HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-02 City Council (15)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:NOVEMBER 2, 1998 CMR:417:98
SUBJECT:STUDY PRIORITY 1 PROPERTIES: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS
OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OR
CALIFORNIA REGISTER BASED ON DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
(ARCHITECTURE)
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
This staff report transmits to the City Council the report, "Study Priority 1
Properties:Preliminary Assessments of Eligibility For the National Register or California
Register Based on Design/Construction (Architecture), " prepared by the historic survey
consultants, Dames & Moore.
The Dames & Moore report is the first of two work products to be provided in this phase of
the historic survey process. This study provides a more detailed architectural assessment of
the 578 properties on the Study Priority 1 list. The second report, to be delivered to City staff
on January 15, 1999, will complete the preliminary assessments of eligibility by addressing
both of the following: 1)Study Priority 2 properties based on the architecture criterion, and
2) the two remaining criteria for determining historical significance (association with
significant events and significant people) for both Study Priority 1 and 2 properties.
Study Priority 1 properties are those that appeared by visual observation of Dames & Moore
to be potentially eligible for the National Register. Properties that did not appear to meet the
standards for national significance but which appeared to have historic integrity, that is, they
appeared to retain their significant original architectural characteristics, were designated
CMR: 417:98 Page 1 of 5
Study Priority 2. (See Dames & Moore report, pages 1-3, for more detailed information
about how the historic survey is being conducted.)
The preliminary assessment task is an intermediate step in the historic survey process. The
purpose of this intermediate step is to further refine the Study Priority 1 and 2 lists in order
to provide information about the numbers and types of properties, in aggregate, that are likely
to be historically significant. This information will be available for consideration during the
review and adoption of the permanent Historic Ordinance in February- March 1999.
Preliminary assessments are based not just on visual qualities (as was the case in the initial
reconnaissance survey) but also on a substantial amount of research and are, therefore, a
significant advancement over the earlier drive-by categorizations that established the Study
Priority 1 and 2 lists. This refinement thus provides a better basis for use in revising the
Historic Ordinance. However, before considering an individual property for the Historic
Inventory, the archival research that is now underway would need to be completed and a final
written evaluation of significance prepared for the property.
DISCUSSION
The Dames & Moore report includes the following:
*Discussion section, including a summary of findings, project overview, description and
purpose of the preliminary assessment task, and next steps. (Pages 1-13)
Eligibility Assessment Table. For each of the properties on the Study Priority 1 list that
were studied, this table provides: the assessor’s parcel number, construction date,
California Register code indicating the type of property, and the preliminary assessment
of eligibility for the National Register and for the California Register. (Appendix A)
Status of Work Table. In addition to the information provided on the Eligibility
Assessment Table, this table shows the progress to date on the six survey research tasks
for each property. (Appendix B)
Changes to the Study Priority 1 List. This section includes additions, deletions and
changes to the May 1, 1998, Study Priority 1 list, including 30 properties that were
originally on the list but were subsequently removed for technical reasons, and identifies
the reason for their removal. (Appendix C)
This phase of the survey project has further refined the Study Priority 1 list, based only on
the architecture criterion. Of the 578 properties that were actually on the Study Priority 1
list, the survey architectural historian (Dames & Moore) has determined that 213 appear
potentially eligible for the National .Register and 278 appear potentially eligible for the
California Register, due to local significance. That means 491 properties have been
identified as likely to be eligible, after further study, for the City’s Historic Inventory. An
CMR: 417:98 Page 2 of 5
additional 43 properties are no longer considered individually eligible for historic designation
based upon the architecture criterion, and 30 properties that were on the Study Priority 1 list
were removed for technical reasons. Potential eligibility for 14 properties has not yet been
established because they cannot be adequately viewed from public rights-of-way. That a
substantial potion of the Study Priority 1 properties continue to be considered eligible for
historic designation was expected, since the most. selective standard, the appearance of
potential eligibility for the National Register based on architecture, was the reason for a
property being assigned to this group.
The historic survey is using standards of eligibility for the National Register and the
California Register because that is the accepted methodology used by local agencies for
identifying properties to add to their local historic inventories. The criteria for the National
Register and the California Register are similar in wording, but application of the criteria is
interpreted more broadly in the case of the California Register. The National Register being
more selective, any property which is eligible for the National Register is also eligible for the
California Register. However, there are many properties that are eligible for the California
Register that are not eligible for the National Register. The California Register provides a
standard that is accepted and applied statewide. Consequently, for the purposes of the Palo
Alto survey, the California Register criteria will be used for identifying potential local
significance. (See pages 7-8 of the Dames & Moore report.)
What does the preliminary, assessment mean?
Regulation. No additional regulations apply to properties by virtue of being included on the
preliminary assessments list provided in this task. For Study Priority 1 and 2 properties and
for properties on this preliminary assessments list there are no special regulations, other than
those that apply to all pre-1940 residences under the Interim Regulations in place since
November, 1996.
Not a Final Designation. Inclusion on this preliminary assessments list is not a designation
to the City’s Historic Inventory. This current assessment of eligibility is preliminary.
Therefore, in general, it is not a sufficient basis for adding individual properties to the
Historic Inventory. Prior to an individual property being considered by the City Council for
addition to the local historic inventory, the archival research and historic contexts research
which is underway would need to be completed, and a final written evaluation of historic
significance would need to be prepared for each property. (See pages 9-12 of the Dames &
Moore report.)
TIMELINE
Phase 1 Completion. Dames & Moore is presently screening the 2,700 Study Priority 2
properties to reduce the number of properties. The results of this screening will be delivered
CMR: 417:98 Page 3 of 5
to the Cty staff, on January 15, 1999, and will be available to the public within two to three
weeks after that date, following City staff review. After completion of this second task in
January 1999, the Study Priority Lists 1 and 2 will no longer exist They will be replaced
with a single preliminary assessment list of properties that are likely, pending further study,
to be individually eligible for the National Register or for the California Register/local
significance based on all three criteria: architecture, events, and people.
Survey Completion. When approving this phase of the historic survey project on August 10,
1998, the City Council deferred the decision of whether or not to continue to complete the
historic survey until reviewing the results of Phase 1 in January’. Phase 2, if approved by the
City Council, would consist of preparation of final written evaluations and statements of
significance, and completion of individual property Inventory forms (DPR523) for each
property on the preliminary assessments list. This work, if authorized by Council, would
be expected to be completed in September 1999. Formal consideration of individual
properties onto the City’s Historic Inventory could then follow. Designation of individual
properties to the City’s Historic Inventory requires a public review process, with notification
of the property owner and a public hearing and action by the City Council.
ATTACHMENT
Dames and Moore report dated October 27, 1998, and entitled, "Study Priority 1 Properties:
Preliminary Assessments of Eligibility for the national Register or California Register Based
on Design/Construction (Architecture)"
PREPARED BY:Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD GAW~F
Director of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
~ssistant City Manager
._/
CMR: 417:98 Page 4 of 5
CC:Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage
Palo Alto Historical Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Palo Alto Unified School District
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
John Paul Hanna
Palo Alto Homeowners Association
George Zimmerman
Architectural Resources Group
Origins Design Network
Carol Harrington
Norman Beamer
Monica Yeung-Amariko
CMR: 417:98 Page 5 of 5