Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-30 City Council (7)TO: of Palo Alto City Manager’s Rep r HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: September 30, 1996 CMR:417:96 SUBJECT:Policy Options and Potential Process Description for the Interim Regulations Related to Demolition of Residential Structures Constructed Prior to 1940 REQUEST: This report outlines some policy and process options for the City Council and requests direction on the content of the Interim Regulations that will replace the September 17, 1996 Moratorium Ordinance on demolition of older residences. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Council: 1.Direct staff to return with Interim Regulations after providing the following direction: Provide direction to staff regarding the definition of"demolition" that should be included in the Interim Regulations. Provide direction to staff regarding the circumstances under which demolition of pre-1940 residential structures will be permitted under the Interim Regulations. Co Provide direction to staff regarding the standards and decision-making body that should be used to evaluate historic significance of a structure during the Interim Regulation period. Provide direction to staffregarding compatibility criteria to be used to evaluate replacement structures, if Council decides to include such a provision in the Interim Regulations. CMR: 417:96 Page 1 of 20 eo Provide a confirmation of the procedural structure for assessing and regulation demolitions of pre-1940 residential structures during the interim regulation period; Direct staff to return with a budget amendment ordinance to fund contract staff, both professional and support staff, to administer the interim regulations on a cost recovery basis, and/or to fund Design Compatibility Criteria, if these are desired; Based on the accelerated time line shown in Attachment A, direct staff to return to Council with an account of the costs of this assignment, both interim and permanent regulations, on the Planning Division Work Program and budget for 1996-97, and with a budget amendment ordinances. BACKGROUND The number of single-family demolition permits issue in 1996 reached 52 by mid-September of 1996, 24 of which were for residences built prior to 1940. On September 12, 1996, Council members Fazzino, Andersen, Kniss and Schneider forwarded a memo to colleagues identifying their alarm over the growing number of demolition permits for attractive older houses in Palo Alto. The memo acknowledged that, while Council had already directed preparation of a new Historic Preservation Ordinance, many residential structures are likely to be demolished during the time it will take to develop new regulations and update the historic building inventory. Without an evaluation of these structures prior to their demolition, valuable historic assets could be lost to the community. Finally, the memo raised concern that those who are rebuilding replacement housing are not sufficiently sensitive to the "special culture" of Palo Alto. The majority of new homes do not reflect the quality, pattern and character of Palo Alto’s traditional neighborhoods. On September 16 and 17, 1996, Council considered and adopted an Urgency Moratorium Ordinance, to last for a temporary period until November 15, 1996. On September 24, 1996, Council extended the Urgency Ordinance until November 30, 1996. The Moratorium allows time for Council to direct and staff to prepare interim regulations. The interim regulations are intended to be utilized during the period when staff will be updating the Historic Ordinance and Inventory. (Refer to Attachment A for time line) Testimony was received from a number of builders, homeowners, real estate agents, and residents who would be affected by the regulations. As had been suggested in the Council Colleagues memo, Council directed staff to return with an assessment of those "pipeline" projects that had applied for building permits, or received planning entitlement prior to September 17, 1996. The intent was to allow exceptions from the Moratorium Ordinance for projects in the "application pipeline". Staff CMR: 417:96 Page 2 of 20 provided this analysis and ordinance language allowing Council to grant exceptions to the Urgency Ordinance on September 24, 1996. On September 17, I996, the Council also directed staffto return on September 30, 1996 for policy direction as to the nature and content of. the interim regulations. These interim regulations will serve to regulate demolition until the Historic Ordinance and Inventory can be updated. The purpose of this report is to provide an outline of policy options and to describe a potential process description for further Council direction. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are significant policy issues raised in the memo and Council action directing the Urgency Ordinance and Interim Regulations. The current body of policy describing the public interest in protecting historic structures is contained in the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Element, and the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The City also has significant legal obligations under its 1992 agreement with the State of California to become a "certified" local government agency for historic preservation purposes. The bodies of policy which establish the interests of the private property owner are contained in the Zoning Regulations; Single Family R-1 and Multiple Family RM Regulations; and in the ARB Ordinance for Multiple-family structures. The R-1 Guidelines contain policies which become critical when a single-family application requires an exception, variance, or ARB review. Otherwise, in general the Guidelines do not bind property owners. The challenge before the Council is great. Palo Alto is in the midst of an escalating single- family real estate market and construction boom. The objective of the regulations is to describe, measure, and balance the public interest for retaining and preserving historic structures and historic neighborhood integrity during the time it takes to prepare permanent regulations, against the private interests of individuals and developers to sell, remodel or tear down and rebuild residences on their property over approximately the next year or until permanent regulations are adopted. While this is a difficult assignment even without deadline constraints, Interim Regulations have the advantage of being temporary. They will be in place only until the final regulations can be studied and adopted. There is precedent for this use of Interim Regulations in Palo Alto. The R-1 Urgency Moratorium and Interim Regulations in the mid-1980’s were used for well over a year prior to being discarded by the Council and replaced with the current floor area, daylight plane and dormer exception provisions in today’s R-1 regulations. The primary policy areas which Council has raised relate to 1) demolition of historic structures, 2) evaluation of historic structures not now on the inventory or reevaluation of structures now on the inventory but insufficiently classified, and 3) compatibility of CMR: 417:96 Page 3 of 20 replacement housing with the pattemo character, quality, and historic integrity of Palo Alto’s traditional neighborhoods. DISCUSSION The following discussion provides both a policy-framework for making choices about what to include in the Interim Regulations, and a process outline for implementing the interim regulations. I. Policy Framework A. Demolition Policy It is the requirements and standards for alterations and demolitions that are at the core of historic resource protection ordinances nationwide. For purposes of this discussion, staffhas divided historically meritorious structures into two categories: 1) Landmark structures; and 2) Contributing ~tructures. The current Palo Alto Historic Protection Ordinance classifies structures into Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4. In general, Categories 1 and 2 can be considered to have landmark status, while Categories 3 and 4 have contributing status. In this report, the term "landmark status" or "landmark structure" refers to properties in Categories 1 and 2 or properties with potential to be in Categories 1 or 2. "Contributing status" or "contributing structures" refers to properties in Categories 3 and 4, or those with potential to be classified as Category 3 or 4. 1. Demolition Policy, Pre-Moratorium Currently, the Historic Preservation Ordinance allows demolition of all significant landmarks and contributing historic structures, except Category 1 and 2 structures in the Downtown under certain circumstances. The current ordinance provides for a delay of up to one year of demolition for Category 1 and 2 structures in locations other than the Downtown, and for Category 3 and 4 structures within the Downtown. The Council has heard the HRB recommendation that this ordinance is outdated and insufficient for protecting the public interest in preserving historic structures. Council has directed that an ordinance update be undertaken in this fiscal year. CMR: 417:96 Page 4 of 20 2. Demolition Policy, Moratorium The Urgency Ordinance has temporarily removed the right to demolish any residential structure built prior to 1940, except those that were in the permit "pipeline" as defined by Council on September 24, 1996. This would include all structures on the existing Historic Inventory and others not now on the inventory. The intent of the Moratorium is to place all demolition approvals in abeyance until some interim regulations can be drafted which will serve to protect the public interest, balancing the property rights of the individual, while permanent regulations can be studied and developed. The interim regulations will presumably allow the City to evaluate the structure prior to demolition, to prevent demolition in certain instances, and to allow demolition in specified circumstances. 3. Demolition Policy Options, Interim Regulations Two demolition-related aspects of the interim regulations require direction from Council. Council needs to: a) confirm or amend the definition of "demolition" now contained in the Urgency Moratorium for use in the Interim Regulations; and b) decide under what conditions demolition of historically significant structures will be permitted. The Council Colleagues memo directed that the interim regulations should allow demolitions "when appropriate". It is assumed .by staff that if the property is determined through the interim process to have no historic merit as either a landmark or a contributing structure, then demolition should be permitted. Other circumstances which might warrant approval of the demolition need to be developed by Council, and the method and findings for making this determination require direction. Historic preservation ordinances throughout the country provide a range of options for consideration. The most permissive (e.g., San Diego, Portland, Carmel) are like Palo Alto’s current ordinance. They allow demolition or alteration of nearly all historic structures, but delay demolition to allow the property owner and community to explore alternatives and incentives for preservation. Some also provide ordinance incentives for retaining historic structures. Other, less permissive ordinances (e.g., Atlanta, Oakland, Santa Barbara) prevent demolition or alteration of landmark structures, except under the most extreme public safety situations or in the event of a catastrophic event. The most restrictive ordinance staff reviewed does not allow demolition of landmark buildings under any circumstances, and requires the owner CMR: 417:96 Page 5 of 20 to rebuild the landmark to its former state if the structure is destroyed by a catastrophic event (Los Gatos). Most ordinances that staff reviewed allow contributing structures to be demolished and/or altered under certain circumstances. Many require assurances for design quality and compatibility for replacement structures. a. Demolition Definition The Moratorium Ordinance defines "demolition" as "removal of more than 50% of the perimeter walls of the structure." This definition is the one now used by staff to determine when an application is a "new residence" versus a "remodel". The Home Improvement Exception process is available only for additions and remodels, for example, and the 50% rule is used to determine if a project qualifies for an HIE. This definition is administered and enforced through review of the demolition plans associated with building permits. Council should also be aware that during remodeling, building staff often observe increases in the amount of demolition, based upon previously unknown conditions. As an administrative practice, the Chief Building Official prepared a notice that ~ additional demolition beyond that shown on approved plans will result in issuance of a stop work order. The 50% definition, however, is not consistent with that used in many historic preservation ordinances, and would allow far more of the structure to be removed than is customary for protecting the historic integrity of a significant building. In historic protection ordinances, demolition is usually defined much more strictly to include "an act or process that destroys or razes in whole or in part a building, structure, or site of historic merit. " The Council needs to decide what definition of"demolition" should be used in the interim regulations: Definition Option 1: Retain the 50% perimeter wall definition in the Urgency Moratorium. Definition Option 2: Adopt a stricter definition, more in keeping with typical historic preservation ordinances, which includes additions and modifications to the existing structure and encourages retention of a higher percentage of perimeter walls, up to 100% Staff recommends that Option 1 be utilized for all contributing structures, but that a stricter definition be employed for Landmark structures. CMR: 417:96 Page 6 of 20 Definition Recommendation 1: Staff recommends that Definition Option 1 be used for all structures in Category 3 or 4 and all structures not now on the inventory. For any structure on the Historic Inventory, Category I or 2, or any landmark structure which is discovered through this process, the definition be strengthened to read "an act or process that destroys or razes in whole or in part a building, structure, or site." b. Permitted Demolition Circumstances Staff recommends that, at minimum, demolition be allowed for either landmark or contributing structures under either one of the following circumstances: Demolition Recommendation 1: The property "as is" cannot be used for any economically viable purpose, and renovation is not economically feasible. Demolition Recommendation 2: The property is determined to represent an imminent safety hazard under PAMC 16.40, and that demolition of the building is the only economically feasible means to secure public safety. In addition to recommending the above criteria for both landmark and contributing structures, Staff presents the following range of options for Council consideration related to demolition policy, recognizing that a variety of other options within and beyond this range are also available: Demolition Option 1: ~elay for Both Landmark and Contributing. Continue the Current ordinance provisions which allow demolition of pre- 1940 structures except in the Downtown, but strengthen the interim regulations by requiring a demolition delay of up to one year for all landmark and contributing structures. Demolition Option 2: Deny for Landmark/Delay for Contributing. Strengthen the current ordinance provisions by preventing demolition of landmark structures, except under circumstances identified in Demolition Recommendation 1 and 2, but continue to allow demolition of contributing structures, after requiring a demolition delay of up to one year. Allow alterations to Landmark structures only if National Standards for Historic Preservation have been met. (Refer to Attachment D) CMR: 417:96 Page 7 of 20 Demolition Option 3:. Deny for Both, Unless Compatible Replacement Strengthen the current ordinance by preventing demolition of both landmarkand contributing structures, except under Demolition Recommendation 1 or 2. Otherwise, do not allow complete demolition of landmark structures under any other circumstances, and allow alteration only when National Standards for Historic Preservation are met. Demolition of contributing structures, both those on the inventory and those with potential to be on the inventory, would be allowed only under certain circumstances. These circumstances can be selected from the following choices or other options can be developed: a) Compatibili~_ by Staff ApprovaL The design quality of the replacement structure meets the standards established in the Design Criteria (to be prepared), including criteria which require that the structure is compatible with the pattern of the existing neighborhood and that the replacement is at least equal in design quality to the existing structure; or. b) Compatibili~ by Design Review. The design quality is approved by the HRB (or other body) to be at least equal to that of the existing structure and is compatible with the pattern and character of the neighborhood, as determined by the discretionary standards (to be prepared) provided in this interim ordinance; and/or c) Condition Hardship The existing facility is seriously deteriorated and it is not economically feasible to renovate (to be defined); While staff is not proposing interior preservation standards, Council will recall from the Varsity Theater entitlement and EIR process that the use of National Standards can result in consideration of interior details. This is particularly germane if financial incentives, like the Mills Act are anticipated to be used. CMR: 417:96 Page 8 of 20 B. Evaluation Policy 1. Evaluation Policy, Pre Moratorium Current standards for evaluation of historic merit are contained in Section 16.49.040(b), and 16.49.020 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.(Attachment b). These standards were used in 1975 to complete an inventory of historic structures for Palo Alto, and have been used in subsequent years on occasion to update the inventory. Overall, the inventory is outdated and the HRB has recommended that it is in need of update. The City Council adopted a Work Program for 1997-98 which would initiate the Historic Inventory Update, requiting: 1) an evaluation of all historic structures (built over 50 years ago) 2) a determination, after the Historic Protection Ordinance is updated, of corrected designation for structures and properties on the current historic inventory, and 3) a designation of structures determined historically meritorious and worthy of public protection if they are not now on the inventory. A copy of the current regulations is attached to this report. One of the primary deficiencies identified by the HRB is the current category system. An example of a deficiency is that the landmark categories in Palo Alto’s Ordinance, Categories 1 and 2, only include structures with architectural merit and do not include structures which are valuable cultural resources for reasons other than outstanding architectural merit. This is inconsistent with National Standards for Historic Preservation and creates confusion. 2. Evaluation Policy, Moratorium The Moratorium Ordinance has placed in abeyance the demolition of any pre-1940 structure, whether on the inventory or not, unless they were determined exceptions on September 24, 1996, to allow time to develop interim regulations. With adoption of the Moratorium, Council has also requested a new time line and cost assessment for expediting the Planning Division Work Program item to update the Historic Inventory. Likewise, Council has directed preparation of interim regulations to allow a temporary process of assessing historic merit for properties which request demolition until such time as the new Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Building Inventory can be updated. It is assumed that these regulations will provide for analyzing the historic merit of the building for purposes of protecting those with merit and allowing demolition of those without merit. CMR: 417:96 Page 9 of 20 3. Evaluation Policy Options, Interim Regulations In order to determine whether a structure has historic significance or not, a system of evaluation needs to be used. Council should chose between the following options: 1) decide if it wants to continue to use the current historic designation regulations now contained in Chapter 16.49 (Attachment B), or 2) expand the evaluation classification to include additional factors typically used in up-to-dat historic preservation ordinances, such as including structures of cultural merit in the historic categories. Staff forwarded a copy of the current standards for historic designation to Cherilyn Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer, for her evaluation so that she might recommend changes to bring the existing standards up to par with national standards. She has agreed to perform this analysis quickly for the City, and to assist in a variety of other ways. (Refer to Attachment C). Her evaluation will be available for the Council by the time of their meeting, but was not available at the time this report was published. Evaluation Option 1: Current Standards. Continue to use the current standards for designation as evaluation criteria for significant historic structures built prior to 1940 Evaluation Option 2: Stren~hen Standards. Strengthen the evaluation criteria by updating the standards for designation as recommended by the State Office of Historic Preservation C. Compatibili _ty Policy The Council memo and subsequent community discussion raise the issue of whether the current regulations provide sufficient protection to the character and integrity of historic neighborhoods as older residences are replaced by new residences. The Council should decide whether or not to include compatibility criteria in the regulations and whether to administer those through a discretionary or ministerial staff approval process, or a process involving one or more City boards and commissions. This is a highly divisive issue because it implicates individual judgement, property rights, and could affect hundreds, if not thousands, ofPalo Altans during home remodeling or rebuilding. 1. Compatibility Policy - Pre-Moratorium The current policy framework for regulating single family design is in the R-1 Zoning Ordinance. As with all of the Palo Alto residential zoning districts, the single- family regulations do not reflect as well the codes used to design traditional CMR: 417:96 Page 10 of 20 neighborhoods, as they do modem suburban zoning standards. While some accommodations for older houses were made during the development of the R-1 regulations, the current R-1 rules were designed primarily to address post 1940 construction. This is because the majority of housing stock in Palo Alto was built after World War II. One of.the primary reasons for the development of an HIE process was that the pre-1940 housing stock did not fit well into the "box" that was eventually designed for the majority of Palo Alto neighborhoods. However, the HIE process is used exclusively by people remodeling their houses, and is not available for "new residences". There are no compatibility guidelines or design control requirements in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. HRB recommendations on design or alteration of replacement housing, even in the Professorville National Historic District, are voluntary, although in limited situations they can be enforced by the Zoning Administrator or ARB through another discretionary review process. The single- family residential guidelines are also non-mandatory unless enforced through an exception, variance or ARB approval. Design review for singly developed single- family residences has been raised and rejected by previous Councils, including in 1989 when the current R-1 regulations were adopted. 2. Compatibility Policy - Moratorium The Moratorium puts all pre-1940 demolition permits in abeyance until such time as interim regulations can be adopted. The Council has the ability to consider whether or not they want to include compatibility standards in the interim regulations. It is not uncommon to include such criteria in Historic Preservation ordinances. Some historic protection ordinances allow demolition or alteration of "contributing buildings", when necessary, only when a design compatibility finding can be made for the replacement structure prior to approval of the demolition. It should be noted that any type of design review of single family residences has been resisted in the past, however. This is an area of public policy where the community has had strongly divided opinions. Staff is particularly concerned about publicly noticed, discretionary review processes for single-family housing. The amount of staff resources required for mediation between neighbors, the lack of general public education about design and architecture, and the emotion that applicants bring to the process make this type of application potentially divisive and certainly expensive. However, staff acknowledges that the size, design and character of replacement housing is at the core of much negative community reaction to the recent single- family construction boom. The pre-1940 housing stock being demolished includes- CMR: 417:96 Page 11 of 20 some well designed, albeit not necessarily well-maintained, cottages of bungalow, craftsmen, Queen Anne, Tudor, or other traditional style, originally constructed with high-quality and authentic materials. These modest structures are often being replaced with large residences, many of which are designed without the benefit of a licenced architect, constructed of artificial or poorer quality materials and lacking design integrity or the faithful rendering of an architectural style. Some demolitions have taken place for very expensive, well-maintained older residences. The following list outlines the other types of design changes which cause members of the public to react negatively to replacement housing: a. Heights and proportions of new houses are not consistent with the selected architectural style and design, and sometimes it is not possible to determine what style has been selected because elements from many different styles are combined into one residence. b. Whereas pre-1940 residences often used quality materials like real wood siding, rock, brick, shingles, plaster and terra cotta tiles, the new residences are often selecting composite, synthetic, vinyl, stucco, aluminum, fabricated or imitation products and combine traditional features, e.g., cupolas, porches, bay windows, other windows, towers, turrets, gingerbread, and decorative elements in a way that is confusing and inconsistent with traditional architectural style or in a manor that lacks architectural integrity. c. Older residences generally contain windows constructed of real glass and wood, and included true divided light, sills, I~ames, sashes, mutins, etc... Fenestration and architectural detail were carefully selected for the building facades. The architect generally attempted to create a tasteful and understated design, with attention and respect to balanced proportion. These residences do not call attention to themselves. Many new residences, on the other hand, are using vinyl, metal or plastic windows often with artificial or snap-in grids. They sometimes use arched, angled, octagonal and other combinations of window shapes without any apparent rationale. Decoration and proportions appear to be designed to call attention to the residence, rather than being based on principles of proper proportion and balance. Sometimes, new residences even include large expanses of blank walls, without any windows. d. Prevalent front yard setbacks in the neighborhood are not being respected with the new construction, and the zoning ordinance does not necessarily allow the traditional prevalent setback to be observed. A modification to the zoning regulations for establishing setbacks by block face in traditional CMR: 417:96 Page 12 of 20 neighborhoods was assigned to staff in 1986, but has never been accomplished due to competing priorities. e. Traditional homes were generally designed so that building architecture dominated the front facade. A link was usually designed from the private residence to the public realm, through the use of some type of porch or entry feature and walkway, human scaled and properly dimensioned for the architectural style of the house. These features create a "sense of welcome" for the visitor. Many new residences present the garage doors, which have little architectural merit, as the primary entrance and dominant front facade feature for the house. In some instances, if the new residence contains a porch or entry features, it is designed without pedestrian proportions, as a one and one-half or two story element which calls attention to the residence. f. Many traditional residences and neighborhoods have a garage placement pattern of rear-yard garages. The preference of some new home builders is to move the garage doors to the front of the lot, attached to the house. This reduces the amount of human-scaled architecture at the street, and it often results in the immediate removal or damage and eventual removal of street trees for the necessary driveway widening.. Because the Council memo did not directly raise the size, or FAR issue, staffhas not addressed it in this analysis. Staff would not recommend raising the citywide issue of R-1 regulations until after completion for the Comprehensive Plan, when the Zoning Ordinance Update is initiated, 1997-98. 3. Compatibility Policy Options- Interim Regulations Should Council decide to utilize either Demolition Options 1 or 2, page 7, compatibility criteria would not be needed. Compatibility Design Criteria would only be needed if Council elects to pursue Demolition Option 3 a) or b), page 8. If either option is selected, staff will require direction on the preferred method of implementing these compatibility criteria: Compatibility Option 1: Staff Approval Develop easily.enforced (e.g., clear and concise) Design Criteria to achieve compatibility and quality in the replacement structure. These Design Criteria could be prepared and enforced by a professional with expertise in historic/architectural design and could include such provisions as: ) front yard setbacks based on the prevailing setback on the block face, 2) garage placement to CMR: 417:96 Page 13 of 20 match the pattern in the neighborhood, 3) circumstances when pedestrian scaled porches or entry features would be required; 4) listed acceptable quality materials authentic to the style of the house required, and 5) specifications requiring architectural style integrity, while not dictating choice of style. It is assumed that the Design Standards would control pattern, placement, architectural authenticity and quality of materials, but that style (e.g., Tudor, Queen Anne, modem) would not be controlled. This assumption is based on Palo Alto’s long tradition of welcoming variety in architectural style in most neighborhoods and districts. However, style control is also an option if Council desires. Compatibility Option 2: Des~n Review. Require design review for the replacement structure. This option would be a discretionary approval process, presumably with the HRB (or other review body) acting as recommending body to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The review body would test alterations to Landmark structures on the existing Historic Inventory against the National Standards for Historic Preservation (Attachment D), and Contributing Structures against a certain set of discretionary standards. Guidelines can also be developed to supplement the standards. Discretionary review processes are accompanied by public notification and appeal. It should be noted that involving the HRB in mandatory, discretionary review processes will be a significant change in the HRB’s current functions. This change will require detailed consideration of its implications upon the HRB’s orientation, training, technical staffing, administration, and legal support. II. Procedural Framework In the September 12, 1996 memo, Council members asked staff to construct an interim process whereby any demolition permit would be evaluated by the t-IRB prior to demolition to determine whether the structure has historic significance and whether the owner has taken all available steps to preserve the structure. The HRB recommendation would be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval, in the same way that ARB decisions are currently handled. The Director would have three options for the HRB decision - either approve the Decision, return the decision to the HRB for further consideration or forward the decision to City Council. The Director’s decision could be appealed to City Council. CMR: 417:96 Page 14 of 20 The current standards for designation could be used to determine significance, or a greater or lesser standard can be quickly developed. (See Evaluation Policy Options 1 and 2, page 10) " Staff recommends the following process, depending upon whether a structure is: A) Without Significant Historic Merit; B)Landmark Structure (Category 1 and 2 or suitable for designation as Category 1 and 2); or c)Contributing Structure (Category 3 and 4 or suitable for designation as a Category 3 or 4). A. Structures without Significant Historic Merit If the structure does not meet the standards for designation it would be determined to be without significant historic merit. The HRB would recommend and the Planning Director would approve issuance of a demolition permit. The project would be free to apply for a building permit without further review. B. Landmark Status If a structure is currently Category 1 or 2 or is found by the Board to have potential for landmark status (Category 1 or 2), an historic survey of the property would be required, unless Demolition Recommendation 1 and 2 could be immediately substantiated by the applicant. The survey would be conducted by a qualified professional in historic preservation, restoration and classification. The survey would provide a basis for the HRB’s further evaluation of the request for demolition. The survey would assess whether all reasonable means had been pursued by the applicant to preserve the structure, and would evaluate the condition of the structure and the cost needed to rehabilitate it. 1. Process for Demolition Contributing) page 7 Option 1, (Delay for Both Landmark and The survey, and any information presented by the applicant and community would be the basis of the HRB recommendation and Planning Director decision to require delay of the demolition. Findings related to the merit of the structure, its condition, and the economic feasibility of retaining it would be required. The Director’s decision to grant or delay demolition would be subject to appeal to City Council. CMR: 417:96 Page 15 of 20 2. Process for Demolition Option 2, .(Deny for Landmark, Delay for Contributing) page 7 The survey, and any information presented by the applicant and community would be the basis for the HRB recommendation and Planning Director decision to deny or approve the demolition. If denied, the structure would not be allowed to be demolished until the Interim regulations are superseded. At that point, new regulations would then provide the basis for future requirements related to demolition, alteration and historic preservation of the subject structure. The Director’s decision to grant or deny the demolition would be based on findings related to the merit of the structure, it’s condition, and the economic feasibility of retaining it. The decision would be subject to appeal to the City Council. Alterations would be permitted only if they were found consistent with National Standards for Historic Preservation. 3. Process for Demolition Option 3, 0)eny for Both, Unless Compatible Replacement) page 7, Same as 2. above. C. Contributin~ Status If a structure is found by the Board to have potential for contributing status (Category 2 or 3), an historic survey of the property may be required, unless Demolition Recommendations 1 and 2, page 7, could instead be substantiated by the applicant, or the HRB and Director have enough information to make the necessary findings without such a survey. The survey, if necessary to make the demolition decision, would be conducted by a qualified professional in historic preservation, restoration and classification, hired by the City and paid for by the applicant. The survey would provide a basis for the the HRB’s further evaluation of the request for demolition. The survey would assess whether all reasonable means had been pursued by the applicant to preserve the structure, and would evaluate the condition of the structure and the cost needed to rehabilitate it. 1. Process for Demolition, Option 1, (Delay for Both Landmark and Contributing) page 7 The survey, if required, and any information presented by the applicant and community would be the basis of the HRB recommendation and Planning Director decision to delay the demolition. Findings related to the merit of the structure, it’s condition, and the economic feasibility of retaining it would be required. The CMR: 417:96 Page 16 of 20 Director’s decision to grant or require delay of demolition would be subject to appeal to City Council. 2. Process for Demolition Option 2, (Deny for Landmark, Delay for Contributing) page 7 Same as 1. above. 3. Process for Demolition, (Deny for Both Unless Compatible Replacement) Option 3a) and b), page 8 The survey, if required, and any information presented by the applicant and community would form the basis of making decisions that the design quality of the replacement facility is at least equal to that of the existing facility, and compatible with the neighborhood, as determined by the Design Criteria (to be prepared) under Option 3a); or as determined by the HRB in reviewing their standards (to be prepared) during their discretionary design review process under Option 3b). The Director’s decision to grant or delay demolition would be subject to appeal to City Council. 4. Process for Demolition Option 3c), (Condition Hardship), page 8 The survey, if required, and any information provided by the applicant, would provide a basis for determining if the structure meets the defmition of"seriously deteriorated" (to be defined). Findings related to the merit of the structure, it’s condition, and the economic feasibility of retaining it would be required. The Director’s decision to grant demolition would be subject to appeal to City Council. ALTERNATIVES Any number of policy and procedural alternatives are available to the Council. A range of policy options has been presented earlier in this report. Procedural alternatives might include: 1) Utilize a staff person as hearing officer and decision maker for the process, similar to the Zoning Administrator, rather than utilizing the HRB. Because the caseload for the Zoning Administrator is at and beyond capacity of one position, it would be recommended that an additional person be contracted to perform this function, preferably an person with considerable experience in historic preservation. This would be the most efficient and least costly option for applicants, however. CMR: 417:96 Page 17 of 20 2) Utilize the ARB as the decision-maker in all or some aspects of the process. Because the ARB are not necessarily qualified in historic preservation, and using both Boards would unnecessarily extend the process and add to the cost, this option is not recommended. 3) Utilize the Planning Commission in some manner in the process. The Planning Commission is also not necessarily qualified to make the required evaluations and recommendations, and including them as well as the HRB would extend the process and increase the cost. 4) City Council, versus the Director of Planning and Community Environment, could be the decision maker on all applications. This has the advantage of providing education and experience with the interim regulations for the City Council prior to their taking action on the permanent regulations. It has the disadvantage Of extending time lines, using Council agenda time, and creating additional cost. FISCAL IMPACT The costs for administering the interim regulations will be significant and will depend to a large extent on the policy options selected by the City Council and to what extent Council decides to make the interim permit processes subject to cost recovery. The staffing for processing all applications for demolition can be "cost recovery" and processed by contract staff. Both professional and temporary support staff are likely to be required. The hours and magnitude of staffing will depend to a large extent on the process options selected by Council. For example, by expanding the definition of"demolition", a much greater number of applications will be required and a larger number of hours of contract assistance will be needed. The cost per application will also vary based on Council direction, but could range from 10 hours to 100 hours, or $1,000 to $10,000, or more, depending on whether the item is controversial and/or appealed, and whether or not .design review is required. Another cost in the process is the cost of a survey of the structure and property, if it is determined to have potential landmark status, or if the HRB requests a survey for a contributing status structure. These surveys can range in cost from $1,000 to $8,000. It is assumed that while this cost will not be necessary for many of the applications, it would also be billed to the applicant through the cost recovery application. Administrative overhead, included in the hourly fee estimated, will be required to supply printing, mailing, noticing and other costs. If staff administered design criteria are determined to be desirable, they will require professional preparation, a cost estimate for which staff is attempting to obtain estimates. Once Council acts and costs can be estimated, a budget amendment ordinance to cover all costs would immediately be required and sole source contract permission would be sought CMR: 417:96 Page 18 of 20 in order to rapidly obtain contract and/or consultant assistance and temporary support staff hired to provide administrative services. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Because the interim regulations have been directed to strengthen the City’s Historic Protection Ordinance, preventing demolition of historically significant structures for protection of the environment, the ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under a Class 8 Exemption. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL After the Council provides policy and procedural direction, staff will prepare the interim regulations for Council adoption on October 15, 1996. At that time staff will return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for implementation of the Interim Regulations and for the revised Work Program to complete both the Historic Protection Ordinance and Historic Inventory simultaneously and on a faster time line than anticipated in the budget adoption. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A, Time line for Legislative Response Attachment B, Historic Protection Ordinance Attachment C, Letter from Cherilyn Widell, Office of Historic Preservation, September 15, 1996 Attachment D, National Standards for Historic Preservation Attachment E, Definition of Landmark and Contributing Structures or properties CC:Historic Resources Board Planning Commission Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage Chamber of Commerce Architectural Review Board Board of Realtors Cherilyn Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer Prepared by: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Offidal DEPARTMENT I-~AD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR: 417:96 Page 19 of 20 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: FLEMING Manager CMR: 417:96 Page 20 of 20 BUILDING REGULATIONS 16.49.020 CHAPTER 16.49 HISTORIC PRESERVATION1 16.49.010 Purpose. It is found that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, districts and neighborhoods of historical and architectural sig- nificance located within the city am of cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. It is further found that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this city will be enhanced by respect- hag the heritage of the city. The purposes of this chapter are to: (a) Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those historic structures, districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Palo Alto; (b) Foster civic pride ha the beauty and ae- complishmems of the past; (c) Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts and neigh- (d) Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such struelxtres; (e) Enrich the educational and cttltural di- mensions of human life by serving aesthetic as well as mamrial needs and fostering knowledge of the living heritage of the past; (f) Enhance the visual and aesthetic char- acter, diversity and ~ of the city; (g) Establish special requirements so as to assure the preservation and the satisfactory main- tenance of significant historic smmmes within the downtown area. (Ord. 3721 §1 (part), 1986) 16.49.020 Definitions. Throughout this chapter, the following defini- tions shall apply: (a) "Downtown area" means that area of the University Avenue business district subject to Chapter 18.48 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Munic- 1prior ordinance history: Ords. 3197, 3243, 3333 and 3523. ipal Code (the zoning code) and all zones within the geographical boundaries shown on the maps incorporated into Chapter 18.48, including planned community, and public facility districts. (b) "Historic categories" means those cate- gories established to define and categorize the his- toric structures/sites on the historic inventory. Those categories are as follows: Category 1: "Exceptional building" means any building or group of buildings of preeminent na- tional or state importmce, meritorious work of the best architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architectu.m ha the United States. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall apl:~trance of the building is ha its original character. Category 2: "Major building" means any build- hag or group of buildings of major regional im- portance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an archimemml style or the stylistic development of architecture ha the .state or region. A major building may have some exmrior modifications, but the original character is Category 3 or 4: "Contributing building" means any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had ex- tensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden fa- cades resurfacexl in asbestos or stucco. (e) "Historic district" means a collection of buildings in a geographically definable area pos- sessing a significant concentration or continuity of buildings unified by past events, or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district should have integrity of design, setang, materials, workmanship and association. The collective value of a historic district taken together may be greater than the value of each individual building. All structures/sites within a historic district are 16101 16.49.030 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE categorized as significant on the historic inven- tory. (d) "Historic inventory" means the current edition of the Palo Aim Historical and Architec- tural Resources Report and Inventory, and the master list of categories for those structures or sites. (e) "Historic structure/site" means any struc- ture or site within the city which has been identi- fied as having historic or architectural significan~ and has been placed, on the historic inventory of the city of Palo Alto, including structures and sites within, categories 1, 2, 3 or 4, and all struc- tures within historic districts. (f) "Significant building" means any build- ing, group of buildings or site categorized on the historic inventory as number one or number two and all structures within historic districts. (Ord. 3721 §1 (part), 1986) 16.49.030 Historic resources board. (a) Composition. The historic resources board shall be composed of seven members ap- l~ointed by the city cotmeil and serving without pay. Members shall have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history, architectttm or historic preservation. One member shall be an owner/oc- cupant of a category 1 or 2 historic structure, or of a structure in a historic district; three members shall be. architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals-and at least one member shall possess academic educa- tion or practical experience in history or a related fiekL (b) Terms of office. Members shall serve for terms of three years and until their respective suc- cessors are appointed. Terms shall be staggered so that three positions are refilled one year, and four positions are refilled two years later. Commencing on October 21, 1991, there shall be one member whose term expires May 31, 1992, and one member whose term expires May 31, 1994. Subsequent appointm, ents shall be made for terms of th.me years, or until their successors are appointed. Terms of office commence June 1. (c) Appointment. In filling vacancies on the historic resources board, the following proce- dures shall be followed by the city council: (I) Following notification of vacancy or pending vacancy on the historic resources board, the city clerk shall advertise the same in a news- paper of general circulation in the city, including the council agenda digest, four times within two weeks. (2) Written nominations and applications shall be submitted to the city clerk within one week of the date of the last notice to be forwarded to the city council for its consideration. Notwith- standing the foregoing, if the nomination or appli- cation of an incumbent board member is not sub- mitted to the city clerk within the period specified above, said period shall be extended for an addi- tional five days during which the city clerk shall accept written nominations and applications of nonincumbents. (3) The Palo Alto Historic Association shall be given notice of vacancies on the board and shall be encouraged to have its members sub- mit applications. (4) The city council shall review all nomi- views as it deems necessary prior to selections. (5) Final selection and appointment shall be made by the city council at a regular city council meeting after the periodfor submittal of nomina- tions and applications has expit~l. (d) Organization. The board shall hold meet- ings twice monthly or at the pleasure of the chair- person, and shall establish such rules as may be appropriate and necessary for the orderly conduct of its business. The board shall elect a chairper- son and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall serve in such capacity for terms of one year each. The chairperson shall preside over meetings of the board, and in the absence or dis- ability of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform tl~ duties of tlw chairperson. 1=our members shall constitute a quorum and decisions of the board shall be determined by ma- jority vote of those members present at the meet- ing. Action minutes shall be kept by the board. 16102 BUILDING REGULATIONS 16.49.030 (e) Duties. It is the duty of the historic re- sources board to: (1) Render advice and guidance to a prop- erty owner upon the owner’s application for alter- at.ion of any historic single-family or duplex building in the downtown area and any such 16102.1 BUILDING REGULATIONS 16.49.040 building designated as significant elsewhere in the city. (2) Inform the architectural review board of the historical and/or architectural significance of historic commercial and multiple-family structures in the downtown area and any such buildings des- ignated as significant elsewhere in the city that are under review by the architectural review board. Submit recommendations to the architectural re- view board regarding proposed exterior altera- tions of such historic structures. (3) Recommend to the council the designa- tion of additional buildings and districts as his- toric. (4) Research available information and add historical information to the inventory sheets of historic structures/sites. This inventory is main- tained in the department of platming and commu- nity environment. (5) Perform such other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the historic re- sources board by the city council. (Ord. 4047 §§1-3, 1991: Oral. 3876 §1, 1989: Ord. 3721 §1 (part), 1986) 16.49.040 Designation of historic struc- tures/sites. (a) Procedure for designation of historic structures/sites or districts. Any individual or group may propose designation-as a historic structure/site or district. Such proposals shall be reviewed by the historic resources board, which will make its recommendation to the council. Des- ignation of a historic structure/site or district must be approved by the city council. The procedure for such designation is as follows: (1) Any proposal for designation shall be filed with the department of planning and commu- nity environment and shall include the following data: (A) The address and assessor’s parcel number of the site or boundaries of the proposed district; 03) A description detailing the struc- ture/site or district’s special aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of a historic nature; (C) A description of the historical value of the structure/site or district: (D) A description of the current condition of and any known threats to the structure/site or district (E’) What restoration, if any, would be necessary to return the structure/site or district to its original appearance; (F) Sketches, drawings, photographs or other descriptive material; (G) Other supporting information. (2) Each proposal shall be considered by the historic resources board at a public hearing within sixty days of the receipt of the proPOSal. In any case where an application for a planning or building permit affecting the exterior of a building is pending concurrently with a proposal for des- ignation, the recommendation of the historic resources board shall be made within twenty days of receipt of the proposal (3) Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be given at least twelve days prior to the date of the hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, or by mail to the applicant, to the owner or own- ers of th~ property, and to the owners of property within three hundred feet of the site. (4) The historic -resources board shall rec- ommend to the city council approval, disapproval or modification of an application for designation. (5) The city council may approve, disap- prove or modify a recommendation for desig- nation and, in any case where an application for a planning or building permit is pending concur- rently with the proposal for designation, such de- cision shall be made within thirty days of the re- commendation, if any, of the historic resources board. (6) After approval of the designation of a structure/site or district, the city clerk shall send to the owners of the property so designated, by mail, a letter outlining the basis for such designa- tion and the regulations which result from such designation. Notice of this designation shall also 16103 6.49.050 PALO ALTO MIYNICIPAL CODE be filed in the building department and the depart- ment of planning and community environment files. (b) Criteria for designation. The following criteria, along with the definitions of historic cate- gories and districts in Section 16.49.020, shall be used as criteria for designating additional historic structures/sites or districts to the historic haven- (1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; (2) The structure or site is particularly rel>- resentative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or ration; (3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; (4) The structure or site is connex:ted with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; (5) The architect or building was importam; (6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architec- tural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. (Ord. 37Z~ §~ (part), mZ6) 16.49.050 Exterior alteration of historic structures. (a) Review process. Atl applications for a building permit for exterior alteration to any his- toric structure/site in the downtown area or a significant building elsewhere in the city, new construction on a parcel where ther~ is currently a historic structure ha the downtown area 0kca sig- nificant building elsewhere in the city, or such application for construction within a historic district shall be reviewed as fono~s: (1) Review bodi~. (A) Pursuant to Chapter 16.48, the archi- tectural review board shall.review applications in- volving any historic structure/site ha the down- town area and any significant slrueture/site else- where in the city, other than single-family and duplex residences. The architectural review board shall refer applications to the historic resources board for a recommendation on the proposed alteration of the structure. ~) The historic resources board shall review applications involving single-family and duplex residences which are historic structures/ sites in the downtown area or which are signifi- cant buildings elsewhere ha the city. Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations Shall be voluntary, not mandatory. (C) The planning staff may review and apprgve minor exterior alterations pursuant to guidelines which the historic resources board may adopt. Minor exterior alterations are those altera- tions which the director of planning and commu- nity ~vironment or his/her designee demrmines will not adversely affea the exterior architectural characteristics nor tlm historical or ae~hetic value ~f the historic sm~ctum, its site or ~. (2) T’tm¢ limit. Recommendations of the historic resources board on alterations to a historic single-family or duplex residence shall he ren- der~l within thirty days of the date of referral by the architecanal review board orthe chief tmilding official. Failure to provide a recommendation within the time limit shall cause an application for a commercial or multiple-family use to be mtumexl to the architectural review board, and a single- family or duplex application to he forwarded to the chief building official for consideration of issuanc~ of a building permit. (b) Standards of review. In ~valuating appli- cations, the review bodies shall consider the ar- chitectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent fac- tors. The prime concern should he the exterior appearanc~ of the building site.. (I) On tmildings not in a historical district, the proposed alterations should not adversely affect the exterior atr.hitectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the building and its site. (2) In historic districts, the proposed alterations should not adversely affect: (A) The exterior architectural character- istics nor the historical, architectural or aesthetic value of the building and its site; or 16104 BUILDING REGULATIONS 16.49,060 (B) The relationship of the building, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighborhood structures. (C) Appeals. Any interested party may appeal to-the city council the decision of the archi- tectural review board not to recommend approval of an application for a building permit to alter the exterior of any historic structure in the downtown area, or a significant structure elsewhere in the city or in a historic district. Such appeal shall be processed in accordance with Section 16.48.090. (Ord. 3721 §I (part), 1986) 16.49.060 Demolition of significant buildings in the downtown area. (a) Permit and findings. No permit shall be issued to demolish or cause to be demolished all or any part of a significant building in th~ down- (1) The city council determines that under the historic designation, taking into account the current market value, the value of transferable de- velopment fights, and the costs of rehabilitation to meet the requirements of the building code or other city, state or federal laws, the property re- tains no reasonable economic use; or (2) The chief building official or the fire chief, after consultation, to the extent feasible, with the department of planning and community environment, determines that an imm~nent safety. hazard exists and that demolition of the building is the only feasible means to secure the public safety;, or (3) The city council determines that demoli- tion of the building will not have a significant effect on the achievement of the purposes of this chapter. (b) Application for a permit to demolish. An application for a permit to demolish any signifi- cant building in the downtown area shall comply with Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition to the contents specified under Chapter 16.04, any application for a permit to demolish a significant building in the downtown area, on the grounds specified in Section 16.49.060(a)(I), shall contain any appropriate and relevant economic information which will enable the council to make the necessary determi- nation. (c) Review of application. (I) Historic resources board. Applicad0ns which are accepted as complete for a permit to demolish a significant building in the downtown area on the grounds specified in Section 16.49.060(@(I) or (3) shall be placed on the agenda of the historic resources board for hearing and recommendation. If the historic resources board does not act on the application within thirty days of referral to it, the city council may proceed without a recommendation from the historic re- sources board. (2) City coundl hearing and decision. Any application for permit to demolish a significant building in the downtown area on the grounds specified in Section 16.49.060(a)(1) or (3) shall be heard by the city council. Notice shall be given by marled notice to all owners of property imme- diatdy adjacent to the property that is the subject of the application, and by publication at least once in a local newspaper of general circulation. The applicant shall have the burden of establishing that the criteria set forth in Section 16.49.060(a)(1) or (3) has been met. The council may approve, dis- approve or approve the application with condi- tions, and shall make findings relating its decision to the standards set forth in Section 16.49.060(a). The decision of the council shall be rendered within thirty days from the date of the conclusion of the hearing. (d) Permit to move a significant building in the downtown arr.a or in a historic district. In re- viewing an application for a permit to demolish a significant building in the downtown area or in a historic district on the grounds specified in See- tion 16.49.060(a)(1) or (3), the historic resources beard may decide that the building may be moved without destroying its historic or architectural in- tegrity and importance, and may recommend to the city council that the demolition permit be denied, but that a permit to relocate be processed, pursuant to Chapter 16.32 of this code. In that 16105 .49.070 PALO ALTO I~K]N~C[PAL CODE case, the time limits and notice requirements of Section 16.49.070(c) shall also be applicable. (Ord. 3721 §I (part), 1986) 16.49.070 Demolition of contributing buildings in the downtown area and sig- nificant buildings other than in the down- town area. (a) Application and moratorium. Any person wishing to demolish a contributing btdlding in the downtown area or a significant building other than downtown shall file an application for a dem- olition permit in accordance with the procedures established by Chapter 16.04 of this code. With the application, the applicant shall submit one clear photograph of the front of the building and such other information as may be n~:luired by the chief building official in accordance with the re- quirements for the demolition permit. A copy of the application and photograph shall be forwarded to the city council as an information item in the next council packet. The chief building official may not take action on the application for sixty days following receipt of a completed application. (b) Referral to architectm-al review board or historical resources board. During the sixty-day moratorium, the chief bm’lding official shall refer the application for a permit to demolish to the ar- chitectural review board, in the case of all build- ings other than single-family and duplex resi- dences, for review and recommendation. The ar- chitectm-al review board shall refer the application to the historic resources board for recommenda- tions on the historical and/or archimcuwal signifi- cance of the building and the appropriate time for the moratorim. A demolition penait application for a single-family or duplex residence shall be referred to the historic waources board for recom- mendation. (c) Council action. The architectural review board, the historic re~urces board, or any inter- ested person may recommend that the council ex- tend the moratorium. The council shall agendize such a request and may extend the sixty-day peri- od for a period up to one year. In the case of an extended moratorium, the council, upon the rec- ommendation of the historic resources board, may require that appropriate and reasonable public notice of the availability of the structure be pro- vided by the applicant. (Ord. 3721 §I (part), 1986) 16.49.080 Maintenance of historic structures in the downtown area. The owner, lessee or other person legally in possession of a historic structure in the down- town area shall comply with all applicable codes, laws and regulations governing the maintenance of property. Additionally, it is the intent of this section to preserve from deliberate or inadvertent neglect the exterior features of buildings desig- nated as significant or contributory in the down- town ar~a, and the interior portiom thereof when such maintenance is necessary to prevent deteri- oration and decay of the exterior. All such build- ings shall be preserved against such decay and deterioration, and shall remain free from strucawal defects through prompt corre~ons of any of tbe following ddeas: (a) Facades which may fall and injure mem- bers of the public or property; (b) Deteriorated or inadequate foundation, defective or deteriorated flooring or floor sup- port% deteriorated walls or other vertical struc- (c) Members of-ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members which sag, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration; (d) Deteriorated or ineffective wa~rproofing of exterior walis~.roofs, foundations or floors, in- eluding broken windows or doors; (e) Defective or insufficient weather protec- tion for exterior wall covering, including lack of paint or other protective covering;, (f) Any fault or defect in the building which renders it not properly watertight or structurally unsafe. (ord. 3721 §1 (pro). m86) 16106 BUILDING REG ULATIONS 16.49.1130 16.49.090 Enforcement. (a) Unlawful akeration or demolition. (1) Violation -- Penalties. It is unlawful for a person or entity to demolish or cause to be demolished any significant building or portion thereof in the downtown area in violation of any of the provisions of thi~ chapter, Any person or emity violating these provisions is guilty of a mis- demeanor and, upon conviction of any such vio- lation, such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by im- prisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (’2) Civil penalty. Any person or entity who demolishes a building or causes a demolition in violation of the provisions of this chapter may be liable civilly in a sum equal to the replacement value of the building or an amount in the courfs discretion, not to exceed ten thousand dolla~. (3) Injunctive relief. The city attorney may maintain an action for injunctive relief to restrain a violation or cause, where possible, the complete or partial restoration, reconstruction, or replace- ment in kind of any building or site demolished, altered or partially demolished in violation of this ch ter. (4) Restriction on development. Alteration or demolition of a historic structure in violation of this chapter shall eliminate the eligibility of the structure’s lot for any transfer of development rights, pursuant to the Palo Alto comprehensive plan, and such lot, if it is the site of an unlawfully demolished historic structure from which devel- opment rights have been la-ansferred, shall not be developed in excess of the floor area ratio of the demolished structure for a period of twenty years from the unlawful demolition. A person or entity may be relieved of the penalties provided in this section if: (i) the unlawful alteration or demolition did not constitute a major alteration, as determined by the chief building official, or (ii) as to an un- lawful alteration, the person or entity restores the original distinguishing qualities and character of the building desta~yed or altered. Such restoration must be undertaken pursuant to a valid building permit issued after a recommendation by the his- toric resources board and a finding by the city council that the proposed work will effect ade- quate restoration and can be done with a substan- tial degree of success. (b) Failure to abide by maintenance regula- tions. (I) Abatement. The procedures set forth in Chapter 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code governing unsafe, dangerous or substandard buildings, whether in commercial or residential use, shall be applicable to any violations of Sec- tion 16.49.080. (2) Misdemeanor. It is unlawful for any person or entity to fail to maintain any building in the downtown area designated as sigrdfleant or contributory in violation of Section 16.49.080. Any such violation constitutes a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 16.49.090(a)(1) above. Each day of violation constitutes a sep- arate offense and may be separately punished. The chief building official and ordinance compli- ance inspector are authorized to exercise the au- thority in California Penal Code Section 836.5 and to issue citations for violation of Section 16.49.080. (3) Civil penalty. Any person or entity who fails to maintain any building in the downtown area designated as significant or contributory in violation of Section 16.49.080 may be liable civil- ly in a sum not to exceed one thousand dollars. Each day of violation constitutes a separate of- fense for which a penalty may be assessed. (c) Remedies not exclusive. The remedies provided by this section are not exciusive. (Ord. 3721 §1 (part), 1986) 16.49.100 Severability. If any provision or clause of this chapter is held to be unconstitutional orotherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalid- ity shall not affect other provisions of this chap- ter, and clauses of this chapter are declared to be severable. (Ord. 3721 §1 (part), 1986) 16107 Rev. Ord. Supp. 3/92 ;TATI~ OF CALIFORNIA o R~OLIRCE$ A~EN¢7 3FFICE OF HISTORIC PI~.ESERV~,Ti’ON 3EPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ~,O. 80X 942596 ;ACRAMENTO, CA 94296-0001 9] 6) 653.6624 916) 653-9824 F~ PEI-E WILSON, ~eptember 15, 1996 .Vls. Lisa Grote, CLG Coordinator Dept. of Planning and Urban Community Environment City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, Ca 94303 Dear Ms, Grote, News has reached t!ffs office that the Mayor and Council will be considering on Monday evening as an agenda item, au Ordinance Establishing an Urgency Moratorium on the Demolition of Older Houses, As a Certified Local Government ~mder the National I-~istorie Preservation Act in partnership with the California State Historic Preservation Office, I wanted to offer the assistance of this office in developing new local provisions and evaluating the many historic properties located in Palo Alto. We would be happy to provide examples of ordinances and provisions used by other cities and towns to protect historic properties as a community continues to grow and develop. The city should als0 be aware that the costs associated with updating a local prese.rvadon ordinance are an eligible cost for grant funds from the Certified Local Government grant funds. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Sandra Eider should you need further assistance with your plans for protecting the heritage of Pale Alto. State Historic Preservation Officer THE SECRETARY OFTHE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. (1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. (2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. (3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. (4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (7) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of struc- tures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. (8) Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation meas- ures shall be undertaken. (9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. As stated in the definition, the treatment "rehabilitation" assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alteration must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building’s historic character. For example, certain treatments--if improperly applied--may cause or accelerate physical dete: rioration of historic building. This can include using improper repointing or exterior masonry cleaning techniques, or introducing insulation that damages historic fabric. In almost all of these situations, use of these materials and treatments will result in a project that does not meet the Standards. Similarly, exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure will fail to meet the Standards. Technical Guidance Publications The National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, conducts a variety of activities to guide Federal agencies, States, and the general public in historic preservation project work. In additi~on to establishing standards and guidelines, the Service develops, publishes, and distributes technical information on appropriate preservati .on treatments, including Preservation Briefs, case studies, and Preservation Tech Notes. A Catalog of Historic Preservation Publications with stock numbers, prices, and ordering information may be obtained by writing: Preservation Assis- tance Division, Technical Preservation Services, P.O. Box 37127, Washington~ D.C. 20013-7127. ATTACHMENT E: DEFINITIONS Landmark buildings: Exceptional or major buildings or groups of buildings which are of preeminent national, state or regional importance, exhibit meritorious work of the best architects, are an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States, California or the region, or are identified with historic people or with important events or activities in the city, state or nation. The buildings may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. Contributing buildings: Buildings or groups of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details or changes to exterior materials.