HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-07 City Council (16)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s-Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 11
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 7, 1998
PROPOSED CHANGES TO BE INCLUDED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
CMR:454:98
IN REVISING THE
REPORT IN BRIEF
On May 26, 1998, the Council delayed action on a draft permanent historic ordinance. This
delay was necessary, in part, because Council felt it would be helpful to have more
information on the project under way to update the historic inventory prior to adopting an
ordinance which would regulate properties on the inventory. Council also asked staff to
solicit more input from the community prior to adoption of the ordinance.
Since that time, staff and the consultants working on this project have spent a significant
amount of time reviewing the correspondence received from residents, conducting personal
interviews with residents and other individuals who have been impacted by the regulations
contained in the Interim Historic Ordinance process and conducting focus group discussions
of the issues related to historic preservation. Some key themes emerged from that
community dialogue, which are summarized in this report. Because of Council’s expressed
commitment to public outreach and the need to develop a workable, fair ordinance that is
supported by the community, staff has drafted recommendations for Council to consider
which would change certain elements of the draft permanent ordinance. The key policy
issues in the current draft permanent ordinance and related staff recommendations include:
CMR:454:98 Page 1 of 16
The current draft permanent ordinance would apply to all properties on the
current historic inventory, including Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 properties, the two
current historic districts, and properties designated to the inventory in the
future by City Council. The draft ordinance also required completion of
historic evaluation of properties on the Dames and Moore Study’Priority 1 and
2 lists prior to major alteration or demolition.
Staff recommends creation of a City of Palo Alto Register of Historic
Properties, to replace the current historic inventory. Structures and sites on the
Register would be formally designated by the City and would be subject to
firm regulation. Initially, the Register would include all Category 1 and 2
properties from the current historic inventory, and those within the current
historic districts. Additions to the Register would normally come from the
Resource List as described below.
In addition, staff recommends establishment of a list of properties of potential
merit - the Resource List - which would initially include Category 3 and 4
properties from the current historic inventory and all properties identified by
the Dames and Moore survey to be potentially eligible for the National and
California Registers. (These properties will come from the winnowing out of
properties from the Dames and Moore Priority 1 and 2 Study lists).
The current draft permanent ordinance contains two categories of historic
resources: Landmark and Significant Resource.
Staff recommends deletion of the Significant Resource category, given the
difficulty in defining it in such a way as to make it clearly distinguishable, for
regulatory purposes, from the Landmark category. Staff does recommend
creation of a category, Contributing Structure, to be applied to appropriate
structures in historic districts.
The current draft permanent ordinance prohibits demolition of Landmark and
Significant Resources except under unusual circumstances; regulates exterior
alternations for both categories with mandatory compliance; and provides for
limited review of site features with mandatory compliance for Landmarks and
voluntary-compliance for Significant Resources.
Staff recommends a somewhat different level of regulation for minor
alterations, major alterations and demolitions of historic structures on the
Register. In addition, all properties on the Resource List would be subject to
mandatory design review and voluntary compliance, with a potential limited
CIvlR:454:98 Page 2 of 16
waiting period for modifications that might adversely impact the significant
resource.
The current draft permanent ordinance does not address neighborhood
compatibility issues for non’historic structures. "-
Staffrecommends use of the current Single Family Design Review Guidelines
and, for pre-1940’s structures not on the Resource List or Register, the
Compatibility Review Guidelines, to regulate neighborhood compatibility.
CMR:454:98 Page 3 of 16
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to seek additional public comment and return
to Council with a revised historic preservation ordinance that:
1)Establishes the "Palo Alto Register of Historically Significant PropertirS" (Register),
establishes two categories, Landmarks and Historic Districts, and incorporates onto
that Register the Category 1 and 2 structures, and historic districts on the current
"City of Palo Alto Master List of Structures on Historic Building Inventory";
2)Establishes a new "Palo Alto Resource List of Properties of Potential Merit"
(Resource List) and incorporates onto that list the Preliminary Assessment list from
the Dames & Moore survey and Categories 3 and 4 from the current "City of Palo
Alto Master List of Structures on Historic Building Inventory";
3)Provides for separate regulations for Contributing Structures in historic districts;
4)Establishes a public review process for adding and removing structures and sites
to/from the Register and the Resource List; and
5)Provides for regulation of minor alterations, major alterations and demolition of each
of the properties on the Register and the Resource List, as shown in the attached
matrix.
Staff further recommends that Council direct staffto return to Council with appropriate draft
regulations that require mandatory compatibility review for replacement structures on all
non-historic demolitions in the City of Palo Alto.
BACKGROUND
In February 1996, the City began a process to develop a new historic preservation ordinance
and to update the inventory of historic properties. The original ordinance and inventory had
not been substantially revised since they were established in 1979. The new ordinance was
deemed to be necessary because the standing ordinance lacked provisions to require
preservation and clear standards for reviewing and approving historic projects. The
inventory required updating, since it did not include many properties perceived to have
significant historic value.
In addition, significant changes in the development environment suggested the need for a
new lodk at historic preservation. The PaloAlto real estate market had become one of the
most active in the Bay Area and property values had increased sharply. With real estate
prices reflecting land values out of proportion to the value of modest building improvements,
the incidence of demolition was on the rise. Some homes considered to be historic, but not ¯
protected by the standing ordinance and inventory, were demolished. Many of the
CMR:454:98 Page 4 of 16
replacement homes were perceived as not compatible with neighborhood character. This
prompted the City to develop an interim ordinance to address both historic preservation and
neighborhood compatibility until a new permanent ordinance and inventory could be enacted.
With the input of a community advisory committee, staff worked over several months to
develop a new ordinance. On February 23, 1998, staff brought a comprehensive report
(CMR: 138:98) to Council outlining a series of issues and options to be considered in the
creation of a. permanent historic preservation ordinance. In response to staff
recommendations, Council directed that the ordinance:
¯Include two categories of historic resources: Landmarks and Significant Resources
Prohibit demolition of Landmarks and Significant Resources except under unusual
circumstances
Regulate exterior alterations to Landmarks and Significant Resources and require
mandatory design review and compliance
Provide for limited review of site features with mandatory compliance for Landmarks
and voluntary compliance for Significant Resources
Provide incentives to support and encourage preservation
In addition, Council directed that:
Major exterior alterations and demolitions of Study Priority 1 and 2 properties should
be prohibited without first conducting an historic evaluation until Council takes fmal
action on additions to the historic inventory
Staff should investigate options for a process enabling property owners to initiate the
creation of neighborhood conservation areas for non-historic properties
Staff took this direction and returned with a draft permanent ordinance in May 1998. On
May 26, Council delayed action on the draft and asked that more public input be sought.
This delay was necessary because Council felt it would be helpful to be further along in the
process of updating the inventory in order to have a clearer sense of the number of properties
likely to be subject to the ordinance. Accordingly, Council directed staff to refocus the scope
of the consultant working on the inventory to provide by mid-January an indication of the
properties eligible for inclusion on the City’s historic inventory. For a summary of the
Dames & Moore survey process, see Attachment H.
in addition, allowing time for public outreach was seen as critical. There had been
considerable comment from members of the community regarding the way the interim
ordinance was being administered and what the draft permanent ordinance proposed to
regulate. Residents expressed dissatisfaction that they had not had more of a voice in the
process of developing the draft permanent ordinance, suggesting that a broader range of
community views should be considered. Consequently, Council directed staffto increase its
CMR:454:98 Page 5 of 16
public outreach efforts. To this end, an ombudsman and public outreach consultant were
hired to help City staff augment the public input received through numerous letters to the
City Council and public comment at several meetings-of the Council, Historic Resources
Board and Planning Commission.
The ombudsman met with a broad cross-section of property owners, realtors, designers,
preservationists and others with an interest in the City’s interim and draft permanent historic
preservation ordinances. In addition he sat in on staff’s meetings with residents and
designers seeking to alter homes regulated by the interim ordinance. The findings of the
ombudsman from these activities are summarized in Attachment E.
Staff retained, and has begun working with a public outreach consultant on a series of round
tables and an open community forum to gather input on historic preservation. The first of
the roundtable events took place on November 12, 1998. This roundtable brought together
representatives of invited neighborhood associations, business groups and historic
preservation organizations in small groups that allowed in-depth discussion from a range of
perspectives. The groups focused on critical issues, including what the goal of an historic
preservation ordinance should be, how historic properties should be designated and what
types of construction activity should trigger review. While the groups did not reach
consensus on these topics, they provided excellent ideas and constructive suggestions.
Participants from each group took flip chart notes that have been transcribed and included
as Attachment F to this report. A second roundtable event with the same groups is being
planned for mid December. In addition, an open community forum will take place in mid
January to seek further input into the development of the final draft of the permanent
ordinance.
Through the roundtables, ombudsman interviews, letters to Council and public comment at
Council and commission meetings, community members have expressed a wide range of
ideas regarding historic preservation in Palo Alto. Staff has carefully reviewed all forms of
community input and has identified the following themes:
Historic preservation is valued by a broad cross-section of the community, as is the
issue of neighborhood compatibility.
While historic preservation and neighborhood compatibility may overlap in some
instances, they are not synonymous and might best be addressed by different policies
and administrative processes.
Questions were raised as to how intrusive into individual property rights the
regulation of historic properties should be and how large a set of properties these
regulations should apply to.
CMR:454:98 Page 6 of 16
The need for clarity was expressed regarding the way properties are designated as
historic resources subject to regulation under the ordinance. Many stated that
property owners should have a meaningful role in the process of placing their
properties on the inventory (or removing them) and in appealing the City’s decisions.
Greater clarity was also requested regarding the regulations themselves, i.e. what they
are and which properties and construction activities they apply to.
With regard to construction activities, people expressed a need to distinguish between
appropriate adaptive reuse (i.e. alterations) and demolitions. Many people seemed to
feel that demolitions, not improper alterations, were the problem.
There was considerable comment on the need for incentives that encourage
preservation yet are equitable and do not create unintended impacts for the
neighborhood.
An overriding theme was the public’s desire to be involved in a continuing process
of developing and implementing the ordinance.
Following Council’s commitment to public outreach and its expressed interest in developing
a workable and fair ordinance that is supported by the community, staff has considered the
implications of the above themes and drafted some recommendations which suggest possible
changes to the draft permanent ordinance. These recommendations are intended to address
and balance a range of concerns and, in some instances, represent different options from what
staff has previously presented to Council and from the direction Council gave staff in
.February of this year. The recommendations are fully explained in the Discussion section
of this report. Ways in which these recommendations differ from the May 1998 draft
ordinance are identified in the Policy Implications section of this report.
DISCUSSION
Purpose of the Historic Regulations
This section is intended to outline the changes staff is recommending to address the issues
identified during the last year. It is recognized that the final historic preservation ordinance
needs to be a balance of competing community goals and values.. Palo Alto has a special
heritage that is represented in its older neighborhoods. There is widespread agreement this
character is a valuable asset that helps make Palo Alto unique. Equally true is the
understanding that most homeowners value the uniqueness of the community and will be
responsible and do the "right thing" as they attempt to modify their houses to reflect
changing house needs and life styles.
The following discussion and staff recommendation is part of a continuing effort to revise
the permanent historic preservation ordinance. It builds on the draft ordinance from last
CMR:454:98 Page 7 of 16
Spring, the experience of implementing the interim ordinance, comments from staff and the
ombudsman, comments from the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) (Attachment
D), and the public comments received as part of the outreach effort. The staff
recommendations contained within this report are intended to be a continuation of this
community discussion on historic preservation and not an ending point.
The purpose of a historic preservation ordinance is to recognize historically significant
resources, to protect these resources, to encourage civic pride and understanding of historic
heritage, to provide for enhancement to the community and to remain compatible with the
continued contemporary use of a property by its owner. Many of these areas are very
subjective and are different from community to community. Palo Alto has recently been
faced with the task of how to incorporate all the factors that must be considered in
developing an historic ordinance and that task has been complicated by the fact the City’s
1979 ordinance and inventory were not consistently updated to reflect changes. At the same
time the City has been experiencing changes in property values, ownership demographics
and incomes that have applied pressure to review City policies on historic regulations and
neighborhood compatibility.
Staff has critically reviewed the efforts and actions taken since late 1996. Staff reviewed
previous Board, Commission and Council discussions and actions, had discussions with the
various interests affected by the regulations, utilized the outreach services of the ombudsman,
held recent public forums and reviewed incentives and public benefits associated with
historic preservation. Synthesizing these discussion, staff established base criteria to be
utilized in preparing a new historic preservation ordinance, including:
Create a City of Palo Alto Register that would provide strong preservation regulations
for structures formally designated by the City.
Establish a list of properties that would be the source of potential additions to the Palo
Alto Register.
Assist property owners when they remodel or alter to encourage compatibility with
the historic integrity of the structure.
Provide incentives only to properties that are subject to a higher degree of City
regulations.
Provide for the. preservation of structures on the City’s current historic inventory.
Separate historic districts into a category to allow greater use of this tool in areas with
a cohesive historic nature.
CMR:454:98 Page 8 of 16
Minimize the City process for maintenance, minor alterations and major alterations
to historic structures and sites, using the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation as guidelines;
¯Discourage the demolition of historic properties..
¯Clari.’fy the process for review and appeals.
Separate out of the discussion on the historic preservation ordinance and address
directly the issue of non-compatible replacement buildings as a result of demolition
of non-historic buildings.
Attachment A, Historic Preservation Decision Matrix, is the result of this reassessment and
graphically lays out the staff recommendations. The matrix is an effort to identify the key
issues and focus the discussion and should be viewed as a framework for decision making.
The matrix identifies: 1) the Resource List and Register and defines what properties would
be included in each; 2) the process for maintenance, alteration, demolition, and removal from
designation; 3) which properties are eligible for incentives; and 4) regulation of the
replacement of the demolition of non-historic structures. Attachment B is the "Plain
English" version of the May 1998 draft ordinance with annotations that reflect changes
recommended by staff and SHPO.
The Register and the Resource List
The Palo Alto Register of Historically Significant Structttres and Sites (the Register)would
be established. The Register would replace the existing historic inventory. The term
"inventory" generally means all those properties in a jurisdiction that hav.e been surveyed and
are under consideration for historical significance, but have not yet had a final evaluation and
a public hearing process that establishes the basis for addition to a historic register. In Palo
Alto,"inventory" has been used to identify historic properties that are designated by the City.
To avoid confusion, staff recommends calling the listing of potential historic properties the
Palo Alto Resource List of Properties of Potential Merit ~esource List) and the list of
properties officially designated by the City as the Register. Category 1 and 2 properties and
those within historic districts (Professorville and Ramona Street District) which are on the
current inventory, would be incorporated into the Register. New additions to the Register
would normally come from the Resource List of potentially eligible National and California
Register properties. Attachment C is a flow chart of the sequence of events to add properties
to the Register.
All individually-designated historic resources on the Register would be called Landmarks.
A Landmark is a historic resource that has community importance and architectural integrity
which merits the strongest level of protection. Staff is recommending the deletion of the
Significant Resource category included in the May 1998 draft ordinance, which was included
CMR:454:98 Page 9 of 16
to allow for inclusion of properties that are important to the City, but were not necessarily
eligible for the National Register. The purpose of a local historic register-is to recogrtize
properties withlocal significance. Staff has concluded that the local definition of Landmark
can be made broad enough to include these types of properties, so the Significant Resource
category is not needed. ’-
Staff is proposing that the Resource List be compiled from two sources. The first source
would be properties within the existing inventory’s Category 3 and 4 designations. The
second source would be properties that will be identified as potentially eligible for National
Register Or California Register from Dames & Moore’s survey list, which will be completed
on January 15, 1999. The Dames & Moore survey list is made up of properties that are on
Study Priority Lists 1 or 2, which will be reduced by January 15 to a single list of properties
which are either potentially eligible for the National Register, or potentially eligible for the
California Register. It is estimated that there may be approximately 400 properties
potentially eligible for the National Register and approximately 1,000 properties potentially
eligible for the California Register. The criteria for eligiblity for the National and California
Registers are given in Attachment G.
The Resource List will change over time, with some properties being deleted after historical
assessment is completed and others being added upon nomination and as the City ages.
Furore additions to the Resource List would occur only after staff has reviewed a nomination
and determined the property to be potentially eligible for the National or California Register.
Upon adoption of a permanent historic ordinance, staff would begin the process to review
the structures and sites on the Resource List to determine what properties should be removed
from the Resource List entirely, based on new information that changes its eligibility, and
which, based on additional research and information, should be proposed for inclusion in the
Register. Staff proposes that any owner of a property placed on the Resource List or
identified as Contributing in a historic district (defined below) be given a period of time from
the date of adoption of the ordinance, to request a prioritized review of the merits of the
structure or site for a determination of its status. The property owner will be allowed to
provide all relevant documentation to support either exclusion or inclusion on the Register.
Staff will review the information and refer the request to the HRB for a recommendation to
be forwarded to Council.
Staff will develop a process, working with the HRB to review the Resource List each year,
and determine how many structures can be reviewed for inclusion on the Register. The
number to be considered would depend on staffmg and other priorities.
The designation process to the Register will require notification of the property owner, a
public hearing before the HRB for its recommendation, and a public hearing and action by
the City Council.
CMR:454:98 ¯Page 10 of 16
The number of properties to be considered for official designation will be determined by the
staffing and funding allocated. The focus for designation would be the properties on the
Resource List as potentially eligible for the National Register and properties on Category 3
and 4 of the existing historic inventory, and then for properties on the California Register.
Given the additional work that is needed in order to consider a property for designation, it
is assumed consideration for designation would occur over a period of years.
One of the recurring themes from the public has been the issue of property owner approval
prior.to officially designating a property as a Landmark. In practice, the staff would work
diligently to ensure all Landmark designations have property owner support. However, staff
believes it is important for Council to have the final authority to designate Landmarks and
establish historic districts.
Historic Districts
There are two existing historic districts, Professorville and Ramona Street District; any
regulations would also apply to future districts. Historic districts are formed because they
are important to the City, state or nation for their historical, architectural, archaeological,
engineering or cultural value and are a definable area united by history, aesthetics, plan or
physical development. Historic districts are unique in that not all structures and sites within
a district contribute to the historical importance of the district. Within a district there may
be properties that have been individually officially designated as Landmarks, and they would
be treated the same as any other designated Landmark. In addition, the structures within an
historic district which are not landmarks are proposed to be divided between Contributing
and Non-Contributing. In order to recognize historic districts and to encourage utilization,
staff is recommending that specific regulations be developed following state and national
guidelines to oversee the formation of districts.
Contributing would include all properties on the Resource List survey and other
structures that are consistent with the intent of the historic district. Contributing
properties add to the district’s historic significance, even if they are individually
undistinguished. Contributing structures within historic districts would not have City
review of maintenance or minor alterations, but would have mandatory HRB review
and mandatory compliance for major alterations. Contributing structures and sites
would have a mandatory one-year delay for demolition permits. If the existing
structure is to be demolished the replacement structure will have mandatory staff
review and compliance.
Non-Contributing, which includes aI1 other structures in the district, would have
minimal regulations for maintenance and minor and major alteration review.
Demolition would be allowed, but staff design review and mandatory compliance
would be required for the replacement structure. The intent of this is to ensure that
the replacement structure does not adversely affect the historic district.
CMR:454:98 Page 11 of 16
Regulating Properties on the Resource List and the Register
Definition of Terms. A precise definition of the terms maintenance, minor alterations, major
alterations and demolition is important and will be included in the final ordinance. Staff
intends that maintenance be limited to those items that do not otherwise reqtiire a building
permit, or which are reversible (e.g., painting). Minor alterations can not have a permanent
adverse impact on the historic integrity of the structure or site and must be consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation as guidelines. Major alterations are
any alterations that are not considered minor and would generally be def’med as additions
visible from the street, changes impacting architectural character and second story additions.
Demolition would generally be defined as removal of more than 50 percent of the walls,
foundation or roof of the structure. The Director of Planning and Community Environment
would make the final determination as to maintenance, minor alteration, major alteration or
demolition.
Resource List. The intent of the Resource List is to provide limited City review and
involvement in maintenance and minor alterations, to provide some control on major
alterations, to discourage demolitions and to ensure replacement structures are reviewed
within the context of their surroundings. The Resource List would be composed of two parts,
with the respective properties being treated differently based on their eligibility for the
National Register or the California Register.
Major alterations would require mandatory design review to ensure that the property owner
has made an objective evaluation of the proposed alteration’s effect on the architectural
integrity of the structure. Compliance with the design review would be voluntary, unless the
structure was a potential National Register property and the proposed alteration significantly
threatens the integrity of a critical property that warranted review by the HRB and City
Council for possible Landmark designation. In those special cases, a six-month delay could
be imposed and a process will be developed to determine how the delay will be applied. All
multi-family and commercial properties would continue to be subject to mandatory design
review, as they are now.
If demolition is proposed for a structure on the Resource List, the structure would first be
reviewed by staff for inclusion on the Register. If the structure proposed to be demolished
is considered significant by staff, the process for additions to the Register, described above,
would be followed. If not, after the mandatory delay period, the replacement structure would
require staff compatibility review with mandatory compliance.
The Register. All structures and sites on the Register would be subject to regulations
governing and minor alterations to these structures. Major alterations would require design
review by the HRB with mandatory compliance and, for Landmarks, demolition would not
CMR:454:98 Page 12 of 16
be permitted except under unusual circumstances. The other category on the Register would
be historic districts, which is discussed in more detail below.
Staff Review. Staff design review is contemplated in several of the proposed regulated areas.
An additional staff person will be required, with expertise in design review of historic
structures. It is staff’s intent to utilize this position as an incentive to do historic
preservation, by providing guidance, information, resources and expertise to assist the
property owner and his or her professional advisors. The role would be similar to that of the
Planning Arborist. Staff would use the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
as guidelines to review any design review applications for historic buildings. If it appears
that an impasse or resolution of any issue can not be made, the applicant may choose to go
directly to HRB or work with an internal staff review committee composed of at least three
pe.ople representing management level within the Department of Planning and Community
Environment. If the issue can not be resolved, the proposal may be referred to the HRB for
recommendation to the Director and would be appealable to the City Council.
Non-Historic Demolition Review
One of the major issues identified as part of the public outreach effort was the recognition
that a replacement structure may have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, regardless of
whether it is pre-1940 or not. It is also recognized that demolition for non-historic buildings
may be appropriate and replacement buildings may be very compatible. However, staff is
concerned that without requiring design review of replacement buildings at the same time
the interim historic ordinance is eliminated, existing neighborhoods (especially pre-1940)
could experience severe impacts. It should be noted that this is not related to historic
preservation. It is directed at addressing the issue of complete demolition of an existing
structure and the compatibility of the replacement structure with its surroundings. There are
approximately 4,600 additional properties built in the pre-1940s that would not be included
in the Resource List or the Register. This provision would also be expanded to apply to the
review of replacement structures in post-1940s neighborhoods, as well..All properties within
the City would be subject to applicable City regulations such as zoning and building codes.
In addition, staff is recommending that the demolition of any structure within the City require
mandatory compatibility review and compliance with that review for all replacement
structures. Staff would use the Compatibility Review Standards in pre-1940 neighborhoods
and Single Family Design Guidelines in post-1940 neighborhoods in assessing the
replacement structures for residential areas. Staff review would include an appeal process
and establish time frames for review.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed changes will require modifications to the Municipal Fee Schedule. In response
to Council direction, staff would establish fees to discourage demolition and encourage
preservation. At least one additional staff person would be required to provide expertise in
CMR:454:98 Page 13 of 16
historic preservation and assistance to the public. As City Council provides policy direction,
staff will provide a more complete analysis of needed resources. -
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation outlined by staff is similar to the draft ordinance considered by Council
last spring. The major differences are:
Use of the term Register instead of Inventory for the list of officially-designated
properties.
Deletion of the category Significant Resource, given its present lack of clarity of how
it is different from a Landmark. If the Significant Resource category is retained,
additional work needs to be done to clearly identify the criteria for designation
Addition of a separate category of Contributing structures to historic districts to
identify structures that, while important to creation of a district, are not individually
Landmarks.
Retention of a list of properties of potential merit (Resource List), but the inclusion
of provisions for mandatory design review and voluntary compliance with a potential
limited waiting period for modifications that may adversely impact the significant
historic resource.
Removal of the interim regulations that governed demolitions for pre-1940’s homes
exposes many neighborhoods to replacement building that could adversely change the
character of the area. The present draft ordinance is silent on that issue. Staff’s
recommendation to address the issue raises the question for public debate.
TIMELINE
After Council has given direction, the staff would seek additional public involvement
through an additional focus group in December and a larger public meeting in January. In
addition, the staff will work with the HRB and Planning Commission (additional comments
on incentives) for their review and recommendation in order to adopt the fmal draft of the
historic preservation ordinance by March 31, 1999. Given this outreach program, it is
anticipated that staff’s final recommendation will be modified to reflect additional public
comment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the draft
Permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance. The document will be released for public
review in December and available for a public review period. Staff will respond to
CMR:454:98 Page 14 of 16
comments from the public and prepare a Final EIR for Council certification prior to final
Council action on a Permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance. -
ATTACHlVlENTS
Attachment A: Historic Preservation Decision Matrix -
Attachment B: Plain English Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachment C: Process for Designating Historic Properties
Attachment D: Letter from State Historic Preservation Office
Attachment E: Results of interviews by ombudsman of persons who have been involved
in the Interim Historic Preservation programs~
Attachment F: Summary of Comments from November 12, 1998 Focus Groups
Attachment G: Criteria for National Register of Historic Places and for California Register
of Historic Resources
Attachment H: Summary of Dames & Moore Survey Process
PREPARED BY:Ed Gawf, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Anne Moore, Contract Planner
Amy French, Associate Planner
Audrey Seymour, Senior Executive Assistant
James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD GA[WF~ - 0
Director of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT COORDINATOR:~~,, ~
EMILY HARRISONAssistant City M~.er
CITY MANAGER
J~ FLEM~G I ~
CMR:454:98 Page 15 of 16
CO: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
Carroll Harrington
Norman Beamer
Monica Yeung-Amafiko
Members, Historic Preservation Advisory Board
CM_R:454:98 Page 16 of 16
Historic Preservation Decision Matrix Attachment A
Io RESOURCE LIST
A. Potential National
Register
B. Potential
California Register
II. PALO ALTO
REGISTER***
A. Landmarks
Dames & Moore Study
(approximately 400 properties).
Category 3, 4 properties.
Dames & Moore Study
(approximately 1,000 properties).
Category 1 and 2 Properties.
Other properties may be added
only after public review process.
NO City Review.
NO City Review.
NO City review,
unless it is not
reversible (e.g.,
paint/redwood)
NO City Discretionary
Review, Building Permit
only.
NO City Discretionary
Review, Building Permit
only.
Staff level Design Review
using the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation as guidel!nes,
Voluntary Compliance
Mandatory Design Review by staff, with
Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation as guidelines. Voluntary
Compliance. Building Permit may be
delayed 6 months to consider addition to
Palo Alto Register.
Mandatory Design Review by staff, with
Secretary of the Intedor Standards for
Rehabilitation as guidelines. Voluntary
Compliance.
Mandatory HRB Design Review using the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation as guidelines. Mandatory
Compliance.
Demolition may be delayed up to 1 year
to consider addition to Palo Alto Register.
For replacement buildings, Mandatory
Compatibility Standards review by staff,
and Mandatory Compliance.
Demolition may be delayed up to 6
months to consider addition to Palo Alto
Register. For replacement buildings,
Mandatory Compatibility Standards
review by staff, and Mandatory
Compliance.
NO (except under unusual
circumstances).
B. Historic District
Contributing
Non-contributing
III. NON-HISTORIC
BUILDINGS
All structures within an area that
provided the basis for establishing
it as an Histodc District.
All other structures in the District.
All other residential structures in
the City, regardless of whether
they are pre- or post-1940.
NO City review.
NO City review.
NO change.
NO City Discretionary
Review, Building Permit
only.
NO City Discretionary
Review, Building Permit
only.
Mandatory HRB Design Review, using
Secretary of the Interior Standards as
guidelines. Mandatory Compliance.
Mandatory Compatibility Standards
Design Review, Voluntary Compliance
NO change NO change.
Minor Alteration is one that doesn’t compromise the architectural integrity of the building as viewed from the public right-of-way.
** D.emolition means 50% destruction.
*** Incentives are available only to Landmarks and Contributing Structures.
One-year delay. For replacement
buildings, Mandatory Compatibility
Standards Review by HRB, and
Mandatory Compliance.
For replacement buildings, Mandatory
Compatibility Standards Review by HRB,
and Mandatory Compliance
For replacement buildings, Mandatory
Compatibility/Residential Design Review
by staff, and Mandatory Compliance.
Yes- by staff after
review by HRBo Appeal
to City Council.
Yes - by staff after
review by HRB. Appeal
to City Council.
Yes, by City Council
after recommendation
by HRB.
No, unless Distdct is
removed.
No, unless Distdct is
removed.
Not applicable.
EDITORIAL NOTE
This draft is responsive to the City Council’s
March 1998 policy directions. The May 1998
draft "transition regulations" have been
deleted due to changes in the interim
regulations and the revised staff proposals.
Throughout the text, marginal comment boxes
are used to compare this draft with December
1998 revised staff proposals.
16.49.010
ATTACHMENT B
7, ]998 REV~EWDR,4F~-
CHAPTER 16.49
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Purpose and Strategy.
EDITORIAL NOTE
At the end of October 1998, the
State Office of Histodc
Preservation (’SHPO~
- commented on the May 26 public
review draft ordinance. The
relevant SHPO comments are
noted below in italicized marginal
comments (without boxes).
The purpose of this chapter is to preserve historically
valuable property (buildings, districts, sites and objects) in
the City of Palo Alto. This chapter establishes a three-part
community strategy for historic preservation. The three parts
are:
Part 1: Community Historic Standards
To Define the Qualities of a Protected Historic Resource.
These standards are the approved criteria to guide
discretionary City decisions about whether property should
become a Protected Historic Resource.
Part 2: Restrictions and Incentives
To Prevent Loss and Encourage Preservation.
Restrictions enact enforceable limits on changes that can be
made to Protected Historic Resources.
Incentives enact benefits to encourage preservation of
historically valuable property.
Part 3: Decision-Making Procedures
To Assure Fair and Consistent Actions.
Decision-Making Procedures provide a step-by-step system
for applying Community Historic Standards to a specific
property in order to determine whether it should become a
Historic Resource. Procedures also govern how Restrictions
and Incentives are applied to a specific property.
16.49.020 Summary
This section is a summary explanation of this chapter. This
chapter gives the Historic Resources Board ("HRB") and
staff the power to identify and keep a list of potentially
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
historically valuable property. Historically valuable property
may be evaluated by the HRB under the Community Historic
Standards to determine whether it should be designated as a
Protected Historic Resource (Landmark, Significant
Resource or Historic District). ,.
Once property has been designated as a Protected Historic
Resource, this chapter generally requires maintenance of
the property in its histodc condition. Protected Historic
Resources cannot be altered or demolished without City
permits.
This chapter also establishes incentives for the owners of
Protected Historic Resources to preserve those properties.
These incentives generally confer special development
opportunities in connection with remodeling.
PART 1" COMMUNITY HISTORIC STANDARDS
16.49.100 Community Historic Standards.
The revised staff
proposal
eliminates
"significant
resources" as a
protected
category.
The Community Historic Standards are fact determinations
the City must use to decide whether property will be
designated as a Protected Historic Resource. Property will
be designated If the City decides that any one or more of
these standards is applicable, but the City must have
substantial evidence to support its decision. In addition, at
least one feature of the property that conveys its historic
significance must be substantially unaltered. Property
includes buildings; districts, sites, and objects.
This chap~ree categories of Protected Historic
Resource: Landmark, Significant Resource and Historic
District. When property is designated as a Protected Historic
Resource, the City will also identify it as a Landmark,
Significant Resource, or Historic District.
The revised staff
proposal adds a less-
than-landmark
protected category
within histodc districts
called "contributing."
Contributing structures
could be altered or
demolished, butmandatory design
review of alterations
and replacement
buildings would be
required.
The Community Historic Standards applicable to all l----------
properties are:
1.Extraordinary Architecture
SHPO wascri~cal of the
substance of
this sec~on,
calling #
"confusing.
The property represents the work of a master architect or
has high artistic values.
2
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
2. Person Association
The property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in the past
3. Event Association
The staff proposal
uses the California
Register only as a
means of categorizing
properties on the
Resource List
identified in the
Dames & Moore
study.
The property is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state,
national, or international history
4. Distinctive Construction
The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction that is historically
significant.
5.Archaeological Value
The property has previously been the source of, or has been
shown by substantial evidence to be likely to be a source of,
archaeological information important in prehistory or history.
6. Unique Historical Characteristics
The property has a unique physical characteristic of historic
significance or is an established and familiar visual feature of
a neighborhood, community or the City, which is associated
with a historically significant event or person.
16.49.110 Landmark
A Landmark is a Protected Historic Resource that warrants
strong protection from undesirable changes. In addition to
meeting the Community Historic Standards, a Landmark
must also be:
(1) Listed, or determined.eligible for listing, on the
National Register of Historic Places, or is listed on the
California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
(2) An extraordinary or exceptional example of
architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship or
planned landscape; and/or
The staff
proposal would
define
Landmarks ascategory 1 & 2
structures.
DECEMBER 7, 1998 P~VIEW DRAFT
This section
would be
deleted under
the staff
proposal.
The staff proposal
would create a Nora
contributing category
that includes all
structures that were
not part of the basis
for creating the
historic district.
Compatibility review
with voluntary
compliance would be
required for Major
Alterations.
Mandatory design
review compliance
would be required for
demolition
replacements.
(3) Associated with outstanding persons, or historical or
cultural events important to the history of the city, state, or
nation.
16.49.120 Significant Resource .,- /
/A Significant Resource is a Protected Historic Resource that/
warrants some protection from undesirable changes. In /
addition to meeting the Community Historic Standards, a/
Landmark must also:
(1) Embody outstanding or unusually good attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship or
planned landscapes; and/or
(2) Be exemplary of a particular architectural style or way
of life important to the City’s history; and/or
SHPO
expressed
particular
concern that
the City be
aware of the
CEQAimplications of
a significant
resource listing.
SHPO
recommended
using the
California
Register criteria
for determining
local
significance.
(3) Be identified with persons or groups of persons who
contributed significantly to the culture and development of
the City.
16.49,130 Histodc Districts
A Historic Distdct is a collection of one ~or more Protected/
Historic Resources that should be protected as a grouping.
District boundaries need not be contiguous. Noncontributing
resources within the District shall be identified at the time of
designation of the District. A Historic District must be meet
the following qualifications:
(1) It is a definable area possessing a significant
concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings,
structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by
plan or physical development, or a noncontiguous grouping
of thematically related properties which contribute to each
other, and
The staff proposal would
not preclude demolition of
Contributing structures
within a historic district,although a one-year delay
and mandatory design
review of replacements
would be required. Major
Alterations would also
require mandatory
compliance with HRB
design review, based
upon the Secretary of the
Interior’s standards.
(2) It is important to the history of the City, state, or nation.
for historical, architectural,, archaeological, engineering, or
cultural values.
PART 2: RESTRICTIONS AND INCENTIVES
16.49.200 Compliance Required
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
It shall be unlawful for any person to tear down, demolish,
alter, remove, or relocate any Protected Historic Resource
except as permitted in this Chapter,
16.49.210 Demolition or Alteration of Protected Historic
Resources.
(a) No person shall demolish or alter a Landmark or
Significant Resource, or cause or permit such demolition or
alteration or work to be done, nor shall any permit for such
work be issued unless the demolition or alteration has been
approved by the City in accordance with this Chapter.
(b) No building, demolition, or other City permit for any
improvement, building, or structure within a proposed
Historic District or affecting a proposed Landmark or
Significant Resource shall be issued while an application for
designation of the resource is pending. Exceptions may be
considered and approved by the Director when the work
covered by the permit is deemed necessary!
(1) To shore, support, brace, or otherwise stabilize a
structure or property which is structurally unsafe and poses a
hazard to occupants, the adjoining property, or the public; or
The revised staff
proposal would
allow any ordinary
maintenance of
Resource List
properties.
Landmark
maintenance would
not require City
review so long as it
is not irreversible.
(2)To protect the structure or property from damage or
deterioration which could adversely affect its historic
significance and integrity.
(c) Ordinary Maintenance Permitted.
-~Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require City
approval for the ordinary maintenance or repair of any
exterior features of a Landmark or Significant Resource
which does not require issuance of any City permits and
does not involve a change in design, material, color, or
exterior appearance.
16.49.220 Permit for Replacement Structure Required.
No permit to demolish a Landmark or Significant Resource
may be issued unless a building permit for a replacement
structure for the property has been issued, except when an
imminent safety hazard has been determined to exist as
The revised staff [
proposal would
also impose a one
year demolition
delay on
Contributing
structures in a
historic district.
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
provided in this chapter. When the structure to be
demolished is located in a Histodc District, the permit for a-
replacement structure shall not be issued unless approval is
granted pursuant to this Chapter, based upon the findings
set forth in this chapter for alteration, demolition or ,.
replacement of a non-contributing resource.
16.49.230 Maintenance of Landmarks and Significant
Resources.
(a) Maintenance in Good Repair Required.
The owner and any other person legally in possession or
control of a Landmark or Significant Resource shall maintain
it and keep it in good repair, and shall comply with all
applicable codes, laws and regulations governing the
maintenance of property. Good repair is the level .of
maintenance and repair that assures the continued
existence of the resource and prevents deterioration,
dilapidation, and decay.
(b) No Demolition by Neglect.
The owner and any other person legally in possession or
control of a Landmark or Significant Resource shall take all
actions necessary to preserve its exterior features, and the
interior portions thereof when such maintenance is
necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of the exterior.
All such buildings shall be preserved against such decay and
deterioration, and shall remain free from structural defects
through prompt corrections of any of the following defects:
(1)Facades which may fall and injure members of the
public or property;
(2) Deteriorated or inadequate foundation, defective or
deteriorated flooring or floor supports, deteriorated walls or
other vertical structural supports;
(3) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports
or other horizontal members which sag, split or buckle due to
defective material or deterioration;
(4) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls,
roofs, foundations or floors, including broken windows or
doors;
6
DECEMBER 7, !998 REV]EW DRAFT
(5) Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior
wall covering, including lack of paint or other protective
covering; ¯
(6) Any fault or defect in the building which renders it not
properly watertight or structurally unsafe.
16.49.240 Damage by natural disaster.
No structure that is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, on the California Register of Historic Places, or on
the City’s Historic Inventory, and that has been damaged
due to a natural disaster as defined in California Public
Resources Code section 5028, may be demolished,
destroyed, or significantly altered, except in accordance with
the requirements of that section and this chapter.
16.49.250 Salvage of Building Materials.
The owner of a Landmark or Significant Resource which is to
be demolished shall provide the Director with advance
written notice that historical building materials will be
available for salvage. The notice shall include the name
and telephone number of a contact person and any terms or
conditions applicable to salvage operations, including
pricing.. The Director shall provide the owner information
about salvage of historical building materials. The Director
shall also make this information available to persons who
may be interested in contacting the owner(s) to attempt to
salvage historic building materials. After notifying the
Director, the owner shall also publish notice of the salvage
opportunity in a newspaper of general circulation at least
once no less than twenty (20) days before the date
demolition is expected begin.
16.49.260 Incentives
TO BE INSERTED UPON FURTHER RESEARCH AS
IDENTIFIED DURING CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
PART 3: DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
The revised staff
proposal reserves HRB
review for major
alterations of
Landmarks and
Contributing structures
within histodc districts
and any demolition
within histodc districts.
Under the staff
proposal, Minor
Alteration of
Landmarks would get
staff review with
voluntary compliance.
16.49.300 Designation, Alteration, Demolition,
ReplacementStructures
This part establishes the procedures to be followed by the
City, property owners and other interested persons when.
determining whether to designate property as a Protected
Histodc Resource, and whether to permit alterations,
demolition, or replacement structures.
lln general, alterations that are considered "Major Projects"
will require review and approval by the HRB and "Minor
Projects" require review and approval by staff.
"Major Project" means an application for alteration of a
Protected Historic Resource that includes actions involv/L,,f~
any of the following components or actions affecting
structures, unless the Director determines that the
application is a Minor Project as defined in this Chapter: A
street facing facade; more than fifteen (15) per cent of the
perimeter wall; the second story of the structure; requires a
variance or exception for zoning or other City codes;
demolishes or relocates an existing accessory structure; or
constructs a new accessory structure.
"Minor Project" means an application for alteration of a
Protected Historic Resource for which the Director
determines any of the following: The proposed actions can
not have an adverse impact on the historic integrity of the
Protected Historic Resource, all of the proposed actions are
"Recommended," and, in the case of a structure, none of the
proposed actions are "Not Recommended" in the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The revised staff
proposal distinguishes
projects differently.
Actions covered
include Minor
Alterations, Major
Alterations, and
Demolition. Minor
Alterations are those
that do not
compromise the
architectural integrity
of the resource
viewed from the public
right-of-way.
Demolition is 50%
destruction. Major
Alterations comprise
everything else.
SHPO noted
that the State
Historic
Resources
Commission
may not
designate
property over
the owner’s
objection,
although it can
be designated
"eligible" for
listing. This
does not app/y
to local
ordinances.
16.49.310 Designation Procedure
(a) A person or group, including but not limited to a
property owner, City staff, or the HRB, may apply to
designate a Protected Historic Resource or to change or
remove the designation for a resource already on the
Historic Inventory, The application shall be filed with the
department and processed unless it is determined by the
Director that the application should not be processed
because it has not been filed in good faith or because it can
be determined from the application that the proposed
designation cannot be supported.
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
(b)A designation application must include the following:
(1) The address and assessor’s parcel number of the site
or boundaries of the resource proposed for designation;
(2) The name(s) of the current owners of the subject
property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll;
(3) A description detailing the resource’s special
aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or other significance or
value of a historic nature;
(4) A description of the manner in which the resource
meets the criteria set forth in Section 16.49.060 and
16.49.070;
(5) A description of the current condition of and any
known threats to the resource;
(6) Sketches, drawings, photographs or other descriptive
material;
(7)The requisite application and processing fees;
(8) Other supporting information as required by the
Director.
(c) Each proposal shall be considered by the HRB at a
public hearing scheduled within sixty (60) days of date when
the Director has found the application complete. The board
may continue the headng as it deems appropriate.
(d) Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing
shall be given at least twelve (12) days before the date of the
hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation, and by first class mail to the applicant, to
the owner(s) of the property, and to the owners of record of
property within three hundred (300) feet of the exterior
boundary of the property which is the subject of the
application, as such owners are shown on the last equalized
assessment roll.
(e) The HRB shall recommend to the city council
approval, disapproval or modification of an application for
designation based upon the criteria set forth in this chapter.
Applications by the property owner for designation as a
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
Landmark or Significant Resource shall be presumed
sufficient to support the requested designation, shall be-
given priority in establishing hearing dates, and shall be
approved unless substantial evidence contrary to the
requested designation is received.,_
(f) The city council shall conduct a public hearing on the
application after it receives the HRB’s recommendation.
Public notice of the city council hearing shall be given in the
same manner as the HRB hearing. The city council may
approve, disapprove or modify a recommendation for
designation. A decision to designate a historic resource
shall be made by resolution.
(g) After council approval of a resolution designating a
historic resource as a Landmark, Historic District, or
Significant Resource, the city clerkshall, within ten (10)
days:
(1) Send to the owners of the property so designated, by
first class mail, notice of the designation and a copy of this
Chapter; and
(2) Record a certified copy of the resolution in the office
of the county recorder.
(i) After council approval of a resolution designating a
histodc resource as a Landmark, Historic District, or
Significant Resource, the Director shall add the resource so
designated to the Historic Inventory and shall notify the chief
building official.
16.49.320 Alteration
(a)Application for approval of demolition or alteration of a
Landmark or Significant Resource shall be made to
the Department on a form provided by the Director.
The application shall included the following:
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the
owner(s) and the applicant, if other than the owner(s);
(2) " Address and assessor’s parcel number of the
property;
10
DECEMBER 7, ]998 REVIEW DRAFT
The revised
staff proposal
prohibits
demolition for
Landmarks
only.
Demolition
delays are used
for Resoume
List properties
in order to give
the City time to
determine
whether the
property is a
Landmark.
(3) A site plan showing all existing buildings and
structures on the property and the location of the proposed-
work;
(4) Plans, photographs, .rendering, working drawings and
specifications showing, in such detail as the Director may
require, the existing and proposed exterior appearance of
the affected Landmark or Significant Resource, including but
not limited to, the following as applicable: color, lighting,
method of construction and landscape features, and any
other items that may be affected by the work;
(5) For demolition applications, information addressing
each of the required findings;
(6)The requisite application and processing fees; and
(7) Such other plans, specifications, drawing,
photographs, or documentation as the Director shall require
in order to evaluate the application.
(c) If, due to the unique or unusual nature of the work
proposed, the Director determines that it is necessary to
utilize the advice of an expert consultant, such as an
engineer, architectural historian or preservation architect, in
order to fully evaluate the application, the applicant shall be
given an opportunity to retain an expert satisfactory to the
Director. The Director may also utilize the services of an
expert consultant to the City where necessary to evaluate an
application, at the expense of the applicant.
(d) The application shall-be subject to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code sections 21000, et seq.), except when the Director has
determined the project to be exempt.
16.49.330 Findings Required for Demolition of Landmark
or Significant Resource.
The following findings, based on substantial evidence in the
record, must be made by the Director, or by the City Council
on appeal, in order to approve demolition of a Landmark or
Significant Resource:
(a) The Chief Building Official or the Fire Chief have
determined pursuant to Chapter 16.40 of this Title that an
11
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
The revised staff
proposal has one
review standard:
Major Alterations of
Landmarks must
meet the Secretary of
the Interior’s
Standards for
rehabilitation.
imminent safety hazard exists and that demolition of the
structure is the only feasible means to secure the public
safety; or
(b) Maintenance, use and/or alteration of the resource in
accordance with the requirements of this Chapter would
cause immediate and substantial hardship on the property
owner(s) because rehabilitation in a manner which preserves
the historic integrity of the resource:
(1) Is infeasible from a technical, mechanical, or
structural standpoint, and/or
(2) Would leave the property with no reasonable
economic value because it would require an unreasonable
expenditure taking into account such factors as current
market value, permitted uses of the property, the value of
transferable development rights and the cost of compliance
with applicable local, state, and federal codes. Costs
necessitated by the neglect or failure of the current owner(s)
to maintain the property shall not be considered in making
this finding. The Director may, at the applicant’s expense,
retain economic or other experts to assist in evaluating any
such application.
16.49.340 Findings Required for Alteration of Landmark
or Significant Resource.
The following findings, based on substantial evidence in the
record, must be made by the Director, or by the City Council
on appeal, in order to approve alteration of a Landmark or
Significant Resource:
(a)The alterations, subject to any conditions imposed
upon the approval, will not result in a substantial adverse
change in the significance of the historic resource, and
(b) The proposed alterations have been reviewed in light
of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
and
(1) For a Landmark, the alterations will achieve a high
degree of compliance with all of the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, provided that:
SHPO
disfavors a ~vo-
tier review
standard for
Landmarks and
Significant
Resources, i.e.,
=high degree of
compliance" vs.
"substantially
corn~ly."
12
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REV~EW DRAFT
a. For single family residences, landscaping and other site
elements, including but not limited to fences, walls, gates,
hedges, trees, paving, and special features shall be
reviewed only to the extent they are i) important in defining
the historic character of the property, and ii) visible from the
public dght of way or pdvate access roads, and
b. For single family residences, review of exterior paint
colors shall be limitedto confirming that the applicant’s
choice is consistent with a general color palette that is
appropriate to the historic building and district.
(2) For a Significant Resource, the alterations
substantially comply with all of the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation, provided that:
a. For single family residences, landscaping and other site
elements, including but not limited to fences, walls, gates,
hedges, trees, paving, and special features shall be
reviewed only to the extent they are i) important in defining
the histodc character of the property, and ii) visible from the
public right of way or private access roads, and compliance
with such review shall be voluntary, and
b. For single family residences, exterior paint colors shall
not be reviewed.
SHPO
recommended
/imi~ng paint
color review to
those situations
where color is
a documented
"character
defining
element" or
reversibility will
require a non-
recommended
treatment like
sandblasting.
16.49.350 Findings Required for Alteration, Demolition or
Replacement of Noncontributing Resource in a Historic
District.
The following findings, based on substantial evidence in the
record, must be made by the Director, or by the City Council
on appeal, in order to approve alteration, demolition, or
replacement of a Noncontributing Resource in a Historic
District:
(a) The alterations, demolition, or replacement will not
result in substantial adverse change to the significance of
the Historic District, and
(b) The alterations, demolition, or replacement will be
compatible with the scale, materials, and massing of the
contributing resources within the Historic District.
16.49,360 Major Project Decision-Making
13
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
(a) Each application for demolition and each Major
Project shall be considered by the HRB at a public hearing.
The board may continue the hearing as it deems
appropriate. ,.
(b) Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing
shall be given at least twelve days prior to the date of the
hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation, and by first class mail to the applicant, to
the owner(s) of the property, and to the owners of property
within three hundred (300) feet of the site.
(c) The HRB shall, based upon the appropriate findings,
recommend to the Director approval or disapproval of the
application, and any appropriate conditions.
(d) Following receipt of the recommendation of the board,
the Director shall either accept the board’s recommendation
and act upon the application accordingly, or return the
application to the board within thirty (30) days for
reconsideration. Following any reconsideration, the Director
shall act upon the application and may approve, disapprove
or modify the board’s recommendation.
(e) The Director’s written findings and notice of decision
shall be delivered to the applicant by mail.
(f) The applicant shall bear the burden of proof for all
findings required for approval of an application for demolition
or alteration under this Chapter.
16.49.370 Minor Project Decision-Making
(a) Each application for a Minor Project shall be
considered by the Director unless the applicant requests the
application to be considered by the HRB as a Major Project.
(b) No hearing shall be required unless consideration as
a Major Project is requested by the applicant. Notice of the
time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be given at least
twelve days prior to the date of the hearing by publication at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation, and by first
class mail to the applicant, to the owner(s) of the property,
14
and to the owners of property within three hundred (300) feet
of the site.
(c) The Director shall, based upon the appropriate
findings, approve or disapprove the application, and shall.
attach any appropriate conditions.
(d) The Director’s written findings and notice of decision
shall be delivered to the applicant by mail.
(e) The applicant shall bear the burden of proof for all
findings required for approval of an application for demolition
or alteration under this Chapter.
16.49.380 Appeals
(a) Any person aggrieved by the action of the Director may
file an appeal with the city council. An appeal of an action
on a major project shall be filed not later than eight working
days after the effective date of the Director’s decision and
action on a project. An appeal of an action on a minor project
shall be filed not later than four working days following the
effective date of the Director’s decision and action on a
project. Any such appeal shall be filed in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.93.
(b) Any appeal shall be filed with the city clerk, along with
a fee .as set forth in the municipal fee schedule; however,
any member of the city council may file such an appeal
without a fee.
(c) The council may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may
modify any decision, determination, or requirement of the
Director, and may make such decision or determination or
may impose such conditions as the facts warrant with
respect to the appeal and to the determination appealed,
and the decision or determination of the council shall be
final.
(d) The decision of the council shall be effective
immediately. Notice of the council’s decision shall be mailed
to the original applicant, to the person filing the appeal, and
to any other person who has filed a written request therefor
with the city clerk.
16.49.390 Preliminary Review.
15
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
(a) For the purpose of securing the advice of the HRB -
before making an application for the board’s
¯ recommendation on a project, an applicant may bring a
project before the board for preliminary review during a ,.
regularly noticed study session. The comments of the HRB
members duringa preliminary review shall not be binding on
the board’s later formal recommendation on the project. If
the applicant wishes to proceed with the project, he or she
must then file an application and pay a regular application
fee.
The more
recognizedterm, =Palo AltoRegister ofHistoricallySignificant
Structures andSites" wouldreplace the=Inventory".
(b) The Director may require a project applicant to
participate in preliminary review before an application will be
accepted as complete, upon a determination that the project:
(1) Involves actions described as not recommended in the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation;
(2) Involves multiple city approvals such as rezoning or
variances; or
(3) Is of such scope or nature that it could potentially have a
significant adverse impact on the historic resource.
(c) Preliminary review will be conducted informally but
shall be noticed in the same manner as is required for action
on the underlying project application.
16.49.400 Promulgation of written historic preservation
guidelines authorized.
The Director is authorized to promulgate written historic
guidelines and code interpretations to facilitate
implementation of this chapter. The guidelines and code
interpretations may include additional standards and
interpretive guides. The guidelines and code interpretations
shall be reviewed by the HRB before publication. The
guidelines and code interpretations shall be published and
made available to the public.
16.49.410 Historic Inventory.
(a) In order to implement the purposes of this Chapter,
the Director shall maintain and make available for public
review an inventory of Protected Historic Resources which
16
DECEMBER 7, 1998 REVIEW DRAFT
shall be known as the "Historic Inventory." The Histodc
Inventory shall comprise those histodc resources designated
by the City Council as Landmarks, Significant Resources,
and Historic Districts in accordance with this Chapter.
(b) The City Council may, by resolution, designate a
Protected Historic Resource as a Landmark, Historic District,
or Significant Resource.
16.49.420 Use of Historic Inventory.
In addition to use of the Historic Inventory for the purposes
of application of this Chapter, the Historic Inventory shall be
used as follows:
(a) Resources on the Historic Inventory, with the
exception of Noncontributing Resources, shall be deemed to
be "qualified properties" for the purpose of application of the
State Historical Building Code and Section 16.04.310 of this
Code.
This list would
be renamed
"Palo Alto
Resource List
of Properties of
Potential Merit."
Under the staff
proposal, potential
California Register
properties on the
"Resource List" would
be subject to a
possible six-month
delay before
Demolition. This
delay is to allow time
to consider elevating
the property to
Landmark status.
(b) The Inventory shall be deemed to be the local register
of historic resources for the purpose of application of Public
Resources Code section 5028 conceming natural disasters,
and Public Resources Code section 21084.1 conceming
environmental assessment of substantial adverse change in
the significance of historic resources. The fact that a
resource is not included on the Inventory shall not preclude
the City from determining whether the resource may be a
historic resource for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section
21000, et seq.)
16.49.430 List of Properties of Potential Merit.
(a) The Director shall establish and maintain a list of ~
potential historical resources, which may, upon study, qualify
for inclusion on the Historic Inventory. The list may include
resources identified for further study in the City’s 1998
Historic Resource Survey and other resources subsequently
identified by the Director or by the HRB.
(b) The Director shall remove from the list any resource
which is disapproved for designation by the Council, or
which is determined by the Director to have no potential for
future inclusion on the Historic Inventory.
Under the staff
proposal, potential
National Register
properties on the
=Resource List" would
be subject to a possible
six-month delay before
Major Alterations and a
one-year delay before
Demolition. These
delays are to allow time
to consider elevating the
property to Landmark
status.
17
Attachment C
s~r. ATE OF CALIFORNIA -- THE RESOURCES AGENCY
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO 94296-0001
(916) 653.6624
FAX: (916) 653-9824
RECEIVED
Deparu’n~! c,t Planning and
Community Environment
October 30, 1998
Attachment D
PETI~ WILSON, Governo,
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms Warheit:
The State Office of Historic Preservation appreciates the opportunity to review and
comment on the draft Preservation Ordinance for the City of Palo Alto. While several
sections of the proposed ordinance were discussed in our previous conference call,
we’ve made comprehensive comments here.
After you’ve had a chance to review our comments, if you have any questions or want
to discuss any comments further, we’d be happy to do so. Call Carol Roland (916)
653-9514 or Lucinda Woodward (916) 653-9116 of the OHP staff.
Def’mitions: (section 16.49.020)
(a) Alternations: We have enclosed a copy of the provision for paint review from the
draft Sacramento City Ordinance and have commented further on this under specific
issue under section 16.49.130.
(q) Significant Resource: This is not a definition; it refers to another section where
there is stiii a lack of clarity regarding this category .of resource. Per our conference
call this type of local designation needs to be defined very carefully.
(i) Historic Inventory: In general preservation usage the term "inventory" usually
encompasses the totality of surveyed historic resources within a jurisdiction ( i.e.
includes both designated properties and properties under study). The more commonly
used term for the "list of officially designated properties" is a "Local Register," or a
"City Historic Register," etc. The use of "register" would avoid confusion and add
clarity
(I) List of Properties of Potential Merit: This is what would most commonly be referred
to as a city’s "inventory" or "survey," i.e. properties identified for purposes of
planning and potential future additional evaluation and designation on a register.
2
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
October 30, 1998
Need to add definitions for:
California Register of Historical Resources
National Register of Historic Places
Certified Local Government
Substantial Adverse Change
Chief Building Official
Historic Resources Board: (section 16.49.030)
(a) Membership: The requirements for CLGs stress having a "qualified" board with
demonstrated knowledge or experience in the fields of architectural history, history etc.
The proposed ordinance provision requires that four of the seven member board be
either architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals
and one member be an owner or occupant of an historic structure. This leaves only two
appointments from the professional disciplines required for CLG certification.
Architects, landscape architects and design professionals may or may not have any
specific training, knowledge or expertise regarding historic buildings or preservation
criteria or standards. We would suggest that this requirement be eliminated, allowing
appointment of a broader range of professionals with appropriate training and
qualifications consistent with CFR Part 61.5 (2). It is also probable that in the near
future the State Procedures for CLGs will be revised to strengthen the requirements for
qualified commissioners.
(c)(3) We suggest broadening this to include or allow for the possibility of notifying
other groups or organizations with a preservation purpose or interest (i.e. local or
regional archeological association(s)).
(e) Duties): CLG procedures place considerable emphasis on the role of the historical
commission in developing procedures for conducting ongoing survey in compliance
with state standards. While such duties may be considered to fall within the scope of
subsections (3) (4) and(6) the Board’s role in survey and the maintenance and updating
of what is now termed the "list of properties of potential merit" might be more clearly
defined.
CLG procedures require that local boards or commissions participate in environmental
review of both federally sponsored projects ( Section 106) and projects that require
review under the California Environmental Quality Act. While these duties may
broadly fall under (2) "to evaluated and make recommendation on applications for
demolition etc.," these duties should be more clearly defmed.
3
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
October 30, 1998
The ordinance should specify the board’s participation in CEQA review a~d specify a
procedure which would seek advise and expert opinion from the Board early in the
project review process.
Certified Local Governments are required to establish local procedures for a National
Register nomination process (consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act
section 101(c )(2)) and to participate in review and comment on historic preservation
certification applications for tax incentives. There is no mention of either of these in
the Ordinance. These duties should be added to the list of commission duties. If
procedures for participation in nomination are not included in the ordinance some
reference needs to be made to the commission adopting such procedures.
Specific Criteria for Designation (section 16.49.070)
We already discussed this section in some detail. However, for the sake of
completeness we will summarize our main concerns: -
The distinctions among types of designations ( landmarks, historic districts and
significantresources) with their definitions and criteria are confusing. In several cases
the criteria employed are different from and more stringent that those of the National
Register. Since National Register eligibility is the basis for landmark/landmark district
designation, we would suggest staying as close to the definitions and criteria of the
National Register as possible.
Significant Resources: Although local listing criteria are ultimately a matter of local
discretion, designation under a local ordinance makes a property potentially eligible for
listing on the California Register and has CEQA implications. The State Office is
recommending that local jurisdictions carefully define all categories of designation and
establish clear and defensible criteria for designation. As we discussed, it would be our
view that properties within this category would be properties that do not meet the
eligibility threshold of the National Register, but would meet the criteria for listing on
the California Register as set forth in Title 14.
Designation Procedures and Noticing (section 16.49.080)
There is no provision or procedure for owner/owner(s) objection or action to be taken
by Board in recommending listing over owner objection. Both the National Register and
California Register make provision for this. The State Historic Resources Commission
cannot list properties over owner objection, but can determine such properties "eligible
for listing."
4
Virginia Warheit; Senior Planner
City of Polo Alto
October 30, 1998
List of Properties of Potential Merit (section 16.49.110)
(b) While the Historical Resources Board has authority to identify resources under (a),
this section gives the Director sole discretion over removal of properties from the list.
Why is the Board not involved in this decision? Also there is no mention of the criteria
by which the Director would make a determination that a property has "no potential for
future inclusion .... "
Demolition or alternation of Historic Resources (section 16.49.130)
(c) A change in color may not represent a change in a building’s historic integrity. We
would recommend tying paint review to situations in which the color or exterior finish
materials of a building are a character defining element which contribute to the
building’s significance and are appropriately documented and defensible ( i.e. natural
stain finishes for shingles on a Craftsman/Shingle style building) or where reversibility
may not be possible without the employment of a treatment that is not recommended by
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (i.e., sandblast’rag). Paint color control can
too easily deteriorate into an issue of taste, rather than historic authenticity.
Findings Required for Alternation of Landmark or Significant Resource (section
16.49.160)
The OHP is concerned with what appears to be a two tier project review standard:
Landmarks will be required to "achieve a high degree of compliance", while for
Significant Resources "alternations [must] substantially comply."
From our previous discussions, we assume that the intent here is to try to create a
review process which will not be unduly !ong and burdensome, but will still maintain a
high standard particularly when very significant properties are involved.
We would suggest two things:
(1) There be only one standard for project review - the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards. The Standards are a flexible tool for addressing alterations to historic
buildings. They allow considerable latitude in choosing among treatments, and allow
adaptation and change. The Standards for Rehabilitation were not meant to freeze
historic properties in time. The Standards make a clear distinction between restoration
to a time specific historic appearance and rehabilitation that makes possible an efficient
contemporary use through alterations and additions.
5
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
October 30, 1998
The application of the Standards requires an exercise of judgement and rea’sonableness
which lies in the realm of policy and practice. It is within the discretion of the Board or
the Director to apply the Standards and decide what is required to appropriately
preclude substantial adverse change that impairs the significance of the resource.
Often the impression that the Secretary’s Standards are a very strict standard with little
flexibility is the result not of the Standard’s content, but of overzealous application.
(2) A number of jurisdictions have adopted design guidelines for specific
neighborhoods, architectural types or districts that are based on the Standards, but more
specifically address appropriate treatment(s) of historic or architectural property types
within their own community. These provide fairly clear and detailed criteria for project
review and provide property owners and design professionals with guidance in the
initial design of alternations. (The authority of the Board to prepare Guidelines is
already in section .050).
On paint review refer to our earlier comment; it is not how significant the property is,
but whether the exterior finish is an element important to the architectural or historical
integrity of the property.
Maintenance of Landmarks and Significant Resources (section 16.49.250)
Are there any penalties for non compliance? Are there other enforcement provisions or
penalties that would apply elsewhere in the city’s ordinances?
/
Enforcement (section 16.49.260)
(a) (2) Why is civil penalty limited to $10,000?
(4)The authority to determine appropriate mitigation is limited to the Director. As per
our earlier comment on CEQA, the Board should be treated as an expert advisory
Board who should be consulted on issues related to impact evaluations and
mitigation.
Transitional Regulation (section 16.49.270)
As per our comments regarding the Board’s involvemem in the survey process, there
seems to be little role or authority for the Board at this important phase of resource
evaluation. The involvement and advice of the Board should not be solely at the
Virginia Warheit
City of Palo Alto
October 30, 1998
discretion of the Director. We are particularly concerned that such dete ,rrrfin." ations by
the Director have no appeal procedure.
We hope that these comments are helpful. We are also working with other CLGs that
are developing revised ordinances and setting up public outreach and comment
processes. One of the goals of the new Local Government unit is to facilitate more
networking among CLG’s dealing with similar issues. Please let us know how we can
be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Daniel Abeyta
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
Cc: Lisa Grote
Palo Alto Historic Resources Board
Summary of Ombudsman Interviews Attachment E
Overview Statement
Attached are summary statements from interviews conducted by the City’s consulting
Ombudsman during August and September 1998. These are summarized statements
categorized by 1) history (i.e., interviewee experiences with the interim regulations); 2)
interviewee general comments; and lastly 3) interviewee suggestions for future
changes. The "suggestion statements" are further categorized by general topics
discussed for the permanent ordinance including 1) purpose and general content; 2)
design review on alterations; 3) design review for demolition replacements; 4)
provisions for demolitions; 5) incentives; and 6) criteria for new additions to the historic
inventory. These summary statements are not arranged in any order of priority or
particular importance.
The purpose of these interviews was to obtain feedback on experiences from
individuals involved in some manner with the Interim Historic Regulations and to solicit
suggestions on, 1) further changes to the interim regulations; and 2) general content for
the permanent historic preservation ordinance. The persons interviewed included
elected and appointed officials, homeowners affected by the regulations, architects,
preservationists, Realtors and single family developers. Many comments and
suggestions may have been made by more than on interviewee and obviously some
comments differ from one another which reflect the respective points of view of the
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts Page 1
December2, 1998
interviewees.
A:GZI Ombudsma.nts
December2, 1998
Page 2
History: Individual Experiences with Interim Re~lulations
Interviewee Comments
o
The interim process for expansion of a landmark home was capricious and
arbitrary.
The detail and administrative process for applicants in the compatibility review
was onerous.
Entire historic issue was triggered by single family demolitions.
Going through the compatibility review process for an owner of a small house
that previously had been altered several times was awful.
Experiences with compatibility review for a planned alteration was maddening,
highly subjective, autocratic and caused many delays as well as significant
additional costs.
Palo Alto Homeowners Association was formed after a number of "historic" or
"affected" homeowners attended a Council meeting on the proposed permanent
ordinance and discovered they had had similar experiences with the Interim
Regulations.
The City Council asked staff to have a process "ministerial" but "user-friendly" on
the Interim Regulations. It got the former but not the latter.
In one situation, City staff or the Consultant considered an applicant’s garage to
be historic. Applicant had to tell City that he had just built it.
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts Page 3
December2, 1998
GENERAL COMMENTS FROM INTERVIEWEES
=
=
10.
11.
12.
13.
Interim regulations have significantly raised public awareness about historic
preservation.
Historic projects have a lot of obstacles and resultant expenses up-front.
Historically, Palo Alto has practiced preservation with a small "p" but in the past
18 months, it has been with a capital "P".
One interviewee stated he was more interested in capturing the character of a
street or neighborhood than in the purity of the building.
Regarding neighborhood or block face compatibility, most historic blocks north of
Oregon do not have a single prevailing characteristic.
City has gone too far on the preservationist bent.
The "priority study lists" are far too extensive.
Regarding interim and long term regulations, City should recognize that lifestyles
of individuals’ change, and the market may well dictate style and scale.
Any new approved process should be clear. A homeowner should know what
the restrictions/processes are up-front. It is not knowing that is frustrating.
Staff should more be more pro-active in its recommendations to Council.
Council should be given some choices in its policy making.
A bellwether of events was the terrible staff turnover.
In its repots to Council, staff should say "what are the effects?"
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts Page 4
December2, 1998
COMMENTS (continued)
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
-20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
A lot of people want to keep Palo Alto the way it was and that will not happen.
A lot of homes that have been torn down were not that attractive.
Palo Alto needs to respect homeowner rights. Current interim process creates
conflict.
The key issues are a) number of additons; and b) mandatory or voluntary.
If the process goes to referendum; it will be on the mandatory/voluntary issue.
Previous workshops were un-focused and as a result ineffective.
A major concern is the amount of public resource being spent on the study
priority lists.
City has to have historic news reported objectively.
Some individuals question the historic value of a 50-year old structure.
Individuals feel the expenditures the City is making to determine if a house had
some historic event or notable individual is ludicrous.
Several interviewees expressed concern about the effects of this "over-blown"
historic process on younger couples who have purchased their first and modest
homes in Palo Alto.
On the other hand, some individuals do not wish to see demolition of any homes
(categories 1 thru 4) on the existing inventory.
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts
December2, 1998
Page 5
COMMENTS (continued)
26.Some would favor adding most of the homes on the Priority #1 list~to the local
inventory.
27.Interim regulations and processes were driven by preservationists.
28.Most remodeling has not destroyed any architectural gems.
29~Preservationists are the driving force in the present process (i.e., interim
regulations) and this is not where the community is at.
30.The real issues and problems have not been articulated. They got jumbled into
"aesthetics" and "demolitions" ur~der the umbrella of historic preservation.
31. There is not a significant historic preservation problem in Palo Alto. Interest, yes.
Problem, no.
32.In the absence of not articulating the problem, the City should not be going down
this path to tighten historic regulations.
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts Page 6
December 2, 1998
SUGGESTIONS: Process and General Content for Permanent Ordinance
1.Put the Home Improvement Exception and design review process ;~n a parallel
process.
2.Accelerate Planning and Building review process which has been too slow.
3.Protect homeowners of historic homes wishing to remodel and bring properties
up to code from ever again having to go through suchan onerous process.
4.Have a permanent ordinance that assures no dictatorship is allowed.
5.The processes in the final ordinance may be more important (i.e. to property
owners) than the content.
6.It is important that the public: I) has a full understanding of the final permanent
ordinance; and 2) be involved in developing the final regulations.
7.Conduct classes on how the homeowners would go through the process on the
final ordinance.
8.The new historic regulations should be more flexible; ditto for the staff
administering them.
9.Consider some effective formats for soliciting public input on the new ordinances.
10.City should really be thinking about process and ultimate criteria it will use to add
houses to the inventory.
11.Have a positive process based on incentives rather than a sanction based
approach.
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts Page 7
December2, 1998
SUGGESTIONS: Desicjn Review- Alterations of Historic Homes
1.If the Secretary of Interior Standards are used for design review, staff should
state up-front what its interpretations are because many standards are subject to
multiple interpretations.
2.Be clear upfront what is being asked of the applicant.
3.Require design review (with a simple short list of criteria) for all designated
historic homes.
4.For major alterations, require extensive landscaping.
5.Do not pre-select an appropriate design for the style of a home.
6.. Staff should assume more design responsibility.
7.HRB should assume more design responsibility.
8.Permit some small modifications to front facades without triggering a full City
review.
9.Consider limited design review (with specific standards) for remodeling older
homes.
10.HRB should review major alterations for all structures on the historic inventory
and in a district.
11. All HRB decisions on design review for the long-term should be binding but
should contain an appeal process to the City Council.
12.Mandatory design review with guidelines is okay but compliance should be
voluntary.
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts Page 8December2, 1998
SUGGESTIONS: Design Review of Demolition Replacements
1.Require design review with mandatory compliance for demolition r~placements
(i.e., turnkeys).
2.For demolition replacements, require extensive landscaping.
3.Do not pre-select on design style.
4.Use general standards e.g., general compatibility, size and scale with prevailing
structures in a neighborhood - but do no.__~t dictate five or so acceptable styles.
5.On demolition replacements, regulations should be strongest including, if it is
legal, tighter zoning regulations on setbacks, FARs and daylight plane
requirements.
6.Standards/regulations for setbacks are crucial.
7.There should be mandatory HRB design review for demolition replacements but
without specific design criteria.
8.The difficulty the HRB faces in determining what is a compatible design is that
many blocks have housing facades that are eclectic in design.
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts
December 2, 1998
Page 9
SUGGESTIONS:
1.
=
Demolitions
Handle demolition applications and process them as a variance i.e-., with
findings, putting burden on homeowner e.g, to prove structural inadequacy if a
house is compatible but structurally unsafe.
Demolition provisions could vary in their stringency e.g., with the most stringent
provisions applying to homes in historic districts.
Extend the delay period for demolition applications on historic homes.
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts Page 10
December 2, 1998
SUGGESTIONS: Incentives
1.Implement some exception process (similar to variances) for histodc buildings
because many historic structures do not meet current regulations.
2.Allow more "wriggle room" for historic structures.
3.Allow "wriggle room" for front facade modifications.
4.Allow some expansion of small older homes which the zoning may not otherwise
allow.
5.Promote education of historic values through decent tours and publications on
historic districts.
6.Incentives can be a two edged sword. For historic homeowners, they can
provide assistance. However, the greater the number of houses on the inventory
(and potential beneficiaries of incentives), the greater the inequity for single
family homeowners who do not qualify.
7.Possibly consider allowing greater FAR for those situations where a homeowner
voluntarily submits to design review.
8.If the City requires garages in the rear, allow a FAR bonus.
9.Waive preservationist consultant fees otherwise charged an applicant.
A:GZlOmbudsma.nts Page 11
December2, 1998
SUGGESTIONS:
1.
o
Desic~nation of Additions to Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory
City needs to be very clear on what criteria it will use to place homes on Palo
Alto’s historic inventory.
City should consider removing some former category 3 and 4 homes from the
historic inventory.
Truly define what is historic and what is not prior to considering additions to the
inventory.
Additions to the inventory should be done in phases e.g., the Pasadena
approach rather than trying to do it all at once.
A:GZlOrnbudsma.nts
December2, 1998
Page 12
Attachment F
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
Group 1
Incentives:
Incentives (F.A.R.) incite additions or renovations...not preservation.
Incentive rewards should go to those who preserve...the better the job of
preserving...the higher the reward.
No current incentives for those who do not remodel.
Design review for demolition replacements - concern for neighborhood
compatibility. Demolition process should include neighbor feedback.
Goals of Ordinance:
Development climate of built-out community needs restraint (ordinances).
A desirable quality of Palo Alto is the stock of older homes.
City of Pasadena goal = protect the ~ of the property owner (important goal).
Visual Quality.
History.
Neighborhood comp.atibility.
Preserve property rights.
Easy process to navigate through.
Common economic agendas - be careful of"for profit developers" with goals not
consistent with neighborhoods.
Property owners have right to control what happens in their
neighborhood/community.
Historic property ordinance is an offshoot of zoning.
Historic designation may decrease property value due to increased constraints -
may discourage potential buyers. May encourage others!
Some component of a historic ordinance is an education of the public of what it
means to own a historic property.-
Designation:
¯ National/California criteria not in question...its more important who applies
criteria (strict or loose).
¯Architectural criteria should have a higher emphasis than other criteria.
¯Eichler impact to historical stock should be considered before reaching final
ordinance resolution.
¯Consider the final population of historic designation. Is 1,000 out of 20,000
properties an appropriate number? Too many? Too few?
¯Is "outstanding" an absolute or a relative concept?
¯Multiple categories provides a better opportunity to match restrictions.
Histotfc Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 1
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
More categories allows more flexibility considering complexity and diversity of
housing stock. Might help in matching incentives.
Significance of differences between .ordinance.regulation from ,category to
category should have higher emphasis so public truly understands.
Ac’tivities that trigger:..
¯ The requirements imposed by the ordinance would be far less painful if the
process to obtain approvals (ranging from paint .color approval, to landscape
planting approval, etc.) were easier for the applicants.
¯ How to ease process?
a. More discretionary power granted to staff for over the counter approvals.
(Minor improvements).
b.The current noticing process is horrible...
c.Major improvement process should be easier also.
d.Drop paint color approvals? Drop landscape planting approvals?
e:Both Building Department and Planning process should be re-evaluated.
¯Tree protection belongs in a different ordinance.
Demolition definition:
¯ 50%: the advantage is clarity (matches UBC definition)
Disadvantage: Burden placed on the HRB since higher proportion of applications
will propose demolition.
¯30%: supports preservation goals more.
Voluntary vs. Mandatory:
¯ Designation as historic resource should be debated whether mandatory or
voluntary. (No consensus in this group)
¯People would be attracted to apply for a historic distinction if proper emphasis
(special class status, qualify for special incentives, etc.)
¯Historic incentives to promote desire to be classified as "historic":
a. Yearly awards.
b. Brass plaque.
c. Monetary incentives.
¯tax breaks?
¯utility fee reductions
d. Others. Reward fund establishment.
e. Publicity.
f. Inclusion on tours?
Historic Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 2
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
Demolition/Maintenance/Construction:
¯ Make demolition approval and process to approve what goes back in place
should be separate from historic process.
¯Demolition issue encompasses non-historic properties equally 1~0 historic
properties.
¯Until demolition/design review is in place...historic ordinance must include
demolition constraints.
¯Delete mandatory requirements for painting and planting when not a part of a
bigger project.
Nomination as historic resource:
¯Anyone can nominate but homeowners must agree.
¯ -HRB should review/approve nominations.
¯HRB can nominate.
¯ "HRB must review on an individual basis all nominations (incl. Dames/Moore
proposals).
¯Nominee should pay required fee.
¯Delete nomination fees.
Decision making process/appeals:
¯Process must be quick/easy.
¯Suggested process - alternatives:
Process/Alternative 1
Staff review
HRB
Appeal to Council
Council decision
Process/Alternative 2
Staff review
HRB
Appeal to HRB
HRB re-review
Appeal to Council
Council decision
HRB may require staffing to support increased burden of ordinance.
Quicker timeframes than state turnarounds.
Prompt notification to interested parties in response to decisions
(recommendations).
Last Items:
¯Education critical
various formats
Histodc Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 3
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
various audiences - professionals (architects, etc.)
- homeowners
varioustopics - e.g. State Historic Building Code Works,hop in Jan./Feb.
- how to restore older homes.
Histodc Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 4
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
Group 2
Examples of Historic resources:
¯P.O.
¯Squires
¯321(?) Kipling
¯Schmidt House (Emerson)
¯2 Homer Street houses (600 block)
¯De Lemos
¯Hostess House
¯Palo Alto Women’s Club
¯St. Thomas Aquinas. Church
¯1000-1100 block of Forest
Goals of Ordinance:
Why revise it?
New evaluation standards, including government standards (e.g. Secretary of
Interior)
Pressures for change are escalating.
Add concepts or conservation - compatibility
-attractiveness - quality of life
-pedestrian scale.
We should preserve "significant" architecture.
Can a contemporary house be compatible with a historic neighborhood? (+ if so,
would you demo a historic home to-build one?)
Should adjoining (or nearby) properties be controlled in a way that projects the
original historic property?
Preservation - sense of continual, a sense of the way life "was".
Designation Criteria:
¯"Established visual feature of a neighborhood.." Is this a "catch-all" category?
¯"Resource" the key work for designation.
¯The listed criteria are beginning to be nationally accepted - not arbitrary.
¯The criteria should be specific and measurable, not amorphous.
-"Landmark" - easy to accept this criterion.
- "Significant resource"? - Use the California Register criteria? [CEQA -
"discretionary review"].
-Append referred documents to the ordinance itself.
Review Process:
Histodc Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 5
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
Triggering review: Demolition
- Why go through process if we don’t control demolition?
- Waiting out moratorium: buildings then destro.yed.
-Should there be other exceptions dependent upon historic category in which
building fits?
- Who is to say what’s feasible or infeasible?
- What does technical infeasibility mean?
¯A lot of "infeasible" determination depends on whether there is input from
an .appropriate professional.
¯That is why we have HRB. I’d like to see HRB become more professional,
stronger.
¯State Historic Building Code can be helpful in making rehabilitation
feasible and less costly.
¯Per square foot cost on remodeling may be prohibitive.
Definition of "Demolition"
¯Its important to define it.
¯"Major alteration" may be should replace the 30% tear down language.
¯To average person, "demolition" means razing building.
¯At what point do you stop so leaving three 2x4’s is not the experience people
have, calling that "alteration".
¯Reasonable to say 50% destruction = demolition.
¯Importance of front facade to a historic property.
¯Definition of "demolition" x "alteration" should be clear in ordinance.
¯Reasonable to say 50% destruction - demolition.
¯Importance of front facade to a historic property.
Definition of "Alteration":
¯ The list is appropriate for a Landmark, not for Significant Resource - too invasive
of private lives.
¯When resource goes on inventory, the historic site features that are regulated
should be called out in that particular property - e.g. "The house, the gazebo, the
heritage oak at ? Street, "? give fair notice to prospective buyer ? "
¯Good idea - staff doesn’t have to interpret.
¯We do have a tree ordinance but it only covers heritage oaks.
¯Issue re landscaping of actions which are reversible (e.g. putting up a fence).
¯Garden design changes with fashion - I don’t want to take choice away from
homeowner in garden design. Some prominent historic features (e.g. a certain
wall integral to historic prop.) Should be encouraged to be retained.
¯A tree considered heritage on a particular property and integrally with historic
Histodc Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 6
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
property (or some boxwood topiaries associated with the property) should be
considered for regulation.
Standards in proposed o~dinance seem reasonable - except for, trees, color
(reversible)
Re: color - would like to see City provide color advice to homeowners (great
idea). City Council doesn’t back ARB. Commercial landmarks should have
mandatory color review - a second vote for this - others concur in our group.
Color battles are very difficult.
I think color review should be stricken.
On Landmarks, you should have color review.
Preservation effort will thrive when City acts as a "helper".
Shouldn’t owner be able to go to just the HRB?
Others concur this is a good idea if HRB is professional.
HRB Selection:
¯ The HRB should have input on people running for that job - should screen
applicants.
¯HRB members should have interest in historic properties in addition to
knowledge/expertise.
¯Need to avoid conflicts of interest so members of HRB are not precluded from
voting (giving opinions).
¯Back to landscape issues: problem that site features are not noted on current
inventory of properties.
¯Maybe HRB should determine when a site feature is a significant feature integral
to property.
Mandatory vs Voluntary:
¯ Element not mentioned is consent.Homeowner should be allowed to consent to
listing. Homes are more sensitive than commercial buildings. Mandatory review
for landmarks. OK if homeowner has "brought off" on listing. Not for significant
resources.
In a well crafted ordinance the mandatory regulation should not be a problem.
It depends on how many houses get sucked into this process.
It scares people to get notice "maybe your house is historic".
Only local government has any land use regulatory authority.
Can’t ask HRB people to serve in a voluntary environment.
Historic Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 7
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
Group 3
Goals:
Is the goal of PHPO really just preservation?
Preservation goal is highly supportable.
Other goals could undermine preservation.
Palo Alto has diversity of homes that is unique.
Like mix of size and age/era.
People need/want choice.
Some old homes will disappear due to DN./choice.
Are districts in the offing?
Losing some old homes is worth diversity?
Quantity of homes is key to goal analysis.
Starting with a list of possible homes is reasonable.
Preserving character 0f community is valid.
Rules that require tasteful homes are hard to develop.
Ordinance is overkill for what community wants.
Developers who put up "starter castle" are a concern.
Economics need to be considered. Who will buy and maintain historic homes.
Does the home really add aesthetic and cultural value?
Criteria:
¯Secretary of Interior Standards have value for criteria.
¯National Register approach allows a way of placing difficult criteria on a scale.
¯Criteria on PHPO are too "broad" and "squishy".
¯California (broad, more local in approach) vs. National (more defined).
- California - important to look at; too broad;-open to wide interpretation and lead
to uncertainty in process - leads back to goals; nuggets vs. neighborhood.
Question arises?
What should be saved?:
¯Architecture vs. events/people.
¯"The garage" (Hewlett Packard)
¯Key works by key architects.
Landmark vs. Significant Resources:
¯Goes back to goal: what is purpose?
¯2 lists have value gems vs. what helps define us.
¯1 group is toosmall a box.
¯Can’t get it backonce it is gone.
Historic Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 8
Historic Preservation Round Table Group Notes
2 categories have essentially identical requirements, why then 2 categories?
Multiple categories add the "messiness" to the process.
Voluntary vs. Mandatory:
This disc. relates to consensus on approach & rationale.
Homeowner ought to be able to opt out.
Voluntary process allows home to be demolished or come and go from list.
implies support of mandatory approach).
Downzoning - what happens if court case?
-takings issues
(This
Appeals:
¯Average homeowner needs professional help to move through process.
¯Simplify process would help - education might not.
¯Education could help and pre-conference is important.
¯Process adds burden to homeowner.
¯Unusual circumstances (access, etc.) should be facilitated.
Current process:
¯ Thoits property no action by city because an ordinance ~ be enacted.
Tone of Draft Ordinance:
¯Tone treats owners as a roadblock to the City’s goals.
¯Tone is "taste police" approach.
Historic Preservation Roundtable Group Discussion
November 12, 1998 Page 9
Attachment G
Following are the criteria for eligibility to the National Register (National Register
Bulletin #15, page 2) and criteria for the California Register (Public Resources Code Section
4852). The criteria for both registers are similar, except that the California~Register criteria
are more inclusive of resources that are important to local, regional and California history
and culture.
CRITERIA FOR NA~ONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and
culture is present in districts, sites, .buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns ~of our history; or
B.That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
Co That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
Do That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information .important in
prehistory or history.
CRITERIA FOR CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
An historical resource must be significant at the local, state or national level under one or
more of the following four criteria, and the resource must retain enough of its historic
character or appearance to be recognizable as an historical resource and to convey the
reasons for its significance.
It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California
or the United States;
It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history;
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic
values; or
It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information .important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
###
2
Attachment H
Summary of Dames & Moore Survey Process "
In August 1997, the City Council approved a contract With Dames & Mr0re to conduct an
update of the Historic Inventory and prepare revisions to the Historic Preservation
Ordinance. The aim of the historic survey project, as provided in the originally-approved
scope of services, was to conduct a comprehensive survey of all pre-1948 properties in the
entire city, identify those that had potential historic significance, and complete an intensive
survey and preparation of State DPR 523 Forms for as many properties as the time and
budget allowed.
Between August 1997 and May 1998, Dames & Moore completed a reconnaissance survey
on 6,600 propertieS, identifying approximately 650 properties (Study Priority 1) that are
likely to be eligible for the National Register or California Register, based on architectural
merit. The consultant and volunteers completed field research on virtually all of the 650
Study Priority 1 properties, and began the intensive archival research required to complete
the recommendation of inclusion on the Historic Inventory. In addition, the consultant
identified approximately 2,700 properties (Study Priority 2) as retaining integrity and being
possibly eligible for inclusion on the National Register or the California Register.
On July 6, 1998, Council reviewed the extension of the Interim Historic Ordinance, and on
July 13, 1998 extended the Interim Ordinance through March 31, 1999. Dames & Moore
was asked to consider how to produce the most extensive list of potentially eligible properties
that could be provided by October 15, 1998, with emphasis on completing the Study Priority
1 list.
On August 3, 1998, staff presented for Council consideration two options for completing the
Historic Inventory project. Option 1, Phase 1 included a further assessment of eligibility and
partial completion of state DPR 523 records for Study Priority 1 properties only by
January 15, 1999. Option 2, Phase 1 provided further assessment of eligibility for both Study
Priority 1 and 2 properties by January 15, 1999, but no preparation of state DPR 523 records.
On August 10, 1998, Council adopted Option 2, Phase 1, to provide a preliminary assessment
of eligibility for the National Register and local significance for Study Priority 1 and 2
properties. The decision whether to continue with the implementation of Option 2, Phase
2 was postponed until after review of the Phase 1 work product. Phase 2, if approved by
Council, would include the evaluation of historical significance and completion of state DPR
523 records for each property.
1. Results of the Preliminary Assessment of Eligibility
The Preliminary Assessment of Eligibility is an intermediate task whose purpose is to
provide the Council with information, in aggregate, about the approximate number of
properties that are likely to be eligible for the Palo Alto Register, based on standards of
eligibility for the National Register or the California Register. This preliminary information
was provided for Study Priority i properties on October 15 and the preliminary assessments
of Study Priority 2 properties will be provided on January 15, 1999. The consultant’s report
on the preliminary assessment entitled, "Study Priority 1 Properties: Preliminary
Assessments of Eligibility for the National Register or California Register Based on
Design/Construction (Architecture)" discusses how the historic survey is being conducted
and the standards that are being used to assess potential historical merit of properties. The
report is available from the Planning Division and is on the City’s Web Page.
2. What does this preliminary assessment mean?
Inclusion on this preliminary assessments list is not a designation to the Palo Alto Register.
This current assessment of eligibility is a preliminary assessment of factual information about
the potential historical significance of the properties. When evaluations of significance are
completed, this additional information provided by the evaluation (a written statement
explaining the historical significance) will be the basis for making decisions on what
properties to consider for inclusion on the Palo Alto Register.
Prior to specific properties being considered by the City Council for addition to the local
Historic Register, the archival research and historic contexts research which is still underway
would need to be completed, and a evaluation of historic significance would need to be
completed for each property. The designation process will require notification of the
property owner, a public hearing before the Historic Resources Board for their
recommendation on the designation, and a public hearing and action by the City Council.
3. Magnitude of potential historic resources identified in the survey.
Preliminary Assessment of Study Priority 1 list (October 27, 1998 Dames & Moore Report):
Potentially Eligible for Potentially Eligible for
National Register 213 California Register 278
Preliminary Assessment of Study Priority 2 list: (ESTIMATE)
Potentially Eligible for
National Register (range) 50-200
TOTAL (approximately) 400
###
Potentially Eligible for
California Register (range) 600-900
(approximately) 1,000
2