HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-15 City Council (21)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
September 15, 1997 CMR:395:97
INTERIM HISTORIC PROGRAM - ACTIVITY REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following report is forwarded for Council’s information only; no action is required.
At the August 11, 1997 meeting, the City Council requested an update regarding activity in
the Interim Historic Program, adopted in November 1996 and since modified.
The following data and discussion summarize activity in-the program from December 1996
to the end of August 1997. Each of the three established processes isaddressed separately:
1) Historic Merit Screening and Evaluatio.n, 2) Compatibility Review, and 3) Landmark
Alteration Review.
PROCESS 1: HISTORIC MERIT SCREENING AND EVALUATION:
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staffhave processed 175 Historic Merit Screening
and Evaluation applications. The volume of historically designated structures in the City’s
Historic Inventory has increased by over 20 percent, from 611 to 742. Most designations of
ContribUting Residence and Landmark Historic Residence status have been accepted and
were expected by the applicants.
An unanticipated aspect of th~ Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation pr6eess i~~e use
of the program by the real estate community as part of a property sale procesg. Real estate
transactions now account for over 50 percent of the current applications for Historic Merit
Screening and Evaluation. This category of application accountS~or nearl~ designations
that have caused friction and protest, particularly when the,.~d~ignatiofi" of Landmark
CMR:395:97 Page 1 of 6
Historic Residence is under consideration. Owners of Landmark Historic Residences
designated in this program have typically been able to educate themselves about the
Landmark Alteration Review process, identify that their proposed project complies, and
proceed with reasonable comfort through the designation process. By way of contrast, a real
estate transaction, lacking a known buyer and alteration proposal, does not have the same
basis for understanding the Landmark Alteration Review process, resulting in greater
uncertainty.
The Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation process has been processing all applications
within one month, unless the applicant requests otherwise for reasons of convenience.
Volume of activity:
Applications processed:
Total residences:
Number of applications in queue:
175
186 (some properties have more than one residence)
9
Timing: At the beginning of the program (December 1996), processing of applications took
an average of 6 weeks from date of application to date of hearing. Since April 1997, the
processing time has been red~ced to an average of 4 weeks.
Cost: Fee paid to the City of Palo Alto is $100.00
Summary of designation
outcomes:
Structur~ Without Historic Merit:
Contributing Residence:
Landmark Historic Residence:
Removed from program: **
Applications currently continued:
TOTAL
December 1996-
August 1997"
46
121
10
7
2
186
25%
65%
5%
4%
1%
100%
April 1997 - August
1997
16 23%
51 73%
3 4%
0 0%
0 .0%
70 100%
* Includes the results of the following appeals:
1171 Fife -.Appeal upheld, designated a Structure Without Historic Merit
828 Ramona - Appeal denied, designated a Contributing Residence
579 Vista/4111 Goebel - Appeal upheld, designated Structures Without Historic Merit
**Structures are removed from the program, if found to have been built after 1940 after
background research, or if staff identifies that proposed alterations are actually repairs or
eligible for the Minor Project Exemption and the owner elects to use this option.
ClVlR:395:97 Page 2 of 6
Rate of incoming applications:
During the initial 14 weeks of the program, applications averaged 6 per week.
During the last 14 weeks of the program, applications averaged 4 per week.
PROCESS 2; COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIALLY REMODELED
RESIDENCES AND REPLACEMENT RESIDENCES
From December 1996 to May .i997, 21 applications for Compatibility Review were received,
20 from homeowners and one from a developer. From June to August 1997, 9 additional
applications were received, 4 from homeowners and 5 from developers. In general,
developer projects consist of complete replacement of existing residences and have required
substantial design revision during the Compatibility Review process.
The clarified definition of street facade approved by Council on April 8, 1997, has been
useful for owners of Contributing Residences who want to minimize their alterations so that
they do not trigger Compatibility Review unnecessarily, because it gives them a definite and
dear standard around which they can shape the’_tr design.
Staff has guided up to a dozen additional projects away from Compatibility Review that
might have been triggered by. street facade alterations by working with the owners to confine
their alterations within the Ordinance’s definition of repairs. The result is that smaller
improvement projects that affect the street facade of a residence have not ended up in
Compatibility Review.
The Compatibility Review has worked effectively to generate designs that respond in
recognizable ways to the period context. Staff believes that it is effective because it gives
a very defined direction, i.e., a mandate to respond to context.
Volume of activity: Twenty-nine applications have been received; 18 reviews have been
concluded. Applications cttrrenfly in the process include two awaiting initial review, 8
undergoing rbutine response to initial review and one that requires redesign for non-
comP~a~_,ce with R-1 regulations and the Compatibility Review Standards.
CMR:395:97 Page 3 of 6
Types of Project
Replacement Residence
Substantial Remodel (50% walls
demolished)
Remodel with street facade
alterations*
Total
Homeowner
Initiated Projects
11
8
Developer
Initiated Projects Total
9
12
0 8
23 6 29
* All of the above projects that triggered Compatibility Review due to alterations of
the Street Facade consisted of alterations to the facade at the street; none were
affected by the clarified definition of Street Facade that was approved by Council in
April.
Timing: From date of application to issuance of initial review is 3% to 4 weeks; timing to
closure depends on the applicant’s response to comments received.
An example of the timing of Compatibility Review for 1246 Emerson Street, a homeowner-
initiated substantial remodel with a concurrent HIE process, is shownbelow.
May 7, 1997
May 29, 1997
June 2, 1997
July 14, 1997
July 15, 1997
July 16, 1997
July 21, 1997
HIE/Compatibility Review applications
Initial Compatibility Review Response
Building permit application (applied concurrent)
Closure of HIE process
Applicant Compatibility Review resubmittal
Closure of Compatibility Review process
Issuance of Building Permit
Total time: 10 weeks, 5 days
Cost: Fees paid to the City of Palo Alto average $754.00 (this is a full cost recovery item).
Rate of incoming applications: -
The average flow in the program from December to August has been 3 to 4 applications per
month.
PROCESS 3" LANDMARK ALTERATION REVIEW
Six (6) minor alterations have been seen in this process. Those applicants that work with
staff prior to submittal, have typically been able to complete the Landmark Alteration
CMR:395:97 Page 4 of 6
Review in one HRB hearing. Landmark Alteration Review is faster, requires less
documentation, and is less costly than Compatibility Review.
Volume of activity:
Applications processed in the program: 6
Total number of applications in queue: 2
One application was received recently and has not yet been calendared for a hearing.
One application is being continued indefmitely at the applicant’s request.
Timing: The current processing time is 4 weeks.
Cost: Fees paid to the City of Palo Alto average less than $200 (this is a partial cost
recovery item).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The amount of hours required of contract staff continues to outpace the contract dollars. The
contract had to be increased at the end of last fiscal year. Minor adjustments were made in
the 97-98 contract; however, for June and July the estimated expenditure for contract
services was $21,400, while the actual was $24,435. Total spent from December through
July was $92,636.
In addition, the impacts on .City staff and the HRB have been more significant than
anticipated. This includes longer HRB agendas.with a greater number of site visits, longer
minutes and a significant increase in packet preparation time. Between December 1996 and
April 1997, the HRB was meeting weekly. Other impacts include increases in letters and
communications, a severe impact on active f’de retention space, and additional management
time to oversee the contracts and process.
POLICY IMPLICATION~
A more comprehensive discussion on policy issues will be presented in upcoming staff
reports related to the Permanent Regulations. One issue that will need to be addressed is the
current linkage of historic preservation with single family design review.. This is also related
to neighborhood preservation, the question of "good des_ign" and the impacts of a single
replacement house on a neighborhood. For example, there is a general concern that a
structure that is designated No Historic Merit will be removed and a single modem
replacement residence will dramatically change the character of a block that is otherwise
intact and period. The issues are whether or not an entire block(s) should be subject to
Compatibility Review and whether Compatibility Review should be tied to the historic status
of a single residence.
CMR:395:97 Page 5 of 6
TIME LINE
Staffis scheduled to return to the Council in October with the initial survey results of all pre-
1948 structures by the historic preservation consultant and in November for a discussion of
policy direction for the permanent historic ordinance and the Interim Regulations.
CC:Historic Resources Board
PREPARED BY:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect Consultant
James E. Chili_land, Assistant Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Envi[.onment
ciTY MANAGER APPROVAL:k~~. ~"
I-IAV, VaSON
Assistant .City Manager
CMR:395:97 Page 6 of 6