manager’s Report 300:98 - Implementation and Council Direction to
Extend the Interim Historic Regulations.
Minutes of March 23, 1998 City Council meeting.
Attachment C:City Council Colleague’s Memo dated June 25, 1998 regarding the
proposed changes to the Interim .Historic Preservation Ordinance. City
Manager’s Report 138:98 - Proposed Elements to be Included in Revising
S:PlanlPladiv [PCSR[ l.ncent.sr Page 8
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
the Historic Preservation Ordinance (March 13, 1998 City Council
meeting).
Memorandum from Fred Herman, Chief Building Official regarding use
of the SHBC
Listing of other local governments that provide incentives
COURTESy COPIF~S;
Historic Resources Board
Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager
Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Planning Division Staff
Prepared by:Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official
Division/Department Head Approval:Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official
S:PlanlPladiv [ PCSRI Incent.sr
Page 9
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto4
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:. PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:FEBRUARY 23, 1998 CMR: 138:98
PROPOSED ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
SUBJECT:IN REVISING THE
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)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1o)
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
CIvIR: 138:98 Page I of 31
RECOMMENDATIO~
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 afftrming, 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 Mtmicipal 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
piotect 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 consultarit and.the Historic Resources Board (H1LB), City staff, and
the seven-member Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Group appointed by the City
Manager, as pro’~ided 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.
CMP,: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, administered 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 be 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.
I~_LS~USSI ON
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(l) 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 affn’ming, 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.
CM~:138:98 Page 3 of 31
(1)Limit scope of Historic Preservation Ordinance revisions to treatment .........6
of historic properties
(2)Replace existing four categories of historic resources with two new categories:
Landmarks and Significant Resources
(2A)Reassign properties currently on the historic 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
(3)Create a list of non-designated properties of potential historical merit ........11
following completion of the 1998 survey
(4)Facilitate property owner requests to add their qualified properties to the ......12
historic inventory
Prohibit demolition of designated historic resources on the historic ..........12
inventor3’, 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
(6)Regulate exterior alterations to buildings on the historic inventor3, ........... 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-1, 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
(tF)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)
Provide incentives to support and encourage historic preservation
(7A)
(TB)
(7C)
(7D)
(7E)
(7F)
2O
Facilitate use of the State Historical Building Code
Modify land use regulations to provide exceptions for historic
properties that would support preservation. Based on certain
findings and conditions:
(7B-1) 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
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
Develop an incentive-based fee schedule
(TD-1, 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
Provide information and assistance in using the Federal Investment
Tax Credit Program
Use Mills Act co.ntracts in limited situations that meet criteria
established by the City Council
Increase from three to four the number of HPd3 members that must be ........24
architects or other design professionals, and delete the requirement
that one member own an historic structure
(9)Direct staff to investigate options for a process, similar to the single story .....25overlay zone process, that would enable property owners to initiate
establishing Neighborhood Conservation Areas
(10)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)~P~gf the Historic Preservation Ordinance Revision~
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 arebeing 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 inventor3’ 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)Acceptitble 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, ha 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)~ies 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,
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.
CMK: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.
i dcR rce e tie Pr f r he Re~.__~.ed_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 group.s 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
Cit)"s history; and/or ’
Identified with persons or groups of persons who contributed significantly to
the culture and de~’elopment 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 regulator3’ impact of Landmark status could be to require a high level of conformance
with Standards of Rehabilitation, and to require more rigorous findings 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 I properties would be assigned to the new Landmark category. Category 1 has
been reserved for relatively few individual prope .~es (24, see Attachment A), indicating that
these buildings are considered to be unique or special. Both Categories I and 2 in
Downtown would be put in the Landmark category, since these are the only buildings in the
existing ordinance where demolition may be prohibited, indicating the importance the City
has previously placed on these s~’uctures. 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 ffthere are any that qualify for Landmark status;
if not, they will be assigned to the new Significant Resource category.
CIvI:R:138:98 Page 9 of 31
TABLE 1
PROPOSED NEW ORGANIZATIONAL CATEGORIES
FOR THE HISTORIC INVENTORY
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 Categor3, 2, 3 and 4 that meet
Landmark definition, 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 Landmark
Note: Structures that have been demolished or have lost historic integrity will be
removed from the Historic Inventor3’.
Wkile it is necessar5, to reassign properties on the existing historic inventor5, to one of.the
new Landmark or Significant Resource categories, the consultants’ advice is that it is not
necessar3’ 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 final report for the 1979
survey that summarizes the survey methodology and the consultants’ final assessment of the
inventor3’ 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 buildings 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 qualifies
of Palo Alto were permanently established. (See Attachment B, " fi 1 i r I
.~.~Lg_.~..~.c.~f the City_gf~, pages 1, 2, 3, 16, and 76, prepared by Paula Boghosian,
architect, and John Beach, architectural historian.)
CIV[R: 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
inventor3,.
Properties designated Contributing Structure: The defmition 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
inventor3, is the following: The consultants will identify properties that appear to be eligible,
either individually or as pan 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 kistoric 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)!Sreate a list for n n- " " etermined to have potentia]~
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 Slructures 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)
3)
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 ac "knowledgment of the
potential historic importance of these properties helps to maximize the benefits from
the CitT’s investment in 1998 survey.
Provide a focus for HRB activities in keeping ~ae inventor3, 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.
Provide an "interface" 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.)
(4)Facilitate property owner requests for historic, de~
Make provision in the ordinance to facilitate property owner-initiated requests
for their properties to be added to the historic inventor)’, 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 as potentially 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 Re~
Prohibit demolition of designated historic resources listed on the historic
inventor3’, 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
CMP,: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 inventor)’ 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 bedelayed, 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 PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (PAC SECTION 16, 49)
No Demolition Conlzol
(Approximately 220 smactures)
Time,Limited Delay of
Demolition
(Approximately 310 structures)
Demolition Prohibited Except
in Unusual Circumstances
(Approximately 30 structures)
Category 3 and 4 not in Historic Diswict 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 direction in
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 alternative 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 con~ol 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
CIVIR: 138:98 Page 13 of 31
historic resources, and for strengthemng the design review process.and discouraging
demolition.
An), demohtion prohibition would not apply in cases of an imminent safer}, hazard.
Demolition prohibitions also would not apply if it would result in no economically viable
use of the propert3.’. In cases of natural disasters, procedures established in the State Public
Resources Code would be ~’ollowed, 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 inventor),.
Not infrequently, projects that are plarmed and even approved by the City are not built due
to problems with financing or for other reasons. In these cases, requiring the historic
building to remain until a building permit is issued leaves the building in place for a future
buyer who may see a benefit in retaining it.
(SB)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 rnmimum prior notice to licensed conTactors for salvage.
(6)R_~ege~ulation of exterior alterations
Provide direction on how exterior alterations to properties on the historic
inventor-3’ should be regulated by the City by affirming, modifying or rejecting the
following recommended proposals and options, or by specifying different optio.ns.
Standard~ 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 Rehabilitatiofi 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 propertiesl The Standards for
Rehabilitation address the most prevalent treatment for properties in everyday use, and are
the Standards most commonly used by local jurisdictiora 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 nonprescriptjve. 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 properly and multifamily/nonresidential
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 recommended 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 HtLB.
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 HR.B,
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 building, and other work that does not
modify character-defining features of the building.
C/V1~:138:98 Page 15 of 31
TABLE 3
EXISTING REGULATION OF EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
HISTORIC PRESF_.RI;4TION 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
multifami]y/nonresidential Category l 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 ordy 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 16 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 inventor)’, require that Landmarks comply with the
recommendations of the H]IB 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 thaL 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:
**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. I - Compliance required
~’~ Option No. 2 - Compliance voluntary
For Significant Resources, staff is recommending that compliance be voluntary. The
disadvantage 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 intrusive 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 ofway, 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
cides 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-defining site features, as described in the Building Site chapter, pages
68-74.
CNfl~: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
set-ring and public presentation of the house.
As shown in (6E-l) and (6E-2) below, options for review of historic landscape/site features
include: review of all such features on the site (Option 1); limiting review to substantial
historic features visible from the public fight-of-way (Option 2); or no review of these
features (Option 3).
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 (rE) 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 (rE) 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 Signific~nt 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."
CM~:138:98 Page 19 of 31
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. 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
(7)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 requixe 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 useof 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 lunder.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 Ks .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;
CIV[R:138:98 Page 20 of 31
2) providing close interdepartmental coordination by staff specially trained in the SHBC in
the review ofkistoric projects; and 3) conducting training and information seminars on use
of the SHBC for City staffand 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 HKB, with recommendation to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment, based on the same findings 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 lot
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 limes 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
CMP,: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 pan 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-4)
Reduce parking requirements and modify parking standards.
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 man:>, instances, one-story additions are preferable to two-story additions because they
result 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 opportunity 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 m "aking a decision. Under ’
certain conditions, a second hearing is conducted by the Zoning Administrator, requixing the
applicant to go through two public reviews. The HIE is limited to very minor exceptions to
CMR: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. HPd3 review and recommendation to the Director of
Plannm8 and Community Environment for action would result in one public review rather
than two for the applicant.
(7C-3)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 theARB.
Currently, there are four licensed architects on the HRB. Item (8) below proposes that the
professional requirements for HPO3 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 dem01ition applications.
(7D-l)For review of proposed exterior alterations, provide review of minor projects
at no charge.-
(7D-2)
(70-3)
(7D-4)
(7E)
For major exterior alterations, charge a moderate fee, rather than full cost
recover)’, that is based on the amount of new square footage being added (e.g.,
fifty cents per square foot).
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.
Do not have City fees for an ~ if the application is part of a project reviewed
by the HRB, so that the applicant is not paying two fees for the review.
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 that 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 buildhags for affordable
housing.
(7F)In limited situations that meet criteria established by the City Council, use Mills
Act contracts to support historic preservation.
During Cit3’ 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)
b)
c)
d)
The contract should not be granted retroactively for rehabilitation work
already completed;
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;
The contract should encourage the preservation of a structure/property whose
preservation is threatened; and
The contract should be used in situations where the tax savings will be used
to offset an unusual economic burden ofrehabilitathag the structure that is due
to unusual characteristics or circumstances of the structure or properts,, such
as structural problems or poor condition not resulting from lack of care by ~e
present owner.
(8)h a.C_b._~.~s to qualification~ of the HRB .member~.
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 one member 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 under the proposed ordinance. As the
HRB moves away from a predominantly advisory role to a stronger design review function,
CMJ~.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 cun’ent 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)Pr ’ wn r-initiated Ne’~,hborhood Conservation Areas
Direct 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 irtffingement 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
resoHTces.
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.
CIvI:R: 138:98 Page 25 of 31
(10)Transition P re~j.p.g[.~
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 inventor)’.
These regulations would be in effect until the City Council adopts the revised
historic inventor)’, 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 approximately 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 ptirposes 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 an)’ combination of these things, together with year of consmacfion, have been
identified as the fn-st 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.
Stud5’ 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 max’ 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 identif3’ 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 will be 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 final 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 financial
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 ~’,ID STUDY PRIORITY #2 PROPERTIES
CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW IN THE HISTORIC SURVEY
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
**OPTION 3
STUDY PRIORITY #1
Demolition prohibited
Demolition prohibited
Demolition prohibited
STUDY PRIORITY #2
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 (**).
Stud)’ 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 inventor),. Demolition prohibition would
preclude demolition applications during the Transition period.
Stud), PrioriO, 2. Three different options are presented for treatment ot: Stud3, 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 i~ that demolition restrictions would be applied to over 3000 properties, the
majofitS, 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 be’.mg
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 Of 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 re.view 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 sigrtificant buildings in finding
ways to adapt and restore these buildings, including participation in state and federal tax
relief programs.
Policy L-59: Follow the proced, ures 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:
C IriS: 138:98 Page 29 of 31
Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new oz
remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhoodand adjacent structures.
Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more
diverse housing opportunities.
RESOURCE IMP A C,.T.
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 inventor3’ that are currently subject to review by HRB. Thus, about 10 percent of
the properties subject to review could be expected to submitan application in any one year.
The precise staffmg needs of the future historic preservation program cannot be dete~ed
until the regulator3, 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 staffing needs will be presented to City Council
with the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
TIMELINE
The draft revised Historic Ordinance is tentatively scheduled for Council consideratio~a 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.
EN\qRONMENTAL RE%qEW
An environmental assessment will be completed and made available for public review at the
time the draft revised historic preservation ordinance is prepared.
~A___.~_.~CH M ENTS
A.Category 1 Properties Listed on Historic Building Inventory
B.Pages 1, 2, 3,16, and 76, from Historical and Architectural Resources ~j.5~!
P01o Alto, prepared by Paula Boghosian, architect, and John Beach, architectural
historian
C. Glossary
PREPARED BY:VIRGINIA WARHEIT
APPROVED BY:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CMR:138:98 Page 30 of 31
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
er
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
CATEGORY 1 PROPERTIES
LISTED ON HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY
Address
367 Addison Avenue
423 Chaucer Street
1531 College Avenue
706 Cowper Street
1247 Cowper Street
District/Historic List Status
California Registered Historical Landmark
1950-1928 Cowper Street
] 990 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
National Register of H.istofic Landmarks
Professorville Historic DistricVNadonal Register of Historic
Landmarks
1336 Cowper Street Professorville Historic District/National Register of Historic
Landmarks
Professorville Historic District
Professorville Historic District
95 Umversity Avenue
456 University Avenue
860 University Avenue
900 University Avenue
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
2101 Waverley Street
100/110 Waverley Oaks National Register of Historic Landmarks
Architectural Resources
City of PaIo Alto
I’NTRODUCT I ON
Palo Alto is a unique and interesting city. It has an
unusual history that extends in time from associations ~ith
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 resources 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.
Ind}.v~dual buildings, and their congregation into ne~gnbor-
hood~, provide a key to a city’s past and an understandlng
of ~ts evolution and history that can be achieved In no
other manner.
The City of Palo Alto, recognlzlng ~t possessed such re-
sources, has recently completed an inventory of those
resources, and plans to util.ize the inventory in future
community planning activities.
The Sur~ey, made poss!ble by matching funds from the State
Office of Historic Preservation, was conducted essentially
within the area outllned’on the accompanying map, and treated
structure~ of significance built prior to 1940. Buildings
listed on the preliminary f~eld survey of each block in the
area were. then researched fo~ 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 RepoKt or deslgnated as
potential Historic Districts. The integrity of o~g~nal
design and structural cond~tlon of each building weKe also
observed.
Volunteers from the community performed =be research nec-
essary to determine, the h~storic slgnlflcance of the pro-
posed structures, and complete the Inventory forms. Students
from Stanford University, which played such a c-uc~al role
in estab1.~sn~ng the architectural pattern~ of PaSo Alto,
also assisted in research activities.
One of the goals of comp~l~ng such a !~st of ~mportant
resources is zo incorporate ~he ~nforma~on ~nto future
.planning activities of the City. Anothe~ principal purpose
-2-
for the development of an Inventory is the planning of a
program designed to protect and retain those identified
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-
fication and recogni.tion of Palo Alto’s special history and
valuable architectural resources will encourage the develop-
ment of a City preservation program to assist both c~t~ and
citizens alike in retaining this importantheritage 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.
-3-
I
By the beginning of the second World War, mosZ of the ava~l-
able building s~tes in the surveyed area were occupied, and
after the long moratorium on non-e~sentla.l bu~Idlng imposed
during the War, an entirely different-set of images and
styles became popular. Thus the buildings of the survey
area ~epresen~ a d~scre~e five decade eplsode, stretching
from the founding of the city as an entity to the end of the
first phases of izs development, the period during which the
ambience, the visual and architectural qualities of Palo
Alto were permanently established.
I!
I_l
I
II
HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF PALO ALTO’S ARCHITECTURE
When Palo Alto was incorporate~ in 1893, ~ts neighbors~ zo
the north and south, Menlo Park and Mayf~eld, were already
well-established.
Early city street grids included the a-ea bounded by San
Francisqui~o Creek, Alma, Embarcadero, Boyce, and Channing
Streets. Subsequent late nineleenth and early twentieth
century annexations to the original g,’~d ~ncluded additions
known as %he Ashby Addition, the Boyce Addition, Clara
Vista, Alba Park, and South Palo Alto.
I
College Terrace was ~ubdivided in 1888 and its earliest
buildings date from the late ~880’s and %he early 1890’s.
The area surrounding the original Palo Alzo gr~d grew to the
north, sou:h, and east, expanding beyond EI Cam~no Real and
including the Southgate area, Evergreen Park, Barron Park,
the Scale Addition, the original town of Mayfield (by now
divided into several subdivisions and tracts), and the area
north to the current baysho~e freeway, Highway lOl.
PROPOSED PROGRAM
l.~_~]~leme.ntation of InventorX
Palo Alto possesses an interesting and unioue historic and
architectural legacy that ranges from Spanish land grant origins,
through important early Bay Area tradition images, impressive
Period Revival representatives and a richarray of Spanish
Colonial Revival architectural expressions.
The Inventory product of a recent historic/architectural
survey, lists noteworthy representatives of the work of
impor.tant individual 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 i~portant 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
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 Register 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
sigrfificance and which possesses integrity.
A property that is determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places is a historic resource whgse 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.
Attachment B
Stephanie Mufioz, 101 Alma Street #701, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
senior housing.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of
November 18, ! 997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian "not participating."
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of
November 24, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian "not participating."
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent
Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 8.
3. Sale of Energy and Energy Related Services Outside the City’s Existing Service Territory
Refer to the Policy and Services Committee
4.Legislative Objectives -.Refer to the Policy and Services Committee
5. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Carollo Engineers for the Water
Wells Regional Storage and Distribution Systems Study
6.Approval of Staffs Assessment of the Padmount Equipment Policy
7. Reformation of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Kar!skint-Crum, Inc. for
Foothills Park Irrigation System
8. Ratification of Continuing Emergency "El Nino 98" Disaster
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
CLOSED SESSION
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (CMR: 138:98)
Council Member Huber was unable to participate in the item because of a conflict of interest.
Mayor Rosenbaum said the staff report (CMR: 138:98) contained ten recommendations, four of
which had been covered in previous meetings. Item 3 involved the creation of a list of
non-designated properties of potential historical merit. While the Council had created the list,
concern had been expressed about some level of protection provided to the list. Staff was asked
to comment on the transition period with respect to homes characterized as Study Priority 1 or
Study Priority 2, and possible actions the Council might make for the transition period.
Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said chronologically, Item 10 appeared prior to Item 3. The
non-designated list no longer existed and would be created after the survey work was concluded
in the Fall of 1998. Item 3 simply acknowledged properties identified in the 1998 survey with
potential historic merit. The survey work currently underway would not complete the
investigation of all potentially historic buildings, but acknowledged the possibilify other
buildings would be found. Item 10 dealt with the treatment of properties identified as Study
Priority 1 and Study Priority 2 for the purpose of the ongoing survey work. The transition
represented the time between adoption of the new ordinance and when the interim regulations
expired and the time the Council actually reviewed the recommendations for increasing the
historic inventory. The time between ordinance adoption and the revised inventory adoption
would be limited.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether staff anticipated a determination would be made of most, if
not all, of the properties in Study Priority 1 with notification made to the Historic Resources
.Board (HRB) and the public, with an opportunity given to adding to the inventory by the end of
the year.
Ms. Warheit said staff would move forward with Study Priority 1 based on the number of
volunteers. The survey consultant was currently analyzing the City’s position with regard to
work conducted to date. The properties on the list would be assigned tasks for completion of the
work. The Study Priority 2 list included properties which might be part of historic districts. As
research continued and information revealed potential districts, a decision might be made to
pursue one or more districts rather than focusing all research on the potentially eligible
properties.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the City would have a considerable number of homes in Study
Priority 2 not designated one way or the other by the end of the year.
Ms. Warheit replied yes.
Mayor Rosenbaum said some members of the public and members of the Council might be
concerned about what occurred after the consultant finished the survey work and several
thousand homes had not been either designated or excluded. Since the Council was unsure about
the Study Priority 2 buildings, it might want to hold off on making a decision about protection
until closer to the end of the year.
Ms. Warheit said the options provided for in the staff report (CMR:138:98) for Study Priority 2
under Item 10 dealt with the period prior to the time line referred to by Mayor Rosenbaum. If
people were concerned about what. would happen to buildings in Study Priority 2 before the
Council was able to address the revised inventory, it would be addressed in Item 10. Mayor
Rosenbaum’s questions were valid for people concerned about what would happen to items left
in Study Priority 2 after the Council had acted, which was why staff had not made a
recommendation.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the staff
recommendation (5) to prohibit demolition of designated historic resources listed on the historic
inventory, except in unusual circumstances.
Council Member Wheeler said staff had done an admirable job of presenting the Council with an
understandable and compelling rationale for its recommendation on treatment of the City’s
historic resources. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debbie Cauble had provided a very eloquent
explanation about why, from a legal standpoint, Item 5 should be the Council’s legal stance with
which she concurred.
Council Member Mossar supported Council Member Wheeler’s comments.
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether Council Member Wheeler had spoken about the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
Council Member Wheeler replied yes.
Historic Resources Board Member Roger Kohler said when the HRB had discussed Item 5, all
had agreed that something should be included to define unusual circumstances in a way which
not only the public but the HRB could understand.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the staff
recommendati6n (5A) to require a building permit for a replacement structure prior to issuance of
a demolition permit for buildings on the historic inventory.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the staff
recommendation (5B) to provide for salvage of historical building materials.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the staff
recommendation (6) to regulate the exterior alterations to properties on the historic inventory,
with direction to staff to seek Council direction about how it should be regulated by the City by
affirming, modifying or rejecting the recommended proposals and options, or by specifying
different options.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the staff
’recommendation (6A) to require review of all exterior alterations to properties on the historic
inventory, except exempt properties.
Council Member Mossar said the integrity of the historic nature of the City’s historic structures
should be maintained, which was the purpose of the review of the modifications.
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the last paragraph on page 15 of the staff report
(CMR: 138:98) addressed one of the issues which had specifically arisen under the current
interim ordinance related to windows, particularly windows consistent with the design but not
double-paned or would not protect the house interior as efficiently as modem windows, i.e.,
whether exterior alterations included windows and doors.
Director of Planning & Community Services Ken Schreiber replied yes.
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether or not a particular type of window, such as a weather type
window which would not necessarily modify the design, could be used instead of a traditional
window.
Ms. Warheit said the National Park Service provided volumes of materials about how to satisfy
both sound and weather protection with historically appropriate buildings.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
Council Member Ojakian thought Item 6B should treat both types of properties the same. He
was in disagreement with staffs recommendation, preferring a motion where single-family and
multi-family properties were treated in the same manner.
Council Member Fazzino sought clarification from staff about the meaning of Item 6B.
Examples of invasion of privacy over the prior year or two had occurred in the community: for
example, on North Hampton. He was unclear about what Item 6B accomplished outside of.the
current daylight plane or other rules with respect to the issue of ensuring privacy. The second
question involved Council Member Ojakian’s comment about the difference between
single-family and multi-family. Single-family homes adjacent to multi-family might have
different expectations with respect to what was allowed as opposed to purely single-family.
Ms. Warheit said staff had proposed Item 6B as merely procedural. Currently, the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) dealt with all non-single-family homes. By recognizing that, it allowed
staff to consider the kinds of regulations desired and the best program to put in place to
implement the regulations differently for the two types of properties, since single-family
properties were already subject to discretionary review. Item 6B would not recommend treating
properties differently once a determination was made about how it should be treated.
Council Member Fazzino asked whether Item 6B clarified the process, not the governance.
Ms. Warheit replied yes.
Council Member Fazzino asked for an example of an exterior alteration i~sue related to
protection of privacy. .
Deputy City Manager Ken Schreiber said Item 6 discussed the review of exterior alterations
within the context of historic qualities. The design review was based on historic criteria. The
impact of visual on other properties such as windows looking into backyards, was inherently part
of that review and would not be addressed in Item 5. The historic nature of the building might
change the building’s affect on an adjacent prrperty, but that was not the central concern. The
City had very clear standards in the ARB ordinance as to what projects were to be reviewed
against. Currently, he was unsure the historic resource ordinance would have a standard or
would be appropriate to address broader design concerns such as visual impact on adjacent
properties beyond the historic aspects. The question he heard went beyond the historic aspect of
the impact of large houses on adjacent properties.
Council Member Eakins was unable to determine whether both of the two clauses in the sentence
on page 16 of the staff report (CMR: 138:98), "to tailor regulation of single-family properties in
ways that protect the privacy of homeowners and make participation in the regulatory process
less burdensome," were about process or whether one was about line of sight and the other about
process but had been put together in one point.
Ms. Cauble said the issue of privacy was not about line of sight but about the invasion or
perceived invasiveness of the review process. For example, under the existing ARB ordinance, if
a commercial or multi-family project went before the ARB, the ARB would have complete
purview under everything that happened on the site, such as landscape plan, and irrigation. By
separating the two, it allowed staff later in the report to suggest that landscape issues, for
example, be treated differently for single-family homes. Then single-family homeowners would
not anticipate, once that house became historic, that a review board could dictate how flowers
were planted. It recognized that someone’s home was being reviewed and allowed a tailoring to
keep people from feeling their privacy was being invaded by the process.
Council Member Eakins said the issue of privacy was important and not always considered in the
process. She asked whether something could be added about line of sight.
Ms. Cauble said a better place to insert the issue of line of sight was under Item 11 on the agenda
dealing with single-family design review issues. The issue of privacy between neighbors was not
one related to historic properties uniquely but was a common issue which should be addressed in
that forum.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the staff
recommendation (6B) to provide a different set of regulations and a different process for single
family properties than for multifamily/nonresidential properties.
Council Member Mossar said Ms. Warheit’s clarification made the recommendation acceptable.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the staff
recommendation (6C) to provide for staff review of minor projects.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
Council Member Wheeler-thought no one would argue with Item 6D-1 that Landmark properties
should be required to comply with recommendations of the HRB and staff on exterior alterations;
however, the same was not true of Item 6D-2 with regard to significant resource properties.
Given what had been heard from the community about the importance of the subject and how
much time was required for the process for the highly qualified people the City would require to
be on the Board, she doubted the City would find anyone to serve for very long if only one tenth
of the properties subject to review had to comply with the recommendations or rulings and the
other 90 percent could ignore the rulings. If the City desired high-quality people willing to spend
a great deal of time providing a service to the community, which the community had indicated
was extremely important, then the reviews and design work the body conducted had to be
complihd with.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the staff
recommendations for 6D-1 and for 6D-2, that Council adopt for Landmark and Significant
Resources properties mandatory design review compliance for both major and minor projects.
Council Member Eakins supported Council Member Wheeler’s comments. The chart showing
the comparison of historic preservation ordinances from different cities in the State indicated that
for alterations mandatory compliance was required. None of the cities had voluntary compliance.
Vice Mayor Schneider agreed with mandatory compliance for major projects but was unable to
support the requirement for significant resource projects, especially when 900 properties were
involved. Palo Alto had a significantly larger number of houses on the inventory than other
communities, for instance, a much greater proportion of houses in Palo Alto were placed on the
list which could interfere with personal property rights of homeowners. Confidence should be
placed in the individual homeowners, particularly on significant resource properties. She would
not support the motion.
Council Member Kniss supported the motion with some hesitation and the desire to see the issue
monitored. A number of individuals were affected by the motion. She had become more
alarmed with what was happening in the community. Many cities in the country were in the
process of searching for ways to maintain their historic sites and be fair about it. The motion
might not work long-term. Whatever was done should not be in concrete and should be revisited.
The City had learned a great deal over the past 18 months.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the total number of landmark and significant properties
was 900 or 1,100.
Ms. Warheit said
Council Member
the current total on the inventory was more than 500.
Ojakian asked whether the expectation was for the number of increase to 1,100.
Ms. Warheit said the number would .be affected by the number of historic districts. A substantial
increase over the current number would be seen.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the number of properties could be 4 to 5 percent of the
building stock in Palo Alto.
Ms. Warheit said the percentage would not be significant in relation to the total building stock.
Council Member Ojakian asked how other cities handled significant pieces of property such as
mandatory or voluntary compliance.
Ms. Warheit said all of the ordinances she had seen, where significant properties were actually on
the historic inventory and subject to review, required compliance.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the reference was to both Landmark and Significant.
Ms. Warheit said both. Most cities made no distinction between the Landmark and Significant
properties, although some had different names. No other city called it "significant resource."
Typically, anything on the inventory was subject to review, and compliance was required.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the landmark status applied to every home in the district
or just a certain number of homes, e.g.,Professorville, which was an historic district.
Ms. Warheit said only the contributors to the district were subject to regulations. The standard
treatment for noncontributors in a district was simply that any new construction had to be
compatible with the character of the district. Most of the buildings within a district were
contributors.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether undesignated properties within a historic district would
go through some type of review process.
Ms. Warheit said noncontributors of new construction would go through a review process for
general compatibility with the district.
Council Member Oj akian asked whether the types of alterations would be restricted.
Ms. Warheit was unsure how alterations would be treated. Buildings could be demolished, so
the City would not have much control.
Council Member Ojakian was comfortable, given the limited number of homes affected and the
fact nothing out of the ordinary from other jurisdictions was being done, in supporting the
motion.
Council Member Mossar said if the City was going to ask for a review, compliance should be
mandatory. The process should not be considered onerous but an opportunity for the community
to preserve very special housing in the community. Other communities had chosen to use the
same type of regulation to successfully accomplish the goal for which Palo Alto would be glad to
achieve the same.
Council Member Eakins ~aid the City had not proposed greater numbers or percentages of
housing stock than other communities so as to make Palo Alto stand out as being extreme but
had been very middle-of-the-road with its historic inventory. The most difficult aspect of the
process would be the transition because homes were purchased when protections had not been in
place. Council Member Kniss was correct. The initial phases of establishing the regulations
would be difficult, especially during transition. She was sympathetic with people who found
expectations changed. The City was doing something for the good of the community. For
clarification, the requirements were for exterior alterations only.
Council Member Fazzino said the issue was one of the most fundamental to come before the
Council within the broader context of historic preservation. He had wrestled with the issue and
came to the conclusion that if he could not support Significant Resource mandatory compliance,
why had he spent an inordinate amount of time over the past 18 months on the whole subject of
historic preservation. Voluntary compliance had not worked over the past few years and had not
worked during an over-heated housing market. Voluntary compliance had worked in the 1980s,
for the most part, but the community would have still had some wonderful homes if it had a
process in place to preserve them. If the Council supported the staff recommendation, he
questioned the necessity of an ordinance. At the same time, he was concerned about the minor
project aspect and wanted to revisit the issue. To a significant degree, his final vote on the issue
would depend on how a "minor project" was defined. Predictability and streamlining were
critical with respect to the whole ordinance. He would not want the City to achieve international
notoriety over a minor exterior alteration, and he wanted the public to move through the process
as quickly as possible. He supported the motion but wanted to retain the right to revisit the issue
of minor projects, depending upon the definition of minor project during the next iteration of the
processl
Council Member Mossar said a window change might seem minor but had very significant
impacts on the visual integrity of a house.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the first paragraph on page 15 of the staff report (CMR: 138:98),
which mentioned the Secretary of Interiors Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings. He said staff would interpret Comprehensive Plan Program L-60 as providing
different levels of compliance with those standards, depending on whether a structure was a
Landmark or Significant Resource.
Ms. Warheit said every project and every building was unique. Over the past few months, the
HRB had been very careful and had thoughtfully worked with each landowner during landmark
reviews. A considerable amount of discretion had been used. The draft Comprehensive Plan
contained a program requiring compliance to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Landmarks,
which had not seemed inconsistent as being helpful to the HRB such as when the HRB knew it
was looking at a Landmark, it had some rationale for trying to get the very best possible product.
If the HRB was not looking at a Landmark, many options and solutions were possible. For
example, the Maybeck or Sun Bonnet house which had appeared before the HRB for a window
change on the second floor. The owner had proposed a change to a window which had been
installed in the 1920s, removal of an original window, and installation of a pair of matching
windows. Because the house had been designed by Bernard Maybeck, an internationally known
designer for whom the house represented a special piece of work, an interesting discussion liad
ensued between the owner, architect, and the HRB about the options. At the end of the first
meeting; all had agreed the proposal was probably not the best solution. It failed to give the
owner exactly what was desired while leaving a special piece of architecture intact. The owner
had returned two weeks later with another solution which everyone approved, providing a
window which met the owner’s needs and left the original window intact. If the building had not
been a Landmark structure, not as much time and energy would have gone into the change,
Mayor Rosenbaum asked Mr. Kohler whether the HRB was comfortable making such
distinctions.
Mr. Kohler replied yes. The HRB had struggled with the item as well and most had reacted to
the main paragraph on page 18 of the staff report (CMR: 138:98) about the consultants doing the
historic survey in town and reviewing categories 1 through 4, found that many of the Category 3
and 4 homes already on the inventory had been changed significantly and were no longer
considered historic houses. The Category 3 and 4 homes had not been required to come before
the HRB for review and a good number had not done so. The HRB had suggested Landmark
structures be reviewed and be mandatory, while Significant properties, would be handled in a less
strict manner with more flexibility: Incentives should be given to encourage individuals to save
the structures, so the degree of review would be decreased for the less important properties.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council should not assume the words on page 15 of the
staff report (CMR: 138:98) directed staff tO use the phrases "high level of conformance" for
Landmarks and "substantially conform" for Significant Resources. Staff would work on
standards which were, hopefully, more usable. The Council had heard a long description about
the amount of discretion being applied. The next question was whether it would make a practical
difference for the person in the process with Significant Resource versus Landmark home. The
quoted phrases were not directions to staff, which staff had not necessarily intended to use.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether staff would attempt to distinguish the degree to which the
alterations had to satisfy the Secretary of the Interior Standards, depending upon whether an
historic or significant resource.
Mr. Calonne said he would ask staff, but that was the way he understood the recommendation.
Mayor Rosenbaum had struggled to find a reason to maintain the two categories: Landmark and
Significant Resource. Since Item 6D was the only one to which the difference applied, it might
or might not be significant, i.e., he queried whether there was any reason to have a separation
between the two categories.
Mr. Kohler said he had been involved in the review of the interim ordinance for 18 months on
the HRB, and structures had been reviewed for home improvement exceptions and variances.
The HRB had ~e ability to discern between a Landmark and Significant structures from reading
the current process, The concern had been that the loss of mandatory compliance with a
Significant structure, making it voluntary, would not be worth the effort. Landmark structures
were more closely examined than Significant structures. Staff was very competent in providing
analytical reports to help the HRB.
Mayor Rosenbaum supported the motion, but was uncomfortable with the timing and would be
much more comfortable if he knew how many homes would bein the categories. He had hoped
the Council would have been provided with the information. Council Member Ojakian had
mentioned 4 or 5 percent, e.g., with 15,000 single-family homes in Palo Alto, if the number were
much larger it would be a problem. However, the issue could be revisited.
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Schneider "no," Huber "not participating?’
Mr. Kohler said the HRB had discussed Item 6E and proposed that fence permits be reinstituted
for Landmark and Significant structures. Currently no permit was necessary for fences in such
areas and some fences could be especially detrimental to the look of a Landmark structure.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the staff
recommendation (6E) for single-family properties, staff recommends Option 2, 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). Landscape/site features on Significant
Resources property would not be reviewed.
Council Member Mossar preferred to see a review for both landmark and significant resources,
using the same logic which had been used all evening such as the desire to preserve the historic
integrity of the residences. Compliance was not as strict for Significant Resources, but fencing
or paving or other drastically different landscaping could change the nature of a residence. It
seemed a shame not to have any opportunity to have dialogue with an owner of a Significant
Resource about how they might improve the plans and better maintain the historic integrity.
Council Member Kxtiss had initially felt the same way, but was not prepared to move in that
direction at the current time.
Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Member Kniss and for consistency sake because
the review was limited, preferred to see it applied to both categories.
Council Member Eakins supported the motion because landscape features, by and large, were
reversible, whereas alterations to the historic structure were less reversible.
Council Member Wheeler had examined a number of the houses on the Priority 1 list, and her
view on Item 6E had been significantly shaped by what she had observed. Many of the houses
examined, which were likely to be included on the inventory at some Point in the future, not only
were lovely and significant architecturally, but many had very significant trees or walls or hedges
present for some duration. Such landscape features became a very important part of the
property’s significance. The trees might not be protected under the City’s heritage tree ordinance.
The City would be missing something if properties were allowed to change without any review
whatsoever. The direction in which Council Member Kniss was heading, was fairly judicious
and would allow the City to back out and back down if it appeared too invasive. The City ran the
risk of losing some significant and historic features of the property that made the property
enjoyable if it failed to at least have a conversation with the owners about retention of the
landscape features.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to amend the motion
that the City govern single-family Significant Resource properties according to Option No. 2,
limited review of historic landscape site features as described in 6E and that the compliance with
that review be voluntary on the part of the property owner.
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Kniss, Schneider, Rosenbaum "no," Huber "not participating."
Council Member Fazzin0 supported the amendment because of the voluntary clause, but was
concerned about that aspect of the issue and might wish to revisit it within a few months.
Council Member Eakins thought people should have the opportunity to make their own mistakes.
Optional compliance conformed with her opinion.
Council Member Krtiss thought voluntary meant a discussion with the applicant where advice
was given and the owner had the option to take or not take the advice.
Ms. Warheit said Council Member Kniss was correct.
Council Member Kniss thought the item was not a significant change and had no disagreement
with it. The only distinction was that the City was willing to provide free advice which might or
might not be taken.
Vice Mayor Schneider said the cost in terms of stafftime and HRB time would be significant if a
review of landscape features was requi’red on every significant resource property.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the staff
recommendation (t’) for single family properties that are Landmark, limit the 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 Significant Resource properties.
Council Member Kniss said the color of buildings, particularly related to Landmark properties,
was extremely significant. Paint color was very significant, and Landmarks could be destroyed
without the limited review.
Vice Mayor Schneider was concerned about discussing shades of beige and white. A number of
houses fitting into the Landmark category were painted very different colors and were very
attractive. Individuals should be given an opportunity to express personal taste.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the City would be able to provide information about
appropriate colors for a particular style or era of house.
Ms. Warheit said Council Member Kniss’s comment was very appropriate for the City to make
available in its library.
Council Member Mossar supported the motion but hoped it was one of the points of information
provided to the public so the public could understand the significance of paint color and the fact
appropriate colors were possible.
Council Member Fazzino supported the motion but expressed concern about declaring "official"
City colors for a particular time. He was not desirous of being in the position of legislating color
choice. The proposal was acceptable but the City should not devote a great deal of resources
determining color choices. The Council should be careful about moving away from the original
intent and objective of the ordinance. If the Council became mired in detail, it could lose support
of the overall objectives of the program.
Council Member Eakins agreed with Council Member Fazzino’s comments. For Significant
Resources, color was reversible and the major objectives should be kept in mind without
becoming too picky.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:35 P.M.
Mayor Rosenbaum had discussed with staff the possibility of having the more complex items
.~eferred to either the Planning Commission, HRB, ARB, or a combination thereof.
MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to refer Item
Nos. 7B, 7C-2, 7C-3, and 7F to the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and
Historic Resources Board.
MOTION TO REFER PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating.,
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the staff
recommendations for 7A, 7C-1, 7C’4, 7D-l, 7D-2, 7D-3, 7D-4, and 7E, and explore other
incentive ideas that have been recommended by the public at other meetings.
Council Member Wheeler said owners of historic properties faced uncertain futures and
challenges, The City should do whatever make it more economically feasible to retain and
maintain the homes.
Council Member Kniss said the Council was looking at options. Options 7 and 7B were
particularly interesting. Many of the lots were large and the house small. The temptation was
very great for someone to purchase the lot, split the lot, and build two houses larger than the
current house. To allow something like that would be a dramatic change in the way the issue had
been considered previously.
Council Member Ojakian was interested in two other incentives. Council Member Fazzino had
discussed streamlining, ensuring a specific time frame was provided for the projects and
minimizing the time people were in the process. Also, Option 7D involved the development of
an incentive-based fee schedule, which he hoped would minimize the cost to people. The City
might defray some of the costs because of the objective. He hoped the incentives would be
advantageous to the homeowners.
Council Member Fazzino endorsed Council Member Ojakian’s comments about streamlining the
review process, an important element of the plan. He was pleased with the suggestion of an
incentive-based fee system. Historic preservation represented, a benefit to the entire community,
therefore, the entire community needed to bear some of the costs associated with preservation.
One way of which was through a fee system encouraging preservation.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
Council Member Mossar asked for staffs rationale for eliminating the requirement to have one
member of the HRB an owner/occupant of an historic structure.
Mr. Schreiber said when the Historic Resources Board (HRB) had originally been established,
the intent was for the HRB to have an advisory, voluntary compliance role. A homeowner was
considered a valuable part of the advisory function. As the HRB moved into a more rigorous,
formal role, staff thought that to be consistent with other boards, and the HRB should not have
unusual requirements. The Council had discretion to appoint the most qualified applicants.
Nothing would prohibit one or more members of the HRB from being owners of historic houses,
but staff wanted to provide the Council with the flexibility of making appointments as it saw fit.
The four architects on the ARB had provided a good design review role.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the HRB had any thoughts on the composition.
Mr. Kohler said the HRB had discussed the issue. The majority of the HRB felt that increasing
the number of architects was not a major benefit. He personally thought the mix of the HRB was
excellent, including people who had grown up in Palo Alto, some who had made their hobby the
history of Palo Alto, and four who were licensed architects. Discussions had been very "
enlightening between licensed and nonlicensed members. A proposal had been drafted with a
recommendation for four architects on the HRB. The HRB thought having one HRB member
who owned an historic structure, not necessarily a landmark structure, was important. Such an
individual provided perspective on what was required to keep up an historic home.
Council Member Wheeler thought since the decision had been made to make compliance with
the HRB’s review mandatory, the rationale was present for requiring a majority of the HRB to
have formal design training or experience. On the other hand, as an observer of the HRB over
the past few years, Mr. Kohler’s statement about the mix of areas of expertise on the HRB were
pertinent. The HRB would be talking with a number of homeowners who were very perplexed
by the process and would have many questions. No one could answer the questions and concerns
better than a member of the HRB who had been through the same thing. Most of the older
homes in the community needed the attention of current owners. It was appropriate to continue
to have an owner of.an historic home or a building. The ARB was another design review body
with four out of its five members with a specific designation, which had resulted in very good
recommendations.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt staff
¯ recommendation (8) Changes to qualifications of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) members.
The requirement in the ctm’ent Ordinance was that three of the seven HRB members be architects
or other design professionals should be increased to require that four members have such
credentials. Continue to require that one member shall be an owner/occupant of a Category 1 or
2 historic home or structure in a historic district.
Council Member Ojakian said at one time the HRB position of owner/occupant had been filled
by a member of the Professorville zone, which had been very useful.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether an overwhelming number of property owners could decide
to remove a neighborhood from a conservation area just as an overwhelming number of people in
a single-story overlay could agree to remove the single-story overlay.
Mr. Schreiber said the situation with single-story overlay was similar in that people could
petition for removal of the district from the single-story overlay. However, the ultimate decision
was the Council’s, not the property owners.
Vice Mayor Schneider clarified the group could potentially petition for removal from a
conservation area.
Mr. Schreiber replied yes. However, the Council could chose whether or not to pursue the issue.
Council Member Eakins said at the last HRB meeting, Mr. Kohler made a very eloquent
comment about a flaw of the interim program, e.g., assigning historic designations on a
case-by-case basis rather than looking at an entire block, neighborhood, or district.
Mr. Kohler said over the past 18 months, an issue had arisen through the HRB that on any
particular block, two homes could be designated contributing residents with a house in between
not historic. Therefore, the house in the middle could be tom down and rebuilt in any fashion.
Whereas, the two homes on either side would have to go through the interim review and
compatibility review process.
Council Member Eakins was less interested in the flaws of the interim ordinance and more
concerned about the final process.
Mr. Kohler said people continually asked why one house was historic and another was not, and
why a particular house was not historic and others were contributing. He expressed concern
about entire blocks. The interim period had been more isolated on an individual basis and had
not dealt with blocks and neighborhoods. People questioned what the new ordinance would do
to help neighborhoods.
Council Member Eakins clarified a neighborhood historic district would be helpful in meeting
some of the interests of the community.
Mr. Kohler replied yes. People from College Terrace had mentioned some of the streets were a
lost cause since many of the historic homes had been replaced by de.veloper-type houses. If
sufficient numbers in the community requested an area be designated a conservation area, further
restrictions could be placed on the entire block rather than individually.
Council Member Eakins understood staff had used the example of the single-story overlay
merely for demonstration purposes and the historic districts would not have to follow the same
pattern.
Ms. Warheit replied yes.
Council Member Eakins asked whether 70 percent of the property owners would have to request
the change or whether it would be a professional and policy judgment about the integrity of an
area.
Ms. Warheit said the proposal would examine the exact sort of issues Council Member Eakins
had raised. Staff had not meant to propose any particular arrangement or be specific.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the difference between an historic district and a neighborhood
conservation area with respect to how it was formed, the sort of properties contained within, etc.
Ms. Warheit said an historic district had a very specific definition in the Secretary’s standards,
National Park Service Guidelines, etc. Some historic context or meaning had to be conveyed by
the structures as opposed to only being pleasant to look at. In the survey, the historic context, the
cultural, economic, and social development of the City, etc., would provide the basis for
identifying where historic districts should be located. A neighborhood might have a pleasant
aspect and might be of a character representing the City and was something the City valued and
wanted to protect, but there might not be an historic meaning. That would be the main difference
between an historic distric.t and a neighborhood conservation area.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the differences in terms of how thedistricts were formed. The
implication was that residents would approach the City to request an historic district also.
Ms. Warheit said historic districts would be identified in the historic survey work.
Mayor Rosenbaum clarified the City would create historic districts based on studies conducted
where a neighborhood conservation area would come from the residents.
Ms. Warheit said that was the way neighborhood conservation was being proposed under Item 9.
Some communities took direction in identifying areas appropriate for conservation. Historic
districts would definitely come out of survey work.
MOTION: Council Member Ealdns moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt staff recommendation
(9) Property owner-initiated Neighborhood Conservation Areas, to direct staffto 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 as to how such zones could be
established at the time the revised historic inventory was presented to City Council in the final
quarter of 1998, with the understanding that the process be broader rather than narrow in its
interpretation of the Single-Story Overlay zone processes.
Council Member Eakins said the community had been verbal about the issue of the need for an
additional way to protect neighborhoods.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating."
MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to not allow demolitions or
major, significant exterior alterations on properties of historic relevance in either Study Priorities
1 or 2 during the period between the end of the interim ordinance and adoption of the final
ordinance until the end of December 1998 or when the historic survey was adopted by the City
Council without the historic evaluation including consideration of possible district status.
Council Member Eakins said the point was to find out whether or not structures on the two lists
had historic significance and whether possible Landmarks or Significant Resources were
included in a historic district, whether national or local, or in a possible historic neighborhood
conservation district. Further, a process needed to be provided for identifying and evaluating the
historic status.
Council Member Kniss asked how many houses were affected and the length of time the process
would take. The goal .was clearly to protect houses needing protection. The second goal was to
not impact staff beyond its ability to absorb what the Council was putting out. A balancing act
was going on between protection and what could be provided.
Mr. Schreiber said approximately 600 properties were listed in Priority 1 and 2;700 in Priority 2,
of which one or two per week were involved in demolitions assuming a stringent demolition
definition such as a significant change to the front facade. Significant exterior change had been
added but not defined. Staff had no basis with which to provide a number. Staff resources
would be diverted from the overall effort.
Vice Mayor Schneider could not support the motion for the same reasons she had used all along,
e.g., 3,300 houses would be prohibited from demolition. There was no question some houses
which should be protected could be lost, but the recommendation was against the public’s will to
have that number o~’houses, particularly Priority 2. Too much was being asked of staff.
Council Member Mossar supported the motion. The biggest reason for the motion was the
City’s situation of having to draft an ordinance prior to completion of the inventory.
Unfortunately, a clearer picture of the end result of the inventory was not available. A holding
pattern needed to be created for houses the City might need to protect.
Council Member Wheeler said the houses on the Priority 2 list would be on the list for a defined
period of time. The City would be highly motivated to move the houses off the holding list one
way or the other because of the defined period of time. A way would be afforded to people in the
holding area, should circumstances arise in their personal situations requiring an answer sooner
rather than later, to get the answer and evaluation. Given the fact the opportunity existed and the
fact staff had indicated not a great number of houses would require an the answer within the
interim period, it was perfectly reasonable to protect all of the houses for potential inclusion in
the inventory for the period of time necessary to finish the inventory.
Mayor Rosenbaum thought a specific four-month period had been defined without any
expectation that all of the homes in Study Priority 2 would have been categorized by the end of
the period. Several thousand homes would be left with a requirement to make a decision by the
end of the year about what to do with the remaining homes.
Council Member Wheeler thought the inventory was to have been completed by the end of the
year and interim .period. If not completed, the motion would motivate completion and another
discussion would be necessary to determine whether the time period should be extended or allow
the homes to be released. People needed assurance about the completion of the inventory.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked staff to comment about characterizing 2,700 homes by the end of the
)’ear.
Mr. Schreiber said by the end of the year, the majority of Priority 2 structures would not have
been researched or received a recommendation for placement or non-placement on the inventory.
Staffs conclusion in terms of the future holding pond was that the properties would not be
subject to City restriction in the ordinance. Two classifications would be m~ide. Absent any
change, the ordinance would return with the Landmark and Significant Resource categories. The
great bulk of the properties would not have had a decision regarding the inventory.
Ms. Warheit concurred but added staffwould know more about the properties by the end of the
summer, so the Council would have a greater understanding of the reasonable choices.
Mr. Schreiber said the Council would be provided with a list, a map, and other information, but
would not be able to make a decision as to whether the properties were inventory-eligible.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked Council Member Eakins whether she had a process in the interim
period for determining property eligibility.
Council Member Eakins thought some of the structures would be dismissed readily. The added
obstacle was the possible inclusion of an historic district which added an extra layer of attention,
but addressed widespread concern across the community about losing the settings for the City’s
individual historic structures on the inventory. A number of suggestions from people had been
received. Steve Pierce had outlined a possible procedure. She asked Mr. Kohler whether the
process should be continued or changed to make it move faster, particularly for structures on the
Priority 2 list.
Mr. Kohler thought it might be possible to deal with it as an on-demand basis such as a
homeowner wanting to do something on his house, a way Could be made to determine whether or
not it was on the list.
Council Member Eakins asked whether ways could be found to streamline the process further,
particularly in light of the volume.
Mr. Kohler was unsure a speedy way of considering homes for the historic inventory was
possible. In the early days of the interim ordinance, the HRB reviewed 10 to 12 homes every
week. Currently, four to five homes every two weeks were reviewed. No one was able to
calculate the volume of homes.
Mr. Schreiber said the issue was one of both district and inventory. A merit evaluation regarding
appropriateness on the inventory also opened up applications from properties not pursuing
demolition but considered for sale. Staff had received requests for merit evaluation even when
no building permit had been applied for. In many cases, no building permit was anticipated.
Moving away from individuals desiring demolition or physical change, the numbers would
expand. However, the numbers would decrease since currently staff was dealing with 6,000
structures which would decrease to just over 3,000.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the feasibility of determining whether a structure might be in an
historic district as opposed to individual designation.
Ms. Warheit said such an evaluation was reasonable. The purpose was not to lose .properties
considered eligible for the inventory, which meant a structure could be considered either because
it was part of a district or individually eligible. Whoever conducted the merit evaluation at the
HKB would be consulting with the survey team and relying on the information from the survey
to make an earlier estimation about whether the property was located in an area seriously being
considered as an historic district or not.
Council Member Ojakian asked when staff anticipated completion of the review oft he 2,700
homes.
Mr. Schreiber said staff assumed completing review of the 2,700 houses could take any number
of years since it involved volunteer efforts which would take time. Despite all the best
intentions, he could not imagine the process would move very quickly given the size of the list.
Council Member Ojakian said while the continued over the next two to three years, any of the
homes could be significantly altered.
Mayor Rosenbaum thought the Council would have revisited the issue in December when it
found out what was left over in the undesignated category.
Council Member Ojakian said staff thought not many homes would have been designated at the
end of four months, and the Council would have basically the same discussion.
Mayor Rosenbaum said the Council would have a better idea of where it stood with what had not
been designated.
Council Member Ojakian said in some ways, his preference would have been to create a third
category of homes which could be demolished or have exterior alterations but in the meantime
go through a review process to at least educate people and minimize the potential destruction of
the homes.
Council Member Mossar had no disagreement with Council Member Ojakian’s comments about
a third category, however, by supporting the motion, the Council gave itself some time to obtain
more information. The number of Landmark and Significant structures was unknown. The
Council would also have had some experience living with the ordinance and would find it much
easier to make a decision.
Council Member Ojakian would support the motion, because it would buy some time. However,
an attempt was being made to match rules with reality. The Council was in the process of setting
policy, which was good; but policy had to match with the housing stock or not much would have
been accomplished.
Council Member Kniss asked how the number differed significantly from where the City stood
with the current ordinance calling for pre-1940 structures.
Mr. Schreiber said about half as many, i.e., 3,300 versus 6,000.
Council Member Kniss said virtually the number was being cut in half, a few months time was
being bought, and it seemed harmless on the surface. The number of volunteer hours made the
task daunting. She hesitantly supported the motion. Although the number would decrease, the
City would hear a number of complaints from individuals caught in the web.
Council Member Fazzino said the City had committed itself to a huge task. The job needed to be
completed right and move forward. Staffhad indicated a number of the properties might be
eligible for historic status, which was sufficient for him to want to fred a way of including the
properties in the demolition prohibition during the transition period. Since the City was in the
middle of the process, if no way was found to preserve the properties during the transition period,
a rush on the 5th floor would be overwhelming. A way needed to be found to protect the homes
during the transition period and complete the job. At the same time, it was very important that
the job be completed as quickly as possible. He appreciated the amount of work staff had to do
but was convinced staff could complete the job quicker than indicated. Many of the homes could
be evaluated and a decision made fairly quickly to determine whether a home was eligible for
historic status, which might need to be the focus over the following months. Difficult decisions
would have to be made. During the interim time, appeals to the process should be expedited as
quickly as possible to avoid some of the pitfalls associated with time and expense which had
plagued the interim process to date.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider "no," Huber "not participating."
10. Council Members Eakins, Mossar and Wheeler re the Future of Residential Structures in
¯ Palo Alto
Council Member Wheeler thanked John Northway and Annette Glanckopf Ashton for bringing a
group of three dozen citizens and City staff together to discuss the future of residential housing in
Palo Alto. The group was most unique, the discussion lively, and resulted in a product of which
the Council had received several versions. Thanks were also given to George Stem for his
careful editing and authorship of the document. During her own tenure as Mayor, the big
surprise had been the public out(ry over the demolition of houses throughout the City,
particularly in historic neighborhoods. The number of people who became involved in the issue
resulted in the interim historic regulations. The outcry had been about the loss of the historic
fabric of the town as well as the kinds of structures being used to replace the lost historic
structures. The purpose of the group had not been to come up with a solution, but had been
designed to examine what was occurring in the City and to determine whether a problem existed.
If a problem existed, an attempt would be made to define the problem. The group had decided a
problem existed and had made a very good attempt at definition.
¯ Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing.
George. Stem, 705 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the need to maintain the desirability of Palo
Alto.
John Northway, Lytton Avenue, spoke regarding the group’s attempt to define a very
complicated problem with tensions which needed to be minimized. The Council was urged to
continue the work on the future of residential structures in Palo Alto.
Annette Glanckopf Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the difficulty in defining the
various viewpoints and concerns for the future of residential structures in Palo Alto. No
solutions had been discussed. The individuals who contributed were thanked. No easy solution
was possible and tension would always be present. The Council was asked to approve the
motion and consider formation of a legitimatized broad-based citizens group to continue to work
with planning staff to investigate work in other communities to present alternatives.
Herb: Borock, 2731 Byron Street, encouraged the Council to provide precision to the motion. In
recent years, a work plan had been received for the Planning Division which included all of the
assignments. If the work in the motion was to be included in the work plan, such an indication
should be made or the objectives would not be achieved.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, asked the Council to approve the motion, and ask staffto make the
issue a priority. People were upset about what was going on in the community. The Council
was urged to ask staff to keep in mind: 1) the context of the houses; 2) how houses fit into
neighborhoods, particularly setbacks; 3) how design review improved product; 4) paint and
color; and 5) how a minor change can have a major impact on a structure’s intrusion into another
person’s space.
Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing.
Council Member Wheeler appreciated the comments by members of the .public and the concerns
raised by the last few speakers. The drafters of the memo shared the concerns. Both the historic
preservation issue and the R-1 design issue should be explored and addressed within a reasonable
time frame in order to achieve equity among various owners and to avoid unintended and
negative consequences for some neighborhoods. The intent of the colleagues who wrote the
memo that direction be given to staffto incorporate the item in the work plan and that staff
would proceed within the 1998-99 fiscal year.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to direct staff to incorporate
in the Planning Department Work Plan for 1998-1999 potential changes to Palo Alto’s
regulations to address the design and quality of its residential neighborhoods.
City Manager June Fleming said if the motion passed, staffwould take the direction as a policy
decision the Council had made. Staff would return during the budget as a part of the 1998-99 ~
work plan. Other items would, of necessity, be removed from the work plan. The Zucker Report
revealed how staff would be unable to accomplish all of the items already in the work plan along
with the additional item, which would be taken as a priority.
Council Member Ojakian said the City Manager had raised a good point. The project was
monumental and would probably have a large dollar figure with it. A process was just being
started and the motion would provide the latitude to obtain information.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations] Shall be in Effect
Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to
speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff
recommendation to introduce the Ordinance to extend the Interim Historic Regulations to August
31, 1998.
Ordinance 1 st Reading entitled "Ordinance oft he Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations] Shall be in Effect"
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino and Huber absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
Sections 2
Office of the City Council
MEMORANDUM 11
Attachment C
DAT~:
TO:
FROM:
June 25, 1998
City Council Colleagues -
Vice Mayor Schneider, Council Members Sandy Eakins, Lanie Wheeler and Liz
Kniss
SUI3TECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
In the pages that follow, we are asking the Council, in conjunction with the extension of the ’
Interim Historic Ordinance, to give staff direction to make several important amendments. In
brief these may be described as changes to the Compatibility Review Standards and the Ordinance
itself to give applicants more flexibility; provision of additional information and training to
applicants; amendments to the review process to streamline minor modifications and to allow
appeal of staff decisions to the HRB and Council.
o0o
Extending the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance will be before us once again on July 6. As
elected officials we often try to seek balance -- balanced benefits, balanced burdens and,
ultimately, a balanced community. Before voting on the extension, we believe the Council must
reweigh several elements of the Interim Ordinance to assure retaining the balance we all want.
We initially intended the interim ordinance to be in effect for about a year. Given that relatively
short original life span, and the extensive initial exemptions we created to relieve hardship for "in-
process" projects, we felt’ comfortable that any burdens upon demolition and remodeling were
deafly outweighed by the community-wide benefits of retaining and enhancing the community
character that makes Palo Alto more than just acollection of incongruous subdivisions.
We will be extending the interim ordinance until June 30, 1999, or about two and one-half years
after we originally ventured into community-wide historic preservation policy development. This
is necessary for reasons well known to all of us. But we should recognize that the interim
ordinance has had, and will continue to have, real impacts on many residents.
.Before we turn to specific proposals to address the impacts, it is important to remember that we
have focused almost exclusively upon the rules needed to assure historic preservation, and left the
crucial discussion of incentives and benefits as a small print footnote. The incentive and benefit
programs already approved by the Council are real and substantial. Indeed, part of our reason for
City Council Colleagues
June 25, 1998
Page 2
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
delaying the permanent ordinance was to meet our direction that the incentives and benefits are on
the books at the same time as the ordinance becomes effective. Our objective should be to create
powerful incentives and benefits so that the homeowner has clear reasons to choose preservation
over demolition. The homeowner benefits of historic preservation will include the following:
Facilitate use of the State Historical Building Code (flexible code requirements)
Allow a separate dwelling unit where otherwise not allowed
Allow creation of a subdivision where otherwise not allowed
Reduce parking requirements
Do not count existing basements toward the floor area ratio
Allow coverage limits to be exceeded to support a one-story addition instead of a two-
story addition
Provide for streamlined staff review ofmin0r exterior alterations
Have Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE)
decided by the Director of Plarming and Community Environment with the
recommendation of the HRB
Limit required notification for HIE and DEE to neighboring properties adjacent to and
.across the street from the site
Have HR.B, rather than HRB and AKB, review projects on
multifarnily/nov.residential properties on the historic inventory
Develop an incentive-based fee schedule
Charge no fee for minor projects; modest fees based on the amount of new square footage
for major projects with full cost recovery for demolition applications "
Do not have City fees for HIE when the application is pan of a project being reviewed by
the ~
Provide information and-assistance in using the Federal Investment Tax Credit Program
Use Mills Act contracts in limited situations that meet criteria established by the City
Council
We believe these incentives and benefits will more than compensate historic homeowners for any
regulatory burdens. But the community dialogue on the specifics of creating these incentives
must begin promptly, under the direction of the Planning Commission, in order to integrate
historic preservation with our residential development laws. We encourage the Planning
Commission to work with staffto undertake our March 23, 1998, referral of these issues.
We request Support from odr colleagues for the following changes.
City Council Colleagues
June 25, 1998
Page 3
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
1.Compatibility Review Standards and Historic Preservation Regulations
We knew we would learn from the quieldy-prepared interim ordinance as a policy experiment. As
a result, we made much of the interim process administrative, i.e., governed by guidelines and
regulations rather than ordinances, so that staffcouid adapt quickly as we learned.
Unfortunately, the loss of key staff, El Nifio, and the overwhelming press of our exploding local
economy have combined to slow implementation of our original intent. As a result, we have not
yet adapted the administrative rules and processes to match our experience.
The City Council adopted the Historic Preservation Regulations and Compatibility Review
Standards by resolution. This means that the Council can modify policy direction for the
guidelines without rewriting the body of the ordinance. We can make adjustments in both of two
ways - one is for the required degree of uniformity and the other is for some content changes.
Our specific proposals for amendment are setforth below:
The Compatibility Review Standards generally compel conformity to one consistent
stylistic theme on any given home. Some relaxation in the degree of required conformity
to one consistent style needs to be made for both alterations and replacement structures.
We created the program for compatibility review to prevent the proliferation of confused-
looking interpretations and awkward mixtures of styles in both alterations and replacement
structures in Palo Alto’s older and mostly harmonious neighborhoodsl There is strong and
continued support to preserve graceful streetscapes and to protect the public realm from
the dominance of overly bold, awkward and attention demanding interpretations. On the
other hand, rigidly applied style mandates are simply too heavy handed. As policy makers,
we often fall back on the term, "wiggle room," to convey our desire for such relaxation.
The compatibility review-program needs a little "wiggle room" now. This does not mean
discarding the program, or so diluting it to the point that it is meaningless.
More orientation and training are needed for the next year of compatibility review. This is
Palo Alto’s first sizable attempt at residential design regulation. For several reasons, not
the least of which is the robust economic situation, there is increasing concern that
continued and additional design regulation may be desirable to promote orderly change
and to preserve neighborhood harmony. It is not harmonious, however, if property
owners feel that they have no way of preparing themselves for the experience of design
regulation. We are all familiarwith stories about applicants who feel frustrated that the
design that they have produced with intenseattention and expense does not fit the
compatibility review program in one or more aspects. We need to help the property
owner more so as to prevent more style and design standard related misunderstandings
from developing. We would propose that staff prepare advisory guides and related
City Council Colleagues
June 25, 1998
Page 4
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
materials for pre-applicants, including a full list of the benefits and incentives that are
already in place. Training should also he available for both Landmark and Contributing
property owners who want to know about preserving and maintaining their homes.
More staffing and support resources are needed to meet our customer service goals.
We. must expand the use of the staff review committee for compatibility style and design
review, and for staffappeals.
A sample list of changes in the standards follows. These changes should make it easier for both
the applicant and the staff to accomplish the goals of the program without facilitating the negative
design features that caused so much concern about replacement structures in 1996. There may be
others that could be offered in the same spirit, and we would direct staffto identify these and
other possibl.e amendments to the Compatibility Review Standards.and Historic Preservation .
Kegulations. The possibilities include:
Simplify the formula for calculating the prevailing setback and provide convenient options
to assist homeowners and designers in measuring the setbacks of neighboring structures
when this information is needed.
Evaluate and revise the requirement that attached garages on corner lots be recessed two
feet behind the main front facade to allow garages to be flush with the front facadewhen
desirable architecturally.
Revise the list of permitted driveway materials to permit precast interlocking concrete
pavers that replicate cobblestones and brick.
Evaluate and revise limitations on the number of special windows that may be allowed on
the street-facing facade.
Revise the written description of the required depth of window recesses to reflect
construction tolerances and modern building practices.
Revise and expand the list of acceptable roofing materials to include all shingle-style
products that have a compatible visual appearance, including modern composite shingles.
City Council Colleagues
June 25, 1998
Page 5
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
Revisions to the lnterim Ordinance
Some changes must reach the text of the interim ordinance. We would propose directing staff’to
return promptly with the following changes after the extension has been enacted,
Permit appeals of staff compatibility review determinations to the HRB and City Council,
Definition of Demolition
The current definition of demolition includes any alteration to a street facing facade. We
believe this has proven to be too rigid. While it may be difficult, we must create a readily
understandable standard so that insignificant front facade modifications do not
unnecessarily throw a homeowner into the compatibility review process.
Landmark Alteration Review
Staff should handle applications for minor alterations. Minor projects would not be
subject to I-IR.B review under the draft permanent ordinance and should not have to be
subject to public and HRB review under the interim ordinance, unless that review is
sought via an appeal.
Fees
Our standard application fee deposit for Landmark Alteration Reviews is $500.00, which
is very high for minor projects and should be reduced or eliminated. Even though the
unused amount is refunded to the applicant, the inconvenience and potential for hardship is
too high for minor projects.
3.Updated Report on the Interim Ordinance
Finally, it would be useful to have an updated report on the activities and results of the Interim
Ordinance activities. The last report was in September of 1997.
Please join us in supporting the foregoing actions.
To:
From:
Re:
Planning Division and
Plan Check
Fred Herman
State Historical Building Code
Attachment D
July 14, 1998
In 1975, California legislation added sections 18950 - 18961 to the Health and Safety Code, As a
result, Pan 8 of Title 24 was added to the California Code of Regulations, the State Historical
Building Code. Originally, the Code was not mandatory for State Agencies or local jurisdictions.
A 1984 legislative amendment changed the word "may" to "shall" in section 18959 and the Code
became mandatory in all jurisdictions. Palo Alto adopted the SHBC by ordinance prior to the
legislative mandate so the code has been in use here for almost 20 years.
Section 18955 of the Health and. Safety Code defines qualified historical building or structure. "A
qualified historical building or structure is any structure, collection of structures, and their associated
sites deemed of importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area by an appropriate local
or state governmental jurisdiction. This shall include structures on existing or future national, state,
or local historical registers or inventories, such as ....."A laundry list of examples follows and includes
historic districts.
To summarize the application of the SHBC is mandatory for any building or structure that appears
on our local inventory, regardless of category, and to any building or structure located in one of our
historic districts.
The intent of the SI-~C is to provide means for the preservation of the historical value of designated
buildings, and, concurrently, to provide reasonable safety from fire, seismic forces or other hazards
for occupants of such buildings, and to provide reasonable availability to and usability by, the
physically disabled (sec 18953).
The current codified standards have been in place since 1979. Although it is supposed to be a
performance, rather than a prescriptive code, it is very unclear. There is a lot of discretion for the
building department in applying the SHBC to a particular project.
As a result of the Northridge Earthquake the State I-l]storic Building Safety Board (SI-IBSB) received
FEMA funding to rewrite the code in 1996. The SHBSB is a diverse group of 20 individuals
representing various disciplines involved in historic preservation. These include architects, engineers,
State agencies (DSA, HCD, SFM, OSHPD, Caltran& CPR, etc.) and even two building officials. The
:new proposed standards are currently in the public review process and are scheduled for adoption by
the State Building Standards Commission later this month,
The SI-IBSB is also charged with providing official interpretations of the code and will hear appeals
on issues that have statewide significance. An appeal can be filed by any individual or jurisdiction.
In Palo Alto the code has been utilized many times in allowing flexibility in the application of the
prevailing code, the UBC. The SI-[BC allows modifica:ions to prevailing code provided reasonable
fire, life and structural safety are maintained. The SI-[BC does not provide an exemption to prevailing
code. It does allow alternative methodsand materials in order to comply and not destroy the historic
fabric of the building. The following examples illustrate a variety of cases where the SI-[BC has been
used successfully:
1. Children’s Theater - The existing brass handrails do not comply with the extensions required at the
top and bottom of the stairs. The cross section of the rails also do not comply with the UBC handrail
dimensions but are certainly useable and gripable. Using the SI-IBC we allowed the designer to
fabricate the new extensions to the same cross section as the existing rails in order to protect the
historic fabric while ensuring a safe condition.
2. Khona Williams House - Prevailing code would require the building to meet all requirements of the
1994.UBC because of the change in occupancy from a single family home to a museum. Without the
SI-IBC the disabled access ramp would be at the front door, the interior mahogany stairs and railings
would not be there, the fireplace and chimney would have come down, the plaster ceilings and walls
would have been sheet rocked, all electrical wiring and plumbing would have been replaced, a second
stair to the second floor would have been constructed and two accessible restrooms would be
required and the garage would have been replaced.
In lieu of complying with the letter of the UBC, the disabled access ramp was placed at the rear
entrance adjacent to the parking lot, all buildings were fire sprinklered allowing the existing plaster
walls and ceiling to remain, the total occupant load on the second floor was kept below 10 which
does not require two exits, the downstairs bathroom was removed and new fully accessible restrooms
were incorporated into the new building.
3. Single Family Home - Repair and replacement of the balcony guardralls would have decreased the
picket spacing and increased the rail height from 30 to 42 inches above the walking surface. The
repaired rails would have remained at 30 inches but the replacement rails would have been at 42
inches. The SHBC allows replacement in kind for qualified historic structures.
Other examples where the SHBC has been used include the Thoits victorian on Emerson Street, The
Stanford Theater, Boarders Books and many others.
ATTACHMENT E
Alameda
Belmont
Half Moon Bay
Los Gatos
Pacifica
Pasadena
Redwood City
Riverside
San Jose
Liver more
Santa Cruz
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Monica
Santa Rosa
South San Francisco
Sunnyvale
West Hollywood
None
None
None
None
Incentives provided as a part of other codes
None
None
Minimal incentives provided
Tax incentives provided
None
None
None.
None
None
Architectural review, fees, parking
SHBC, and Mills Act contracts.
None
None
None
Incentives provided.
Attachment G
Comparison of the existing Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (Option A) and revisions that removes
Compatibility Review (Option B)
Staffing
requirement
Application
processes
and timeline
Option A. Continue current program with minor
modifications which includes the screening for
historic merit evaluations, compatibility review
and mandatory review of landmarks.
1.Consultant services. Continuation of additional
resources to include 3 to 4 consultants to
continue the above programs at recentservice
levels. Staff estimates a minimum of 60 hours
per week between the team of consultants is
needed to adequately monitor and implement the
program. This includes a minimum of 20 hours
per week meeting with applicants. Estimated
cost per month is $16,800 dollars.
2. Staffing. Staff estimates a minimum of 30 hours
per week is needed to oversee and supervise the
program. This staff person must be from existing
staff given the immediate need and experience
desired. Consultant services (contract planners)
will need to backfill development review activities
currently being done by this person. Moderate
delays wilt occur in the processing of planning
entitlement applications to applicable Boards and
Commissions.
Application process time lines. The following
time frames for application processing for Historic
Merit Screening and Evaluation and subsequent
Compatibility Review and Landmark Alteration
Processes(days noted are calendar days) :
a. Applicant schedules mandatory
preapplication conference.
b.Applicant submits an application for Historic
Merit Screening and Evaluation.
c.Counter staff reviews submitted application
to determine if. all applicable application
requirements are included within 1 day.
d.Staff/consultant conducts in-depth review of
application for adequacy of submitted
materials. If incomplete application, a
meeting is scheduled with the applicant
within 7 days to discuss incompleteness.
Applicant must resubmit completed
application. No minimum time frame exists
for resubmittal of the application; therefore,
time frame for completion of review is
dependent upon resubmission of materials
by applicant.
e.Resubmitted application is reviewed for
completeness within 2 days.
Option B. Continue screening for historic merit
evaluations and mandatory review of landmarks
elimination compatibility review.
Consultant services. Additional resources to
include 2 to 3 consultants to complete the two
historic processes. Staff estimates a minimum of
20 hours per week between the team of consultants
is needed. This includes a minimum of 10 hours
per week meeting with applicants. Estimated cost
per month is $5,600 dollars.
Staffing. Staff estimates a minimum of 10 hours
per week is needed to oversee and supervise the
program. This staff person must be from existing
staff given the immediate need and experience
desired. Consultant services (contract planners)
will need to backfill activities. Short term delays
may occur in the processing of planning entitlement
applications to applicable Boards and
Commissions.
Application process time lines. Same as Option A,
however, without compatibility review significantly
fewer applications would be processed through the
entire system. On a monthly basis an average of
16 applications are processed in the system for
Historic Merit Screening. An average of 50% of the
applications are forwarded to the Historic
Resources Board for action.
Application
processes
and timeline
(contd.)
Exceptions/
Appeals
f.Staff/consultant conducts Historic Merit
Screening to determine if the structure may
have merit. This includes background
information verification, research and site
visit. Based upon findings, stafflconsultant
recommends whether the residence is
disqualified, structure without historic merit,
contributing residence, or historic landmark
within 21 days.
g.Minor Landmark Alterations to be approved
by Staff within 1 day.
h.Applicant is notified of staff’s
findings/recommendation for the property.
Hearing notice is mailed to applicant and
adjacent property owners and item is
scheduled for a public hearing within 12
days.
I.Public hearing before the HRB occurs within
1 day.
j.Final recommendation findings of the HRB
of either being structure without historic
merit; contributing residence, or Historic
Landmark provided to applicant after public
hearing within 5 days.
k.Applicant has 10 days to appeal the
decision
I.If application is determined to be
contributing structure or landmark structure,
applicant submits application to staff for
staff/consultant compatibility review based
upon applicable standards. Time frame for
review is dependent upon applicant’s
conformance with established compatibility
review standards. Typical time frame for
review is 4 weeks.
Minimum time from when an application is
deemed complete and able to be reviewed to
when it is forwarded to the HRB for
recommendation (items" d" through"i" as noted
above) is 41+ calendar days.
1.Compatibility review standards. Continue with
current program which allows applicant to
request an exception hearing by the Chief
Planning Official, Chief Building Official and
Zoning Administrator. Hearing is scheduled
within 30 days, and decision is rendered within
10 days. If applicant desires to continue appeal,
request will be forwarded to HRB and City
Council. No fee is charged for appeals.
2. Historic Merit Screening. Historic Merit
Screening resulting in "no merit" designation is
appealable to HRB and City Council.
3. Historic Merit Evaluation and Landmark
Alteration. Historic Merit Evaluation and
Landmark Alteration decisions by HRB are
appealable to Council.
1.Historic Merit Screening. Historic Merit Screening
resulting in "no merit" designation is appealable to
HRB and City Council.
2.Historic Merit Evaluation and Landmark Alteration.
Historic Merit Evaluation and Landmark Alteration
decisions by HRB are appealable to Council.
Fees
Public
outreach
Alternatives available:
a. Current program:
¯Merit screening - $100 dollars.
°Compatibility review - $300 dollars initial
deposit and the balance to be billed or
refunded based upon 100% of City’s
cost to complete review.
¯Landmark - $500 dollars initial deposit
and the balance to be billed or refunded
based upon 50% of City’s cost to
complete review.
No fees for all applications. This would
result in a total City subsidy of the program.
Estimated subsidy per month for estimated
hours for consultant services/staff backfill
(items 1 and 2 under staffing requirements
in front of chart) based upon this program
amounts to $25,200 dollars. The total
subsidy from September to March is
$151,200 dollars.
Ombudsman/Public Outreach
a.Public information/outreach sessions
scheduled for staff/consultants/public to
provide an overview of the review process
procedures and changes to the regulations.
Additional information on public outreach
consultant is shown on Attachment H.
b.Creation of new supplemental handouts
explaining the program, supplementing
existing handouts.
c. Web page. Insert all the above information
onto the City’s Web page. Staff
recommends an outside consultant be
retained to complete these tasks.
d."Ombudperson" whose role would be to
assist applicants, general public, etc. in
understanding the program processes,
dissemination of information,
interaction/guidance to applicants,
facilitation of applications with applicants
and the consultant, etc. for both the Interim
Historic Ordinance and the proposed
permanent Historic Ordinance. See specific
scope of services for additional details.
Staff recommends an outside consultant be
retained to complete these tasks.
Alternatives available:
a. Current program.
o Merit screening- $100 dollars.
¯Landmark - $500 dollars initial deposit and
the balance to be billed or refunded based
upon 50% of City’s cost to complete
review.
b.No fees for all applications. This would result
in a total City subsidy of the program.
Estimated subsidy per month for consultant
services only based upon this program
amounts to $8,400 dollars. The total subsidy
from September to March is $50,400 dollars.
1.Ombudsman/Public Outreach. Same as Program
A
Cost
Breakdown
The estimated costs for implementation of the
above programs is as follows:
¯Additional resources to complete historic
merit evaluations, compatibility review and
mandatory review of landmarks is estimated
at $16,800 dollars per month for a total cost
$100,800 dollars through (October-March)
March 31, 1999.
Consultant services or contract planners to
assist/backfill development review needs
based upon displacement of on staff person.
The estimated monthly costs is $8,400
dollars for a total cost of $58,800 dollars
through (September-March) March 31,
1999.
Appeal process. No costs if the current
appeal process is selected.
Public information/outreach/marketing/
training sessions. Estimated costs are
$50,000 dollars through June 31, 1999".
Creation of supplemental handouts
explaining the program. These costs will be
absorbed in the Planning Division budget for
fiscal year 1998-1999.
Web page. Insert all the above information
onto the City’s Web page. Monies have
been budgeted in the Planning Division
budget for Fiscal year 1998 -1999.
"Ombudperson." Estimated costs are
$60,000 dollars through June 30, 1999.*
* Assumes some use of ombudsman and public
outreach consultant during transition from Interim
to Permanent Ordinance.
The estimated costs for implementation of Option B are
the same with the following exceptions or reductions:
¯Additional resources to complete Historic
Merit evaluations and mandatory review of
Landmarks is estimated at $5,600 dollars per
month for a total cost of $33,600 dollars
through (October-March) March 31, 1999.
¯Consultant services or contract planners to
assist/backfill development review needs
based upon displacement of one staff person.
The estimated monthly costs are $2,800
dollars for a total cost of $19,600 dollars
through (September-March) March 31, 1999.
Total Cost The total cost of the above program through March The total cost of the above program through March 31,
31, 1999 total $269,600 dollars. 1999 total $163,200 dollars.
Attachment H
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLIC OUTREACH CONSULTANT
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of Palo Alto seeks to enter into a contract with a consultant to conduct public outreach
in order to increase the public’s understanding of, and input into, the City’s historic preservation
efforts. The audiences for this public outreach may include residents, architects, developers, real
estate agents and the public at large. In executing the terms of the contract, the consultant(s) will
work closely with staff from the Planning and Community Environment Department and the City.
Manager’s Office. The contract will be overseen by the City Manager’s Office. The contract’s
termis expected to be one year and it is expected to cost $50,000. The primary objectives of the
contract are to:
1)Provide thc public with information about the content and process of the City’s
historic preservation efforts (e.g. Interim Ordinance and Regulations, Permanent
Ordinance and llistoric Inventor3,)
a)
b)
The information to be provided may include the following:
What is the interim ordinance? (What is its goal? To whom does it apply?
What does it regulate? flow does it work? Whatis the context within
which it was enacted?)
-What is the permanent ordinance and how does it differ from the interina?
-What is the inventory of historic homes?
-What does it mean if a home is on Study List 1 or Study List 2?
-What, from the City’s perspective, are some of the common
misconceptions of the interina and permanent historic ordinances?
What is the timeline and decision-making process for adopting the
permanent ordinance and ending the interim ordinance?
What policy directions has the Council already established for the
permanent ordinance?
What are the opportunities for the public to provide input to the policies
and the way they are enacted?
The methods used to provide this information might include: direct mail
newsletters; newspaper press releases, features and advertisements; postings on
the City’s wcbsitc; training seminars; speakers bureau; and video.
c)The tasks and dciiverablcs of the consultant may include the following:
-Identify the target audience(s) and develop contact lists
-Review staff reports and other internal documents and interview key staff
to develop a basic understanding of the interim and permanent historic
ordinances
lntcrvic\v key staffand members of public and review newspaper articles
and editorials to determine the current state of public information and to
verify the public information goals outlined above
Determine which public information methods outlined above would most
effectively achieve the City’s public information goals
Develop public information materials
Coach staff on effective public information techniques when
communicating about the City’s historic preservation efforts
2)Facilitate a process to obtain resident input into the administration of the
permanent historic ordinance in order,to develop a customer service oriented
historic review process
a)The input process will seek to learn from residents the following:
What timeline, issues and needs do residents face when seeking to develop
historic properties?
What are the critical pieces of information that residents need when going
through the histoxic review process?
What form should this information take and how and when should it be
communicated?
What assistance would residents like to receive from City staff?.
What would residents consider to be the most important features of a
customer service oriented historic review process? ’
ob)
c)
The methods used to gather this information may include: focus groups, forums,
and su~,eys.
The tasks and deliverables of the consultant may include the following:
Identify target participants
Determine the most effective timing and method(s) of facilitating
discussion and gathering input from the public re: the historic review
process
-Develop all materials to inform participants and facilitate the input process
-Summarize findings from the input process and present to staff for their
use in developing a customer service oriented historic review process
Attachment I
Exhibit "A"
Scope of Services
CONTRACTOR shall familiarize himself with all pertinent ordinances,
regulations; shall meet with staff involved in the historic
preservation process; and with any past or current project
applicants or interested parties who may be able to provide useful
background information.
CONTRACTOR shall provide facilitation and education services for
staff, City boards and commissions, project applicants, and the
general public relating to the deve!opment, implementation and
interpretation of the City’s interim and permanent historic
ordinances and regulations.
CONTRACTOR shall attend public meetings at the discretion of the
Chief Planning Official. ~
CONTRACTOR shall review staff reports related to historic
preservation to ensure consistency of direction with the
facilitation and education responsibilities outlined above.
CONTRACTOR will not be required to draft origina! staff reports.
CONTRACTOR shall review and suggest improvements or needed
amendments to the internal staff procedures and guide lines which
relate to the ministerial review of development applications which
involve historic preservation issues.
CONTRACTOR will not be required to review individual development
applications or to check plans, except in connection with
facilitation as described above.
CONTRACTOR shall ’not be required to work more than sixteen
hour.s per week.
16
129RO72g lac 0052034
Attachment J
COMPREHENSWE
Goal, Policies & Programs
FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
(excerpted from Land Use & Communil",/Design Element)
,~ ~,~ ~ Cnaracfer
~l~! Conservation aad Preservation of Palo Aho’s
Historic Buildings, Sites, and Districts.
POLICY L-52:
Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of
resources that have historic merit, includiug residences listed iu
the Historic Inventory.
PROGRAM L-56:
Review and update the City’s Inventory of historic resources in-
cluding City-owned structures.
Pnoa~4.~ L-57:
Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effec-
tiveness in the maintenance and preservation of historic resources,
particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area.
PROGP~4M L-58:
Maintain and strengthen the design review procedure for exterior
remodeling or demolition of historic resources. Discourage demoli-
tion of historic resources and severely restrict demolition of Land-
mark resources.
PaOGt~.~ L-59:
Encourage salvage of discarded historic building materials for re-use
by the community.
Pnoc~ L-60:
For proposed exterior alterations or additions to designated His’
toric Landmarks, require design review findings that the proposed
changes are in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Stan-
dards for Rehabilitation.
Embracing the New Cenlury
L-1
POLICY L-52:
Encourage the preservation of significant historic resources owned
by the City of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered to
meet contemporary needs, provided that the preservations
standards adopted by the City Council are satisfied.
POLICY L-53:
Actively seek state and federal funding for the preservation of
¯ buildings Of historical merit and consider public/private
partnerships for capital and program improvements.
POLICY L-54:
Support the goals and objectives of the Statewide Comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan for Califoruia.
POLICY L-55:
Relocation may be considered as a preservation strategy when
consistent witli State and National Standards regarding the
relocation of lfistoric resources.
POLICY L-56:
To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/
Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic
buildings.
PnoGr~.~ L-61:
Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage reha-
bilitation. Require design review findings that the historic integrity
of the building exterior will be maintained.
PnoGn.t.~ L-62:
Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the transfer of develop-
ment rights from designated buildings of historic significance in the
Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites in
the CD zone. Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the Down-
town also qualify for this program.
;~ Palo Allo Comprehensive Plan
POL1CY L-57:
Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings
with historic merit in all zones.
PnoG~4~*~ L-63:
Allow nonconforming uses for the life of historic buildings.
PROGRAM L-64:
Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition
for exemplar), Historic Preservation projects.
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
finding ways to adapt and restore these buildings, including par-
ticipation in state and federal tax relief programs.
POLICY L-58:
Promote adaptive re-use of old buildings.
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.
PRO6P~4M L-67:
Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordi-
n~tnces to older buildings. Use the State Historic Building Code for
designated historic buildings.
PnoG~.t.u L-68:
Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as needed to mini-
mize constraints to adaptive re-use, particularly in retail areas.
POLICY L-60:
Protect Palo Aho’s archaeolo~cal resources.
PnoGr~.~M L-69:
Using the archaeological sensitivity map in the Comprehensive Plan
as a guide, continue to assess the need for archaeological surveys
and mitigation plans on a project by project basis, consistent with
the California Environmental Quality Act and the National His-
toric Preservation Act.
Embracing the New Century