Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-14 City Council (11)TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 8 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 CMR:358:98 SUBJECT:UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING INTERIM HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS, INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS AND STUDY PRIORITY 1 AND 2. PROPERTIES REPORT IN BRIEF On August 10, 1998, the City Council approved amendments to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance and Regulations. Staffhas identified additional procedural changes and revisions to the Compatibility Review Standards that should improve customer service while not adversely affecting staff efficiency or workloads. Those. additional text changes will be forwarded for Council consideration on October 5, 1998. Documents will be available for public review in advance of the usual release date for City Manager Reports for that October 5, 1998 agenda item. After consideration of those additional changes to the Interim Regulations on October 5, 1998, staff recommends that staff efforts be shifted to. completion of a revised draft Permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance and continuance of the Historic Inventory work. Staff had reviewed public comments and consulted with the ombudsman and others regarding further changes that could be made to the Interim Ordinance and Regulations to improve customer service while not adversely affecting staffwork loads. Specifically, staff was directed .on August 10, 1998, to investigate whether additional modification to the def’mition of "demolition" would assist in this regard. Staff found that to have two definitions for "demolition," one used for building permit purposes and the other for historic preservation, was not advisable or routinely done by other jurisdictions. Consequently, staff recommends revising the definition of "minor project" instead, which better accomplishes CMR:358:98 ¯¯Page 1 of 10 reducing the number of projects subject to Compatibility Review with no inconsistency with definitions used in the Building Code. This report also contains information on the status of the ombudsman and public.outreach consultants and on recent and current staffing, work load and customer service for historic preservation programs. The ombudsman work is ongoing, and a public outreach consultant will be under contract in October. Two consulting firrns have been hired to assist staffwith Merit Screening, Landmark Evaluation and Compatibility Review .applications. Staff oversight of and interaction with consultants have been increased, as have the hours staff and consultants are available to meet with prospective and active applicants. As previously reported to the City Council, the staff and time frames for processing Architectural Review Board (ARB) applications have been adversely affected by the ongoing interim historic preservation programs. CMR:358:98 Page 2 of 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance amending the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance to change the definition of"Minor Project." BACKGROUND In 1979, Palo Alto adopted a Historic Prese~ation Ordinance and an inventory of historic properties. In 1996, due to concern that the existing Ordinance and inventory were not protecting certain historic resources, an Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance and companion Regulations were developed and adopted. The Regulations took effect on December 1, 1996, and were originally intended to remain in effect until November 1997. ¯ As the work to develop a new permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance and to update the historic inventory has continued, the Interim Ordinance and Regulations have been extended and revised. Staff turnover and vacancies, along with intense community reactions to the interim programs and proposed permanent regulations and procedures, have extended the time period that the Interim Ordinance and Regulations have been in effect. On August 10, 1998, the City Council approved amendments to the Interim Ordinance and Regulations, including the Compatibility Review Standards. Ordinance changes will go into effect 30 days after the second reading of the amended ordinance, which is scheduled to occur on September 14, 1998. The amendments include an exemption of non-publicly visible design elements from Compatibility Review. In addition, the defmition of demolition was made less stringent. Minor alterations were also exempted from Historic Resources Board review. Attachment B provides a further description of these changes and how they are being implemented by Planning staff. Attachment B was prepared by staff for public use and information, and a version is in the process of being placed on the City’s Web site. On August 10, Council also approved changes to the Interim Regulations, including requiting pre-application meeting, adding provisions for exceptions and appeals, and changes to the Compatibility Standards regarding prevailing setbacks, garages, driveway surfaces, architectural style, windows and roofmg materials (Attachment C). Those changes went into effect immediately, and staff prepared Attachment C to assist the public. The Council also approved the hiring of consultants to provide ombudsman and public outreach services to improve communication about and implementation of the Ordinance and Regulations and assist in the preparation and processing of the draft Permanent Ordinance. At the same Council meeting at which these changes were approved by the Council, staff committed to continuing to evaluate the Interim Ordinance and Regulations and internal procedures for implementing the historic preservation programs and to report back to the Council on September 14, 1998. A foca! point for discussion was how to determine those properties and projects subject to compatibility review in such a way that was responsive to resident needs and reflective of the workload limitations of City staff. Rather than exempt CMR:358:98 Page 3 of 10 entire classes of properties from review, staff proposed to explore further changes to the definition of demolition. This report contains staff observations and recommendations conceming further changes to the Interim Regulations and Compatibility Review Standards. The report also details how staff is changing the way the Interim Ordinance and Regulations are implemented to better serve the public and reduce impacts on staff resources. Ombudsman and Public Information Consultant Status George Zimmerman, the former Assistant Planning Official, was hired as the ombudsman for the historic preservation programs. Mr. Zimmerman’s work to date has been to acquaint himself with the background of the City’s recent historic preservation efforts and to interview staff, Council Members, Historic Resources Board members, applicants, architects, Realtors, neighborhood representatives and preservation advocates. The purpose of Mr. Zimmerman’s interviews has been to understand the range of perspectives and solicit ideas regarding the City’s historic regulations and the way they are implemented. Mr. Zimmerman will continue to conduct interviews and participate in the merit screening and compatibility review process. Staff has incorporated his observations and suggestions from the public in preparing this report. A Request for Proposal to obtain public outreach consultant services was distributed in August. The purpose of these services is to increase the public’s understanding of and input into the City’s historic preservation efforts. Proposals will be evaluated and prospective consultants interviewed in September. A consultant should be selected and under contract in October. DISCUSSION Staffing, Work Load and Customer Service ...... Since the last Council meeting, a concerted effort has been made to fill staff vacancies, redirect staff assignments and bring consultants on board to provide increased customer service levels, and implement the various ongoing, historic preservation programs. Recruitments for the new professional positions in the Planning Division have resulted in two intemal promotions for the new Planning Manager position and one of the two new Associate Planner positions. The recruitment for the second Associate Planner position hasnot yet resulted in a new hire. Consequently, there has been no increase in Planning Division professional staffing levels yet. Two consulting firms have been hired to provide specialized services pertaining to historic preservation. Architectural Resources Group, Architects~ Planners & Conservators, Inc~ (ARG) has been hired to assist staff with Merit Evaluations and applications involving Landmark properties. Origins Design Network (Origins), a firm with two architects, is assisting staff with Compatibility Review applications. The relationship between staff and CMR:358:98 Page 4 of 10 consultants is being significantly changed from past practices. There will be more direct staff oversight of and interaction with the consultants than had been the case previously. The most significant change emerging from staff reassignments and the hiring of new consultants is an increased service level available to prospective and active historic preservation program applicants. Previously, the contract Preservation Architect was available to meet with the public four hours a week. That limited availability resulted in longer processing times than would otherwise be the case for many applicants. Complicated applications and those requiring rounds of redesign were most likely to experience significant time delays. Planning Division management has significantly increased the amount of time that staff and consultants are available for meetings with prospective and active applicants to 10 to 13 hours a week compared to the four hours a week previously provided .by the contract Preservation Architect. The ombudsman will also be available to attend meetings with staff, consultants and applicants to facilitate a better process. Staff is implementing this approach to make the process easier for applicants, which over time will result in more efficient use of staff and consultant resources. Staff will be providing clear information and direction at the mandatory pre-application meetings. For example, instead of requiring the applicant to measure the setbacks along both sides of the block, staff will provide a GIS-generated map so the setback determination can be easily made jointly by staff and the applicant. The up-front commitment to more staff service to applicants should result-in applications being processed more efficiently and with less applicant frustration. Work load has been heavy since the contract Preservation Architect resigned in mid-July. Attachment D provides a detailed status report of applications processed between mid-July and the end of August. Planning staff members (Chief Planning Official Eric Riel, Senior Planner Virginia Warheit, Associate Planner Amy French and Office Specialist Diana Tamale) have dealt with the pending and new applications since mid-July in a professional and efficient manner on very short notice and without consultant assistance. Inevitably, the movement of significant Staff resources to augment and improve customer services for the historic preservation program has come at the expense of other Planning Division priorities. As previously reported to the Council, the main. dislocation resulting from the reassignment of an Associate. Plan~er from Architectural Review Board (ARB) projects to mostly historic preservation activities has been heavy reliance onthe sole ARB Planner and contract planners, for-processing of ARB cases. At the same time, ARB cases have increased in the past two months. Consequently, ARB staff is available for fewer appointment hours than before the staff reassignment to historic preservation activities and it often takes longer for ARB applications to be processed. The Senior Planner’s responsibility for Historic Resources Board items since mid-July has of necessity increased. CMR:358:98 ¯ Page 5 of 10 Therefore, she has had less time to devote to work on the permanent Ordinance and the Historic Inventory. Public and HRB Input At past meetings, staff and the Council requested public input on additional streamlining changes that could be made to the Interim Ordinance and Regulations. Staff has reviewed written cornrr~.entary received over the past few months to identify practical suggestions that may have been overlooked: In addition to the June 25, 1998 Council colleagues’ memo which formed the basis for most of the changes approved by the Council on August 10, 1998, Council Members have forwarded recent written communications and the names of persons that could be interviewed by the ombudsman. As discussed above, the ombudsman has interviewed many persons experienced with the City’s historic preservation programs and informally conveyed observations and recommendations to staff. Additionally, the Historic Resources Board agendized the topic of revisions to Compatibility Review Standards and procedures for discussion at its August 10, 1998 meeting. Individual members and the Board as a whole, at the August 18 meeting, provided many useful observations and recommendations to staff. Interim Ordinance Administration Staff reviewed all of the above information and brainstormed changes that might improve the Interim Ordinance and Regulations. Staff has determined that there are many changes to the format and text of the Compatibility Review Standards that could be made for the Standards to be more user-friendly and flexible. These changes are currently being finalized and incorporated into new documents to guide applicants through the historic preservation process. The changes to the Compatibility Review Standards text will be .forwarded to the Council for consideration on October 5, 1998. An operational improvement is a simplified "worksheet" to be completed by Compatibility Review applicants. Application information is being.compiled into a "Development Review Process Manual" for use by staff and the general public in the processing of applications. This Manual will include the following: Application Submittal and Preapplication Conference Requirements Flow chart of the development review process Listing of recommended practices when applicants are creating their design of proposed improvements or new construction Listing of requirements for conformance to the standards Creation of a supplemental Application Form that includes general, information, submittal checklist, explanation of design attributes and reference materials to assist applicants in the design process. The manual will be handed out to the public and can serve as an executive summary of the Compatibility Review Standards and the application requirements needed to go through the CMR:358:98 Page 6 of 10 process. Staff intends to put both the Compatibility Review Standards and the Development Review Process Manual on the City’s Web page for easy access by the general public. At the August 10, 1998 Council meeting, staff indicated that further changes to the definition of"demolition" appeared to be a promising way to reduce the number of projects subject to the interim Ordinance procedures. Since then, staff has examined ordinances of numerous other jurisdictions. Typically, those ordinances with very broad definitions of "demolition" (i.e., where virtually any change to a structure constitutes a demolition) apply that definition only to structures already named to the local list of landmark-type structures. Most ordinances reviewed by staff did not have a separate definition of "demolition" for historic properties. Instead, they apply the def’mition of demolition used in zoning or building codes. That has been the approach to date in Palo Alto. Planning and Inspection Services staff have concluded that it would be unadvisable to have two different definitions, of demolition employed within the Planning Department. Currently, if over 50 percent of a structure’s perimeter walls are removed, for both building and historic preservation permit procedures, the project is considered to be a "demolition." The definition of demolition in the Interim Ordinance was amended on August 10, to make less stringent the facade criterion in the Ordinance’s definition of "demolition." Previously, any change to a front facade would constitute a "demolition"; now only a front facade change that is "substantial" and that "significantly changes the appearance of the front facade" would be treated as a demolition. In order to avoid significantly different definitions of "demolition" within the Planning Department, staff evaluated a suggestion of the ombudsman to modify the definition of "Minor Project" as another approach to reducing the number of projects subject to interim historic procedures. Currently, the definition of a minor project in Section 16.50.020(j) of the Interim Ordinance reads: "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 front 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." ........... The staff recommendation is to eliminate the threshold regarding 10 percent of the exterior perimeter walls. First floor additions away from and generally not visible from the street and otherwise consistent with all zoning requirements such as floor area ratio (FAR), coverage, setbacks, daylight planes, etc., would comply with the revised defmition and not trigger Compatibility Review. Any remodeling that involved more than 50 percent of the perimeter walls would constitutea demolition and be subject to Compatibility Review. The revised CMR:358:98 Page 7 of 10 definition of"minor project" should allow those persons interested in remodeling at the rear of properties with single story additions to avoid being subject to the Interim Ordinance. Conclusion of Interim Ordinance Revisions After the above changes have been made to the Interim Ordinance, staff recommends that focus and resources be shifted to completing the updated historic inventory and proposing a revised permanent Ordinance and implementation procedures for public~ HRB and Council consideration. These recommended efforts would include utilizing the resources of the new public information and ombudsman consultants and incorporating changes into a revised permanent ordinance reflecting what has been and will be learned during the past and upcoming several months. Staff recommends this approach to maximize the time available for public review of and input to the revised permanent Ordinance. RESOURCE IMPACT No resource impacts are expected, over and above those already being experienced by the Planning Department. As already reported to the Council, staff expects to request additional staff and/or consultant resources at the time the Permanent Ordinance and its implementation are presented to the Council for review and adoption. POLICY IMPLICATIONS All recommendations are consistent with past Council actions and directions to staff. TIMELINE Ongoing and upcoming activities include: Continued Planning Commission review of incentives and HRB review of resulting Commission recommendations to Council in November 1998; Staff implementation of the revised Interim Ordinance and Regulations through March 31, 1999; Assistance by the ombudsman and public information consultants in developing and presenting forthcoming historic preservation information into thefirst half of 1999; Staff preparation of a revised draft Permanent Ordinance in late Fall 1998; Dames and Moore, volunteer and staff work on and public, HRB and Council review of the preliminary recommendations to the Inventory into spring 1999; City Attorney and Planning staff work on and presentation in fall 1998 of transition rules for remaining List 1 and 2 properties during the time between the adoption of CMR:358:98 Page 8of 10 the Permanent Ordinance and the completion of authorized Dames and Moore or other work on the Historic Inventory. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Actions recommended in this report regarding single family residences are exempt from environmental review. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution B., Interim Historic Ordinance Amendment C. Compatibility Review Standards Revisions D. Status Report of Applications Processed E. 8/26/98 staff report to Planning Commission PREPARED BY:Anne Cronin Moore, Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment DEPARTMENT HEAD: ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment REPORT COORDINATOR: ~ ~ ~/h’~’~ EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Planning Commission Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage Palo Alto Historical Association Palo Alto Ctaamber of Commerce Manager CMR:358:98 Page 9 of 10 Palo Alto Board of Realtors Barron Park Association College Terrace Residents Association Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Community Center Neighbors Association Downtown North Neighborhood Association Midtown Residents Association Palo Verde Neighborhood Association Ramona Homeowners Association University Park Association University South Neighborhoods Group Ventura Neighborhood Association Ventura Neighborhood Association Ventura Neighborhood Association John Paul Hanna Palo Alto Homeowners Association George Zimmerman Denise Bradley, Dames and Moore Architectural Resources Group Origins Design Network CMR:358:98 Page 10 of 10 Attachment A ORDINRNCE NO. ORDINRNCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RMENDING CHAPTER 16.50 OF THE PRLO RLTO MUNICIPTkL CODE REGARDING INTERIM REGULATIONS GOVERNING HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES BUILT BEFORE 1940 TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "MINOR PROJECT" 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.The City Council finds and declares that the amendment 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. ~QT~LQ~_~. 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 Definitions. 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 980910 lac 0052075 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 equa! 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 and this Chapter. The Compatibility Review Standards shall not be applied~to architectural features or design elements which are not visible from a publicly-accessible location, provided that the Compatibility Review Standards may address building massing and roofline issues which impact sunlight, privacy and views on adjacent properties. The Compatibility Review Standards shall 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 wails, or removal of a substantial portion of a street-facing facade that significantly changes the appearance of the facade, 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. (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. 980910 la¢ 0052075 (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, ~ affect mo~e ~=~ ten percent ~I~°)~ of th= ex 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. (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 ~tandards for Reh~ and the ~!li~elines for Reh~bilitatinqHis ri B i in , as they may be amended. (n)"Standards for Historic Designation" means criteria and standards promulgatedpursuant to Section 16o50.110 for the determination of whether a Protected Residence shall be designated 980910 lae 0052075 3 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. 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 4. 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 980910 lac 0052075 4 Attachment B Interim Historic Ordinance Amendment Approved August 10, 1998 To become effective 30 days after second reading Compatibility, Revie~v: Architectural features/design elements not visible from a publicly, accessible location will be exempted from Compatibility Review. Compatibility Review Standards may address building massing and roofline issues which impact sunlight, privacy and Views on adjacent properties.. (Amends Section 16.50.020 (b)). Note." Until the ef[’ective date of the Ordinance, projects will be processed through Planning Division ~ Interim Historic Program using.this revised rule," however, no Building Permits may be issued until the effective date. An appeal process will be available to any aggrieved person (per Section 16.50.120) following completion of exception process for hardship relief for Compatibility Review. (Section 16.50.080). Note: No appeal will be formally processed until q[’ter effective date. Demolition: The revised definition of demolition will now allow more flexibility in the determination of what meets the parameters of demolition, i.e., "the removal of more than fifty percent of the perimeter walls, or removal of a substantial portion (changed from "any" portion) of a street facing facade that significantly changes the appearance of the facade of a protected residence other than a historic landmark residence." (Amends Section 16.50.020 (d)). Note: Until the effective date ’of the Ordinance, proiects will be processed through Planning Division’s Interim Historic Programs using this revised rule; however, no Building Permits may be issued until the effective date. Also, the final definition of demolition is still under consideration. Landmark Alteration: Minor alteration to historic landmarks will be exempt from Historic Resources Board review, where the minor alteration to any historic landmark residence 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 of the exterior perimeter walls, and is limited to the first floor. (Section 1.50.090). Note: Until the elfective date qf the Ordinance,’ minor alteration projects will still be reviewed by the Historlc" Resources Board. Attachment C Compatibility Review Standards (CRS) Revisions Approved August 10, 1998 For Structures deemed to be Contributing PROCESSING: Pre-Application Meeting Required Applicants must make a pre-application appointment with City Preservation Architect. Note: Onttt fitrther notice, contact Amy French at (650) 329-2336 ~o make appointment. Exception and Appeals (CRS page 8, submittal requirement 6) An exception finding has been added: "that site conditions cause unusual circumstances that make " application of the standards an unreasonable burden." Exceptions will be heard upori written application including: (1) a comprehensive written description of the requested exception, (2) a description of the unusual site conditions, and (3) a description of the improvements in design quality and compatibility, if any that would result. A hearing by the Hearing Board (Zoning Administrator,. Chief Building Official -and Chief Planning Official) is scheduled within 30 calendar days of the application. A decision is then provided in writing within 10 days after the hearing, which is then appealable.. Note: Appealprocess not in effect until 30 days qfter second reading qf ordinance. STANDARDS REVISIONS: The Compatibility Review standards (CRS) are still in effect as previbusly adopted and as modified on August 10, 1998 by the .following paraphrased changes: Prevailing Setback (CRSpage 14, requirement 1) Council may revise further in September. Prevailing setback is now defined as "the average setback of the four adjacent properties in both directions?’ On second reading, Council may eliminate "average" in favor of a 75% lhte as stated in pre~;ious standards. Garages (CRSpage 18, requirement 2) Council may revise further in September. Garages on corner lots may now be flush ~vith front facade, when necessary or desirable architecturally. On second reading, Council may replace "front fac.ade" with "side facade ", which was the original intent. Driveway surface (CRS page 21, requirement 3) " Interlocking pavers are now allowed, as well as stamped concrete that replicate cobblestone or brick. Architectural Style (CRS page 30, requirement 1) The wording has been changed to give more flexibility with regard to design style selected by the applicant. A single structure must have architectural features predominantly characteristic of the style selected by the applicant, The characteristic architectural features are described in the references listed on Page 30 of the Compatibility Review Standards. However, the applicant may now use architectural features not predominantly characteristic of the selected style, if the applicant can show examples of this related style having been used in pre-1940’s Palo Alto houses. Windows a. Minor variations from minimum recessed window standard (2.5" in stucco, 1.5" in other walls) may now be approved, due to manufactured window dimensions. (CRSpage 33 requirement 5). b.More than one non-rectangular or "special" windo~v may be used on a street facade (previously restricted to one such window per street facade.) (CRSpage 32, requirement 2). Roofing Materials (CRSpage 39, requirement 3) Shingle style products, including composition shingles with a compatible visual appearance are now allowed. Attachment D HISTORIC REVIEW PROJECTS STATUS INTERIM REGULATIONS PROGRAMS Date: To: August 28, 1998 Anne Moore From: Subject: Key to initials: Amy French Application processing in July and August, 1998 AF = Amy French, VW = Virginia Warheit, DT = Diana Tamales ARG = Architectural Resources Group, ODN = Origins Design Network HRB = Historic Resources Board IN PROGRESS Merit Screen/Evaluations 219 Addison t 320 Byron 2170 Byron 181 Coleridge 1117 Hamilton 140 Island 114 Lowell 190 Soutlawood (merit) 613 Stanford Date Received Manager Status 7/15/98 ARG review in progress 7/23/98 ARG to HRB 9/16 8/26/98 ARG review in progress 6/22/98 AF/ARG to HRB 9/2 7/28/98 ARG to HRB 9/16 8/17/98 ARG to HRB 9/16 8/5/98 ARG to HRB 9/16 4/2/98 AF/ARG to HRB 9/2 8/12/98 ARG review in progress Compatibility. Reviews Date Received Manager 1276 Dana 8/11/98 ¯ AF/ODN 335 High 6/17/98 AF/ODN 831 Melville 8/5/98 AF/ODN 132 Santa Rita 7/15/98 AF/ODN Status review in progress revise letter sent 7/31 UP, CR in progress review in progress Landmark Alterations 1121 Emerson 1078 Forest 1125 Ramona Date Received Manager Status 7/14/98 VW review in progress 7/28/98 VW/ARG to HRB 9/2 7/28/98 VW review in progress Appeals Date Received ~Status 951-955 Addison 8/7/98 VW To go to City Council Appeal of HRB’s "no merit" determination. Barbara Judy had recommended "contributor". COMPLETED IN JULY AND AUGUST, 1998 Deemed Contributin~Date Received 664 Hale 6/15/98 955 Hamilton 6/9/98 840 Hamilton ,6/16/98 1527 Waverley 6/11/98 Deemed No Merit 951-955 Addison 1320 Byron 1620 Castilleja 2240 Columbia 476 Fernando 1343 Hopkins 896 Melville 2284 Oberlin (meriO 250 W. Meadow Date Received 5/7/98 7/23/98 7/14/98 6/29/98 7/20/98 5/22/98 6/22/98 7/8/98. 6/25/98 Landmark Alterations 1156 Ramona Date Received 7/15/98 Compatibility_ Reviews 1284 Forest 1111 Greenwood 215 Santa Rita 1005 University Date Received 7/28/98 4/8/98 5/13/98 7/15/98 file: s:plan/pladiv/hrb/appstatus Manager BJ BJ BJ B~ Manaffer BJ ARG ARG :ARG BJ BJ ARG BJ Manager Manager AF AF AF AF Status HRB- 7/8/98 HRB- 7/8/98 HRB - 8/5/98 HRB- 7/8/98 Status per HRB 7/22/98 (appealed) per fax 8/25/98 per fax 8/25/98 DT sent letter 7/30/98 per fax 8/25/98 DT sent letter 7/30/98 DT sent letter 7/30/98 per fax 8/25/98 DT sent letter 7/30/98 Status HRB approved 8/19 Status Approval on 7/28 Approval letter sent 7/26 Approval letter sent 7/28 Approval letter sent 8/24 Attachment E PLANNING COMMISSION TO: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: August 26, 1998 SUBJECT:Continued Discussion of Proposed Incentives and Benefits for the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the Planning Commission continue its discussion and review the attached matrix and provide additional input as to the validity and use of each identified incentive. BACKGRQUND At the August 12, 1998 meeting, staff provided a substantial amount of information for the Planning Commission to review and comment regarding proposed incentives and benefits for the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. This included the work she~et matrix, fee analysis, existing incentive programs of other local governments, customer service benchmarking, public’ outreach information and miscellaneous additional information, i.e. State Historical Building Code; Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation; Mills Act Contract; CLGP; etc. Given the volume of this information, this information has not been attached to this report. Extra copies of the August 12,o 1998 staff report and attachments are available at City Hall on the 5th Floor or at the meeting. Staff requests the Planning Commission continue its discussion of incentives and benefits and expects this discussion to continue to the next meeting, scheduled for September 9, 1998. 08-12-98 $: I PLAN [ PLADIV I HRB ! SttRpt [ lneent3.sr Page 1 Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue to.modify the work sheet matrix (see Attachment A) and to refine that "in progress" working document. The work sheet, upon finalization, ~an be.the document that will be provided to City Council as the Planning Commission recommendations DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at the last meeting, requested additional information that required further staff research. Please find listed below in summary format the additional research requested or questions posed by. the Planning Commission and staff’s response/comments to each question. 1.What is the Planning Commission’s charge in the development of incentives? Staffs response: In the June 21, 1998 City Council colleagues’ memorandum from Vice Mayor Schneider, Council members Eakins, Wheeler and K.niss, Page 2 summarizes a listing of possible homeowner incentives and benefits. Council directed staff to provide a listing of incentives and benefits that will more than "compensate historic homeowners for any regulatory burdens". City Council requested the Planning Commission take the lead role in the review of and solicitation of community dialog on the specifics of creating incentives to integrate into the historic preservation program. The Planning Commission is also the primary body for the review and recommendation for specific changes to the Municipal Code for the initiation of incentives. This charge was also identified in the original City Manager’s staff report to City Council on March 23, 1998, which is the staff report that outlined the polic~, framework for the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. City Council agreed and ratified staff’s recommendati on regarding this referral to the Commission. o What are the existing code requirements for the following: a) second units including minimum lot size, number of parking spaces, maximum FAR, etc~.; b) general development regulations for R-I properties such as setbacks, heights, etc.; and c) the list of rules that apply to measuring FAR. Staff’s response: The code requirements are identified in Attachment D. Provide further explanation of Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and how they apply? Staff’s response: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and 08-12-98S: [ PLAN I PLADIV I HRB I StfRpt [ Ineent3.sr Page 2 . o t Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings were ~specifically developed for residential and commercial properties that are continuing in contemporary use, and are the most commonly used Standards by cities across the country for historic preservation. There are various specialized standards, such as Standards for Preservation, Restoration, etc., that are meant to be used for museum-type buildings. In 1987, the Palo Alto City Council adopted.the Standards for Rehabilitation to be used by the HRB for reviewing structures on the Historic Inventory. The nature of the Standards for Rehabilitation makes them well guited for addressing individual properties on a local historic inventory because they are nonprescriptive. That is, they recommend actions to take and other actions to avoid in order to achieve the desired objective of preserving the historic.qualities of the structure, but they do not dictate specifically how work is to be done on a particular property. Palo Alto is one of over 50 Certified Local Governments (CLG’s) with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. A requirement of the city’s CLG Agreement is that the actions of the city’s Historic Resources Board will be "substantially consistent with" the Standards for Rehabilitation. Because these Standards are based on extensive national experience with local historic review boards, and because our association with theState CLG program stipulates their use, staff would not recommend attempting tO develop local alternative standards for structures listed on the city’s Historic Inventory. Provide a copy of the Goals Policies and Programs of the Comprehensive Plan relative to the Historic Preservation. Staff’s response: Staff has attached.this information as Attachment B. What are the predominant characterh~tics of exiting Historic building..s (ie. lot size, building size, unit type and number of structures, etc.) ? Commission requested staff to complete research in terms of the existing inventory. Staff response: Unfortunately no existing data base exists to track this information. No permit tracking system is operational at this time tO .accurately monitor or provide the information. The only means to provide this information would be to review all building permit files and cross reference this information with the existing Historic Inventory. This information obviously would take an immense amount of staff time. 08-12-98S: I PLAN [ PLADIV I HRBI StfRptl lneent3.sr Page 3 ¯ MetroScan data is available, however, staff believes .that the accuracy of this information, given the list of parameters, falls below 75 percent for any particular property. The low level of accuracy has been found on other similar research projects when cross-checked by staff. It has been noted that the information proyided by MetroScan needs to be cross-checked for accuracy and declines as the parameters are increased. Staff did, however, prepare several lists, cross-referencing various information from MetroScan. This information resulted in 100 plus pages of information regarding each cross reference. The final information produced includes: lot size (sq. ft.); bldg. size; floor area ratio; year built; address; assessors parcel number; land use; dwelling units; land use designation; zone designation. Staff review of the information notes that no one consistent pattern exists across the board; and therefore, no one particular incentive would be beneficial to all historic property owners..Staff believes that the direction in terms of incentives, would be the use of the cafeteria list similar to that shown on the attached matrix (A~achment A). What additional information is availableon the State Historic Building Code (SHBC) ? Staff response: Staff has attached additional information regarding the State Historical. Building Code. In addition, Chief Building Official Fred Herman will be at the meeting, to discuss particular scenarios where state historical building codes have been utilized by owners of historic properties, and other properties within the City. Staff would note that the predominant use of the State Historical Building Code has been on commercial, or non-residential properties. How does the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Historic Preservation Standards interact? Staff response: Any substantial improvement to any structure in the.e" special flood hazard area is subject to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). However,. exceptions are made for historic structures. "Historic structure" is defined by FEMA (44CFR59.1) as: (a)Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places. (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; 08-12-98S: ] PLAN [ PLADIV ] HRB ] StfRpt [ lncent3.sr Page 4 (b) (c) (d) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered. historic district; Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: (1)By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or (2)Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs. ~ Variance from Regulations (44CFR Section 60.6): A variance may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. There are specific variance processes described in the Code of Federal Regulations. 9.Other changes. Planning Commission had suggested the addition of setbacks and daylight planes as a part of the matrix as possible existing exceptions. Staffhas added this information to the worksheet. Other Cities Staffhas received or is in the process of gathering additional information from other cities regarding incentives and benefits relative to the historic preservation program and will have this information available at the meeting. ~ESOURCE IMPACT:. Resource impacts will be assessed as incentives are finalized. S: [ PLAN I PLADIV I HRB I StfRpt I lncenl3.sr 08-12-98 Page 5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS_: Providing incentives for historic structures is consistent with Policy L-52, Policy L-57, Program L-63, Program L-65, Program L-67 and other parts of the 1998-2010 ¯ Comprehensive Plan as attached on Attachment B. ¯ T1MELINE: The timeline for consideration and review of the incentives is as follows: July29, 1998: Planning Commission discusses- in preliminary form potential incentives, additional research required; etc. August 12, 1998 Study session to continue discussion of incentives. August 26, 1998 Further/continued discussion of incentives. September 9, 1998 Further/continued discussion of incentives.(if required). October 7, 1998 Planning Commission recommendations are forwarded to the HRB for input and comment. - October 14, 1998 Planning Commission makes final recommendation to the City Council with HRB input and comments. November 1998 City Council consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Development of a list of possible incentives is not,a project under CEQA. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Historic Preservation IncentiveOptions - Work Sheet Matrix (Revised 8/26/98) - This attachment is placed separately in packet. Goals Policies and Programs of the Comprehensive Plan relative to the Historic Preservation State Historical Building Code Regulations Summary S:I PLAN [ PLADIV I HRB I StfRpt I Ineent3.sr 08-12-98 Page 6 Attachment D:General Site Development Regulations, Dwellings in R-1 Zones and How to Measure FAR COURTESY COPIES: Histc~ric Resources Board Architectural Review Board Craig Woods, President, Palo Alto Homeowners Association, 1127 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Martin Bernstein, President, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, P.O. Box 1739, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Steve Steiger, Historian, Palo Alto Historical Association, 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 Robert Golton, Associate Superintendent of Business, Palo Alto Unified School District, 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca 94306 John Lazar, Palo Alto Board of Realtors, c/o PenWest Assoc. of Realtors, 321, 2nd Street, Los Altos, CA 94022 Will Beckett, President, Barron Park Association, 4189 Baker Avenue; Palo Alto, CA 94306 Pria Graves, College Terrace Residents Association, 2130 Yale Street, Palo Alto,~ CA 94306 Catherine Lehrberg, Crescent park Neighborhood Association, 1085 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Warren Kallenbach, Community Center Neighbors Association, 1248 Harriet Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Michael Griffin, Downtown North Neighborhood Association, 344 Poe Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 .~ Debbie Mytels, Midtown Residents Association, 2824 Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Bormie Packer, Palo Verde Neighborhood Association, 768 Stone Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Kathy Secor, Ramona Homeowners Association, 223 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Susan Beall, University Park Association, 1055 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Laarni vonRuden, President, University South Neighborhoods Group, P.O. Box 1538, Palo Alto, CA 94302 S: I PLAN 1PLADIV I HRB I StfRptl Incent3.sr 08-12-98 Page 7 Odile Disch Bhadkamkar, Venture Neighborhood Association, 369 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 John Paul Hanna, 525 University Avenue, Ste. 705, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Kathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Monica Yeung-Amariko, 1052 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Norman Beamer, 1005 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Fred Herman, Chief Building Official Prepared by:Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official Division/Department Head Approval: Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official 08-12-98S: I PLAN ] PLADIV ] HRB ] StfRpt [ Ineent3.sr Page 8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal, Policies & Programs FOP, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. ¯ (excerpted from Land Use & Community Design Element) Historic Character Conservation~md Preservation - Historic Buildings, Si~s, and DisirictS~ POLICY L-52: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory. Pa oa~.4M L-5 6: Review and update the City’s Inventoryof hi~torlc resources in-- cluding City-owned structures. PaO6~.4M L-57: Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effec- tiveness in the maintenance and preservation ofhistoric resoitrces, particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Pnoag~M L-58: Maintain and strengthen the design review procedarefor exterior remodeling or demolition of historic resources. Discourage demoli- tion of historic resources and severely restrict demolition of Land- mark resources. P~oa~4M L-59: Encourage salvage of discarded historic building materials for re-use by the community, Paoa~.4.~ 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. I.-1 Attachment B Embracing the New Century ’!~i~ Palo Al~o Comprehensive Plon ¯ "~ ~OLtCY L-52: Encourage the preserva,tion of sig~dficant 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 L253: 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: Suppor! the goals and objectives of the Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for ¯California. POLICY L-55: ’ " Relocation may be considered as a preservation strategy when consistent with State and National Standards regarding the relocation of historic resources. POLlCV L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/ Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. Pnoc~.~3t L-61 : Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage reha- bilitation. Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior tvill be maintained. PRO~g~M 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 Dmzntown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites in theCD zone. Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the Dotvn- town also qualify for this program. POLICY L-57: Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all zones. Psoag43t L-63: Allow nonconforming uses for the life of historic buildings. Pttoal~.~M L-64: Promote a~v.ards programs and other forms of public recognition f?r exemplary Historic Preservation projects. Pao~a,t~t 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. Pao~e~,~t L-66: Encourage and assist otvners of historically significant buildings in finding tvay.s 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 btfildings: POLICY L-59: Follow t.he procedures established in the State Public Resources Code for the protection of.designated lfistorie btdidings damaged by earthquake or other natural disaster. P~oaP~Ot L-67: Seek additional innovative ivays to .apply current codes and ordi- nances to older buildings. Use the State Historic Building Code for designated historic buildings. P~OaP~M 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 Alto’s archaeolo#cal resources. P~O~a~M L.-69: Using the archaeological sensitivity map in the Comprehensive Plan tts a guide, continue to assess the need for archaeological s.urveys and mitigation plans on a project by project basis, consistent ioith the California Environmental Quality Act and the National His- toric Preservation Aci. Embracing the New Century State and Consumer SeP,4ces Agency DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD 1300 I STREET, SUITE 800. SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 (916) 445,7627 ¯FAX (916) 445-5524 State of California INCENTIVES FOR USE OF THE STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE Attachment C Pete Wilson, Go~Prnor The State Historical Building Code (SHBC) is state law, occupying Sections 19950-18961 of California’s Health and Safety Code. And while the protection and preservation of California’s heritage of historic properties are justification enough for its existence, Section 18951 lists among its purposes, "to encourage...a cost-effective approach to preservation". If for no other reason, its potential for tangible rehabilitation cost- savings is. a significant incentive for listing an historic property and invoking the SHBC. The latter may represent an investor’s viewpoint, as opposed to a preservationists viewpoint, but the simple fact is that--from either perspective--beyond dealing with genuine issues of safety, the less tinkering with an historic .building, the bet.ter. Vintage cars are a good illustration: Society acknowledges that, typically, ~ alteration to a vintage car usually diminishes both its aesthetic and its monetary value. Consequently, one must have an overriding reason to make alterations. The parallel to historic buildings should be obvious. It must be recognized that every alteration to an historic resource diminishes our ability to accurately perceive-- and thus to understand--our past. For this reason, ideally, alterations to historic buildings should be generated only by overriding issues of safety. Moreover, it is a disservice to both history and owners--as well as a Violation of the spirit of the SHBC--for architects or jurisdictions to attempt to require more. With that said, it is recognized that there are times when the continuing viability of a building does ~:equire major alterations--usually within the building’s shell. But it is clearly in the best interest of the building’s historic integrity as well as toan owner’s financial advantage to tailor the new use so that it can be sensitively integrated into the vintage space with minimum alteration. This is the first of the ten "Standards" published by the federal government for its own historic building rehabilitations and for projects rehabilitated under the feder’~l tax credit incentive program for private investors. The Secretary Of the Interior’s S~andards for Rehabilitation have been adopted by both the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and the State Historical Building Safety Board. State-owned historic resources, as well as resources g.overned by many local preservation ordinances, require.compliance with these Standards, and the SHBCqs the tool which can make compliance with these Standards both achievable and cost-effective. Listed below are some of the issues the SHBC addresses, all of which facilitate sensitive and cost-effective rehabilitation: 1. Accessibility - Both ADA and the SHBC make provisions for reasonable levels of equivalency for, and-- under special circumstances--exemption from, accessibility mandates. 2. Seismic!Structural - SHBC governs these issues, permitting design based on real values of archaic materials, and solutions based-on engineering principles and judgement rather than on prescriptive formulas. 3. Energ~v - Qualified historic buildings are exempt fi’om California energy standards, which niost vintage structures cannot meet without alteration or loss of historic features. 4. Triggers The "triggers" for full upgrading to current standards, with respect to length of vacancy, change of occupancy, or percentage of value of the work proposed, and which exist in other codes, arenot recognized by the S HBC, which concentrates insteadon the sensitive resolution of genuine safety considerations. 9611 State end Co~.s~r~er Services Agency . ; : : DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD 13OO I STREET, SUITE 800, SACRAMENTO, CA g5814 (916) 445-?627 FAX (916) 445-55,24 State or Caliro,tnia Pete Wilson, GoVernor ’WHAT IS THE STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE? ¯ The State Historical Building Code (SHBC) is unique in that it is not a "model code", subject to adoption by jurisdictions on a triennial basis, as is the Uniform Building Code or the California Building Code. Rather, the SHBC is a state-mandated, performance- oriented program for the protection of California’s historic properties, which have been defined to include, hiskoric structures, districts, sites, open spaces, objects, ships and railroad rolling stock. Thi~ statutory mandate consists of three parts: 1) the Statutes (Health & Safety Code 18950-18961) which are that element of State Law which is identified as the "State Historical Building Code"~ and which statutes undergird its Regulations; 2) the Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8) which regulations are commonly--but somewhat confusingly--referred to as the SHBC; and 3) the Precedents (Appeal Rulings and formal Interpretations geaerated by the State Historical Building Safety Board), which become a legal extension of--and integral to--the SHBC. When it was originally conceived, the SHBC was an advisory code, designed to provide jurisdictions with the latitude required to protect California’s historic legacy. After a .decade, the continued erosion of these structures, sites and objects required that the legislature make the SHBC a mandatory program, effective July 1, 1985. -Under the legislation, State-owned and State-controlled historic resources are mandated the use of the SHBC. Local jurisdictions are mandated to "administer ar[’d enforce" the SHBC. The result is that local jurisdictions may not prohibit the application of the . SHBC to any resources which are identified as historic at any level ol" government, or are identified as "eligible for listing" by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Local preservation ordinances frequently contain language requiring confornlance with the SHBC (along with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation); but even lacking that local language, individual owners still have thestatutory right to utilize the SHBC. Effective stewardship o1" California’s heritage requires that we pass these historic resources on to future generations as unaltered as possible. The SHBC, together with the "Secretary ol" the Interior’s Standards", provides Californians with the tools with which to protect this cultural legacy while retaining its viability and usefulness. SHBSB WEB address is htlp://www.dsa.ca.gov/shb¢/shbc-h0na.htm 9611 State and Consu="ner Services Agency State of California Pete Wilson, Governor DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICALBUILDING SAFETY BOARD 1300 I STREET, SUITE 800, SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 (9t6) 445-7627 ¯FAX (916) 445-5524 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE ,HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE The fastest-growing sector of America’s tourist industry is tourism related to history. All across the nation, whether in a metropolis or out in the country, "Old Town" has become a major destination, with a major positive economic impact. In every community, the social, economic and environmental benefits of historic preservation have become unarguable. California communities are finding it valuable to establish and maintain their own inventories of historic resources and districts, ideally coordinating the.it work with the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). By means of local inventories, especially when maintained in the jurisdiction’s ’ data bank, local planning and building agencies should be able to immediately identify their historic resources whenever projects and/or permits are under consideration. By this means of identification with, say, a distinctive historic designation stamp on all documents, staff is able to instantly recognize the requirement to invoke the special pr~otective state and local preservation mandates. In addition, with respect to historic resources; more and more jurisdictions are realizing the need for early consultation, and implementing a comprehensive gathering of all interested parties when a project is at the schematic level, recognizing that only in this way can the broad flexibility provided by the State Historical Building Code (SHBC) be fully utilized. And building officials are finding in the SHBC the latitude necessary to exercise, within state law, the judgement required to insure the survival of our cultural legacy of historic structures. These steps not on!y expedite the completion of historic preservatibn projects, they also pay dividends in bbth staff time savings, and in solutions more sensitive to the community’s cultural legacy. Moreover, use of the SHBC is a near-certain guarantee that the rehabilitation will be more cost-effective. Finally, California law (H&S 18959) requires that the jurisdiction "administer and enforce" the SHBC. Thus, jurisdictions may not den3’ an owner the protection of the SHBC; but rather should inform owners and agents of historic properties of the provisions of the SHBC, and its applicability to their prqiect, just as they routinely inform owners of the applicable codes with respect to non-historic buildings. The State Historical Building Safety Board (SHBSB) and its stalT provide a resource to owners, architects and jurisdictions ira helping to formulate the reasonable alternatives and reasonable equivalencies which are key to the SHBC’s implementation. Finally, When necessary, the SHBSB will hear formal appeals and establish fonnal rulings which, by statute, are the final administrative authority with respect to interpretation of the SH BC. 9610 State and Consumer Services Agency DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD 1300 I STREET,SUITE 800,SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 445-7627 ¯" FAX (9t6) 445-5524 "CODE ,,,, COMPLIANCE" State of Califomia ’ AN..D THE HISTORICAL BUILDING Pete Wilson. Governor CODE The State Historical Building Code (SHBC) is a mandate for reasonable alternatives to the requirements of"regular" codes and ordinances, applicable to all qualified historic resources. It is to be administered by the local building official, recognizing that advisory service, precedents and Board rulings are available from the State Historical Building Safety Board, which is the final administrative authority on the SHBC’s application. And while "health and safety" are issues that may never be ignored, it is important to identify parameters to contain that otherwise-too-subjective term. In the broadest sense, anything less than the "perfect" building maY be perceived by some to pose a compromise with health and s,’ffety. Thus, even the rise and run of a stairway, if not in compliance ¯ with the most current issue of the triennial building code, could fall into this category. Yet we know that buildings legally remain open and in operation for generations, although .clearly out of compliance with provisions of subsequent building codes. Thus it must be acknowledged that issues of.non- compliance with the regular code, which routinely exist in ongoing occupancies, cannot logically be considered to constitute a hazard to life safety. However, conditions do arise in structures which require immediate attention, and which cannot be permitted to continue, even in existing ongoing operations. These are the "health and safety" issues which the SHBC may not overlook, nor would it want to. The statutes which establish the Historical Building Code, Health and Safety Code Sections 18950 through 18961, guarantee, in Section 18957", that local building and fire officials shall not be prevented from addressing these issues: But to attempt to apply Section 18957 to the broader issues of routine n0n-compliance would place more restrictions and demands on historic resources th’,in are made of a community’s existing occupied building stock. This is the exact opposite of the legislative intent of the SHBC. A very appropriate "rule of thumb" is that any condition or non-code,compliant situation which--in an existing--ongoing occupancy, would demand immediate correction, is a..condition which clearly applies equally to qualified historic resources. Conversely, any condition or non-code-compliant situations which are permitted to continue within existing occupancies, are also permissible in qualified~ historic buildings. This "rule ofthumb" is entirely consistent with standard code enforcement operations throughout California, an it provides a reliable framework within which to make appropriate decisions relative to the need for alterations. This "rule of thumb" has two exceptions. If the rehabilitation project requires structural work, owners are encouraged to integrate into the work a reasonable improvement to the ability of the structure to resist .seismic activity. Historic buildings are not exempt from local seismic upgrading ordinances, but the SHBC continues to govern the upgrading. Likewise, we as a society are committed to provide the highest degree of accessibility for people with disabilities that can be reasona.bly achieved without peril to the .historic resource. And here too, the latitude provided by the SHBC, working with ADA, makes possible reasonable solutions on a case-by-case basis. 9605 Slate and C.o~surner Services Agency State of California DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD 1300 I STREET, SUITE 800, SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 (916) 445-7627 ¯ FAX (916) 445-5524 PUBLIC SAFETY¯AND THE HISTORICAL CODE Pe,~. ~ Govern~ Periodically, the State Historical Building Code (SHBC) comes under attack for "permitting a sub-standard level Of code compliance, and thereby tolerating unsafe conditions." The first thing that needs to be confirmed is that neither the Statutes which established the Code, nor its Regulations, tolerate unsafe conditions. (Health and Safety Code, Part 2.7, Sections 18951, 18953i Title 24, Part 8, Sections 8-104, 8-404, 8-501, 8-601, 8-603, 8-704, 8- 801, 8-I001) The second thing to establish is that routinely, a building not in compliance with the current local building code does not constitute a threatto public safety. Because they are typically written for new construction, every three years these building codes must be updated in order to keep abreast of new materials and new technology. Consequently, every three years, all the buildings built under the now obsolete code join the ranks of all other buildings s. code-deficient". Yet these "sub-standard" buildings remain in service for decades.. The SHBC recognizes thiscommon practice as a very rational and non-life-threateningsituation which is clearly also appropriate for the preservation of historic resources. All codes and ordinances, like the SHBC, recognizethe need to protect "the public health, safety and welfare". However the "safe" or "earthquake-proof" building is essentially non- existent. What our codes and ordinances ~ provide is a degree of defense from risk that society agrees is reasonable. The annual loss of life from lightning is clear evidence that merely occupying open spa~e is not risk-free. Moreover, society has endorsed a whole hierarchy of levels of risk, and presumablyconsiders them all "reasonable’:. Does the fact that schools are designed to more rigid standards mean that hotels are not "s~afe"?. Everything we inhabit - structures, ships, automobiles or aircraft, involve a cost/benefit ratio in which risk is a factor. That some people choose not to fly, while others refuse to ride in an economy car, does not negate the "public good" that these means of. travel engender. The same applies to historic buildings. Within commonly accepted standards of "reasonable protection", it is in the public interest to retain and protect our cultural heritage. The Uniform Building Code, section 104(0, has been facilitating this protection since the 1970"s. The SHBC simply elaborates on this theme, calling for alternative solutions, listing some, and leaving others to the judgement of officials, most of whom recognize that mandates for health, safety, education and preservationare each important threads of a common legal fabric of the people’s making. 9604 State and Consumer Services Agency ~.State of California ¯Pete Wilson. Gove’rnor DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD 1300 I STREET, SUITE 800, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916} 44~7627 ¯ ¯ FAX (916) 44~5524 ACCESS & HISTORIC RESOURCES The protection and preservation of the Nation’s cultural legacy is, like accessibility mandates, a reflection of the will of the people of the nation and the state. The ADA acknowledges the value of historic resources, and ~ for them does it make exceptions to its mandates. ~Recognizing this dual responsibility, we as a society are properly committed to provide the highest degree of accessibility, for people with disabilities, that can be reasonably achieved without peril to our historic resources. The latitude provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the State Historical .Building Code (SHBC) provides guidance as to reasonable solutions on a case-by- case basis. This case-by-case approach both requires and permits us, within established parameters, to make modifications to facilitate people with disabilities, providing reasonable levels of equivalency where the letter of the law would exact too high a toll of the historic resource. Compromises are something which must be accep.ted by ardent defenders of both accessibility and preservation; ~a;it[ the understanding that, while the "desires" of neither may be fully attainable, the "needs" of both usually are. The "Accessibility" ,section of the SHBC (Section 8-13) has been found, thus .far, to be a reasonable exposition of the requirements of ADA. Use of the SHBC, especially when coupled with input from the local community.of p~ople with disabilities, has provided the foundation for successfully meshing the mandates for both preservation and accessibility. 9512 Slate and Consumer Services Agency : ? i State of Cafilornia Peoe. I~son. Governor DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD 1300 I STREE’~ SUITE 800 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 445-7627 FAX (916) 445.5524 CODE UPGRADING "TRIGGERS" AND THE STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE An important, useful and cost-effective feature of the State Historical Building Code (SHBC) is that it does not recognize "triggers". That is, any repair, rehabilitation or upgrading work undertaken on an historic resource may not be used as justification for an automatic requirement for other types of upgrading or for full regular code compliance (Sections 8-106, 8-403,404). This is especially important in the field of access compliance and seismic upgrading. Historic resources are .not exempt from these two mandates, although work undertaken because Of these mandates continues to be governed by the SHBC. When work is undertaken on historic resources tO remedy, deficiencies in these two critical areas, such "triggers", requiring additional upgrading work, if invoked ..by jurisdictions, would serve as a major impediment to the correction of access or seismic deficiencies. In a "worst case" scenario; the added expense of "trigger" requirements could result in the loss of the resource. With the continued ~,iabiiity of historic resources the primary goal of the Historical Building Code, triggering mechanisms, which are routinely found in many Codes and Ordinances, pose an unwarranted threat to the continued existence of these resources, and are thus categorically excluded. The "accessibility " -"triggers acco.mpanying state-mandated seismic upgrading are a semi-exception; requiring a case-by-case evaluation, governed by the SHBC. For further information, contact the Board at the number listed above. 05-96 State and Consumer Services Agency State of C=difornia DEPARTMENT.OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD 1300 I STREET, SUITE 800, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916)445-7627 ¯ FAX (916) 445-5524 SEISMIC REPAIR AND UPGRADING under the STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE Pete ’~tson. Governor Earthquake damage repair and mandated seismic upgrading have.generated a great deal oi" discussion regarding the appropriate degree of intrusiveness of s~ismic work vis-a-vis the latitude available under California’s Historical Building Code (SHBC) which governs all qualified historical buildings. Technology with regard to archaic materials and methods of construction is rapidly advancing. Specific site ~ismicity, materials testing and stress analysis are tools which continue to be refined, permitting much more infornaed structural evaluation than in the past. The SHBC permits and encourages these new technologies in addressing the retrofit of historic resources. It must be recognized however, that, while the SHBC is a call for making the least intrusive modifications necessary to retain the viability of California’s historic resources, a justifiable case can i-eadily be made that, when addressing seismic stability, this is not a call for the barest minimum of work, but rather a call for the most prudent balance or intrusion and preservation that will effect the highest reasonable level of protection against future significant damage or loss ol" the historic resource. In California, a building’s ability to resist seismic activity is a key factor in its continued viability. It must also be acknowledged that there is a hierarchy of values of historic resources, which can justify, for those buildings of great historic sigttificance, a highly intrusive seismic upgrading -" program. The most notable example of this is California’s State Capitol which is, essentially, a reconstruction, albeit an extraordinarily well documented one. Thus, if one were to look at the comparative cost-benefit ratio, there is greater value to a community in an historic resource, hence there is justification for greater expense to protect that value. The protection, preservation and[continued viable use of California’s historic .resources demands of us the application of today’s techaology to yesterday’s construction materials and methodology, recognizing and utilizing the strengths inherent in archaic .materials and methodologies which have permitted them to withstand the test of time. Building on this foundation, and supplementing it with the best in seismic resistance techn01o~, we are committed to incorporate a reasonable level of seismic resistance in the least intrusive manner. It is rationally indefensible to misuse the SHBC in order to fund, at a lower level than its non- historic peers, the earthquake repair or" a structure identified as an historic resource. And it is a misreading of the SHBC to interpret it as a license to merely "paint the cracks" ol" historic buildings. The SHBC’s commitment is to the preservation of these resources by implementing, on a case by case basis, the solution which best fulfills the unquestionably long-term goal that word implies. 9512 State and Consumer Services Agency DEPARTMENT OF GENERAt-~:.~ERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD i300 I STREET, SUITE 800, SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 (916) 445-7627 * FAX (916) 445-5524 FIRE SPRINKLER State of California SYSTEMS & THESHBC ’Wilson, Governor 9603 The SHBC’s Chapter 8-8, on Fire Protection, states in its first paragraph that its purpose "is to provide a reasonable level of fire protection...based prLmarily on life safety to the occupants and to fire-fighting personnel." Recognizing the prinaary goal .of life safety, when does the SHBC demand fire sprinkler protection? 1) In every historical detention facility [8-804(c)]. 2! In every historical building whose construction; occupancy or use constitutes a distinct fire hazard [8-804(a)]. Under what circumstances may.an automatic sprinkler system be utilizedas a substitute for specific regular code requirements? 1) Within cited limitations, sprinkler system may take the place of some elements ol" an approved automatic fire alarm system [8-805(a), Exception 2]. 2) On a.case-by-case basis, in lieu of enclosure of vertical shafts and stairwells [8- 809, Exception 2]. Under what ci.rcumstances n?ay a ~ sprinkler system, connected to the domestic water supply, be utilized as a substitute for a regular code requirement? 1) On a case-by-case basis where historic exterior walls and!or windows would normally require alternative construction and or other protection, because of" their proximity to property lines [8-806(a)].. 2) Wherehistoric combustible rool’mg materials would otherwise be prohibited [8- 810]. The lbregoing specific list~ circumstances are not to be construed as limiting other options. The SHBC is a mandate for the case-by-case evaluation and adoption of measures which will provide a .reasonable degree of defense from risk, and~ssumes that, as a performance code, jurisdictions, engineers an~d owners will cooperate in effecting a solution at minimum ’loss of historic fabric or historic character. Given the value wc place on historic resources, it seems paradoxical to find in Paragraph 8-801 that, "It is not the intent to protect the propertyl.." This language sets priorities, making clear that apart from insuring a reasonable level of life safety, there is a need to compromise where measures intended for property protection, threaten or conflict with the pr~ervation of" significant historic and architectural featur.es. Moreover, built into the SHBC is the latitude to pursue, evaluate and adopt .any rational combination of materials and methodologies which will provide a reasonable level of life safety. Finally, with respect to qualified historic building, jurisdictions are enjoined [H&S 13143.2(e) & 13143.5(h)] from generating alternatives to, or more stringent fire, panic, and related standards than, those which exist in the California Building Standards Code, which for historic buildingsis Title 24, Part 8, the SHBC State and Consumer Services Agency ¯ - DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD 1300 I STREET, SUITE 800, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916)445-7627 ¯ FAX (916) 445-5524 Slate of Califomia VINTAGE CARS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION California’s love affair with vintage cars is legendary. We are seduced by their beauty, their craftsmanship and their authenticity, We would be horrified by any local, state or federal laws that required the installation of dual air bags, anti’lock bra "k.ing systems,. quartz-iodine headlights or any modification which made noticeable alterations to the historic vehicle. It is universally acknowledged that their incorporation would devalue the resource, even though it must also be acknowledged that their incorporation would tend to increase the level of safety of the car. In spite of this, the state.--recognizing the importance of passing these historic vehicles on to the next. generation as unaltered as possible--grants them a special license and, with few restrictions, sets them loose on the state’s streets and roads. The parallel to historic buildings is obvious. The State Historical Building Code(SHBC) is in fact, the license granted Californians in order to protect their cultural legacy. Historic preservation, distilled to its basics, is honesty about the resource, and the commitment to pass these historic buildings and sites on .to the next generation as unaltered as possible. We cannot let ourselves lose sight of these basics. We in California have the tools to be true to historic preservation. "The Secretary of thr" Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation" is a universally-acc~.pted model for safeguarding’ the honesty of an historic .resource; and the SHBC--which is state law governing historic resources--empowers owners and jurisdictions to minimize alterations and modifications, and to insure that they are sensitive to the .historic resource .rather than intrusive. The SHBC makes it p0ssible’to have both sensitivity and safety. Society has established a whole hierarchy of levels of "safety", and recognizes that each is reasonable for a given set of circumstances. And so society avails itself of the use of myriad types, sizes and qualities of airplanes, boats, cars or habitations. Most of us will happily board and experience a "horseless carriage" in spite of its limitations. Yet it would be hard to argue. that a vintage car out on California roads is "safer" than a vintage building which, despite its imperfections, has been rooted to the ground for a half-century or more. As stewards of important elements of California’s cultural legacy, we all share in the commitment to exercise that stewardship with the highest degreeof integrity. California’s Office of.Historic Preservation, and the State Historical Building Code exist to help in the realization of that goal. 9512 Attachment D R-1 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Note: List of basic rules for standard R-1 zones, exceptions exist. I O I I lVfinimum site area for new lots is 6,000 square feet [10,000 for R-1(9:~9)] lViinimum site width for new lots is 60 feet Minimum site depth for new lots is 100 feet New flag lots are not allowed Minimum front yard is 20 feet Minimum rear yard is 20 feet Minimum side yard is 6 feet [8 feet in R-l( 929)] Minimum street side yard is 16 feet Maximum site coverage is 35% of site Covered patios and overhangs may add 5% additional site coverage Maximum floor area for lots of less than 5,000 square feet is .45 Maximum floor area for lots greater than 5,000 square feet is .45 for first 5,000 square feet and .30 forportion of lot greater than 5,000 Maximum floor area in all cases is 6,000 square feet per main dwelling unit Maximum height is 30 feet measured to peak of roof from grade Daylight plane on side is measured 10 feet up and 45 degree angle in from property line Daylight plane at front and rear is measured 16 feet up and 60 degree angle in from setback (Antennas chimneys, flues, dormers, roof decks, gables, cornices, eaves and similar have some restricted exceptions) Recreational and security lighting may not shine off-site and freestanding poles are limited~ to 12 feet in height Basements, light wells, exterior stairs and similar are controlled and limited in size and location Flag lots and substandard lots are limited to one habitable floor and height of 17 feet Minimum of 2 parking spaces with one covered (tandem parking allowed). (Parking not allowed in front yard setback (20’) or first 10 feet of street side yard Underground parking generally prohibited (variance required and counts as floor area RULES FOR SECOND DWELLINGS IN R- 1 ZONES Requires Conditional Use Permit Minimum lot size must 35% greater than normal (8,100 for’ 6,000 square foot lot) Must be separated from main building or any accessory buildings by at least 12 fedt and meet all setbacks Maximum size of 900 square feet plus 200 square feet for a covered parking space Total of 4 parking spaces for both units with two covered. Maximum height of 17 feet to highest point ofbuilding Common driveway access with main dwelling Architecturally compatible with main structure Minimum of 200 square feet of useable open space a~essible to each unit and not located in front or street side yard RULES FOR MEASURING FLOOR AREA Total of all floors measured to outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairs, elevator shafts, service and mechanical equipment rooms; useable basement, cellar or attic areas; open or roofed porches, arcades, plazas, balconies, courts, walkways, breezeways or porticos if located above the ground floorand used for required access; all roofed porches, arcades, balconies porticos, breezeways or similar when located above the ground floor; covered parking floor area where the distance between the floor and the roof directly above it measures more than 17 feet is counted twice (2nd floor equivalent) Floor area where the digtance between the floor and the roof directly above it measures more than 26 feet is counted three times (3rd floor equivalent) Basements more than three feet above the grade at any point around perimeter of building 200 square feet of unusable third floor equivalent (such as an attic) is excluded Historic Preservation Incentive Options - Work Sheet Matrix (Revised .8/20/98) gs by ~orki~g with ~l~erty Owners tosupport and assist them in using the Code. This is an existing State program that is an alternative to ; State or iiiational histOdc lists)i It is a performance-baSed code that allows the structure to be evaluated as a whole, and allows i~:.66ta I~i’dous onditioti~;;i Und~ the SHBC, historic buildings are not required to meet California Energy Efficiency Standards. It allows work to "trigger,’ SHBC. Primarily useful for commercial buildings), but also available for- all residential buildings on inventory, for both significant structures and landmark structures. ¯The City must make available for use upon request, but applicant not required to use SHBC for remodel. City is proactive in offering this as an option where applicable. SHBC is used for existing features of house, not for new addition (i.e., an existing stairway not to current UBC may remain for additional floor area added to an existing second floor) Staff will be trained to assist applicants in their understanding of the SHBC’s applicability to their structure. o o o o o Is it really an economic benefit? Why is it being discussed if mandatory? How many would benefit? To what degree is this a benefit?¯Is this a benefit to the community? Explore who has used this benefit and what real advantage is this incentive to those on list. City will identify where SHBC was used and describe how the property owner benefitted from the use of the SHBC. This information will be presented at the meeting. Comprehensive Plan Program L-65 states, "Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordinances to older buildings. Use the State Historical Building Code for designated historic buildings." No change t~ municipal code ’SUO!S!AO~d le!oeds ’uo!;e/ueseJd ’le!]uep!seJ ;41!w~J-ald!|lnLU ’lep, ueplsa~ Xl!Wej-el6U!S 6u!PnlOu! ’peJ!nbaJ suo!ioes epoo leJeAes o] SUO!S!AeEI ,,’~o!,~e: ~{l!l!q!ledu~oo ’uoflonpo~ luo~ue:!nbe: ez!s ~Ol ~unu~!u!uJ ’s;un peqoefle ’uoflel!~q ez!s uJntu!xe~u .’s~uo~ueJ!nbeJ peonpo~ se qons suo!~eln6eJ u!/~l!flq!xeL/ peseo~ou!,, o~ soouo~ejeJ sepnlou! #-H ~ue~o~d .’pop!~oJd oq ~!un leUOfl!ppe ~oq eu!u~olop ol see~e ~{l!~Ue~ elSu!s u! s~!un #U!lle~4p puooe£ ~oj suo!s!~o~d eq~ .e~enle~:3,, #-H ~ue:~O:d Ueld e~!suaqe:d~uoo &]eLU eq II!~ sluew~!nbeJ os sao~noseJ o!Jo~s!q ~o,t ~a!sea sseoo~d e>leRI ’sl!un 6U!lle~P puooes jo ~a!^eJ eseo ~q eseo Joj ]u!od IO~]UOO e sep!^oJd ’sesl’l leUOp,!puoo ’0tz0"~ I.’8 ~ uo!]oe£ (&aU!l jJ, o4,no eq~, s! eJeq/v~ ’el) ez!s ~,Ol eA!~,ewe),le ue s! ~eqN~ &o~, ~ldde ~,! seop SleoJed~ue~u ~OH ~,s~loeq~as o~u! s~uewqoeoJoua Joj 6u!t~OllV $esnoq Je6Jel e pu!qaq asnoq Ile~us e pu!qeq peionJ]suoo esnoq Ja6Jel e jo ~oedwl &se!pedo~d 6UlJoqq6!eu o~, s~,oedwl $f~uadoJd o!Jo]s!q eq] jo seJn]eaJ 6u!ugep-Ja]oeJeqo uo s:pedWl &eueld lqO!l~ep pue lq6!aq lelO1 uo uo!lel!W!l &ol ~ldde ]~jeueq s!q] seop SleoJed ~uew t~OH &e6e~,ooj e~enbs le~,o~, uo uo!~e~!w!’! 2.4 Relax the lot size requirement. Explore an overlay or subzone, new zoning and standards (eg single story overlay zone). Create a Planned Community zoning for historic houses that’s flexible. states, "Create a Planned Development zone that allows the construction of smaller lot single family units and other innovative housing types without the requirement for a public benefit finding." Lot Merger. Facilitate lot mergers and lot line adjustments to allow shifting of development rights Allow non-conformities to be created Comprehensive Plan Program L-60 states, "Continue to use a TDR Ordinan ce to allow the transfer of development rights from designated buildings of historic significance in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites in the CD zone. Planned Communit (PC) zone properties in the Downtown also qualify for this program." Increased size o.f new house. What is intent - extra square footage, transfer development rights, larger home’~ Revisions to several Code sections including subdivision, single:family, multi-family, special provisions, etc. Revisions to several Code sections including subdivision, single,family, multi-family, special provisions, etc.. "(s6u!Pl!nq fdosseooe ’sesnoq IleUJs) eq] uo uo!]e]eoole~ ~Olle/~luO ’fq!l!qeo!ldde pe~!~u!-i ’suo!s!^o~d le!oeds ’~l!UJe$-!~lntu el6u!s 6u!pnlou! uo!]oes epoo eld!~ln~ ¯ suo!io!J]Se~ ~loeq]as o] enp le!]uelod ]ueuJdole^ep eql s]!uJ!l eJn]onJ]s o!~o]s!q pesodoJd eq| j! ’seouep!seJ t~eu ~o saouep!se~ 6u!]s!xe o] suo!]!ppe elq!ssod ]!uJJedo~ s6u!pl!nq ~JOSSeOOe pue seouep!sa~ ~o uo!~eOOlaJ eq~ t~OllV "se~n~onJ~s o!Jo~,s!q ~o uo!~,eOOle~ "eJnionJls uo ]oeduJ! eseeJoep PlnOt~ leql eoWo ewoq ’paqs IOOl ’se6eJe6 se qons ’sl~u!Pl!nq ~Josseooe Joj e6eJe^oo peseeJou! t~OllV ’esnoq eq] jo so!is!JeloeJeqO ~ueo~J!ul~!s Jeqlo pUB 6u!.sseuJ eqi uo ]oeduJ! SSal u! ]lnseJ ~eqi esneoeq suo!i~ppe/~o;.s-ot¢~ o]’elqeJejeJd eJe suo!l!ppe 4Jo]s-euo ’seoueisu! ~uBuJ Ul "pet~Olle aq es!~Jeqlo PlnOt~ ~JOlS-puooes e eJeqt~ esnoq/uois-euo eol uo!~!ppe/~o~s-euo e elepowuJoooe o~, papeeoxe eq ol sl!~U!l e6eJa^OO ~OllV "aBe~a^oo :eJ p~epuels O!leJ ease JOOlJ 6u!xelaJ qOnoJqi come6 peqoelep ,,’peu!elU!eLU eq 11!44 ~o!~e~xe ~u!pflnq eql jo ~Op#e~u! opols!q aq~ ~eql £lJu!pu!~ ~4e!~e~ u~!sep e~!nbe;51 "uoflel!lt.qeqe~ e~eJnooue o~ s~u!pflnq o!Jo~s!q ~o~ £uofldaoxe Bupped ~OllV,, :se~e~s 6£--I tue~o~d ueM e4!sueqeJd~uo9 ,,’s)ueuJe4nbeJ 6u!~ped peonpeJ ~o~ eiepdoJdde seeJe u! s;soo 6u!snoq peonpeJ pue se!;!suep Je~//~!q 44o11~ ol £~ueLueJ!nbeJ 6upped/[~!POlN, ’selel~ Z-H uJeJ#oJd.Ueld e~!~ueqe~dLuoO Z, el!s Peio!Jlsuoo e uo 6U!>lJed eJOUJ 6u!~ollV :sanssl ¯ (uo!s!^o~d le>luelq e e^eq ]ou op) I~!OJeWWoo JoJ 6u!~lJed e]enbape ep!^oJd "e’! ’sanss! qoJeeseJ ol ee]l!WLUOO 6upIJed ql!~ aleu!pJooo /~lsno~]neo pea J] - 6upIJed paaN ’spJepuels 6u!HJed /~!pow Jo/pue s~,uawe~!nba~ 6upIJed aonpaEI "sluauaaJ!nba~l Floor area ratio. Do not count as FAR 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. Do not count as FAR existing attics or unfinished spaces that do not result in exterior changes to the structure. Allow basement enhancement to. encourage seismic upgrade. Allow detached structures/garage not to count toward FAR FAR allocations should be different based upon whether landmark or significant resource, and based upon lot size. What are the number of homes that could be impacted? Workable on large lots, but on very small lots ~ncreased FAR may be a problem. How is FAR defined, should we redefine? How much increase allowed? Increased square footage to include a sliding scale based upon the size of the residence? Or based on category -eg, 500 s.f. for landmark, 400 s.f. for significant, 300 s.f. for "other historic"? Require design review? Neighborhood concerns. Basements allowed to extend beyond building footprint? Current regulations penalize. Lightwells - must maintain historic integrity - to be addressed by HRB. Allow raising for Significant Resources? Negatively impact historic structure. Factor of small house on small lot and large house on large lot. When existing homes over FAR? Allow addition on back of house? Multiple Code Sections including single family, multiple family and historic Y Y ¯ eoueu!PJO 6u!uoz eq~, jo 06"8 ~ Jeldeqo pue aoueu!PJO uon, e~eseJd ~e!AeJ o!lqnd euo u! llnseJ plno~ uo!loe Joj lUSIUUOJ!AU:I/q!unLuLuoo pue l~u!uueld jo JOlOeJ!Ci eq~, ol uo!lepuewLUOOeJ pue ~el^eJ 8EIH "SEIH ~q ~e!AeJ JOj ~OllV &e6elooj eJenbs leW!U!Lu o~j!oeds e ueq~, eJoLu Jo e6elooj aJenbs leuo!l!ppe ~ue eq PlnOta lepoLueJ &s~ioeqles/~eu 1caw o1 peJ!nbaJ lOU eueld eLues u! 6u!Pltnq 6u!wJo~uoo-uou oluo suo!l!PPV ~et~utels 6a slueLu.qoeoJoue Jou!uJ ~loeqles e6eJeE) (eueld lq6!l/£ep ’~loeqlas luoJj 6Utl!e^eJd oiu! spuelxe ~llueJJno qo!qta qoJod luo~j jo eJnsoloua taolle 6a) XI!LUJOJUOO-UOU JO eseaJou! ue ~Olle ’se!~!Lu~ojuoo-uou ~toeqles 6up, s!xq pexeleJ eq PlnOqs slueLueJ!nbeJ qol!d jooEI seJnlon~ls 6u!lnqpluoo Joj eoueu!pJo LU!JalU! ~ueJJno ol suo!ldeoxe MolIV sa~nlonJls ~lJeLupuel pue lueo~j!u#!s Joj spJepuels xeleEl euelcl ~,qB!14eQ ’S~loeqles ~’on of Home Improvement Notify only contiguous property owners and across Excoph~Pti°ns (D’EE). At the rights-of way.present time HIE required a 150.radius of notification and DEE require a 300 feet radius notification.Allow for posting of notices. Multi-familylnonresidential properties. Modify the review and Qualifications of HRB to review all aspects of theapproval process. Currently multi-family and nonresidential properties project. Modify requirements for appointment of HRBon the historic inventory are subject to both HRB and ARB review,members to reflect the current majority of design"[he Certified Local Government agreement requires that the rev ew professionals to assure the Board’s continued abili~body for projects on designated I~istoric properties have certain special to meet an expanded design review role.expertise in historic preservation and related fields. The HRB meets these special requirements."Continuity of decisions and impact on other reviews made by the ARB and HRB on other projects nearby or adjacent. " Joint ARB/HRB review One-time or annual joint ARB/HRB meeting to discuss issues, establish criteria, etc. ,, Staffing and preparation of reports.. , Minor exterior alterations.Definition of minor exterior alteration. Amount of fee to be charged and applicability to cost recovery. Major exterior alterations.Review by HRB only. Reduce fee from cost recovery such as basing on amount of square footage added Multiple Code Sections, including historic preservation, ARB Ordinance, siNgle-family and multi-family regulations, and fee schedule. Multiple Code Sections including historic preservation, ARB Ordinance, single-family and multi-family -regulations, and fee schedule. Y Y Y Y ’elnpeqos sJeq~o ~lq!ssod ’elnpeqos ¯ 6u!J eql jo lueLuqs!lqelse Jeq#nj pue sls!J1eLuoq Je~Je aJnlnj eql u! u!el~e peN~e!AeJ eq plnoo ¯ peJe^ooeJ s! lsoo lenloe jo %£L ,~lUO peqs!lqelse ~llueJJno se pue uo-e!l lsmu pooqJoqq6!eu UeA!6 e jo %01~ Iseel le elqe!^ eq o.I. "eJnlnj Jeeu eql u! Sle!Jl euJoq eu~os 6u!op eq I1!~ uJels~s o!ldo eJq!-i luaJJno "eJnlonJls lsoo pue seej u! e^!l!ledLuoo eq ol pue ¯ spueJl 6u!6ueqo q~!t~ 1sniPe ol fq!l!qe peeu se!l!l!ln ’uo!leln6eJep ~1!1!1n )o eJe Ul "uo!ldo elqe!A e 1ON JeleeJ6 s! JeAeLIo!q~ ’esnoq jo ez!s eql uo peseq eleJ ~e!AeJ uo!leJelle JOrSI.LI eql e6Jeqo Jo ’uo!leo!ldde eql 6u!sseooJd eql JOj fue^ooeJ lsoo IlnJ pe6Jeqo eq PlnOt~ fuolue^u! o!JOlS!q eql uo eJnlonJls e qS!lOLUep ol suo!leo!lddV "/ue^ooeJ lSOO IlnJ J! qs!loLuap ol aA!lueou!s!p e se pes.n eq plnoo ¯6u!~ o!Ido-e~q!4 eq~, o~, sseooe /~pelno!ped ’seej uo!]oeuuoo ~l!lP, n 6U!A!e~ ~O fq!Hqissod eq~ qoJeese~ ~jels pe~sel~6ns uo!ss!tau~o;3 eq.I. °~eA!e~ eej uo!loeuuo~ ~l!l!il’l "(BIH) suo!~deox~! ~,ueme^o~dml emoH ~oj suo!ieo!lddv ’uoll!iomeo Usse of Mills Act Contracts.Reduction in taxes which results in reduction in allocation to School District. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-53 states, "actively seek state and federal funding for the preservation of buildings of historical merit and consider public/private partnerships for capital and program improvements." Comprehensive Plan Program L-54 states, "Encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in finding ways to adapt and restore these buildings, including participation in state and federal tax relief programs." Use of Federal Investman Tax Program.None identified.Comprehensive Plan Policy L-53 states, "actively seek state and federal funding for the preservation of buildings of historical merit and consider public/private partnerships for capital and program improvements." Comprehensive Plan Program L-54 states, "Encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in finding ways to adapt and restore these buildings, including participation in state and federal tax relief programs." Y N Y Ll!O Xq pe6ueJJe ’slueo!ldde ]s!sse ol sJnoq IEJeAeS JOj aOUelS!sse ouoq-oJd ep!AoJd s]oe]!qoJv ’qoee8 opuopeEI suo!]eog!oeds 8u!doleAep u! eouels!ssv (sao~nos t~opu!t~ ’o!u~s!as "a’!) aouep!n6 pue co!Ape leJnpal!qoJe Ja,YO ~A a:~!^pe le.m~,oal!qoJv A A "6u!punj pue 6u~els "8EIH eql 4q uo!|!u6ooeJ o!lqnd/enbeld e jo ash aq~, q~!t~ uo!l!u6ooeEI "u4eJl~o~d enbeld ’eUON ¯ spunj jo eoJno$ o!Jo]s!q ueq] Jeq]o o] ~!l!qeo!lddv ¯sUeOl JeFnq e~u!l ls~g ~o eseqo~nd lsaJelu! t~Ol pun,~ ~lleU~OU plnota ~,eql uo!~e~ls!u!u~pe ~ueuudole^epe~ e e^eq ~ou seop ~!0 eq/:sueol Ja~nq atu!l ls~!t ~o ~,sa~a~,u! t~o-I ¯ euapesed u! paz!l!~n UeOl ],seJa~,u!-ou Jap!suoO ¯ o!Jo~,s!q ueq] Jeq~o m,/o,!l!qeo!lddv ’se!~!l!q!6!la eu~ooul LueJ6OJcl ~,ue~ue^oJd~Ul euJoH 6u!^!^aJ Jep!suoo Allow nonconforming uses Conditional uses allowed in ce~ain residential zones (eg service, daycare, limited retail, live-work, etc.) Increased density (i.e. multi-family in single family zone) Utilized in Portland, Oregon.Comprehensive Plan program L-61 states, "Allow nonconforming uses for the life of historic buildings." Division of Planning Department of Community Development and Environment September 3, 1998