Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-11 City Council (30)City of Palo Alto CRy Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 16 17 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: August 11, 1997 CMR:354:97 SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH DAMES & MOORE TO REVISE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND UPDATE THE HISTORIC INVENTORY, AND TO EXTEND THE INTERIM HISTORIC REGULATIONS TO MAY 31, 1998 REQUEST City Council is requested to: 1) review and approve the attached consultant contract with Dames-& Moore to update the historic inventory and revise the historic preservation ordinance, 2) authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute the contract and approve amendments to the contract, and 3) extend the Interim Historic Regulations to May 31, 1998. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council: Approve the attached consultant contract (Attachment 1) for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updating the Historic Inventory. The contract is with the firm of Dames and Moore for a total maximum amount of $219,500. o Authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to negotiate and execute change orders for services that occur during the project related to, or incidental to, the scope of work; the total value of these amendments shall not exceed $12,500. Approve the attached Ordinance extending the Interim Historic Regulations for six months to May 31, 1998. CMR:354:97 Page 1 of 5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report does not represent a change to current City policies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This proposed contract with Dames & Moore is to provide the services of a consultant team to update the City’s Historic Inventory and to revise the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. At its meeting of April 7, 1997, the ~ity Council approved the scope of work for this contract, and waived the requirement that the scope be reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee in order to expedite the consultant selection process. As part of its action to approve the scope of work, the City Council added four public workshops to the public participation process, two to be oriented to the general public, one to address the issues of real estate professionals, and one to address the issues of architecture and design professionals. Change to Project Schedule. In the scope of work approved by the City Council on April 8, the project schedule provided for presenting a revised Historic Preservation Ordinance to the City Council for review and approval by November 1997, when the Interim Regulations are scheduled to end. However, with a projected start date of August rather than June and the addition of four public workshops to the public participation process, it has become necessary to extend by approximately six months to the date at which a revised Historic Preservation Ordinance would be completed, May 1998. Attached to this report is an Ordinance extending the Interim Historic Regulations to May 31, 1998. If the Ordinance is adopted, staffwill return with a contract amendment and costs to extend the services of Historic Preservation Architect Barbara Judy, in order to continue the Interim Historic Program to the expected date of adoption of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Dames & Moore consulting work will not be completed until August 1998. Depending on the progress on developing the Historic Inventory and the contents of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, it may be necessary to further extend the interim regulations and the services of the Historic Preservation Architect to August 1998. Consultant Selection Process. Following approval of the scope of work by the City Council, a request for proposal was sent on April 21, 1997 to fifteen firms or individual consultants. These consultants were identified by calls to the State Office of Historic Preservation, San Francisco Heritage and to other cities in the Bay Area that have active Historic Preservation programs. A mandatory presubmittal meeting was held on April 28, 1997. Members of the Historic Resources Board (HRB), Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage (PAST), and Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA)joined City staff at this meeting to answer questions and provide information. Seven consultants attended the presubmittal meeting. Proposals were due on May 13, and were received from four consulting teams. Costs ranged from $205,880 CMR:354:97 Page 2 of 5 to $231,870. All four teams were interviewed on May 21. The interview committee was composed of City staff from the City Attorney’s Office and the Planning Division. Also participating were the Historic Preservation Architect, the Chair of the HRB and the president of PAST. The selection committee chose the Dames & Moore team as the first choice. This team was chosen over the other candidates because the primary team members who will be performing the day-to-day work on the project are senior professionals who have many years of experience conducting historic surveys and preparing historic preservation ordinances, and ¯ its work is highly regarded. In addition, this team appeared to be the best qualified to handle the intensive volunteer effort and public participation that will be essential to the success of the project. Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory. Group. An advisory group composed of seven members of the community with special knowledge and expertise will be assembled to provide advice to staff and the consultants on revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff intends to solicit from the Chamber of Commerce, the local Board of Realtors, PAST, and PAHA the names of people with relevant knowledge and experience who are willing to serve on the advisory group. Also, a number of people involved in real estate, historic home remodeling, neighborhood conservation, land use law and other related activities have contacted the Planning Department and volunteered to participate in the Ordinance revision process. The City Manager will select seven people with complementary expertise and representing a range of interest groups, tO include at least two Realtors, two builders or architects experienced with historic buildings, and two preservation or neighborhood activists. It is expected that members of this group will meet at least monthly from September 1997 to May 1998, will attend all of the public workshops, and will work closely with both the consultants and the HRB in developing the recommended ordinance revisions. Summary_of Scope of Work. In brief, the project as outlined in the contract consists of four main activities: 1) conducting the initial survey, including a reconnaissance survey and background research; 2) developing a methodology for conducting the intensive survey and for the public participation process; 3) revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance; and 4) conducting the intensive survey and historical research in order to update the Historic Inventory. In August and September 1997, while the consultants are conducting the reconnaissance survey and doing background research, PAST and PAHA will organize the volunteers who will be doing most of the field work and research for the intensive survey. After attending training sessions conducted by the consultants, the volunteers will begin work in October. The consultants will meet approximately weekly with the volunteers throughout the project CMR:354:97 Page 3 of 5 to review and direct their work. Also in October, the consultants will present to the City Council a Survey Background Report describing the results of the initial survey. The first two of the four public workshops are scheduled to occur in late October, with the following two workshops to be held in January 1998. In early December 1997, the consultants will retum to the City Council with a memorandum outlining the principal elements of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance in order to get policy direction from the Council on major issues to be addressed in preparing the revised ~)rdinance. Based on direction from the Council, input from the community at the workshops and from the Historic Preservation Advisory Group, the consultants will work with the City Attorney’s Office to develop recommended revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which will be presented to the City Council in early April 1998. Depending on the substance of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, such as the process and categories of historic designations, it may be necessary to further extend all or part of the Interim Regulations to August 1998. Work on the intensive survey will continue until May 1998. The consultants will then prepare the final updated Historic Inventory, to be presented to City Council in July or August 1998. ALTERNATIVES The City Council could reject the proposed consultant contract and either adopt the Interim Regulations as permanent regulations, or allow the Interim Regulations to expire on November 30, 1997, which would result in the City’s historic regulations and procedures being those used prior to October 1996. FISCAL IMPACT The original estimated costs of preparing the Historic Inventory update, $95,000, and the revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, $47,000, were included in the 1996-98 Planning Division Work Program and budget. An additional $80,000 that is required due to an expansion of the scope of the Historic Inventory update, and an additional $10,000 to cover the costs of four public workshops added to the project at the direction of the City Council were approved by City Council in a Budget Amendment Ordinance on April 22, 1997, for a total project budget of $232,000. By extending the Interim Regulations by six months to May 30, 1998, the additional cost for the Historic Preservation Architect consulting contract is expected to be approximately $65,000, based on the past few months experience. Approximately 15 percent or $10,000 may be recovered through fees. Staffwill return in September with a revised contract with the Preservation Architect and a Budget Amendment Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Approval of a consultant contract is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, no environmental assessment is required at this time. CMR:354:97 Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Consultant Contract Attachment 2. Ordinance to Extend Interim Historic Regulations to May 31, 1998 Attachment 3. Excerpt Minutes of City Council meeting, April 7, 1997, pp. 83-9/83-24 PREPARED BY: Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment civv Assistant City Manager CC:Historic Resources Board. Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage Palo Alto Historical Association Chamber of Commerce Board of Realtors Barton Park Association College Terrace Residents Association Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Community Center Neighborhood 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 CMR:354:97 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1 CONTRACT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND DAMES & MOORE, INC. FOR CONSULTING. SERVICES REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION This Contract No. " is entered into on , 1997, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and DAMES & MOORE, INC., a Delaware corporation located at 221 Main Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105 ("CONTRACTOR"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, CITY desires certain consulting services ("Services"), as more fully described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage CONTRACTOR, including its employees, if any, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in performing such Services, and CONTRACTOR has offered to provide the Services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Contract, the parties agree: SECTIQN i. TE~ I.I This Contract will commence on the date of its execution by CITY. The obligation of CONTRACTOR to perform the Services will commence in accordance with the time schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". Time is of the essence of this Contract. In the event that the Services are not completed within the specified time schedule on account of CONTRACTOR’s default, CITY’s city manager will have the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by CONTRACTOR. SECTION 2., CONTRAC.TOR QUALIFICATIONS, ....STATUS,AND ..DUTIES OF 2.1 CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. CONTRACTOR further represents and warrants that the project director and every individual charged with the performance of the~Services under this Contract are duly licensed or certified by the State of California, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law to perform the Services. 97084 lae 0080555 2.2 In reliance on the representation and warranty set forth in Section 2.1, CITY hires CONTRACTOR to perform, and CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees that it will furnish or cause to be furnished, the Services. 2.3 CONTRACTOR will assign Denise Bradley, ASLA, as the project director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and exeGution of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this Contract cause the substitution of the project director for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director will be subject to the prior written approval of the project manager. 2.4 CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it will: 2.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and incident to the due and lawful prosecution of the Services; 2.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of California, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or employed under this Contract, any materials used in CONTRACTOR’s performance under this Contract, or the performance of the Services; 2.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and contractors (and consultants), if any, who are assigned to the performance of this. Contract to observe and comply with, the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees mentioned above; and 2.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications or provisions of this Contract. 2.5 Any reports, information, data or other material given to, or prepared or assembled by, CONTRACTOR or its contractors, if any, under this Contract will become the property of CITY and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its contractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the city manager. 2.6 CONTRACTOR will provide CITY with copies of the documents which-may be required under this Contract, as provided in Exhibit "A," upon completion and acceptance of each such document by CITY. 2.7 If CITY requests additional cqpies ’of reports, drawings, specifications or any other material which CONTRACTOR is required to furnish in limited quantities in the performance of 97084 lao 0080555 2 the Services, CONTRACTOR will provide such additional copies and CITY will compensate CONTRACTOR for its duplication costs. 2.8 CONTRACTOR will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to ~perform the Services. All contractors of CONTRACTOR will be deemed to be directly controlled and supervised by CONTRACTOR, which will be responsible for their performance. If any employee or contractor of CONTRACTOR fails or refuses to carry out the provisions’of this Contract or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, the employee or contractor will be discharged immediately from further performance under this Contract on demand of the project manager. SECTION 3.DUTIES OF CITY 3.1 CITY will furnish or cause to be furnished the specified services set forth in Exhibit "A" and such other information regarding its requirements as may be reasonably requested by CONTRACTOR. 3.2 The City Manager will represent CITY for all purposes under this Contract. Virginia Warheit is designated as the project manager for the City Manager. The project manager will supervise the performance, progress, and execution of the Services, and will be assisted by James Gilliland. 3.3 If CITY observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of CONTRACTOR, CITY will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR in a timely manner. SECTION 4 COMPENSATION 4.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services by CONTRACTOR,-CITY will pay CONTRACTOR a total sum not to exceed Two Hundred Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($214,500) payable within thirty (30) days of submission by CONTRACTOR of its itemized billings, in triplicate, in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "B". 4.2 City may in writing request CONTRACTOR to perform any or all of the Additional Services described in Exhibit E. In consideration of the full performance of such additional services, if any, City will pay CONTRACTOR for services rendered at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit B. The total compensation for Additional Services shall not exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,ooo). SECTION 5. AUDITS 5.1 CONTRACTOR will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Contract and for three (3) years thereafter, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters 97084 lao 008055~ covered by this Contract. CONTRACTOR further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Contract. SECTION 6. INDEMNITY 6.1 CONTRACTOR agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, caused by or arising out of CONTRACTOR’s, its officers’, agents’, subcontractors’ or employees’~negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable law may impose strict liability on CONTRACTOR in the performance of or failure to perform its obligations under this Contract. SECTION 7. WAIVERS 7.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Contract, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Contract or of any applicable law or ordinance. 7.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Contract. SECTION 8.INSURANCE 8.1 CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Contract, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "C", insuring not only CONTRACTOR and its contractors, if any, but also, with the exception of workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, and professional liability insurance, naming CITY as an additional insured concerning CONTRACTOR’s performance under this Contract. 8.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A:X or higher which are admitted to transact insurance business in the State of California. 8.3 Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the form~ provided by CITY, will be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Contract. The certificates will be ~ubject to the approval of CITY’s risk manager and will contain an 970841~ 0080555 endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with CITY’s city clerk thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and that the City of Palo Alto is named as an additional insured except in policies of workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, and professional liability insurance. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file at all times during the term of this Contract with the city clerk. 8.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONTRACTOR will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Contract, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Contract is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 9 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 9.1 CONTRACTOR, by executing this Contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing the performance of the Services. SECTION i0, .... TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION’OF CONTRACT OR ~ERVICES i0.I The city manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Contract, with or without cause, by giving thirty (30) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. Upon receipt of such notice, CONTRACTOR will immediately.discontinue its performance of the Services. 10.2 CONTRACTOR may terminate this Contract or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days’ prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY or in the event CITY indefinitely withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or continuation of the Services to be performed. 10.3 Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONTRACTOR will be paid for the Services actually rendered to CITY on or before the effective date of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Contract is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONTRACTOR, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONTRACTOR only for that portion of the Services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY, as such determination 97084 I~o 0080555 5 may be made by the city manager acting in the reasonable exercise of her discretion. 10.4 Upon such suspension or termination, CONTRACTOR will deliver to the city manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or its contractors, if any, or given to CONTRACTOR or ,its contractors, if any, in connection with this Contract. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 10.5 The failure of CITY to agree with CONTRACTOR’s independent findings, conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this Contract, on the basis of differences in matters of judgment, will not be construed as a failure on the part of CONTRACTOR to fulfill its obligations under this Contract. SECTION ii.ASSIGNMENT ii.I This Contract is for the personal services of CONTRACTOR, therefore, CONTRACTOR will not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this Contract or any right, title or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of CITY. A consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment .made without the approval of the city manager will be void and, at the option of the city manager, this Contract may be terminated. This Contract will not be assignable by operation of law. SECTION 12.NOTICES 12.1 All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY:Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 To CONTRACTOR: Attention of the project director at the address of CONTRACTOR recited above SECTION 13.CONFLICT OF INTEREST 13.1 In accepting this Contract, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or, otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 13.2 CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, itwill not employ any contractor or person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no 970841~ 0080555 person who has or will have any financial interest under this Contract is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 14. NONDISCRIMINATION 14.1 As set forth in th4 Palo Alto Municipal Code, no discrimination will be made in the employment of any person under this Contract because of the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender of that person. If the value of this Contract is, or may be, five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more, CONTRACTOR agrees to meet all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including completing the requisite form furnished by CITY and set forth in Exhibit "D". 14.2 CONTRACTOR’ agrees that each contract for services with an independent provider will contain a Provision substantially as follows: "[Name of Provider] will provide CONTRACTOR with a certificate stating that [Name of Provider] is currently in compliance with all Federal and State of California laws covering nondiscrimination in employment; that [Name of Provider] will pursue an affirmative course of action as required by the Affirmative Action Guidelines of the City Of Palo Alto; and that [Name of Provider] will not discriminate in the employment of any person under this contract because of the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender of such.person." 14.3 If CONTRACTOR is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of Federal law or executive order in the performance of this Contract, it will be in default of this Contract. Thereupon, CITY will have the power to cancel or suspend this Contract, in whole or in part, or to deduct the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each person for each calendar day during which such person was subjected to acts of discrimination, as damages for breach of contract, or both. Only a finding of t_he State of California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer will constitute evidence of a breach of this Contract. 14.4 If CONTRACTOR is in default of the nondiscrimination provisions of this Contract or the Affirmative Action Guidelines pertaining to this Contract, CONTRACTOR will be found in material breach of this Contract. Thereupon, CITY will have the power to 97084 l~o 0080555 7 cancel or suspend this Contract, in whole or in part, or to deduct from the amount payable to CONTRACTOR the sum of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each calendar day during which CONTRACTOR is not in compliance with this provision as damages for breach of contract, or both. SECTION 15.MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 15.1 CONTRACTOR represents, and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, relating to access to public buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. CONTRACTOR will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be effected in the performance of this Contract. 15.2 This Contract will be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law. 15.3 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 15.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended.in connection with that action. 15.5 This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotia- tions, representations, and contracts, either’ written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. City’s City Manager is authorized to execute any amendments on behalf of the City. 15.6 All provisions of this Contract, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions. 15.7 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Contract will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and contractors, as the case may be, of the parties. 15.8 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 15.9 All exhibits referred to in this Contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto 97084 lee 0080555 8 are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and will be deemed to be a part of this Contract. 15.10 This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 15.11 This Contract is swbject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Contract will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section 15.11 shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Contract on the date first above written. ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Assistant City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Mayor DAMES & By: Its: Taxpayer’s I.D. No.16617 Acting Director of Administrative Services Risk Manager Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHIBIT "D": EXHIBIT SCOPE OF SERVICES AND TIME SCHEDULE FEE SCHEDULE INSURANCE NONDISCRIMINATION COMPLIANCE FORM ADDITIONAL SERVICES 97084 leo 0080555 9 CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE-ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of.Ca l i forn i a San FranciscoCounty of On Auqust 4, 1997 before me,Susan E. Dranit, Notary Public DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared A1 bert Sp i ers , , NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] personally known to me.- OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ~UBLIC OALIFORNIA~ ="~o m Expires Dec. 14, t99a .~ knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY My commission expires 12/14/98. ~ OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT 1Tn.E(S) [] PARTNER(S)[] LIMITED [] GENERAL []A’n’ORNEY-IN-FACT []TRUSTEE(S) []GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR []OTHER: TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OFDOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTR’Y(IES) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY A~SOCIATION ¯ 8236 Rernmat Ave., P.O. Box 7184 o Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF PROJECT AND TIME SCHEDULE TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT ............................................1 TASK 2:METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS FOR REVISING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND UPDATING THE HISTORIC INVENTORY .......2 TASK 2A: METHODOLOGY TASK 2B: INITIAL SURVEY 2.B. 1. Preliminary or Background Research .........’ ....................3 2.B2. Reconnaissance Survey .............: ..........................4 2.B.3. Historic Contexts .............................................5 TASK 2C: IDENTIFICATION OF POLICY ISSUES ...........................6 TASK 2D: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................7 TASK 3: REVISE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ...................9 TASK 4: UPDATE THE HISTORIC INVENTORY .................................12 TASK 4A: INTENSIVE SURVEY .........................................13 4.A.1. Volunteer Training Sessions 4.A.2. Field Survey and Field Form 4.A.3. Researeh ..................................................15 4.A.4. California Historic Inventory (DPR 523) Form and Historic Contexts .’. 15 4.A.5. Meetings ..................................................16 TASK 4B: PREPARATION OF REVISED HISTORIC INVENTORY AND FINAL REPORT - - 17 TASK 4C: ORGANIZATION, PRESENTATION, AND STORAGE OF SURVEY DATA .............................................................18 a:\scope4.dft i SCHEDULE .................................................................19 STAFFING .................................................................21 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ............................................23 EXHIBIT B: COSTS AND RATE SCHEDULE .’ .................................24 a:\seope4.dft ii EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF PROJECT AND TIME SCHEDULE Dames & Moore (Consultant) will provide consulting services to the City of Palo Alto (City) related to revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updating the Historic Inventory. The project will be divided into four tasks: Task 1) Project Management; Task 2) Establishing and organizing the methodology and process for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updating the Historic Inventory; Task 3) Revising the Historic Preservation Qrdinance; and Task 4) Updating the Historic Inventory. SCOPE OF~ WORK TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT Objective The objective of the project management task will be to provide both day-to-day and long term monitoring of the personnel and budget resources; to insure that the tasks are completed within the proposed schedule; and to maintain and facilitate communication between the City and Dames & Moore. Deliverables A summary memo will be provided monthly to the City that will provide a summary of the progress on each task and other pertinent issues. Invoices will be provided monthly. Dames & Moore assumes that the project will last for 12 months anti’hat not more than 12 memos will be required. It is understood by both the City and Dames & Moore that a project of this type has many variables that can alter the course of the project. The summary memo will also be used to bring the City’s attention any changes to the project’s methodology, schedule, or deliverables in a timely manner. Adjustments or changes in the scope of work, schedule, or deliverables will then be worked out between the City and Dames & Moore as required. For example, this may occur in September during the preparation of the Methodology Report (Task 2A) when decisions are being made concerning the numbers and priorities of resources to survey in Task 4A. Or this may oeeur, for example, in mid- January, when the volunteer effort reconvenes following the holiday break;’ it is possible that the number of volunteer’s may change and thereby alter the scope or schedule of the intensive survey (Task 4A). a:\seope4.dft 1 TASK2: ESTABLISHING AND ORGANIZING THE METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS FOR REVISING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND UPDATING THE HISTORIC INVENTORY Objective The objective of Task 2 is to gather information, through various means, that will provide the grounding that is necessary to proceed with the revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updating the Historic Inventory. Task 2 will consist of four subtasks; each of which will PrOvide a different portion of the information base. These are: Task 2A - Me.thodology; Task 2B - Initial Survey; Task 2C- Identification of Policy Issues; Task 2D - Public Participation. Deliverables Task 2A. Methodology. A "Methodology Report" describing the methodology to be used to implement Task 4 (the Intensive Survey) will be prepared by the Consultant. Task 2B. lnitial Survey. Results of the Initial Survey will be provided in the "Survey Background Report"to be prepared and presented to the City Council by the Consultant. Task 2C. Identification of Policy lssues. A "Policy Issues Background Report" will be prepared by the Consultant. For each of these three documents, Dames & Moore will submit twelve copies of an administrative draft of the document to the Palo Alto project manager for review and comment. The City will be responsible for compiling all comments into one table or comment letter. The Consultant will be allowed a minimum of five working days between receipt of the city’s comments and submittal of the final document. For each of these documents, after incorporating the city’s.comments and changes the Consultant will submit sixty copies of the final report to the Palo Alto Project Manager. The Consultant will also submit three original unbound paper copies of each final report and will also submit the text of the reports on diskette in Word Perfect 6.1. Task 2D. Public Participation. The output of this work element will be four, half:day or evening public workshops prepared and conducted by Dames and Moore. R. Bruce Anderson, Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley will participate in the public workshops. Task 2A: METHODOLOGY Dames & Moore will develop a methodology for conducting the update to Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory. The methodology will be prepared according to the standards, procedures, and guidance described in National Register Bulletin No. 24, Guidelines for Local Surveys, A Basis for Preservation Planning (NPS 1977, revised 1985) and Instructions for Recording Historical a:\seope4.dft Resources (OHP March 1995). Both of these sources provide for standards and procedures that are consistent with the requirements for a Certified Local Government (CLG) to "maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties, consistent with guidelines provided by the SHPO." The Intensive Survey (Task 4A) will be done using a combination of the skills and efforts of Dames & Moore and community volunteers. Based on the findings of the Initial Survey (Task 2B) and the amount of volunteer effort that is expected, Dames an,d Moore, in close coordination with city staff and leaders of the volunteer effort, will develop a process and methodology for accomplishing the Intensive Survey (Task 4A). The methodology will define the role and activities of the volunteers and the role, responsibilities, and tasks of Dames & Moore. The objective will be to use the efforts of the Consultants and the volunteers in the most effective and efficient manner. The methodology will provide a clear and detailed explanation of what will be expected from each as related to the field work, research, and preparation of forms. The Methodology Report will discuss the numbers and types of resources that are expected to be surveyed, potential historic districts, and priorities for surveying these resources. The Methodology Report will also include a summary of the information gathered in Task 2B. A description of the research .and field methodology used in the Initial Survey (Task 2B) will be provided; a table that lists the findings (numbers and types of resources) of the Initial Survey (Task 2B) will be provided; a summary of historic context statement(s) (Task 2B) will be provided; and bibliography that summarizes resources reviewed will be provided. TASK 2B: INITIAL SURVEY The initial survey will consist of several steps: preliminary or background research to identify historic resources that have been previously identified (but may not be in the existing Historic Inventory); reconnaissance survey; formulating major historic contexts; and preparation of the Survey Background Report. .. The Survey Background Report will be prepared by R. Bruce Anderson, the team member primarily responsible for Policy/Design and Historic Preservation Ordinance issues. Its purpose is to provide the general public and the City Council with a straightforward explanation of what was found during the initial survey (Task 2B). It can be used in the public participation meetings or in other astJeets of the project in which a format is required that provides an explanation of the hisforic resources within Palo Alto. This report will be prepared in September following the completion of Task 2B and presented to the City Council by the Consultants in late September or early October. 2.B.1 Preliminary or.Background Research Dames & Moore will conduct background research to identify potential historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts within the City of Palo Alto that have been previously identified. Dames a:\scope4.dft 3 & Moore will review the following to gather information on previously identified historic resources that are located in Palo Alto: 1) Report and inventory forms from Palo Alto’s existing Historic Inventory (Boghosian and Beach 1979); 2) Califomia Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) computer print-out for previously identified National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed resources, California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) listed resources, resources that have been determined eligible for the NRHP; and surveys; 3) Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentations; 4) Caltrans District 4 Office of Environmental Planning; 5) Professional Reports and Public Documents (EIR/EIS, HASR, etc.); and 6) local histories. This information will be used in planning the broad-scale reconnaissance survey and in aiding in identifying the initial historical context statement(s). The background research will be the primary responsibility of the Project Architectural Historian. He will be assisted, as required, by the Project Landscape Historian. The resources consulted will be summarized in a description of our research methodology for this task and in a bibliography that will be submitted in the Methodology Report for Task 2A.. 2.B.2 Reconnaissance Survey Dames & Moore will perform a broad-scale reconnaissance survey to identify potential historic districts, approximate number of resources, and type/style and estimated date.of Construction of resources. The City will provide Dames & Moore with paper copies of"fire run" maps. The fire run maps are based on metro scan information for the City of Palo Alto. They will provide Assessor Parcel Number (APN) information and street addresses. The fire run maps will divide the parcels into the following groups: resources built before 1948; resources built in 1948 and after~ and resources with no date information. a:\scope4.dft 4 , The City will provide Dames & Moore with paper copies of COGA maps. The COGA maps will provide spatially accurate information and will be used by Dames & Moore as a cross reference to the fire run maps. The reconnaissance survey will be a key component of all that is to follow. Michael Corbett (Project Architectural Historian) will have the primary responsibility for planning and conducting the reconnaissance survey. However, the three main team ,members (Michael Corbett, Denise Bradley, and R. Bruce Anderson) will participate in the reconnaissance survey.. Dames & Moore will drive the portions of the City identified as having been built before 1948 or likely to include structures built before 1948. On the basis of the physical appearance of each resource, the Project Architectural Historian will classify and code the resources onto maps. The resources will be classified, based on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria, as: 1) appears likely to be eligible for the NRHP; 2) needs further research; 3) appears to have been built prior to 1948 but lacks integrity and appears ineligible; 4) is less than 50 years old but appears to lack exceptional significance and appears ineligible; and 5) is less that 50 years old but possibly of exe.eptional significance. Field data from the reconnaissance survey will be recorded by the Consultant on maps that can then be considered with other information and issues to identify potential historic districts and prioritize needs related to the methodology (Task 2A). Dames & Moore will also use this information to get an estimate of the numbers and relative quality of integrity of the resources to be included in the Intensive Survey (Task 4). 2.B.3. Historic Context Statement(s) Dames & Moore will formulate or outline the initial historic context statement(s). The historic context statement(s) will serve as the basis for evaluating the significance of historic resources. Further refinement and work on the historic context statement(s) will be done as a part of the Intensive Survey (Task 4A). The historic context will include a series of context statements that address the various aspects of Palo Alto’s physical development. Dames & Moore assumes these may include: the history of Palo Alto; history of the land survey; history of roads; history of planning and development; and history of railroad/telegraph. Context statement(s) related to the history of particular building types, a:\seope4.dft 5 individual builders/architects, and landscape elements (such as street plans, streetscapes, public spaces, etc.) will also be a part of the historic context for Palo Alto. As part of this process Dames and Moore will review the information in the following: Palo Alto City Hall; Palo Alto Main Library; San Francisco Main Library; San Jose Main Library; Stanford Libraries; and Bancroft Library, Map Room, and Environmental Design Library at the University of Califomia at Berkeley. TASK 2C: IDENTIFICATION OF POLICY ISSUES The Policy Issues Background Report will be prepared by R. Bruce Anderson that spells out and develops policy items and issues related to historic preservation in Palo Alto. This will be in the form of a "white paper" and is intended to encourage discussion and comment on interrelated matters, such as changes to existing classification of historic resources; use of design review and zoning overlay districts; projects and programs of City agencies as they affect historic resources; and use of incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of historic resources. This task will involve informal meetings and consultation with City staff who currently administer historic preservation and design review, and other city ,staff including the City Attorney; initial meetings with members of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Historic Ordinance Advisory Group; and review of available background materials, such as plans, codes, and procedures. TASK 2D: PUBLIc PARTICIPATION This task has a two-fold objective: 1) to leam from public officials, boards, non-profits, volunteer organizations, other historic preservation interests, and the community at large of existing programs, procedures, issues and recommendations; and 2) to present information, conduct meetings and workshops, and, in general, work closely with these interests to enlarge and strengthen historic preservation’s constituent base in Palo Alto. R. Bruce Anderson will have the primary responsibility for conducting the public participation efforts. Dames & Moore will be responsible for the following public participation activities: ~ Presentation by the Consultant to City Council of the Survey Background Report (developed under Task 2B) to be presented in early October, .1997; 2) Principal Elements of the Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance Memorandum presented to City Council by the Consultant in early December, 1997; 3) Recommended Revisions to the Historic Ordinance to be presented .to City Council by the Consultant in late March or early a:\scope4.dft 6 April, 1998; and 4) the principal findings and recommendations of the Historic Inventory Update to be presented by the Consultant to City Council in mid-1998. R. Bruce Anderson will make these presentations. Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley will participate in the first and fourth presentations to the City Council. Historic Resources Board/Historic Ordinance Advisory. Group: Monthly meetings, not to exceed eight meetings, individually or collectively with these two bodies, to review and discuss policy issues, procedural matters, progress reports and findings stemming from survey activity, items and provisions for inclusion in recommended revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and other matters pertaining to the project work scope. R. Bruce Anderson will conduct these meetings. Public Workshops: Prepare and conduct four half-day workshops (possibly two on Saturdays, two on weekday evenings) to: 1) present an overview of the project scope; 2) present summaries of the contents of the Survey Background Report and Policy Issues Background Report; 3) present examples of relevant programs, projects and procedures in other communities that might be appropriate and useful to Palo Alto; and 4) invite discussion and solicit ideas, recommendations and proposals from workshop participants on specific ways to clarify, bolster and integrate historic preservation activity in the community. Two of the public workshops will occur in October 1997 and two will occur in January 1998. R. Bruce Anderson will conduct these meetings. Michael Corbett and/or Denise Bradley will also attend meetings related to the historic survey and inventory, as determined by the City. PAHA/PAST: Presentations and informal nieetings will’be held by the Consultant with each of these non-profit organizations, to exchange information and discuss elements of the project work program as related, respectively, to each organization’s volunteer activities in research and preservation action. It is understood that these two organizations.form a ’ valuable constituency for Palo Alto’s historic resources, and their input and perspective will be sought as a component to developing the recommended revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. R. Bruce Anderson will conduct these meetings. It should be noted that Michael Corbett and/or Denise Bradley will be meeting with PAHA and PAST approximately weekly as described in Task 4.A5. The purpose of these meetings is directly related to the volunteer effort in Task 4. Boards. Commissions and Communi .ty Groups: Informal discussions and interviews will be conducted by the Consultant with members of the Architectural Review Board and relevant Boards, Commissions and.Organizations, such as the local Board of Realtors, to ascertain levels of understanding and interest, as well as potential roles and responsibilities, regarding historic preservation in Palo Alto. R. Bruce Anderson will conduct these meetings. a:\seope4.dft 7 TASK 3: REVISE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Objective The purpose of this task is to.provide the City of Palo Alto with recommended revisions to the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Deliverables Principal Elements of the Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance Memorandum. Based on comments made by the City Council and others during the review of the Survey Background Report and on input received at public workshops, R. Bruce Anderson will prepare a memorandum that presents the Principal Elements of the Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. It will be a detailed listing of the principal elements proposed for further development and refinement as possible revisions to the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, with discussion of the implications of various policy options. The Consultant will present this memorandum to the City Council in late November or early December, 1997. Twenty copies of an administrative draft version of this document will be submitted for city review. The City will be responsible for compiling a table or list of comments. After incorporating changes requested by the city, Dames & Moore will submit 100 copies of the .document to the Palo Alto Project Manager. In addition, the Consultant will provide the city with three original unbound hard copies of the document for reproduction and also an electronic copy on diskette in WordPerfect 6.1. The Consultant will be allowed a minimum of fiv.e working days between receipt of the city’s comments and submittal of the final document. Recommended Revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Consultant, R. Bruce Anderson will prepare the recommended revisions to PAMC, Chapter 16.49, the Historic Preservation OrdinanCe. This document will be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. After the City Attorney has approved the final version of this document, the Consultant will provide 100 copies of the document to the Palo Alto Project Manager. In addition, the Consultant will provide theCity with tree original unbound hard copies of the document for reproduction and. also an electronic copy on diskette in WordPerfect 6.1. Scope The activities of this task will result in recommended revisions to the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding historic preservation and its functional relationships to relevant City boards and departments, and to interests of the community at large. The purpose of the Principal Elements memorandum is to provide a framework for the City Council and the community to consider and discuss ~possible changes to the Historic Ordinance and for the City Council to provide policy a:\scope4.dft 8 direction to the Consultants for developing the recommended revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In developing the recommended revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance the Consultant will work in close consultation with the City Attorney’s office and the Planning Department, making use of working memoranda and holding meetings in order to prepare and present a final document that has had the benefit of thorough discussion and review, by the City. This activity will be coordinated by Mr. Anderson.. The scope and contents of the recommended revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance will be based upon the work and findings of Tasks 2B, 2C, and 2D, and will address the concerns and issues as specified on pp. 6 - 8 of the City’s RFP #96666 and listed below: 1. Establish Criteria for Evaluation of Significance a. 1) AsSess the appropriateness of the evaluation criteria adopted by City Council in the Interim Regulations. Dames & Moore may recommend changes to these criteria if they are believed to be inconsistent with current state and national standards in a significant respect. 2) Assess the appropriateness of the evaluation categories, "Landmark" and "Contributor" and their definitions, and recommend any changes or additions that may be needed. The criteria for evaluation .will include the criteria for National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) listing, and the evaluation of each historic resource should indicate its eligibility for the NRHP. Co Special consideration will be given to. criteria for evaluating groups of buildings that may comprise historic districts, multiple property listings or other neighborhood groupings with an histt~ric character, and for identify the components of the historic context for these areas. o Comparison with historic preservation standards and historic preservation , ordinances in other cities. ° Compatibility and consistency with current State and National historic preservation standards and regulations; relationship to the Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for California. Responding to catastrophic events, treatment of historic resources damaged by flood, earthquake, or fire. a:\seope4.dft 9 Criteria for permitting demolition of historic resources. Requirements for documentation prior to demolition of a designated historic resource: a) Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) recordation. b)Salvage of materials for reuse as Heritage Building Materials. Criteria and requirements for permitting moving or relocation of designated historic structures or other historic resources. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Incentive programs to encourage preservation and appropriate alteration of historic resources and discourage demolition. Authority of the HRB in reviewing proposed alterations to historic resources, and the role of the HRB in the City’s discretionary review process, including tools for requiring greater protection of historic resources. Operational guidelines and procedures for conducting the HRB activities. Standards for review of proposed alterations to historic resources. Possible use of Design Guidelines for designated historic structures, historic districts, and conservation areas. Relationship between the Historic Preservation Ordinance and other City ordinances and codes, particularly the R-1 Zone Ordinance. . ... Recommended revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and other Oity codes that may be needed to effectively implement the Historic Preservation Ordinance, including possible use of the Compatibility Standards or a discretionary review process, o Revisions to the process for designation of historic resources. Use of the State Historical Building Code. Protection of archaeological resources. a:\seope4.dfl 10 zl.0 TASK 4: UPDATE THE HISTORIC INVENTORY Objective The objective of this task will be to provide an update to the existing Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Following the submittal and acceptance of the final methodology (Task 2), Dames & Moore will begin the process of updating the Historic Inventory. ,The number of resources that will be surveyed in the Intensive Survey (Task 4A) and the priority of resources to be surveyed will be decided in consultation between the City and Dames & Moore following the completion of the Initial Survey (Task 2B). This information will be presented in the Methodology Report (Task 2A). Task 4 will consist of three subtasks: Task 4A - Intensive Survey; Task 4B - Preparation of the Revised Historic Inventory and Final Report; Task 4C - Organization, Presentation, and Storage of Intensive Survey Data. Deliverables The deliverables for Task 4 ~will consist of the Final Report and Revised Historic Inventory, Final Report. The Final Report will include a description of the inventory process and methodology; a summary of historic contexts; and description of the findings (numbers of properties surveyed, historic districts, list of properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and list of properties for the various Palo Alto Historic Category Designations). There will be an administrative draft and final subnii~-tal of the Final Report. Dames & Moore will submit twenty copies of the administrative draft of the Final Report to Palo Alto Project Manager for review by the City. The City will be responsible for compiling a table or list of any comments. The Consultant will be allowed a minimum of five working days between receipt of the City’s comments and submittal of the final document. .. Dames & Moore will submit 100 bound copies of the final Report to Palo Alto Project Manager. Dames & Moore will submit three original, unbound, hard copies of the final report. Dames & Moore will also submit the text of the final report on diskette.in WordPerfeet 6.1. Revised Historic Inventory. The City and the HRB will have reviewed the Historic Inventory in the process described in Task 4B. For this reason there will be one submittal of the final Historic Inventory Document. Dames & Moore will provide 60 bound copies of the final Historic Inventory Document. Dames & Moore will also provide one original hard copy of the historic inventory’ (DPR523) forms with original black and white, 35 mm print(s) (supplied by the volunteers) attached. The Consultant will also provide two unbound copies of the forms with photos of sufficient quality for reproduction. The forms will also be provided on diskette in WordPerfect 6.1. There will be one a:\scope4.dft 11 submittal of the DPR523 forms. The inventory forms will be prepared’ to meet the standards described by the OHP guidance (Instructions for Recording Historical Resources 1995). TASK 4A: INTENSIVE SURVEY The process of conducting the intensive survey will have several major components: Volunteer Training Sessions; Volunteer Intensive Survey work,with supervision and review by Dames and Moore including regular Progress Meetings; and Dames & Moore preparation of District Record(s) (DPR523 D) and the more complex portions, including resource evaluations, of the Primary Records (DPR523 A and B). Michael Corbett (Project Architectural Historian) will be responsible for the oversight of Task 4. He will be assisted, as required, by Denise Bradley (Project Landscape Historian). Ms. Bradley will also provide guidance for issues related to landscape resources. The primary goal of this task is to intensively survey as many of Palo Alto’s estimated 6,000 pre- 1948 properties as the budgetary and time constraints of the project will allow. It is understood that not all of these properties will be included in the Intensive Survey. The Methodology Report (Task 2A) will identify the resources that will be included in the Intensive Survey and present a work program and structure for conducting the Intensive Survey. Mr. Corbett, with the assistance of Ms. Bradley, will provide training for the volunteers; throughout the entire inventory process he will conduct regular meetings with the volunteer group leaders to monitor progress; he will review inventory forms and historic contexts prepped by the volunteers; he will prepare evaluations and significance statements for all historic properties; and he will prepare the information on any district record(s), and other information, as needed for more unusual, important or complex properties. Volunteers will be integrally involved in the Historic Inventory Update. The volunteers will, in fact, provide the majority of the time that is required in the Intensive Survey process. ".A key aspect to having a successful volunteer involvement is to identify the specific portions of the inventory that will be the domain of the volunteers. Dames & Moore will refine the role and’responsibilities of the ¯ volunteers in the Methodology Report (Task 2). The responsibilities of the volunteers will include the following: 1) The volunteers contribution to the process includes attending training session(s); 2) The volunteers will conduct the field survey for most of the individual resources and -will prepare the field forms associated with the field survey; 3) The volunteers will conduct most of the research related to individual resources and to historic context(s); a:\scope4.dft 12 4) The volunteers will prepare the portions of the Inventory form (DPR523), as outlined below in section 4.A.4.; and " 5) The volunteers will prepare many of the historic context statements related to specific architects/builders and others as specified in the Methodology Report (Task 2A). 4.A.1. Volunteer Training Sessions Dames & Moore’s Project Architectural Historian and Landscape Historian will conduct training sessions for the Intensive Survey volunteers. Specifics on the nature, number, and schedule of training sessions will be provided in the Methodology Report (Task 2A). Dames & Moore will conduct a maximum of six, half-day training sessions. The training session will cover the following topics: 1) Field Survey and preparing the Field Form; 2) Research and preparing the history of a property (for use in DPR523 A and B records); 3) Preparing the Draft California Historic Inventory Form (DPR523 A and B). The volunteer training sessions will be designed to provide the volunteers with knowledge needed to understand the tasks that will be the volunteer’s contribution in each portion of Intensive Survey (i.e. how to fill out field form, where to look for research materials, what portions and how to fill out the DPRI523 form). The Consultant will provide examples of the types of products that the volunteers will be preparing and will demonstrate their use. 4.A.2. Field Survey and Field Form .: Prior to conducting the volunteer training sessions, Dames & Moore will develop the field form format for the intensive survey. The volunteers will conduct the field survey and will fill out a field form. Michael Corbett ( Project Architectural Historian) will be available for review and consultation of the field survey through the regularly scheduled meetings (Task 4.A.5). He will be assisted as needed by Denise Bradley (Project Landscape Historian). 4.A.3. Research The training session for research will provide volunteers with information on the location of resources they axe most likely to use, list of references, and explanation of the purpose of the research related to the California Historic Inventory form (DPR523). The volunteers will conduct a:\scope4.dft 13 the research necessary to write the history of the property (when constructed, by whom, owners, etc. and to fill out the DPR523 form (see below). They will be conducting research in order to write the history of the property (when constructed, by whom, owners, etc.). They will also be conducting research in order to prepare many of the historic context statements for specific builders/architects. Approximately 80% of the total research will be performed by the volunteers, and Michael Corbett will perform approximately 20% of the research, doing the research required for Historic Districts and for the more unusual, important, or complex properties. 4.A.4. California Historic Inventory (DPR523) Forms and Historic Contexts The end result of the Intensive Survey will be to provide a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluation of eligibility of historic properties on California Historic Invento,ry (DPR523) forms. Dames & Moore will follow the guidelines and record format found in Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (OHP March 1995). A Primary Record (DPR523A) and Building, Structure, and Object Record (DPR523B) will be prepared for properties that are being evaluated as individual properties. When properties are part of a Historic District (that is they are contributors to the district), a District Record (DPR523D) will be prepared providing information on the district as a whole. Information on contributing elements in the district will be recorded on a Primary Record (DPR523A). Supplementary documentation such as Location Map (DPR523J), Sketch Map (DPR523K), and Continuation Sheet (DPR523L) will be prepared when appropriate. Michael Corbett (Project Architectural Historian), assisted as needed by Denise Bradley ( Project Landscape Historian), will review the Primary Record and Building, Structure, Object Record (DPR523A and B) prepared by the volunteers. The Consultant will assist the volunteers in developing a system that will provide internal review and consistency to the forms. The volunteers will review the forms for completeness prior to submitting them to Mr. Corbett for review. He will review the forms and make comments, as required. The Consultant’s review of the Inventory forms will be combined with a site visit to each property by Mr. Corbett or Ms. Bradley. The volunteers wili complete: All of the information required in the Primary Record (DPR523A). The following portions of the Building, Structure, and Object Record (DPR523B): Resource Name; B 1-Historic Name; B2- Common Name; B3-Original Use; a:\seope4.dfl 14 B4-Present Use; B6-construction History; B7-Moved; B8-Related Features; B 9-ArchitectfBuilder; B 12-References. Dames & Moore will prepare the following portions ~;f the Building, Structure, and Obj ect Record (DPR523 B): B5-Architectural Style; B10-Significance (this will include the NRHP eligibility evaluation); and B 14-Evaluator. Dames & Moore will prepare District Records (DPR523D) and other supplementary documentation that may be required for more unusual, important, or complex properties. The Methodology Report (Task 2) will outline the anticipated historic contexts and will designate those that will be prepared by the volunteers and those that will be prepared by Dames & Moore. Dames & Moore will review and make comments, as required, on the historic contexts prepared by the volunteers. Dames & Moore will prepare historic contexts related to district records (DPR523 D). 4.A.5. Meetings An essential element to the Intensive Survey effort is the role of PAHA and PAST. Dames & Moore assumes that the majority of the volunteers will be members of either one or both organizations. Dames & Moore also assumes that the leadership o~PAHA and PAST will play an integral role in the day-to-day organization and oversight of the volunteer effort. Dames & Moore assumes that PAHA and PAST will take the role of day-to-day coordination of the volunteers. In order to supp6rt the volunteers and to facilitate their role, Dames & Moore will meet with the designated volunteer coordinator or other leadership person(s) from each organization throughout the Intensive Survey process to: 1) monitor the progress of the Intensive Survey; and 2) answer questions and advise. The volunteer field work and research effort will occur in two phases: October 13 though.November 21, 1997; and January 12 through May 1, 1998. There are 22 weeks i,n the Intensive Survey process. Dames & Moore will meet with the volunteer leadership in regular meetings not to exceed 22 half-day meetings (approximately one per week). a:\scope4.dft 15 TASK 4B: PREPARATION OF REVISED HISTORIC INVENTORY AND FINAL REPORT The objective of this work element is to provide all of the information gathered in the Intensive Survey (Task 4A) into a Revised Historic Inventory and Final Report. Following the completion of the Intensive Survey (Task 4A), Dames & Moore will provide a recommended final evaluation of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility for all historic resources included in the intensive survey (Task 4A) on DPR523 forms. Dames & Moore will also provide a recommendation on the appropriate Palo Alto Historic Category designation for all historic resources included in the intensive survey. The City will provide appropriate public notice and public hearing. The HRB will approve, disapprove, or modify these Historic Inventory Category designations and send them to City Council for final action. Dames & Moore will attend the HRB and City Council meetings to present its Historic Inventory Category recommendations. Dames & Moore assumes that the City may request that this process for review and acceptance be done one district or group at a time. Dames & Moore assumes that there will be a total of no more than six meetings related to this aspect of the task. Following the completion of the Intensive Survey (Task 4A), Dames & Moore will prepare a final Report that summarizes the results of the survey. The format of the Report will be similar to the 1979 historic survey report, "Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto", prepared by Paula Boghosian and John Beach. The Final Report will include a description of the inventory process and methodology; a summary of historic contexts; and description of the findings (numbers of properties surveyed, historic districts, list of properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility, and list of properties for the various Palo Alto Historic Category Designations). Following the completion of the Intensive Survey (Task 4A), Dames & Moore will compile the Revised Historic Inventory. It will include all historic resources currently on the Historic Inventory and all additional historic resources from Task 4 in the appropriate Palo/~lto Historic Category designations as approved by City Council. TASK 4C: ORGANIZATION, PRESENTATION, AND STORAGE OF SURVEY DATA It is essential that the information that is gathered during this project be organized and stored in a manner that maintains its ong.oing usefulness to the citizens of Pato Alto. Dames & Moore will submit one original paper copy of the DPR523 form with black and white photograph. It is anticipated that this will include the Primary Record (DPR523A) and Building, Structure, and Object Record (DPR523B) forproperties that are individually eligible. A District Record (DPR523D) will be provided for historic districts. a:\seope4.dfl 16 Dames & Moore will establish a system for numbering, processing, and filing photographs so that they can be easily identified, correlated with inventory forms, and systematically filed and retrieved. Dames & Moore will advise the Palo Alto Main Library on the establishment of a hard data filing system for the original inventory forms (DPR523) and other survey materials in perpetuity for archival purposes. Dames & Moore assumes that the actual establishment of this system will be the responsibility of the Palo Alto Main Library. Dames & Moore will advise with the Palo Alto Main Library and the Planning Division on establishing a computer-based catalogue system for the storage and retrieval of survey information that meets the criteria listed as 4.a through 4.e on pages 11 and 12 of the RFP: a.Easy access to basic information for use by city staff and the general public;. bo Ability to combine and sort information for use by City staff in land-use, policy, and project planning; Co Comprehensive lists of, and information on, properties or types of properties for setting protection and enhancement priorities; do Information on what properties in the community have been surveyed and how comprehensive the survey is to date; eo Clear identification of the location of further information on each property in ¯ the hard data survey files. Dames & Moore assumes that the actual establishment of this system will be the responsibility Of the City. a:\scope4.dft 17 5.0. SCHEDULE Dames & Moore has based the following schedule on the assumption that we will receive the notice to proceed by August 11, 1997. TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT The project management task will continue throughout the duration of the project. TASK 2: ESTABLISHING AND ORGANIZING THE METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS FOR REVISING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND UPDATING THE HISTORIC INVENTORY Task 2A: Methodology " September 12, 1997 through October 10, 1997. Task 2B: Initial Survey August 1 I, 1997 through September 12, 1997.", Task 2C: Early Identification of Policy Is.sues September 15, 1997 through November 28, 1997. Task 2D: Public Participation September, 1997 through August, 1998. TASK 3: Revise the Historic Preservation Ordinance October 20, 1997 through April 6, 1998 TASK 4: Update the Historic Inventory Task 4A: Conduct Intensive Survey The fo. llowing schedule for Task 4A is dependent upon the acceptance of the final Intensive Survey Methodology (Task 2). " October 13, 1997 through May 1, 1997. a:\seope4.dft 18 .The volunteer effort will occur in two phases: October 13 though November 21, 1997; and January 12 through May 1, 1998. It is assumed that the volunteers will not be conducting any surveys between November 24, 1997 through January 9, 1998. Task 4B: Prepare Revised Historic Inventory and Final Report The following schedule for Task 4B is dependent upon the completion of the Historic Inventory update in Task 4A. May 4, 1998 through July 31, 1998. Task 4C: Organization, Presentation, and Storage of Survey Data The following schedule for Task 4C is dependent upon the completion of the Historic Inventory Update in Task 4A. May 4, 1998 through August.14, 1998. a:\scope4.dft 19 6.0. STAFFING The three key Dames & Moore team members include: Denise Bradley (Dames & Moore) - Project Manager and Landscape Historian; Michael Corbett (Dames & Moore) - Survey Director and Architectural Historian; Robert Bruce Anderson (Subconsultant to Dames & Moore) who will focus his efforts on Policy/Design and Historic Preservation Ordinance components of the project. At specific points in the project, these team members will utilize the special skills of selected specialists. These include Elena Nilsson (Dames & Moore) for issues related to archaeology; Corbin deRubertis (Dames & Moore) for issues related to computerized information management; and Waverly Lowell (Subconsultant to Dames & Moore) for archival issues. Denise Bradley - Project Manager and Project Landscape Historian Denise Bradley will be Dames & Moore’s project manager and landscape historian for this project. In her role as project manager, Ms. Bradley will have the responsibility for managing the budget and. schedule for the project; she will be the primary contact to the City; and she will review all aspects of the project and provide quality control. In her role as landscape historian, Ms. Bradley will assist Michael Corbett in the technical aspects of the project (Tasks 2, 3, and 4) and will focus on issues related to the landscape resources. Michael Corbett - Project Architectural Historian and Survey Director Michael Corbett will be Dames & Moore’s Project ixq’. chiteetural Historian for this project. In Task 2, he will be responsible for all aspects of the initial survey of historic properties and will prepare the methodology and participation in public workshops. In Task 3, he will provide review and input to Mr. Anderson as required. InTask 4, he will be oversee all aspects of the intensive survey (Task 4A); he will prepare the update of the Historic Inventory and Report (Task 4B); and he will provide advise and assistance to the City and Main Library (Task 4C). .. Robert Bruce Anderson - Policy/Design and Historic Preservation Ordinance Robert Bruce Anderson (Subconsultant to Dames & Moore) will address the Policy/Design. and Historic Preservation Ordinance issues of the project. He will participate in the reconnaissance survey (Task 2B). He will have the primary responsibility in Tasks 2C (Policy Issues) and Tasks 2D (Public Participation). He will prepare the "Survey Background Report", "Policy Issues Background Report", and "Memo on the Principle Elements of the Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance", for use in discussions with the City and other public groups. He will have the primary responsibility for Task 3 and will prepare the recommended revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. a:\seope4.dft 20 Corbin deRubertis - Information Management Specialist Corbin deRubertis (Dames & Moore’s Information Technology Group Manager) will provide advice in Task 4 related to the management of the survey and inventory information on the computer. Waverly Lowell - Archivist In Task 4C, Waverly Lowell (subconsultant to Dame~ & Moore) will provide advice to Dames & Moore and the Main Library related to archiving the information. Elena Nilsson - Archaeologist Elena Nilsson (Dames & Mbore Senior Archaeologist) will provide input and review, as required, to Mr. Anderson related to the inclusion of the archaeological resources in the revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Task 3). a:\scope4.dft 21 -EXHIBIT B: COSTS AND RATE SCHEDULE Willis Corroon Corporation of Wisconsin 330 East Kilbourn Ave,, Suite 1400 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Contact: Sally Ryan ~.~.., ~--..~ er-. ~..~,-08106/97 THIS CERTIFICA’r~ tS [SSL~ED AS A ~ER ~ ~NFOR~TIO~ ~LY AND C~Ff~RS ~ RI~TS UPON T~ CERTIFICATE HOLDER./HIS C~R~IF~ATE ~ES NOT AMEND, EXTE~ OR ~L~R ~HE ~E~GE AFFORDED BY ~E POLICIES B~LOW INSUREDDames & Moore 911 Wilshire Blvd, Suite Los Angeles, CA 90017 COMPANY LETTER COMPANY LE’I’I’I~R COMPANYLE’r~ER coUPAN~ COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE National Union Fire Ins, Co. of Pittsburgh, PA American Home (Canadian) American Home Assurance SHOWN MAv ~AVE SEEN REr~UC .ED BY PA~0 CLAIMS, CO TYP~ ~ INSURANCE POLICY NUMBERLTR: A R~L~43-8025 B ~ CWNER’S & CONTR~O~’S PR(~"~MG~A250-5379 A B 6ENF.FI~L LIABI’,.ITY [] COMMF.~GI~L Gr:Nr:RAL UABILI ,~. ~I CLAIMS MAgi AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ~ ANY AUTO []~,’~Eb AUTOS ~NON-OWNED ~UTOS [~~TATUTC3RY NO-PAUL" WORKER’S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS’ LfABILITY A A C RMCA 143-901 ! AUTOMOBtLE PHYSICAL DAMAGE CERTIFICATE HOLDER .City of Paid Alto Purchasing & Contract Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue PaloAIto, CA 94301 Attn: Mr. Fernando Velez, Contractmanager RIV1CA 143,.9014 ~’XI RME, A376-9224 ICANADI~NI R,’vIC ~, 143-9o 11 RMCA143-9014 l 1 fl/97 1/1 !97 1/1/97 111/97 i/1/98 1/I19B ",/lf98 I I1/98 ALL LIM~, IN TMOUSAN~ GF.NERA,, AGGREG,tT=-(el 1,000 PRO3~T~COMP,OPS~qE~E ($) 1,000 PER~O~L & ADv~qTBING I~U~(S) ~,000 EACH LOSS (S) 1,000 ’ WATER& RREtEG~ JXglll~(~) 1,o00 S:N~E LIM,T (5) 1.O00 ~ROPERTY ($i ~00 D~0uOT~BLECOMPREHENSIVE CERTIFICATE PROOUCER AWillis COrreen Corporation ol= Wisconsin 330 East Kilbourn Ave., Suite 1400 Milwaukee. Wisconsin 53202 Contact Sally Ryan INSURED .Dames & Moore 911 Wilshire B~vd., Suite 70(3 Los Angeles, CA 90017 OF INSURANCE ,S UEO,TE M. 08/06/97 [14;S CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MA]-FER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND C(JNFERS " NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE NOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. POLICY EFFECTIVEPOLICY NUMBER DATE (MM/DD,’YY~ 819-,4764 7/1/9-/PROFESSIONAL ERRORS AND OMISSIONS A CO TYPE OF INSURANCELTR MAY HAVE ~J~EN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. POLICY EXPIRATION ALL I.IMIT~ 7/1198 $1,OO0.O0O EACH LOSS $1.000.000 ANNUAL AGGREGATE DESCRIP’~ION OF OPERATIONS I I.DCATIDN I V~H ICL~IIR~IrRI~ONS /" SPECIAL ~EMS ,, ’ .Dames & Moore ~tees to indemnify and hold ha~l~ Ci~ of Paid ~to fr0~ and against Io~ da~ge end e~ negligent a~ or om~sion of.Dames & Moore and subconsultant Bruce Andemon or its ~sonn~ du~ng ~o~a~e of its ~c=. This ~dors~ent shall ~ appli~ble ~ly up ~o the limit of ~i~ s~ifi~ in th~ ~f~te of ~e, Th~ insumn~ d~ ~t i~ude t~ ~bligahon ~ de~end the ~edificate ~l~er in any case ~ ~]¢h any claim is ~de by ,any third ~ny f~ ~9~ enoomemen~, Ci~ of Paid Alto SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DE~RIBED ~LICIES BE ~NC~LED BEFOR~ Purchasing & Contract Administration THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE iSSUING C~P~Y WI~ ENDEAVOR TO MA}~ 30 DAYS W"I~TEN ,OTICE TO THE CERTIFI~T~ HOLDER N~EO ~ ~JJ~ ~TO THE LEn, BUT FAILURE TO ~IL SUCH NOTICE BHA~L IM~E NOPaid Alto, ~ ~U1 OBLIGATION OR LIABILI~ OF ANY ~%ND UPON THE COMPANY ITS AGE.SA~n: Mr. Fernando Velez, Contra~t manager OR REPRESENTATIVES,’ COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY TH,AT THE POLICIES OP ~NSURANGE LISTF,3 BELOW H~.V~. BE~N ISSUED TO THE INSI~RED NAMED A~OV~-- FOR THE POLICY PERIOD ND CATE.D, NOT wrrHSTANDING/uNY REQUIREMENT, TERM OH COND:r]ON OF ANY CONTRACT O~ OTHFR DOCUMENT W’TH RESVECT "~G WHICH THI,~ CERT~F|CATE MAY I~F_. PI~RT~N, T)’I~ INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES DE..~CRIF-~D HERE~N 13 SUPMECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ,~LICItl POLICIES, uMrrs" SHOWN COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co.COMPANY LETTER A COMPANY LETTER EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES ~ELOW CERTIFICATION of NONDISCRIMINATION SECTION 410 PROJECT TITLE:REVISE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND UPDATE HISTORIC INVENTORY Certification of Nondiscrimination: As suppliers of goods or services to the City of Palo Alto, the firm and individuals listed below certifies that they do not discriminate in employment with regards to age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sexual preference; that they are in compliance with all Federal, State and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in employment; and that they agree to demonstrate positively and aggressively the principle of equal opportunity in employment. The Bidder agrees specifically: 1.0 To establish or observe employment policies which affirmatively promote opportunities for minority persons at all job levels. 2.0 To communicate this policy to all persons concerned, including all employees, .outside recruiting services, especially those serving minority communities, and to the minority communities at large. 3.0 To take affirmative action steps to hire minority employees within the organization. 4.0 To be knowledgeable of the local, state, and federal laws and regulations concerning affirmative action policies and provide opportunities for employees. Firm: Dames & Moore ,DATE; May 13, 1997 Title of Officer ~igning: Principal // . Please include any additional information available regarding equal,opportunityemployment programs now in effect within your company. Please see attached information: Equal Employment Opportunity & Affirmative Action Policy Statement, 1997 Company-Wide Affrimative Action Program,, 1997 (Pleasea~achadditionalpagesifnecessa~) END OF SECTION CITY of PALO ALTO: Non-discrimination RFP # 96666 SECTION41~l EXHIBIT D =EXHIBIT E: ADDITIONAL SERVICES The Consultant shall perform the following additional services if so requested in writing by the City’ s Proj ect Manager: Attend additional meetings to accommodated,participation of the public in the project. Duplication of additional copies of Deliverables for distribution to the public. Provide other additional professional services beyond those described in the Scope of Work that the City’s Project Manager determines are required .to successfully complete the project. a:\scope4.dft 23 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4381 IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH CHAPTER 16.50 OF THE PALO ALTO. MUNICIPAL CODE ( INTERIM HISTORIC REGULATIONS ) SHALL BE IN EFFECT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. Legislative Findings. declares as follows: The Council finds and A. To further the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures, districts, and neighborhoods of historical and architectural significance within the City of Palo Alto, Council on October 28, 1996, adopted Ordinance No. 4381, adding Chapter 16.50 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Chapter 16.50 contains interim regulations governing historic designation and demolition of residential structures built before 1940, and review of the design quality and neighborhood compatibility of replacement structures ("Inter~im Historic Regulations"). Chapter 16.50 was subsequently amended on April 22, 1997, by Ordinance No. 4411, and on May 5, 1997, by Ordinance No. 4414. Ordinance No. 4381 provided that it would be effective until November~ 30, 1997 unless sooner repealed. Ordinances 4411 and 4414 provided by their terms that they would be effective until .the last day Ordinance No. 4381 is in effect. B. Council intended the-Interim Historic Regulations to remain in effect until the process of development of new regula- tions could be completed. That process is now projected to be completed on or before May 31, 1998. C. In order to ensure the continuation of an appropriate review process for projects involving potent,~ial ly historic residences while the historic inventory and regulations are reviewed and updated, it is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare that the Interim Historic Regulations (Chapter 16 °50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) remain in effect until May 31, 1998. SECTION 2. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 4381 is hereby amended to read as follows: "This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption and shall remain-in effect until the earlier of its repeal or May 31, 1998." SECTION 3. The City .Council has determined that it can be seen with certainty .that there is no possibility that this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment because the construction and reconstruction of single family homes on lots of record is itself an exempt activity. 970731 la¢ 0080553 1 SECTION 4. commencement of adoption. INTRODUCED : PASSED : AYES : NOES : ABSTENTIONS : ABSENT: ATTEST: This ordinance shall become effective upon the the thirty-first day after the date of its APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior ASSt. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and ~ Community Environment 970731 lae 0080553 ATTACHMENT 3 Upon completion of this Adjourned Meeting, the City Council will reconvene to the Adjourned City Council Meeting of March 26, 1997, regarding the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. Present:Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider; Wheeler D N 17.Minor Modifications to the Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation, Demolition, and Alteration of Residen- tial Structures Built Before 1940 and Status Report on Interim Historic Program Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said several questions and concerns had been raised during the public testimony of the previous evening and staff would be responding to them. Staff agreed with several speakers that an expanded and inclusive public process needed to be undertaken in order to arrive at permanent historic regulations. First, opportunity for outreach through an advisory group made up of all stakeholders was included in the Draft Scope of Services for the Request for Proposals (RFP) for permanent regulations, Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:194:97) o Task I.D. required the consultant to provide a process proposal that would be interactive with the community. The Council might want to expand on that section ..of the Scope of Services based on testimony received the previous evening. Second, staff agreed there was a need for additional education and training of all parties involved to eliminate confusion regarding the Interim Regulations. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) had made a recommendation on page 2 of the staff report that staff sponsor educational seminars and provide more educational handouts. In upcoming months, additional educational handouts were budgeted for in the budget proposals included in the staff report. There were four areas which had been repeatedly misstated the previous evening that staff wanted to correct: i) Statements were made regarding the HRB role in design review for contributing structures and compati- bility. The HRB:did not participate in Design Review for Contrib- uting Structures according to Compatibility Review Standards. It was a staff function .under the Interim Regulations. 2) Statements were made regarding the Compatibility Review Standards not allowing for temporary or creative architecture. The Compatibility Review Standards did not dictate architectural style, nor did they require traditional architectural styles. The Compatibility Review o4/os/97 Adjourned Meeting of April 7, 1997, to April 8, 1997 17.Minor Modifications to the Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation, Demolition, and Alteration of Residen- tial Structures Built Before 1940 and Status Report on Interim Historic Program ................... 83-2 18.Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation 83-25 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m .......83-25 04/08/97 83- Council Member F~zzino queried the 1940 versus 1947 issue which emerged in the middle of the staff report (CMR:194:97). The Council had made a clear decision to use 1940 as the threshold date, and he had not seen an explanation for the selection of 1947. Additional properties might be.added to the inventory as a result of using the 1947 date. Senior Planner Virginia, Warheit said in preparing the RFP, staff had gone to the HRB with the question of which buildings would be surveyed, both geographically and time-wise. The HRB discussed the range of options, e.g., stopping at 1940, going to 1945, going to 50 years, etc. The HRB had raised a concern that while there were consultants in town, perhaps information should be obtained on buildings that were not yet 50 years old but had merit and soon would be 50 years old. The HRB’s recommendation was that every- thing 50 years old or older should be surveyed. The rationale was that 50 years was the threshold at the national-level for possible historic designation. Council Member Fazzino clarified that the 1947 date was only for purposes of the inventory and not the effective date of the Interim Regulations. He asked what the practical effect would be if all of Professorville were made a Contributing Historic District with Landmark structures as opposed to the approach the HRB had recommended, which was a Landmark District. Ms. Judy said the practical effect would be that potentially 90 percent of the structures in Professorville would be eligible for demolition. Ms. Lytle clarified that the effect would be a result under the Interim Regulations. The permanent regulations were still on the books, so an opportunity would still exist for the HRB to make a recommendation on a demolition permit. On a case-by-case basis, Council would receive those individual demolitions as it had prior to the adoption of the Interim Regulations. The HRB could recommend up to a one-year moratorium. Council Member Fazzino assumed the HRB would have the opportunity to declare any particular site or building in the Professorville Landmark if it chose to do so. Ms. Willis envisioned the HRB would frequently ask Council for a one-year moratorium. Being on the cusp of the new ordinance made it a strange time.~ In a year, after several community meetings, a consensus would be reached on Professorville0 To not use the opportunity to preserve it did not make sense° 04/08/97 83-9 Council Member Fazzino was interested in preserving Professorville but wanted to understand the practical effects of having different designations. Ms. Willis believed that every time a demolition request was received in Professorville, the HRB would go to Council to make an individual case for a one-year moratorium. She believed the survey was flawed and referred to Michae~ Campbell’s breakdown of the categories of buildings in Professorville. The inventory was inadequate, and many buildings were not mentioned in Professorville that were Landmark buildings. She believed almost any house in Professorville that came up for demolition would be brought by HRB to Council for a moratorium ~request. Council Member Schneider said a recurring theme from the public testimony of the previous evening surrounded personal property rights and asked staff to address the issue. Mr. Schreiber said any time a local jurisdiction proposed new la~d use designations, one of the resultant policy issues was the extent to which government should regulate and/or intrude on personal property rights. Palo Alto had a long history of having a philosophical position that the City should not have a notable regulatory role in the design of single-family houses. Currently, for some of the pre-1940 houses, the City was performing the design review and design regulation role, which inherently raised the issue of property rights. Depending upon the perspective, it was or was not an acceptable trade-off. Property rights would continue to be a fundamental issue throughout the discussion of the permanent regulations for the Council. City involvement meant delay. Regulating single-family residential was very different from regulating commercial and industrial. The ~applicant had a far greater emotional attachment to the project’s outcome. People had a difficult time arriving at decisions which led to greater indecision, and the City.was often blamed because of the indeci- sion. Regulating single-family design review was a difficult area in a city as varied and eclectic as Palo Alto. Council Member Schneider asked whether other cities in California had similar regulations and how they handled personal property issues. Ms. Lytle said a range of responses had been received from those who were very invasive of private property rights and those who took a more hands-on approach. oa/os/~v Council Member Schneider anticipated any lawsuits permanent regulations. asked the City Attorney whether he if Council were to proceed with the Mr. Calonne said generally speaking, the issue would come down to how much certainty was in the standards versus how much discretion was vested in some board or staff member. The more discretion the Council vested in some board or staff member for the search for illusive flexibility, the Council’ would open itself to more challenges because the exercise of that discretion by the decision maker took reasoning, evidence, and work to support. The easiest kind of ordinance and the one least likely to lead to successful legal challenges was one which had very clear standards of what could and could not be done. Whether that passed the test for the flexibility that the Council needed to have to not interfere with personal values was the policy issue. The more discretion vested into whoever made the decision regarding design review, the more money would be spent in administering the system. Council Member Rosenbaum was surprised by the result of the Historic Merit Evaluation. Twenty years before, an initial screening had been done in which 400 homes were determined to fit into Categories I through IV. With one exception, the homes currently coming up for evaluation were not any of the 400 homes. After the initial screening took place, he believed not too many homes could be left. However, the reality was although 73 percent of the homes were designated as contributing, the staff had actually recommended four more that the HRB said were without merit. The total result was that 83 percent of the homes that had been brought to the Council after the initial screening 20 years prior were currently considered to have some historic significance. Clearly, there had been change, and he asked staff to explain the change in emphasis. Ms. Judy said what had changed in preservation outlook nationwide had been the growing recognition of the importance of early 20th Century residential neighborhoods, the good citizenship of the residences constructed from 1900 to sometime in the mid-1930s. Preservation had advanced, and the early 20th Century neighborhoods had come into focus as being of enduring value. The outlook in 1979 when the initial survey had been done was toward turn-of-the- century dwellings and architectural magnificence, which was a narrower scope. Currently, there was an increasing willingness to recognize and acknowledge the extent to which vernacular struc- tures, or structures which were more ordinary, were compatible and added to the enjoyment of the environment. Those key philosophical changes which had occurred in the preservation outlook over the last 20 years had been invested in the interim historic program in the form of the standards for historic designation. For example, a contributing residence was defined as a structure which was not exceptional but contributed to the period quality of the neighbor- hood. Mr. Schreiber said Ms. Judy presented an excellent summary of the differences. Having been in the City in 1979, he characterized that a house ended up on the inventory when a person saw a house that looked interesting but did not look at the overall fabric and the relationship between the exemplary houses of the neighborhood and the other houses in the area to determine how it became a visual fabric that had preservation value. Ms. Willis said the survey which had been done in 1979 was a very casual, ~windshield" survey. The results were incredible for the manner in which it was conducted. She had owned three houses in Palo Alto, which were not on the inventory, were built before 1910, and were historic. They had not been picked up on the original inventory. Older parts of Palo Alto were littered with such houses. The inventory was in dire need of upgrading. Mr. Calonne said Council Member Rosenbaum’s question addressed one of the policy issues that was framed with the definition of landmark structures. The revised language in the Ordinance in the Council packet was a clarification of how the ordinance was currently being read. The ~section referred to groupings of properties. If the Council chose not to approve the revised language in the ordinance, discussion would need to take place regarding whether that would be taken as an affirmative direction to change course on the grouping issue. Council Member Rosenbaum asked what the characteristics were of those houses which were not regarded as contributing or whether it was simply that every pre-1940 house should be regarded as contributing. Ms. Judy said there was a range of findings regarding some of the houses that were identified by the tax assessor as being pre-1940o The most common occurrence was that some of the houses had been buried in modern~alterations so that the original historic version of the house was not recognizable. There might literally be no historic fabric left, eog., not a single historic window, not a single historic piece of wood on the exterior. Many alterations had affected the character of the house. Through the 50-year lens, during any period of construction, there were structures of modest ambition that were not worth taking the time to consider as part of the historic inventory. within Palo Alto. Occasionally, those structures were found Ms. Lytie said that those structures, however, represented nearly one quarter of the stock being reviewed and was not a small percentage. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether, with the exception of the one case cited, every pre-1940 house which had not been modernized would be regarded by staff as contributing. Ms. Judy said no. Staff had found intact, unaltered, pre-1940 dwellings which were not regarded as contributing and would not be considered historic in the Palo Alto context. There was a certain level of finish and architectural ambition that characterized early 20th Century neighborhoods, in Palo Alto. Many of the structures encountered simply.did not measure up. Council Member Rosenbaum asked, if the Council were interested in being more strict as to what it designated as historic and wanted to have choices in connection with permanent regulations regarding the RFP and the work of the consultant, how the Council would go about accomplishing that. Mr. Schreiber said the Council would need to provide direction to staff in terms of the RFP that was part of the actions before Council that evening if the effort were to identify a greater range of roles for the City, especially on the less intrusive side. Ms. Willis said the HRB had tried to reflect what it believed tobe the Council’s intent. When a building came before the HRB that it did not consider a landmark that was either contributing or not contributing, there was no preservation opportunity for the HRB. The HRB looked at the structure from what it beiieved was the Council’s and the neighbors’ eyes and asked whether the community would expect it to be designated as a contributing structure, whether it was something if it were demolished that should be replaced with a compatible structure, or whether it was something that did not add to the community. The HRB had made a strong, concerted effort to respond to what it believed was the Council’s intent, rather~than from any one individual or personal perspec- tive. Mr. Calonne said the RFP in Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:194:97) had two points to which he believed the Council needed to direct changes. The first was on page 4, paragraph C, and the second was on pages 7 and 8 which described the actual process of updating the historic inventory and resources to be surveyed. There was a reference to using the National Register resource classifications. He assumed that the 1997 approach versus the 1979 approach flowed outof those documents. He asked staff to identify the documents Council needed to modify if it wanted to do something different from the description. Council Member Rosenbaum said the,paragraph on page 5, l.a.2, Established Criteria for Evaluation of Significance, suggested there were decisions to be made by the policy body as to what it wanted to regard as ~significant." Those decisions were not as closed as he believed staff or Ms. Willis had described. The proposed change in landmark definition contained in Exhibit B on page 2 stated, ~A property maY be designated a landmark when it is one of a distinctive contiguous assembly of historically signifi- cant structures with a unified architectural theme or setting that creates a significant and distinguishable entity." He did not believe that was what the City Attorney had in mind when it spoke of distinct contiguous assembly. Ms. Willis had spoken of Professorville as an area where the change in definition might be useful; however, currently everything in Professorville was being considered a Landmark. He asked for specific examples in which the proposed change might be useful. Ms. Willis said Professorville had been used as a frame of reference. The i000 block of Forest. Avenue wouid be an ’example and had been previously proposed to be designated as a historic district. During the Interim Regulations, the HRB designated a large farmhouse with a wrapped veranda at 1005 Forest as a landmark structure. Two early Victorians on Forest Avenue built around 1894 were also designated. Even though some had been seriously altered and might not hold up as a Landmark structure, their strong context of surrounding buildings would give them the landmark designation. The two Lucie Stern homes on the~lg00 block of Cowper Street were another example. The home built for Lucie Stern’s daughter might not be a landmark in its own right; however, in connection with the mother house next door, it would be considered a landmark struc- ture. Because the home was part of a larger grouping, it might be preserved for its strong historical significance to the community. Two houses on Webster Street, one of which ~had recently been remodeled, were twin houses built in 1893. The two houses as a unlit were stronger than either would have been alone. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that in some cases, the individual house might only be regarded as a Contributing struc- ture. 04/08/97 83-14 Ms. Willis explained that when looking atthe house from across the street, it would become apparent it was a landmark structure; however, when viewed from the front door, the significance might not be so obvious. Council Member Rosenbaum said to the extent the homes were individually owned by someone who had a structure that was clearly not a landmark, the owner could suddenly be in the position of owning a landmark. ’ Ms. Willis said there would have to be a strong historic signifi- cance to the building; it would still have to have its own strength. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified from an earlier discussion that if Professorville were distinguished from the rest of the community by saying every house in Professorville was at least a contributing structure and that anyone wanting to do anything to the house would have to submit it for a Historic Merit Evaluation and if the HRB and staff decided the house was a landmark, it would be a landmark. However, if the HRB and staff decided the house was a contributing structure, then it could be demolished and would come under the ordinance related to a one-year demolition moratorium. Mr. Schreiber said the short answer was yes. The previous regulations were still in effect.. The Interim Regulations had superseded those regulations in most situations. However, if Council Member Rosenbaum’s scenario became the way the regulations were set up, unless the existing regulations were changed, review by the HRB would be required of any demolition permit, and the HRB could initiate an automatic deferral of a permit for up to 60 days. The HRB would then have an opportunity to make a recommendation to the Council for a longer moratorium of 12 months. Council Member Rosenbaum queried the schedule for revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance which targeted November 1997 for Council approval, the first anniversary of adoption of the Interim Regulations. He believed that was a remote possibility. Mr. Schreiber said the time line for adoption of the permanent regulations by November included selection of a consultant in June, appointment of a citizens’ committee by Council, and a policy discussion of all the different issues related to the new ordinance before the council by September. At that time, enough agreement and community buy-in should be reached so that Council would be comfortable in directing staff, the consultant, and the HRB as to what should be included in the ordinance. Staff and the consultant would prepare the ordinance and return to Council in November. Another scenario was that the expectation for community involvement and the level of disagreement over a variety of issues would result in the process taking longer. The hope was to structure a longer process so that it would not take. Council Member McCown owned a home which was built before 1940. She asked, if she came to the City .to request tearing ’it down to rebuild it, whether she could stipulate that the home was at least a contributing structure and ask the City to evaluate whether it was or was not a landmark in order to speed up the process. Eighty percent of the people who had gone through the process had been told at the end that in order to replace the structure, they needed to go through design review, or if less than a certain level of improvements were made, then they did not. Ms. Lytle said the reason staff could not just release someone to a design process according to the Compatibility Review Standards was that four percent of those people had actually discovered that their homes were landmarks. Council Member McCown asked whether the evaluation process could be targeted so that if that were the only issue someone faced, there was a way to fast-track the review so they could find out the only remaining question of whether the home-was or was not a landmark. Ms. Judy described the investigation process that identified landmarks among the three categories. The first step in reviewing any property was the same in all situations whether the structure had no historic merit, was Contributing, or was a Landmark. Each decision was based on a tier, with no historic merit at the bottom tier. Council Member McCown clarified that in her example she stipulated the home wasnot a no merit case andwas willing to be subjected to design review. She wanted to jump to the end, critical decision. Ms. Judy said determining whether a structure was a landmark was the last step in the evaluation process. Council Member McCown asked whether there was a way to reverse the process so that people could find out whether their home was or was not a landmark in a shorter time frame because they were perfectly willing to accept all the responsibilities of being a contributing structure. She questioned the five-week process for people, the outcome of which 73 percent resulted in being subjected to design review, when the hinge point was whether it was a landmark or not. She queried how to make that the core focus of the HRB process, i.e., anyone in the vast horde of contributing structures would get a quick determination. Ms. Judy said the methodology for flushing out landmark structures took the greatest amount of time and was not known until the end of the process was reached. Council Member McCown challenged staff to think about a way to reverse the process. The skill of the HRB was to determine whether the structure was a landmark. Many people in the community would accept that their homes were contributing structures and would not need a lot of process to figure it out. The issue was how to help people get t~ that point faster. Ms. Willis believed most people who had landmark properties had some suspicion that their home might be a landmark property. Given that, most people had an idea where they were going to land in the process. If people were willing to accept the Compatibility Review Standards and had contributing structures, the process did not slow them down, and they could continue with the design process. Going through the Compatibility Review did not really affect anyone who was willing to accept that they would meet the Compatibility Review Standards° She believed when architects in the community were familiar with the Compatibility Review Standards, they would realize that 90 percent of what was built in town actually did meet them° Council Member McCown said the staff report suggested that the Merit Screening process was taking five weeks. The question was if an owner already knew he/she wanted to work with the Compatibility Review Standards, why he/she needed to go through a five-week process of historic screening. Mr. Calonne said the original ordinance called for an opportunity tO notice and hold a hearing on the staff level screening. The staff screening decision was the one that said there was no possibility that the structure might have historic merit, and the Council had also limited who could appeal that decision, i.e., the property owner and people within 300 feet. The idea was to prevent a harassment sort of delaying tactic being perpetrated against the homeowner. The staff proposal which was in the ordinance was to eliminate the notice in advance of the hearing but to notify surroundin~ neighbors after the decision, who could then appeal. What he heard Ms. Judy describe was the hope that that would reduce the process from five weeks to two weeks. The notice and hearing requirement took time~ and staff was trying to fix that. Council Member McCown recognized that would help. As everyone was probing to reaffirm or redefinewhat the policy was and where to best use staff and community resources, when someone went through~ the process, she asked how those people who were cooperative and in the process could be helped to move forward with fewer bureaucratic steps. Ms. Lytle said contributing structures might be treated in the same manner as those without merit. A decision could be made that a contributing designation could be made a staff-level decision and allow the appeal to be noticed. The only thing that would be agendized for a public hearing would be the landmark designations. Council Member Kniss queried what would happen if someone wanted his/her house to be a contributing structure and a determination was made that the house was not. Ms.Lytle said the property owner would have the right to appeal the decision to the HRB and eventually to the Council. Council Member Eakins asked whether someone could hire his/her own preservation architect to determine landmark status or not. Ms. Judy said when people applied for Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation, they were asked to tell what they knew about the background of the house. An individual who provided complete information and documentation to support a landmark nomination would get a jump on the process. Council Member Wheeler said the discussion that evening had been a healthy, educational process, as had the entire process, and the Council had been on a steep learning curve. There had been a great community outcry last fall that brought the Council to the point of enacting an urgency moratorium and then Interim~Regulations. The question Council was reflecting on that evening was whether the Interim Regulations accomplished what was intended. She believed the answer was yes. The Council was trying to do two things with the ordinance: i) increase the efforts toward historic preservation and 2) in response to community anguish, preserve neighborhood character. There was a great deal of public recognition last fall that many houses~might continue to be demolished. The Council was asked to put regulations in place so that in the event those houses came down, replacements would be compatible with the neighborhoods. Looking at the statistics in light of that request from the citizens of Palo Alto and the Council’s response to that request, there had been a recognition that the vast majority of the houses might be replaced; but in doing so, an attempt would be made to keep the replacement house compatible with its neighborhood. The process had worked out to be very responsive to the Council’s intent. Given the newness of the process, the speed with which staff was asked to come up with regulations, the tremendous learning curve for staff, the HRB, and the citizens, a remarkable record had been established. Seventy reviews had taken place with only one appeal. One objective was to slow down the demolitions, and only four replacement structures had been applied for.- Education was a crucial piece, not’only moving forward with the Interim Regulations but also with formulating the permanent regulations. The Interim Regulations were not perfect nor were they ever expected to be. She moved the staff recommendation with the minor modifications that staff and the HRB suggested at that point and said efforts should be concentrated on changing the valid concerns the Council had heard from people as the design of the permanent regulations went forward. MOTXON: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: Adopt the Ordinance making minor modifications to the Interim Regulations. o Adopt the Resolution containing modifications to the Compati- bility Review Standards and Standards for Historic Designa- tion. o Approve the Draft Scope of Services to accompany the Request for Proposals for contract services necessary to perform an update of the permanent Historic Protection Ordinance and Historic Resource Inventory and direc~ staff to proceed with the Request for Proposal and consultant selection process without following the normal process required by Policy and Procedure I-i0 for review of consultant scope of services by Council Committee. Direct staff to return with an additional budget request, in a form satisfactory to the City Manager, to fund the Interim Historic Program $16,000 beyond the original cost estimates and~budget amendment in FY 1996-97; to include in the upcoming budget additional contract costs estimated at $135~000 ($i0,000 beyond the original estimates in CMR:488:96), necessary to implement the Interim Historic Program in 1997- 98; and to return with a budget amendment to cover costs necessary to proceed with the permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Inventory, estimated at $222,000, $80,000 over the original estimate in the Planning Division 04/08/97 83-19 Work Program. Of the original estimate, $47,000 is already in the Planning Division budget for 1996-97 and $95,000 was estimated in the Planning Division Work Program to be budgeted for 1997-98. Further, on page 4 of the Request For Proposal, add to the Public Participation Process that the consultant would conduct two community workshops for qhe general community and one specialized workshop for real estate professionals and one specialized workshop for design architectural professionals. Resolution 7660 entitled ~Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Historic Preservation Regulations Including Compatibility Review Standards, Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences, and Standards for Historic Designation" Ordinance ist Reading entitled ~Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 by Adding a New Section 16.50.065 and Amending Sections 16.50.020, 16.50.080, and 16.50.120" Vice Mayor Andersen clarified there would be a total of four workshops: two community workshops,, one real estate workshop, and one design professional workshop. Council Member Wheeler said that was correct and in addition to anything already specified in the document. Vice Mayor Andersen was impressed by staff’s work and efforts with an extraordinarily difficult and challenging item which had not been included in any long-termplanning processes. The data spoke well for the quality of the work. He concurred with a letter from Geoffrey C. Etnire (on file in the City Clerk’s office) which stated, ~The challenge to the Council is more to preserve neighbor- hoods than particular houses." He expressed concern for the speculators who found the process inconvenient and sought areas where the 1940 regulations did not apply, which had resulted in shifting the onerous-type development into South Palo Alto. He encouraged those property owners with a strong desire to simply fight the system because of not wanting private property rights affected. There was a neighborhood, not just a house, in the area to keep in mind. He supported the staff recommendations. 04/08/97 83-20 Council Member Kniss wanted to stay mindful of the timing issues discussed that evening. The cost issues associated with the current real estate market were unusual and exacerbated a number of issues. Good, solid reasons needed to be given when a structure was classified. She queried when the item would be returned to the Council for discussion of the permanent regulations. Mr. $chreiber anticipated that some time after Labor Day, the Council would engage in an in-depth discussion of issues related to the new ordinance with opportunity for public involvement. However, the additional condition for community workshops could delay the timing. Staff would need to decide where the workshops fit best into the process. The chance of actually having an ordinance in place by the end of November became less of a reality. Council Member Schneider was uncomfortable with what Council had done. Clearly, major historic homes had been demolished, and poorly constructed larger homes had replaced them in the neighbor- hoods. Council had been ~under the gun" and then faced with a lawsuit. She believed what the Council had done was not what it had intended to do. Certainly, historic preservation was desir- able; however, a distinction needed to be made between what was historic and what was just old. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the action. On page 13 of the staff ~eport (CMR:194:97), Proposed Modification to the Standards for Historic Designation, the HRB had requested the following additional wording, ~A Property may be designated a landmark when it is one of a distinctive contiguous assembly. 0~." If he had the time to look at specific examples that were mentioned by staff and Ms. Willis, he might be more comfortable about th~ opportunity to designate more landmarks. He would not like the Interim Regula- tions changed at that time. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved to delete the Modifica- tion to the Standards for Historic Designation as seen on page 13 of the staff report (CMR:194:97). AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Rosenbaum believed moving the date up to 1948 for the purposes of the Historic Inventory would create the possibility of doing a historic inventory On early tract housing. Significant issues would be involved when houses started appearing in tracts in which the majority of the houses had nothing to do with the Compatibility Review Standards. Neighborhood compatibility would become a difficult issue which needed to be addressed. 04/08/9v 83-21 AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved to change the date to 1940 for purposes of the Historic Inventory as stated in the RFP, Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:194:97). AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Eakins supported th~ motion and the inclusion of additional workshops. She complimented staff on the complete, well-organized staff report. She suggested a need for economic forecasting in the future in order to predict what likely effects would be encountered in the community which could be followed through by City departments. The economic boom was on its way, but no one thought about its effects. Council Member Fazzino said the process had been a grand experiment in historic preservation. He emphasized that he was pleased with the HRB, the staff, and the applicants who hadfairly balanced the need for historic preservation and the preservation of the community’s character with protection of individual property rights. He was impressed by the analysis of individual applica- tions which he saw as the basis of the updated inventory. The process had been successful because it had protected truly historic homes in the community. However, he had concerns about the number of applications that the HRB was forced to deal with, the require- ment for public hearings for each .application, the amount of time it took to make decisionS, and some evidence of inflexibility. He recognized that the HRB and staff, through their recommendations, were trying to address those issues. In order to preserve support for the program, he believed it was critical to streamline the decision-making process by moving many more decisions to staff ~nd to focus on homes that were truly historic. Decisions needed to be made based on clear criteria. He agreed with Council Member Kniss who said declaring a home to be a landmark simply because it evoked a sense of romance Was simply not enough. As someone who was truly committed to the concept of historic preservation, he was concerned that the bureaucratic inflexibility, extended time lines, and lack of clear criteria would lead to diminished community support for the program. If the great experiment were to be successful, maintaining strong community support was essential. He was willing to support the staff recommendations at that time since the whole issue would be returned to the Council in the fall. Council Member McCown thought it was important to remain focused on the core goals of the program which were: i) the need to update and modernize historic preservation efforts, and 2) concern about neighborhood compatibility of new structures. New structures would need to be an important focus in the development of permanent processes. The educational element and talking with the community about where the City was headed and what the goals were would be important. There were excellent resources in the community through the HRB, through the staff, and additional staff, but how to focus the resources was key. Spreading historic designations across properties that were marginal tended to weaken historic preserva- tion rather than strengthen it. Philosophically, keeping the goals in mind would be important in using the interim rules and in developing the permanent rules. Mayor Huber said he would support the motion. He believed the Council had to act quickly and in a draconian manner to protect many of the City’s treasures that were being lost. Council had heard many people speak to particular issues and concerns that would be addressed by the Council and staff when formulating the final rules, regulations, and ordinance. He concurred with Council Members Fazzino and McCown and particulerly emphasized the need for speed that would move the processes along for those who truly wished to cooperate with the historical preservation the City was seeking. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss and Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to direct staff to return with an ordinance revision to exempt a house from compatibility requirements under the following conditions: I) the house is a contributing structure; 2) reconstruction necessi- tated by a natural disaster which occurred prior.to the demolition moratorium; and 3) the immediate neighborhood contains many examples of existing homes that do not satisfy the compatibility requirements. Council Member Rosenbaum believed there was a special circumstance associated with the fire and insurance issue in the case of Mr. De Stefano, and the main compatibility issue in the neighborhood was a single-story structure, which was being done. He asked the City Attorney to draft the appropriate language to achieve the goal. Mr. Calonne said he had language which would deal with the fire damage problem and could be brought back with the second reading of the ordinance. He believed it would be prudent to set time limitations of when the event happened. Council Member Rosenbaum said the event would be a natural disaster that occurred before the date of the demolition moratorium. He clarified that staff was to come back to the Council with an ordinance revision. Vice Mayor Andersen noted, with regard to Mr. De Stefano’s application, that the garage extended beyond a certain point under the guidelines. He asked what the distance was that was causing the problem. Ms. Lytle said the Compatibility Review Standards required that the garage be recessed at least two feet behind the face of the house. In Mr. De Stefano’s case, the garage was extended in front of the house by seven to nine feet. The relationship needed to be reversed and shifted behind the face of the house. Vice Mayor Andersen asked the size of the lot. Ms. Lytle said the lot, which measured over i00 feet in both directions was about 14,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Andersen said with a lot that large, it would seem reasonable to adapt to the modest adjustment. Ms. Lytle said during the hearing on the issue, a decision had been made not to grant an exception because there was ample room to comply. She believed Council Member Rosenbaum’s motion spoke to a different set of hardship issues, i.e., the insurance deadline was in place and the working drawings had been prepared. Vice Mayor Andersen was opposed to the motion. He believed making creative modifications with that lot size would be just as easy. Council Member Fazzino was surprised the issue was still around. He recollected staff had indicated staff would work with Mr. De Stefano to resolve any issues, but that seemed not to be the case. The situation was an extraordinary, catastrophic event, and the applicant had brought forth a proposal which was consistent with the single-story housing in’ the area. Not to let the applicant proceed with those plans would be Unfair. Remaining inflexible in the face of an extraordinary situation would result in diminished support for the historic preservation program within the community. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Andersen, Wheeler ~no," Schneider absent.