Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-12 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER August 12, 1996 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR:367:96,,~_~ Recommendation of the Historic Resources, Board toExtend the Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 1531 College Avenue REO_UEST Council is requested to review the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommendation to extend the moratorium on issuance of a Demolition Permit for a single-family residence, designated Category I on the Historic Inventory, located at 1531 College Avenue. This site is located in College Terrace, which is not an historic district. RECOMMENDATIONS The HRB and staff recommend that the City. Council extend the moratorium on issuance of a Demolition Permit for 1531 College Avenue for a period of 12 months from the dateof application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until July 5, 1997. This will allow time for the applicant and community to explore alternatives to the proposed demolition. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Preserving the value of historic structures throughout Palo Alto is a key policy issue. Demolition and replacement of historic homes may result in the degradation of the overall visual quality of many neighborhoods within Palo Alto. The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this review: Urban Design, Program 1: "Restore and maintain residential character in older sections of Palo Alto." Extending the moratorium on the demolition of this CMR:367:96 Page 1 of 5 Category I historic residence in the College Terrace neighborhood of Palo Alto will allow the applicant, property owner and HRB the time needed to explore alternatives to demolition, which would assist in maintaining the existing residential character of the neighborhood. Urban Design, Policy 2: "Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both." The moratorium extension and the availability of HRB members to discuss and review options for preserving the existing residence will encourage the applicant and property owner to explore preservation of the existing building rather than demolition. Urban Design, Program 6: "Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of houses with architectural or historic merit in all .zones." Extending the moratorium, combined with the willingness of the HRB to discuss and review options for preserving the existing building, will be an incentive to this property owner and other owners of historic buildings to explore options for retaining and rehabilitating historic structures. On July 10, 1995, during City Council review of 1106 Bryant Street, a 12-month demolition moratorium, the Council raised some additional policy issues related to the Historic Resource Ordinance (minutes attached). Questions raised included whether the current ordinance allows the City to apply conditions on applications for the replacement residence that would be built in place of the demolished historic residence. The current ordinance does not allow for conditions to be placed on the replacement building permit, although an ordinance could be enacted to allow for conditions to be applied. Another issued discussed was whether or not the HRB decisions regarding the design of the replacement residence should be voluntary or mandatory. The current ordinance requires the replacement residence to be reviewed by the HRB, because the current residence is a Category I building. However, compliance with the HRB decision is voluntary under the current code. A final issue discussed was whether or not the 12-month moratorium could be shortened through mutual consent of both the City and the applicant. The City Attorney responded that it would be possible, under the current ordinance, to end the moratorium before it expired if the Council so provided. All of these policy questions will be raised again in 1996-97, when the City initiates the Historic Resource Ordinance update, included in the 1996-97 Budget and Planning Division Work Program. CMR:367:96 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION The existing residence is designated a Category I historic structure, which is defined by Section 16.49.020 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance as an "Exceptional Building," meaning "any building or group of buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character." As stated on the historic inventory sheet, the residence at 1531 College Avenue is a visually outstanding example of a Queen Anne style cottage, with some Stick Style elements as well. The inventory sheet cites Birge Clark, a prominent local architect, as saying that 1531 College Avenue as a model or "come on" house intended to attract people to the area. The house has undergone very little modification over the years, and retains its rails and newel posts as well as its water tower (see Attachment 1 - Historic Inventory Sheet). Section 16.49.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires a 60-day moratorium and automatic review by the HRB of an application to demolish a "significant" structure located outside of the Downtown area. A significant structure is defined as buildings or-groups of buildings that are either a Category I or II or in an historic district. The HRB or any interested person may recommend that the Council extend the moratorium for a period up to one year from the date the demolition application was made. In addition, it may be required that appropriate and reasonable public notice of the availability of the structure be provided by the applicant. The demolition application for 1531 College Avenue is being forwarded to the Council, because the HRB has recommended that the moratorium be extended for 12 months from the date that the demolition application was made. On July 5, 1996, Charles Guerrero, Jr., property owner, submitted an application to demolish the residence. As required by Section 16.49.070 of the PAMC, an informational staff report was forwarded to the Council on July 11, 1996, which outlined the moratorium process (see Attachment 2 - CMR:338:96, dated July 11, 1996). On July 17, 1996, the HRB reviewed the application and voted to recommend extension of the moratorium for 12 months from the date the application was made. In their decision, the Board referenced the significant contribution the residence makes to the visual aesthetic of the neighborhood. In addition, they noted the February 21, 1996 HRB meeting, when they discussed the options available to the property owner to abate what appeared to be building code violations. Although no unsafe structural conditions exist on the site, many residents of the neighb~orhood attended that meeting to express concern about the deterioration of the house and stated their desire to work with the property owner to find alternatives to either the further deterioration or demolition of the house (see Attachment 4 - List of Interested Parties). Among of those CMR:367:96 Page 3 of 5 interested in the house is a professor at Stanford University who may want to purchase and restore the residence (see Attachment 5 - Letter from Paul Turner). This application is similar to the 1106 Bryant Street moratorium in that the property owner appears convinced that demolition is the only course of action. The full 12-month period is required to attempt to develop historically sensitive plans. This application differs from the 275 Lowell Street moratorium in that the property, owner in that case was willing to coordinate with the HRB and consider restoring the historic house. Staff concludes that in this case the full 12-month moratorium is warranted to allow time for the HRB, property owner and community to explore options to demolition. Alternative actions which can be taken by Council are: Extend the moratorium for a shorter period of time than 12 months. Allow the demolition to proceed, per the original request of the applicant. This action would be contrary to the recommendation of staff and the HRB, and would not allow the exploration of other solutions. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to this item. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This review is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3). ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. Historic Resources Inventory Sheet Demolition Application and Report to City Council, dated July 11, 1996 City Council Minutes, dated July 10, 1995 List of Interested Parties Letter from Paul Turner, dated March 18, 1996 PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator CMR:367:96 Page 4 of 5 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and , Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: BERNARD M. Assistant City Manager CO:Historic Resources Board Charles J. Guerrero, Jr. Paul Turner Interested Parties List CMR:367:96 Page 5 of 5 State of California - The Resources Ag~mcv DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY / Cat.I ~" I’/IDENTIFICATION / Common name: Set" ~ UTM Lat~ Lon Adrn~ T2 _...=_T3 ~ /~ Attachment Site Mo.Yr. Q NR ~ SHL~ E ra Sig ~ Cat ~HABS ~HAER ~ Fed ~ 2. Historic name, if known: 3. Street or rural add.resale Avezl~te (ea~-l±er, .~/~0.8 a~d l~L~5.Pe3.o____~to Avenue) City:Palo JL~to ZIP: 4. Present owner, if known:=. Jo (~errero’ L. City:Sa~ Fra~cisco~ Ca ZiP: County: Santa Clara Address: 58 ~ Street Ownership is: Publi’c []Private 5. Present Use: Residential Original Use: Eesidenti al Other past uses: DESCRIPTION 6.Briefly describe the present physical alSpe~rance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its originat condition: This small house is m~e visual~v outstanding .by ~enerous use of machined ornaments. Although the general image and most of the ornamentation derives from Queen Anne styling, there are some Stick Style elements, as w~ll. .The hous~ reta~ins its rails and newel’posts as well as its water tower.. : 7.Locational sketch map (draw and label site and sur=ounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): ~NORTH 8. Approximate property size: Lot size (in feet) Frontage Depth or approx, acreage 50 , 115 .: 9. Condition: (check one) a. Excellent "[-’~ b. Good []C. Fair d. Deteriorated [] e. No longer in existence [~ 10. Is the feature a. Altered? ~-J b. Unaltered? 11.Surroundings! (Check more than one if necessary) a. Open land [~ ’ b. Scattered buildings D c. Densely built-up ~ d. Residential ~ e. Commercial [~f. Industrial [~ g. Other [~ ¯ 12. Threats to site: a. None known ~ .b. Private development L__J c. Zoning ~] d. Public Works project [~ e. Vandalism ~ f. Other ~ 197813. Date(s) c~ enclosed pho~o~Tap~(s): NOTE: The following (Items 14-19) are for structur~ only. i4. Primary exterior building material: a. Stone [] b. Brick [~ f. Other [~ 15. is the structure: a. On its original site? [] b. Moved? [~ 16. Year of initial construction 18~s Thisdate is: a. Factual []b. Estimated Wood 17. Architect (if known): 18. Builder (if known): f." Windmill [~g. Watertow~/tankhouse~ h..Other r~i. None pu=p originally run by noisy one=cylir~er 8asollne engine SIGNIFICANCE Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when knownl : -This is a superb, elaborately=decorated Queen Anne cottage. Amon~ builders of the time and locale who might have ~ut it up for Alexander Gordon, developer of College Terrace, were William Peacoak (builder of the similarly=elaborate, but larger, Decker house at 510 Waverley Street in 190~)~ P.P. Q~ ~ E.A. Hetti~ger, who ~ ~u Mayfield as well as Palo Alto in the 1890s, and L.S. Bess, who built a nearby house in 190~. Like the houses at I~87 and 1528 College Avenue, it was meant to be a model or "come-on" house, ac©ordlng to Birge Clark, who 8few up nearby in the 1890s. By 189~ its occupants were the O.C. (Carter) Coffin family, whose daughter Bessie and son James, began their undergraduate studies at S~a~for~ in German (Bessie, A.B. 1898) and Latin (James, A.B. 1900, M.A. 1902). The three or four family cews supplied milk to the neighbors. The Gofflma apparently were remters, for it was Alexander Gordon who sold the house in 1905 to Ann Eliza Reed ar~ her sister, Clara Hackley, of Syracuse, N.Y. ~s. Hackley’s son Robert attended Stanford and becamm - a well-establlshe~ civil engineer on the Peninsula (see 353 ~elville Avenue). Her~* 21.Main theme of the h,storic resource: (Check only one): a. Architecture [] b. Arts & Leisure ~ c. Economic/Industrial 1---] d. Exploration/Settlement D e. Government [~] f. Military g. Religion [--] h. Social/Education B 22. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: P.A. City Directories; P.A= Times 9/14/OA, i0/27/~8, ll/15~69; Stanford University Alumni Directory (1957); A.A.UeW., ~To~orrow~% p. 60; Book 293 (Deeds), pe l~, ~/~3/O~; BoOk 31.9 (Deeds), p. 36,Book ~86 (Deeds), p. 63, 3/20/19 (Santa Clara Co. Recorder), interview Mary Lou (Hackley) Vivanco; 1986, Birge Clark; UeS. Census 1900, Santa Clara GO.,@++ 23. Date form prepared:~.~.~~. By (name): Address:250 Hamilton Ave . City Palo Alto~ Ca 9b,301 ZIP" Phone:Organization: brother, bridge became an assistant .con~ maintenance at Stanford. Mrs. school before her marriage in Church in Palo Alto. The Reed- the property to a neighbor, in 1919. Flood was an Arm~ cal School in San Francisco, 1919=i 19AO-19~6, Hrs. Lily L. Ball o, until 1961. It has been occup; (State Use Only) Albert L. Trowbridge, and his wife Alma, also lived in the house. Trow- .roller and engineer in charge .of operations and .Trowbridge was an accomplished musician who taught 928, and was a vocal soloist at St. Thomas Aquinas Hackley-~owbridge tenure ended with the sale of est L. Walker, and re-sale to W.J. and ~ry F. Flood .tain who supervised the R.O.T.C. at ~ssion High ;28. ~he Floods kept the house until 193~. From ~pied the house, followed by short-term tenants - ed since then by Jewell C. Hines. +++Roll llO, E.D. 53, p. 6 City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory Detail Date: 25-Jan-95 Historic Building Inventory ID:120 location Historic name: Common or current name: Number & street: 1531 College Avenue City: Palo Alto ZiP:County: Santa Clara Alternate Address: Past Address: 1408 and 1115 Palo Alto Avenue status Ownership use description Category:1 [] National Registry Historical District:[] State Registry Owner: J. Guerrero (~ public ~ private Address: 58 Dolley Street City: San Francisco, CA ZIP: Present: Residential Original: Residential Past: This small house is made visually outstanding by generous use of machined ornaments. Although the. general image and most of the ornamentation derives from Queen Anne styling, there are some Stick Style elements, as well. The house retains its rails and newel posts as well as its water tower. Photo Date: 1978 Property Size frontage: 50 ,~.depth: 115 acreage: Condition: deteriorated Alteration: Unaltered Surroundings: [] Open [] Scattered Buildings [] Densely Built Other: []Residential []Commercial []Industrial Threats: [] None Known [] Vandalism [] Private Developmen Other: [] Public Works [] Zoning page 221 description (cont.) significance SOlJrces Architect: Builder: Date: 1890s Q factual Notes: estimated Exterior Material: wood Other Material: Original Site: original Theme: architecture Features: [] Barn [] F~rmalGarden [] Outhouse [] Carriage House ¯[] Windmill [] Shed OtherFeatures: pump originally run by noisy one-cylinder gasoline engine [] Watertower [] None This is a superb, elaboraterly decoratd Queen Anne cottage. Among builders of the time and locale who might have put it up for Alexander Gordon, developer of College Terrace, were William Peacock (builder of the similarly-elaborate, but larger, Decker house at 510 Waverly Street in 1904); P.P. Quinn and E.A. Hettinger, who built a nearby house in 1904. Like the houses at 1487 and 1528 College Avenue, itwas meant to be a model or"come-on" house, according to Birge Clark, who grew up nearby in the 1890s. By 1894 its occupants were the O.C. (Carter) Coffin family, whose daughter Bessie and son James, began ¯ their undergraduate studies at Stanford in German (Bessie, A.B. 1898) and Latin (James, A.B. "~900, M.A. 1902). The three or four family cows supplied milk to the neighbors. The Goffins were apparently renters, for it was Alexander Gordon who sold the house in 1905 to Ann Eliza Reed and her sister, ClaraHackley, of Syracuse, N.Y. Mrs. Hackley’s son Robert attended Stanford and became a well-established civil engineer on the Peninsula (see 353 Melville Avenue). Her brother, Albert L. Trowbridge, and his wife Alma, also lived in the house. Trowbridge became an assistant controller and engineer in charge of operations and maintenance at Stanford. Mrs. Trowbridge was an accomplished musician who taught school before her marriage in 1928, and was a vocal soloist at St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Palo Alto. The Reed-Hackley-Trowbridge tenure was ended with the sale of the property to a neighbor, Ernest L. Walker, and re-sale to W.J. and Mary F. Flood in 1919. Flood was an army captain who supervised the ROTC at Mission High School in San Francisco, 1919-1928. The Floods kept the house until 1934. From 1940-1946, Mrs. Lily L. Ball occupied the house, followed by short-term tenants until 1961. It has been occupied since then by Jewell C. Hines. P.A. City Directories; P.A. Times 911411904, 10/27/48, 11/15/69; Stanford University Alumni Directory (1957); AAUW"..Gone Tomorrow?", p.60; Book 293 (Deeds), p. 193, 6/13/05; Book 319 (Deeds), p. 36, 3/1/07; Book 486 (Deeds), p. 63, 3/20/19 (Santa Clara Co. Recorder); interview 1985, Mary Lou (Hackley) Vivanco; 1986,Birge Clark; U.S. Census 1900, Santa Clara Co. Roll 110, E.D. 53, p.6. preparation Organization: By: Janet London; Historic ResourCes Board; P.A. Date: 1978, 1986 DB Record Date: 6/24/94 Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue City: Palo Alto State: CA ZIP: 94301 Phone: page 222 City Manager’s Attachment 2 City of Palo Alto Summary Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REQUEST CITY MANAGER July 11, 1996 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR:338:96 Request for a Demolition Permit for a Residence Located at 1531 College Avenue This is an informational report and no Council action is required. RECOMMENDATIONS This is an informational item required by Section 16.49.070 ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and no recommendations are included. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The receipt of a demolition application does not represent any change to existing policies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The residence located at 1531 College Avenue is a Category 1 building on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. On July 5, 1996, the City received a demolition permit application for this residencel The PAMC requires the demolition application be referred to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for review and possible recommendation to the Council. There is an automatic sixty day moratorium on issuance of the demolition permit. Upon recommendation of the HKB or any interested person, the Council may extend the moratorium for up to one year. The application will be reviewed by the HRB on July 17, 1996. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to this report. CMR:338:96 "Page i of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The application for demolition is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Aet. ATTACHMENTS Photographs Demolition Appfieation Historic Inventory Listing PREPARED BY: Fred Herman, ChiefBuilding Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~ KENNETH R. SCHREmER Director of Planning and CITY MANAGER KEVIEW: City Historic Resources Board Charles J.. Guerrero Jr., 58 Valley Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 CMR:338:96 Page 2 of 2 0 ~J 0 U 0 0N "00o ¯ I State of C, elifo(nle -- The Raso~rc~s DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECR.EATION IISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UTM __=, O ..~R ~ SHL~ Lat~ Lon Era~ Sig~ Adm~ T2 ,==~T3 ~ Cet~HAB$ ~HAER ==,==~. Fed ~ IDENTIFICATION 1. Common name: 2. Historic name, if known: 3. Street or rural add, resell C611e~e Avenue (earlier, .~/~08 and. 1]~.5.Pa3.o Alto. Avenue) City:PaSo Alto 4. Present owner, if known: City: ~ Frs.~.c’ls CO~ Ca 5. Pre~nt Use: Other past uses: ZIP:~ County: Address: 58 Do]le;F Street. ZIP:Ownership is:Public Original Use: ~siden~[ ai Private ,[] DESCRIPTION" , 6.Briefly describe the present physical al~Pe~rance of the site or stru’cture and describe any major alterations from its original condition: ?his small house is m~de visual~v outstanding .by Eenerous use of machined ornaments. Althou~h the gener.al ~age and most o£ the o~entation derives from Queen Anne styling, there are some ~Stick Style elements, as w~l~. :The houe~ ret~ns its rails and newel’posts as well as its water tower. : ~ 7,Lodational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): ~NORTH 523 (Ray. 7/75) 8. Approximate property size: Lot size (in feet) Frontage~ 50 ’ Depth~ l’l~ ’; or approx, acreage ~. 9. Condition: (check one) d. Deteriorated [~ e. No longer in existence [~ 10. Is the feature a. Alte~’ed? [’--1 b. Unaltered? 11.Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) a. Open land [~ " b. Scattered buildings [~ c. Densely built’up B d. Residential, ~} e. Commercial ’[~f. Industrial ~ " g, Other [~ ¯ 12. Threats to site: .a. None known ~_J .b. Private development L=_J c. Zoning [~ d. Public Works project L~ e. Vandalism [~ f. Other [~ 13, Dat~[s} of ~clo~ photogral:~{s): 1531 College IVO T£: The following (Items 14-19) are for strucalr~ o~ly. 14. Primary exterior building material: a. Stone [~ b. Br’~k [~ |. Other [~, 15. Is the structure: a. Onitsoriglnalsi~e? ~] b. ~ov~d? [~ 18. Year of initial or~truction l~:~Oe Thisdate is: a. Fa~u~l [~ c. Stu~o -[~. d. Adobe ©.’Unknown? [~ b. Estimated Wood 17. Architect (if known): 18. Builder (if known): ¯ 19. Related ,matures: a. Barn D b. Carriage house [~ c. Outhouse [~ d. Shed(s} [~e. Formal garden(s} ,.’Windmill [~,. Watertowerltankhouse~ h. Other [~__i. None pump origina31y run by noisy one-cyllnder 8asollne ~n~tne SIGNIFICANCE Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include datesl events, and. persons associated with the site when known): ~ie is a superb, elaborately=decorated Q~ee~ Anne cottage. Among builders of the time ~nd locale ~no miEht have put it up for Alexander Gordon, developer of College Terrace, were William Peacock (builder of the similarly-elaborate, but larger, Decker house ’at 510 Waverley Street in 190~)~ P.P. Q~inn and E.A. Hettlnger, who built in Mayfield as well .as Pale Alto in the 189Os, and L.S. Bean, ~ho built a nearby house in 190~. Like the houses at i~87 and 1528 College Avenue, it was meant to be model or "c~me=on" house, &c©ording to Birge Clark, who grew m~ nearby in the 1890s. By 189~ its occupants were the O.C. (Carter) Coffin-family, whose daughter Bessie and son James, began their undergraduate studies at ~anford in German (Bessie, A.B. 1898) and Latin (James, A.B. 1900~ M.Ao 1902). ~he three or four family cows supplied milk to the neighbors. ~he Goffln~ apparently were renters, for it Alexander Gordon who sold the house in 1905 to Ann ELiza Reed a~d her sister, Clara Hackley, of Syracuse, N.To ~rs. Hackley’s son R~bert attended Stanford and becamm a well-establlshed civil engineer on the Penin~ (see 353 Melville Avenue). Her*~* 21.Main theme of the h,storic resource: (Ch~k only one): a. Architecture c. Economic/Industrial [~] d. Exploration/Settlement g. Religion ~ h. Social/Education 22. Sources: List books, documents, suTeys, personal intervi~,ws, and theirdats,J: P,A. City" Directories; P.A, Times 9/lh/OZ~, ,1_O/27/~8, 3-’1./15t69, Stan.t’o .z~d University Alumni Directory (1957); ~ Tomorrow? .p. 60; Book 293 (Deeds), p. l~r3, 6/1~/O~; Book ~.19 (Deeds), p. 3’6, 3/1/O7; Book ~86 (Deeds), p. 63, 3/20/19 (Santa Clara Co. Recorder); i~tervlew Mary Lou (Hackley) Vivanco; 1986~ Birge Clark; U.S. Census 1900, Santa Clara Co.,@+@ 23, Date form prepared:~.~.~ By (name): " " Address: -----~O Hamilton Ave City Pale Alto, ,ca 9/~01 Z=P" Phone:Organization: (State Use Only) ’ brother, Albert L. Trowbridge, land his wife Alma, also lived in the house. Trow- bridge became an assistant con~.roller and engineer in charge Of operatlona and maintenance at Stanford. school before her marriage in Church in Pale Alto. The Reed- the property to a neighbor, E~ in 1919. Flood was an Army School in San Francisco, 1919=~ 19~O-19~6, Mrs. Lily L. Ball until 1961. It has been occ~p: ***~oll llO, E.D. 53, P. 6 ,Trowbridge was an acco~pllshed musician who taught ~928, and was a vocal soloist at St. Thomas Aquinas Hackley=Trowbrldge tenure ended with the male of est Lo Walker~ and re-sale to W.J. and ~vy F. Flood .lain who supervised the R.OoT.C. at ~ssion High ;28. ~he Floods kept .the house until 193~. From mpied the house, followed by short-term tenants ed since then by Jewell C. Hines. Attachment 3 12A.(Old Item 14) Historic Resources Board Recommendation to the City Council to Extend the Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 1106 Bryant. Street, Located Within the Professorville Historic District Mayor Simihian said the item was a quasi-judiciaI matter and the procedural rules would apply. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommended a 12-month extension of the moratorium on the demolition of the house withinthe Professorville Historic District and a demolition permit would not be issued until May 18, 1996, as outlined in the staff report (CMR:337:95). City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council had. the authority to either extend the moratorium for a period of up to one year. CITY COUNCIL M!1N TES Although the ordinance did not specifically state that it was to facilitate someone acquiring the house and moving it, it was implied in the provisions which related to publicnotice. Mayor Simitian asked if the 12-month moratorium were granted was there any flexibility if three months from now the HRBwas entirely satisfied that the building was totally beyond salvage and reached the conclusion that demolition was appropriate. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance read up to one year. The question about how far the conditions could go was delicate because the ordinance did not have much in the way of authority for broader kinds of conditions that the Council might wish to attach. Mayor Simitian asked specifically if the moratorium were adopted, could there in fact be a provision to waive the moratorium if it were deemed appropriate with the approval of the HRB. Mr. "Calonne said yes. Mayor Simitian asked if the applicant offered to present a specific proposal whether it would be acceptable if. the Council Wanted to impose a moratorium, to refer the issue to the HRB and allow the HRB to waive the moratorium ff the HRB were "satisfied with the applicant’s presentation that the structure was not worthy of being saved. Mr. Calonne said the languag~ in the ordinance in effect stated that the Council, upon recommendation of the HRB, could require appropriate and reasonable notice. The language appeared to contemplate a referral to the HRB after the Council action. Ms. Grote said the current Historic Preservation Ordinance required the HRB to review replacement structures on historic houses, so whatever was proposed to replace the house if demolished would require HRB review. Vice Mayor Wheeler recalledan instance when there was a previous demolition of an historic building and the HRB reviewed the replacement structure. Ms. Grote noted .that although the review of the replacement structure was mandatory, compliance with the HRB recommendations was voluntary. 07/10/95 76-308 Council Member McCown clarified that there was an automatic 60-day moratorium which started as of the date of the application to demolish was filed and that the.proposed recommendation would essentially add i0 months to the moratorium rather than 12 months. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked, even if there were a willingness .on the part of the applicant to agree to the approval of the design of a replacement structure through an HRB process, whether the City was able to enforce it, e.g., if the HRB approved the replacement structure and the property fell into someone else’s ownership, what would prevent a different structure from being built. Mr. Calonne advised if the council had legislative proposals to change the voluntary nature of the review process, Council could do that; but it would involve approval of the moratorium and during the pendency of the moratorium to enact legislation.that authorized .t~e Council’s desired requirement. The City could legally justify urgency or other interim action necessary to get the City wher~ it wanted to go from a legislative-standpoint. Council Member McCown said the process was an unusual situation and she was surprised that the applicant was an HRB member. The situation with the property had existed when the applicant was interviewed for the HRB. She was unaware of her involvement with the property at that time. She was concerned that if the Council went forward with the moratorium and the applicant was asked to negotiate a process with her colleagues on the HRB and at the same time be expected to participate as an HRB member, that would represent a conflict that needed to be addressed. Mr. Calonne said from a legal standpoint he would presume that the offic±al duty would be regularly performed and the board members were capable of being fair and dispassionate and would not allow any personal interest in the matter to affect their decision making. The question for the members individually would be whether the situation created bias. The bias test was when the decision maker had become so personally embroiled in the matter that he/she was not subjectively capable of rendering a fair dispassionate’ decision then there was a legal problem. -~ Elizabeth Kittas, Historic Resources Board member, said the .HRB felt that demolitions of historic buildings should not be encour- aged but rather preservation should be encouraged. There should be ample opportunity for avenues to be explored in preference-to demolition. Throughout the City there were shining examples of what seemed impossible but which became possible structures to preserve, e.g., the Byxbee House. The HRB was cOncerned about attrition of the historic fabric within~the Professorville Historic District (District) where bungalows wer~ equally important to what made up the District. There was a precedent within the last two years when an historic property was brought before the HRB and the HRB had not recommended extending the moratorium. The applicant made a strong case for his/her plight and in retrospect the HRB immediately regretted its decision as well as having received a great deal of public feedback about it. The HRB members who voted on the moratorium went to the site, viewed the house and property, and their opinion was that the house was quite salvageable. There were successful precedence in the area of rehabilitations of similar bungalows and additions thereto. The HRB approved the extension of.the moratorium for the 12-month period to allow for suitable alternatives to be considered. Ann Hagey Barbee, 1106 Bryant Street, said there had only been two demolitions in the District within the last five years. She requested approval for the issuance of a demolition permit. She asked that the HRB recommendation be modified with respect to the 12-month moratorium. She entered into a seal auction for 1106 Bryant Street whichwas offered by the City of San Francisco. Her initial walk through of the house led her to believe that it was a tear down because she had not seen any redeeming value within the structure. The .house was ii00 square feet and was built in the early 1900s by a family who lived in San Francisco and occupied the home during the summers. She distributed a report from a construction engineer which said the house and the foundation was not cost-effective for remodel to a larger two-story building. Over the past six months, she had explored all of the resources and possibilities for the house. The house was salvageable, but it would be at great expense to her and Would resultin a much smaller house. She asked the HRB for suggestions for the house and the only suggestion was to use the crawl space as a potential small . room, but she would have to use a ladder to access it which was not an acceptable solution for her needs. When she interviewed for membership .on the HRB, some of the Council Members knew that she owned property at 1006 Bryant Street. She had no idea at the time she bought the house that there would be a problem tearing it down. She referred to the proposed plans for the replacement structure. The most difficult argument that she dealt with was the question of what happened to the District if in fact it lost 20 percent of its historic.housing stock by tearing down her home, It would take the City 90 years to reach 80 percent, and in fact her new house would be older and more historic at the time. She urged the Council to approve the issuance of the demoIition permit. Jess Wilson, 318 Lincoln, was in the real estate business and had competed against Ms. Barbee for the house at 1106 Bryant Street~ He agreed that the structure was beyond demolition. The foundation was bad and the floor plan was less than desirable for almost any type of family use. It was unfair economically to delay the demolition in order to see if someone might come up with a better plan. Lydia Morse, 308 Lincoln Avenue, said for the last 33 years she had viewed the house .from her window. Although she had worked diligently to preserve the houses in the District, she felt the house at 1106 Bryant was ready for demolition. She urged the Council to permit Ms. Barbee to proceed with her demolition permit. Carol Malcolm, 281 Addison Street, said as an environmental planner she was interested in the house and had looked into it when it was on the market. She strongly urged the Council, ARB, and HRB to make sure there was some kind of disclosure on real estate in the District so that when property went on the market, there was information about the kind of problems and challenges associated with a buying a homein the District. She supported Ms. Barbee’s application. Joan Jack, 1005 Bryant Street, a member of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST), said guidelines for people wishing to buy property in the District were needed as was education of the public and realtors who advised potential buyers. She said that everyone had a right to-know what constraints, if any, they might face before they purchased property in the District.. She supported Ms. Barbee’s application and suggested that if the City Council felt a moratorium were necessary that a 6-month period be imposed and not a punishing 12-month period. The policies and guidelines should be developed to help people and not make them jump throughhoops after they had already purchased property. Nancy Sederquist, 801 Garland Drive, was surprised and appalled that a member of the HRB had proposed a demolition in an historic neighborhood. Professorville was a very important neighborhood in Palo Alto and the residents were very proud of it. The HRB was suppose to prot#ct the historic buildings. Ms. Barbee had not brought a bare piece of land but rather a house in an historic district. She encouraged the Council to enforce the 12-month moratorium and she hoped that during that period Ms. Barbee would reconsider her plans. Gwenn Bowen, 1116 Bryant Street, looked forward to Ms. Barbee’s construction of a new home as planned. She felt it.would be an asset and a joy to the neighborhood. David Kennedy, 252 Kingsley Avenue,said over the years Professorville had changed quite a bit.He urged the Council to allow Ms. Barbee to proceed without imposing an additional moratorium so that th~ neighborhood would be upgraded and allowed to maintain its character. Rob Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, had met with the owner, toured the existing home, and had reviewed the plans for redesign of the house. The existing house was seriously rundown. He recognized the Council’s role was to balance the needs and the sensitivity to the District as well as what was reasonable and realistic for the residents. The new design was quite marvelous. He said Ms. Barbee had taken a very sensitive approach to the design and the recon- struction of the house which merited the Council’s careful consideration. Caroline Willis, I120 Palo Alto Avenue, a member of the HRB and PAST, said the house at 1106 Bryant was at a very prominent spot within the Professorville District. She felt that it was important to keep the integrity of the District. Ms. Barbee felt the issue the Council faced was difficult. She did not believe that any moratorium.oh her demolition application was fair since she had already explored the opportunities for other solutions. She suggested that Council direct staff to make the writing of a new demolition ordinance a high and urgent priority . which would give the HRB a strong direction to do so as well as a request~ to draft replacement design guidelines. If the Council felt the moratorium should be upheld, she suggested the term be for six-months only. Further, it would allow~ any future~ buyer of historic property to explore alternatives and for the preservation community to provide helpful and timely input. Mayor Simitian asked Ms. Barbee when she had taken title to the property. Ms. Barbee said in November 1994. Mayor Simitian asked why.she had not applied for a demolition permit at the time. Ms. Barbee said she believed she had a moral responsibility to look at all of the’possibilities for the house. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether Ms. Barbee had presented the ¯ construction plans to the HRB and, if so, what had been the general reaction to the plans. Ms. Barbee said she had but there had been no real discussion of the plans. The HRB discussion focused on the moratorium. Ms. Kittas said the HRB had been presented with a ~request to demolish the existing house and the plans for the replacement structure. The HRB had not reviewed the replacement, plans but rather focused on maintaining the i~tegrity of the District and strongly encouraged the applicant to work with the Board on exploring alternatives to demolition. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, tO approve the Historic Resources Board recommendation to extend the moratori- um on issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of 12 months from the date of application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until May 18, 1996. Council Member Huber said with respect to preserving the District, the current ordinance was powerless with the exception of imposing a moratorium. If the District was going to be treated with some degree of integrity, then it was necessary to do what the Council could to preserve what it currently had. He supported the HRB’s recommendation. Vice Mayor Wheeler said part of the frustration ~as that the ordinance as it stood was very weak with r@spect to the provisions to protect’ the district. The existing house was squarely in the heart of the District; and although it was not one of the grander houses, it certainly represented a Professorville structure. There were some other houses in the District which did not represent Professorville as clearly as that house did. The owner should be given every opportunity to fSnd alternative ways of dealing with the structure. HRB members had offered to help the applicant as " well. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved to approve the Historic Resources Board recommendation to extend the moratorium on 07/10/95 76-313 issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of six months from the date of application. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member McCown had a lot of ambivalence about the situation that faced the Council. Whether the Council extended the moratori- um or not, the HRB had the review authority for the replacement structure, but there still was no guarantee that it would be built. She was reminded of the scenario that the Council had seen during the R-I housing era when people asked for variances because they had a large family and wanted a bigger house, variances were granted, and then the family relocated out of state. It became very slippery when.the Council responded to .the individual nature Of the circumstances rather than trying to apply more even-handedly the tools that the City had. She supported Council Member Huber’s motion~ " SUBSTITUTE MOTION~ Mayor Simitian moved, Seconded by Schneider, that the City Council approve an extension of the moratorium on the issuance of a demolition permit f6r 1106 Bryant Street for a period of nine months from the date of the application; and that the moratorium be subject to a waiver by the Historic Resources Board. Further, that the City Attorney be directed to return with an analysis for potential legislative remedy for the specific application and that the City Council retain j.urisdiction over the issue. Mayor Simitian said although there was a replacement structure design the fact of the matter was.that the model might or might not be built when the original structure was demolished. He chose the nine-month period because the .applicant had already taken six months to look at alternatives; and he .believed reducing the ’twelve-month moratorium by three months was a fair resolution. His motion attempted to provide the maximum protection for the neighborhood, save the house if it were at all salvageable, be fair to the applicant, and give the HRB the leverage it needed to do the job. He looked forward to the City Attorney,s legislative fix for the problem. M~. Calonne said the policy issue was that staff would need to get some background to explain the sentence in the HRB ordinance which read "Compliance-of the property owner with the recommendations ’shall be voluntary not mandatory." He suggested that the staff be directed to return to the Council with an analysis for some legislative remedy to the ordinance~ Ms. Grote said the City Attorney’s suggestion for legislative remedy went to the heart of the HRB ordinance. The HRB had been having discussions for the past year about whether compliance with the ordinance should be voluntary or mandatory. She said that was not a minor legislativecleanup of the ordinance but rather the heart of the ordinance. Mayor Simitian said if the applicant and HRB agreed on the demolition and the design of the replacement structure and the .applicant" was willing to post a bond or provide some other assurance, he could not believe that the City would not accept that. Director of Planning and~Community Environment Ken Schreiber agreed with Ms. Grote that when the HRB ordinance was adopted, the fundamental policy discussion bythe Council was whether or not the process should have a mandatory component. The decision was made that it should not. If the shift was to a mandatory component, then the process, amaunts of staff time, and the ramifications would be very different. Mayor Simitian said the intent of the motion was based on the fact that there was an application, a specific case before the Council ¯ ’that evening, and the Council was trying to come up with an answer to that specific application.He asked whether the motion accomplished thatgoal. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Schneider said there was no easy solution to the issue. She was a supporter of the HRB ,and in particular of the Professorville Historic District. She supported Mayor Simitian’s motion for a nine-month moratorium because there was an opportunity to use the application as an example for future designs and for the development of the guidelines. Council Member Andersen concurred with Mayor Simitian%s motionand said it provided the HRB with some leverage and also provided the applicant with an opportunity to be persuasive in some of the issues she was dealing with. He said the larger issue needed to be addressed but it should not be done in the context of a particular application. Council Member Fazzino supported the concept of strengthening the historic issue but believed it was a separate issue. It was important not to allow that to get in the way of the rules that were before the Council that evening with respect to the specific property. He was supportive of the second part of the motion regarding a much more active HRB role with respect to the applica- tion and asked that the motion be divided for voting purposes. He was troubled by using a different moratorium .time period for that property as opposed to others. Mayor Simitian asked whether it was appropriate to give direction to the City Attorney to report back to the Council on a mechanism or mechanisms which would allow the HRB to ensure compliance by an applicant with any offer the applicant made. Mr. Calonne said staff would prepare a document that would provide for the construction of what was actually reviewed by the HRB, recognizing that enforceability was questionable since the agreement would be voluntary. He requested the motion include that the Council would retain jurisdiction over the moratorium in order tobring the matter back to Council to provide additional direction to the HRB with respect to standards to waive or terminate the moratorium; and tO provide a mechanism for the Council to effect his advice. SUBSTITUTE MOTION RESTATED: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council approve an extension of the moratorium on the issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of nine months from the date of the appliCa- tion; and that the moratorium be subject to a waiver by the Historic Resources Board. Further, that the City Attorney be directed to return with an analysis for potential legislative remedy for the specific application and that the City Council retain jurisdiction of the issue. SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve the award of authority to the Historic Resources Board and the direction to the City Attorney, including the retention of jurisdiction. FIRST PART OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. SECOND PART OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve the moratorium to be a 9-month periodrather than a 12-month period. SECOND PART OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 4-4 Andersen, Schnei- der, Simitia~ Rosenbaum._’iyes,,’__Knis~_absent. 07/10/95 76-316 MAIN MOTION to approve the 12-month period rather than the 9-month provision. MAIN MOTION PASSED 6-2, Schneider, Simitian "no," Kniss absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she would work with the staff and some of her colleagues to address the larger issues which were mentioned that evening. 07110195 76-317 Attachment Attachment 5 Department of Art Stanford University 18 March 1996 Historic Resources Board City of Palo Alto Dear Board Members: I am writing to you in re~&~:t0 the house a Colle Avenue in Palo Alto. As the architectural his orl ’ Stanford, and having a special interest in nineteenth-century architecture, I have observed this house over the years and have been concerned about what will happen to it. When I learned recently that the Palo Alto Planning Department has determined that the building must be either repaired or demolished, I decided I should make some inquiries. I have spoken with several people in the Planning Department and have written to the owner of the house. My principal concern is that the house be preserved. As one of the oldest buildings in the vicinity of Stanford, it is historically important; and from an architectural point of view it is a fine example of the style of its period. (I have not tried to find its exact date of construction, but judging from its appearance I would guess that it dates from about the time of the founding of the University.) I thus urge that the Historic Resources Board make an effort to save the house from demolition. I also have a personal interest in this matter. Recently I have been considering moving back to the Stanford area (I presently live in San Francisco), and ideally I would like to find a house of architectural interest that I could restore. I therefore might be interested in purchasing the College Avenue property and repairing the structure. Moreover, I might even he interested in moving the house to another site, if that were feasible and the best way to save it. In any case, I hope that some way can be found to preserve this building. I would be grateful if you would inform me of any decisions you may make about it. And please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance in helping to save the house. Sincerely yours, Paul V. Turner Professor of Architectural History Stanford, California 943cJ5-2o~8 4x5/723-34o4