HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-15 City Council (24)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Rep°rtl
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: October 15, 1996 CMR:436:96
SUBJECT:Interim Regulations Related to Demolition of Residential
Structures Constructed Prior to 1940
REQUEST:
This report transmits a Proposed Ordinance establishing interim regulations concerning the
demolition of residential structures constructed .prior to 1940. It also forwards Draft
Compatibility Review Standards for Replacement Houses and Draft Standards for Historic
Designation, additional regulations authorized by the Interim Ordinance. The Interim
Regulations and appendix documents will replace the September 17, 1996 Moratorium
Ordinance on demolition of older residences. These regulations will be utilized until
modified or until they are permanently replaced with an updated Historic Protection
Ordinance and Historic Resource Inventory.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Council:
Review and adopt the attached proposed Ordinance establishing Interim Regulations.
Direct staff to return the Ordinance to Council for a public hearing in conjunction
with the second reading of the Ordinance on October 28, 1996.
Preliminary review and direct any needed revisions to the regulations and content
outline contained in the Compatibility Review Standards, and direct staff to return
with a Resolution and the Standards on October 28, 1996.
o Preliminary review and direct any needed revisions to the Standards for Historic
Designation, and direct staff to return with a Resolution and the Standards on October
28, 1996.
CMR:436:96 Page 1 of 9
o
o
Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Fee Schedule for cost
recovery to implement the interim regulations, on October 28, 1996.
Adjustments will be necessary to both the Planning Division Work Program and
budget, as well as the CiB, Attorney budget, for 1996-97 in order to implement the
interim regulations and assume the Historic Inventor3, Update assignment. Direct
staff to return with an analysis of staff and management impacts associated with new
Work Program assignments at the earliest possible date.
Direct staff to return on the earliest possible agenda with a budget amendment
ordinance to compensate $5,000 to the Comprehensive Plan Publishing Contract, an
indirect cost of the Urgency Moratorium.
BACKGROUND
Background information related to these Interim Regulations has been previously described
in the attached report dated September 30, 1996 (CMR:417:96). On September 30, 1996, the
City. Council provided policy direction to staff regarding the content of the interim
regulations. The interim regulations will serve to regulate demolition until the Historic
Ordinance and Inventory can be updated. The purpose of this report is to transmit the Draft
Ordinance and regulations and to raise policy questions that have come up since the
September 30, 1996 Council direction.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
A policy framework for guiding the Interim Regulations was presented in CMR:417:96. On
September 30, 1996 the Council adopted the following motions providing policy direction
to staff on the Interim Regulations:
°
Use Definition of Demolition Option 1, "retain 50 percent perimeter walls" for all
contributing structures, and Option 2, "an act or process that destroys or razes in
whole or in part a building, structure or site" for landmark structures.
Use Standards for Historic Evaluation Option 2: Strengthen the evaluation criteria by
updating the standards for designation as recommended by the State Office of Historic
Preservation.
o Designate staffas the first level of review authority for pre-1940 structures not on the
inventory, to determine those without significant historic merit. Such decision shall
be a publicly noticed procedure, appealable to City Council.
°Designate the Historic Resources Board as the second-level review authority for pre-
1940 structures for evaluating and determining whether the structure is of landmark
CMR:436:96 Page 2 of 9
o
status, contributing status, or of no merit. The process for this evaluation would be
similar to that now used in the Architectural Review Board ordinance, where the
HRB, in a public hearing process, would act as a recommending body to the Director,
with appeal to Council.
Include the following in the Interim Regulations: Demolition Recommendation 1:
The property "as is" cannot be used for any economically viable purpose, and
renovation is determined not economically feasible; and Demolition Recommendation
2: The property is determined to represent a safety hazard under PAMC 16.40, and
demolition of the building is the only economically feasible means to secure public
safety.
Include Demolition Option 3a in the Interim Regulations: Strengthen the current
ordinance not to allow complete demolition of landmark structures, except under
Demolition Recommendation 1 and 2. Allow alteration of landmarks only when the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings are met. Permit demolition of contributing
structures only with a compatible replacement structure. A compatible replacement
structure will be one where 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 replacement is at least equal in design quality to the existing structure.
The Compatibility Review will be subject to staff approval based on a set of defined
criteria and through a ministerial process.
DISCUSSION
The attached proposed Ordinance reflects the policy direction provided by Council or
contained in the staff report description and accepted in Council discussion at their
September 30, 1996 meeting. Likewise, the use of Compatibility Review Standards and
Standards for Designation is also based on Council action and discussion. The
recommendation to review the Draft Standards documents and continue Council
consideration to the October 28, 1996 Council meeting is made, in part, to provide additional
time and opportunity for public review and comment.
At the Joint Historic Resource Board and City Council meeting of October 7, 1996, a
preliminary Draft Ordinance was distributed and presented by the city attorney. Several
questions which have arisen since the Council meeting on September 30, 1996 were outlined
for Council and the HRB, and staff recommends that the Council consider these issues and
provide any further policy direction if desired.
CMR:436:96 Page 3 of 9
Front Facade in the 50 Percent Demolition Rule: A motion to amend the 50
percent demolition rule to include the front elevation of the existing structure failed
on a 4 to 5 vote at the September 30, 1996 City Council meeting. Modifications to
the front of the house have the most dramatic impact on neighborhood character and
context. By including the front facade in the definition, additional neighborhood
compatibility, will be achieved in those projects which "escape" the Interim
Regulations by designing beneath the 50 percent threshold.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that this amendment be included in
demolition definition, and the proposed ordinance reflects this change.
o "Fences and Paint": At the October 7, 1996, joint meeting the issue was raised
about whether the City should have jurisdiction over changes to landmark structures
that do not require permits from the City, such as fences or paint modifications.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that review jurisdiction not be extended to
consider these non-permit activities when they are undertaken independently by the
property owner, but that these items be reviewed if the project is subject to the Interim
Regulations through permit application. No change to the Draft Ordinance is
required.
Designation Moratorium: Staffhas raised a concern that structures are likely to be
discovered to be significant through the Interim Regulalions, but that applicants may
withdraw and amend plans below the 50 percent threshold in order to escape
Compatibility Review or review according to National Standards. Under the current
ordinance, it would be possible for applicants to escape the Interim Regulations by
redesigning the demolition to an "addition."
Staff recommendation: Should the Council want to prevent this outcome, staffwould
recommend an amendment to Section 16.49.040 to impose a demolition or alteration
moratorium at the time the historic designation is proposed. The moratorium would
last until the application had been finally considered by Council.
Evaluations Possible without Demolition Permit Application: The ordinance has
been drafted to allow owners to seek historic evaluations from the City without
needing to apply for a demolition permit.
Staff recommendation: No change to the Draft ordinance is necessary.
Direct Referral to HRB for an Evaluation: Ifa structure has obvious historic merit,
and both the Director and the applicant agree that the initial staff review is
CMR:436:96 Page 4 of 9
unnecessary, a time and cost saving measure has been included in the ordinance
which allows direct referral to HRB.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that direct referral be permitted and no
change in the Draft Ordinance is necessary.
Exceptions to the Compatibility_ Standards: It is not possible to develop design or
site development standards which apply to all circumstances. There needs to be an
exception process for any ministerially administered regulations in order to
accommodate unforeseen and unusual circumstances which create the wrong results.
Staff recommendation: Staffrecommends that an exception process which allows the
applicant to seek relief from the Compatibility, Standards be made available. The
process should involve a staff-conducted hearing opportunity, and a decision by the
Director, and should be based on findings that the proposed alternative better achieves
design quality and compatibility with the existing neighborhood than would the strict
application of the Compatibility standards.
ALTERNATIVES
Any number of alternatives are available to the Council. A range of policy options has been
presented earlier in CMR:417:96, but these alternatives were not selected by Council.
Staff recommends that a four month status on the Interim Regulations return to Council for
evaluation. At that time, it may be necessary to examine new alternatives or reexamine
alternatives that were not previously selected.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs for administering the interim regulations will be significant. The cost of moving
forward Item 39 of the Planning Division Work Program will also be significant. The
following discussion projects some of the specific costs, and identifies generally other, as
yet unquantified, costs. Staff is currently analyzing and estimating the full costs and will
return to Council with our analysis at the earliest possible agenda. In the meantime, we are
implementing Council direction with existing resources, by placing other assignments on
hold, based on priorities in the Work Program, until such time as we can return to Council
for additional resources and re-prioritization of the Work Program.
Immediate Direct Budget Impact
The initial assignment, drafting and publishing Compatibility Standards and setting up
administrative procedures for all interim regulations, will cost approximately $13,000. This
funding is to be taken from the Manager’s Contingency Fund, because the task needed to
CMR:436:96 Page 5 of 9
initiate immediately in order to meet the Council directed time line, and could not wait for
Council adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance.
The ongoing cost of processing the various applications cannot be precisely determined.
Staff recommends that cost recovery, be utilized for the new processes. Deposits ranging
from $300 to $1,500 will be collected based on hourly estimates for the minimum hours
projected to process each application type independently (refer to Attachment D). When
multiple applications are filed, only the highest deposit is collected, and accounting of time
for all related applications will be billed against that deposit and to the applicant. Ifa project
is complex and controversial the cost will go up. If it is simple and straight forward it will
take less time. Staff estimates that between $1,000 to $10,000 could be charged to a typical
applicant, but because we have no prior experience with the proposed processes, staff will
keep account of the time spent. A status report to Council will be made in four months. At
that time, Council can reexamine the cost of these regulations and whether cost recovery to
applicants is the desirable policy. Staff intends to return with a Budget Amendment
Ordinance for $75,000 to initiate the Interim Ordinance Administration. Staff expects that
amount to last at least until the four month review period expires, based on the rate of
demolition permits we have been experiencing and assuming a range of application costs.
Immediate Indirect Budget Impact
Stafftemporarily reassigned to the Interim Regulations were working primarily on Phase IV
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Improvement CIP. The Comprehensive Plan
is in transition from editor to publisher and nearing draft document publication. The week
the Council adopted the moratorium was a critical one in the Comprehensive Plan
publication task. The publishing contractor assumed tasks that were to be accomplished by
a staffplanner, temporarily assigned to the Urgency Moratorium. The publishing contractor,
through a change order, coordinated several aspects of our desk top publication assignment
and graphic formatting during that week. The cost to our contract of reassigning a staff
planner to the Urgency Moratorium was approximately $5,000. Staff will be returning to
Council with a budget amendment ordinance to recover that amount in order to meet our
obligation to publish the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The time line for release of the Draft
Plan was also impacted by a minimum of one week.
Immediate Work Program Impacts
In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the Work Program Item which has been most
impacted by the Interim Regulations is the Downtown Urban Design Improvements CIP,
Item 6. We have notified the consultant that the project is on hold and between a one- and
two-month delay in this project is expected. It has always been staff’s intent, as reflected in
the Scope of Services, to allow the newsrack portion of the project to proceed independently
of the other improvements. This is still our objective should the Steering Committee
CMR:436:96 Page 6 of 9
recommend that installation move for~vard. The remainder of the project will be delayed,
however.
Other Impacts
Two additional difficulties arise from the assignment to accomplish Interim Regulation
administration. One is the need for office space in the Planning Division. There is no room
on the fifth floor of City Hall to accommodate coordination with additional contract
personnel. In this instance, the contract personnel will need to work closely with single-
family homeowners and applicants, and there is no room for this coordination. The City
Manager is committed to seeking a temporary solution to this problem. This space and
related furnishings will need to be obtained by late November.
The second impact relates to the growing amount of contract assigrkrnents, contract
management and oversight, and increasing cost-recovery permit activity associated with
development in Palo Alto. In 1992 the Division employed one contract planner and
administered 12 contracts and five blanket orders. Today the Division manages five contract
planners, 25 contracts and nine blanket orders. It is increasingly difficult to competently
manage and accept additional assignments within current management and staffing levels.
The Interim Regulations will result in the need for an additional contract planner, one
contract support staff, and other contract capabilities. This Interim Ordinance assignment,
coupled with the new responsibilities for the Heritage Tree Ordinance and Planning Arborist,
exceeds our management capacity. Temporarily, managers and staff are working overtime
to compensate for the lack of resource, but that level of commitment cannot be sustained.
If it is assumed that an ongoing commitment of resources to Historic Preservation and
increased support to the HRB are likely to come from the permanent regulations, as has
resulted from the Interim Regulations, it is prudent to reexamine permanent management and
staffing needs to accomplish these additional responsibilities. Management and staffing
issues will be addressed at the earliest possible time.
Longer Term Impacts to Budget and Work Program
While the Historic Ordinance Update, Item 12 of the Division Work Program, was already
included in the assignments for FY 1996-97, the Historic Resource Inventory, Item 39 of the
Work Program, was not. The most significant foreseeable effect of a new Work Program
assignment is the likely delay of the Permit Tracking/Condition Monitoring assignment, Item
35.
The Historic Inventory is partially automated, and moving the assignment forward raises
immediately questions of hardware capacity, systems support, and special programming
costs. Some of these costs may be available through the GIS CIP, but coordinating with the
CIP committee will take additional time in order to provide reliable estimates.
CMR:436:96 Page 7 of 9
Likewise, in order to accommodate a "fast-track" time line, the previously assumed budget,
which relied on a longer time line for consultant assistance, will need to be revised.
Finally, it is worth noting that the State Officer of Historic Preservation has alerted the City
to the possibilities of recovering some of these costs through available grants and she has
offered her assistance to us in preparing the applications. Grants could be available to offset
some of the costs, but the resources to investigate and prepare applications will need to be
found.
Staffwill develop a scope and budget for the long-range assignment, and we intend to return
to Council as soon as possible with a complete assessment, cost proposal and scope of
services. All issues associated with management of contracts, space, etc., are further
exacerbated with the additional new long-range assignment.
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.
S.TEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will return with the interim regulations and Budget Amendment Ordinance for Council
adoption on October 28, 1996. Staffwill return at the earliest possible time with a budget
and scope of services for completing \both the Historic Protection Ordinance and Historic
Inventory simultaneously and on a faster time line than anticipated in the budget adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A, Draft Ordinance
Attachment B, Draft Compatibility Review Standards
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
C,Draft Standards for Historic Designation
D,Draft Fee Schedule Adjustments
E,Work Program Items 4, 6, 12, 37, and 39
F,CMR:417:96
CC:Historic Resources Board
Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage
Planning Commission
Chamber of Commerce
Architectural Review Board
Board of Realtors
State Office of Historic Preservation
CMR:436:96 Page 8 of 9
PREPARED BY:Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community. Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:436:96 Page 9 of 9
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADDING CHAPTER 16.50 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ESTABLISH INTERIM REGULATIONS GOVERNING
HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES BUILT BEFORE 1940 AND REVIEW OF THE
DESIGN QUALITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY OF
REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION !. Legislative Findings.
declares as follows:
The Council finds and
A. The protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of
structures, districts, and neighborhoods of historical and
architectural significance within the City of Palo Alto are of
great cultural, aesthetic, and economic benefit to the City and all
of its residents.
B. The City Council and the City’s Historic Resources
Board have recognized that the current Historic Preservation
Ordinance does not adequately protect certain historic resources
within the City. Accordingly, the City Council in June 1996
approved a work program for updating of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance and the City’s historic resources inventory.
C. It is necessary for the preservation of the public
health, safety and welfare to enact interim regulations governing
the demolition and alteration of residences originally constructed
before 1940, and to regulate the design compatibility of
replacement structures.
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.50 is hereby added to Title 16 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read:
16.50.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to
protect the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of the
residents of the City through interim preservation of potentially
historic residences built before 1940 while the City’s historic
preservation ordinances and historic resources inventory are
revised and updated. It is further necessary to regulate the
design compatibility of replacement structures built on the site of
specified pre-1940 residences that are demolished or altered
pursuant to this chapter.
16.50.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter,
the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Aggrieved Person" shall mean a person entitled to
appeal specified decisions and determinations made pursuant to this
chapter, and shall include only the owner of a Protected Residence,
or other person acting with the owner’s written consent, or a
961011 apc 0051615
1
residential property owner or resident who owns or resides in
property within three hundred feet of the Protected Residence. A
Member of the city council, city staff or any city board or
commission member shall not be deemed to be an Aggrieved Person
unless they are an applicant under this chapter.
(b) "Compatibility Review Standards" means design criteria
and compatibility standards promulgated pursuant to Section
16.050.110 which shall be applied by City staff in a ministerial
review of the design quality of a Contributing Residence
replacement structure. The Compatibility Review Standards shall
assure that the replacement structure is compatible with the
pattern of the existing neighborhood and that it .~..~.~.e~st...~qu.~.~
(c) "Contributing ResidenceS’ means any Protected Residence
that is not a Historic Landmark Residence, but which is determined
to meet the applicable Standards for Historic Designation pursuant
to this chapter.
(d) "Demolition"means removal of more than fifty percent
(e) "Historic Landmark Residence" means any residential
"Significant Building" as defined by Section 16.49.020, and any
Protected Residence that is determined to meet the applicable
Standards for Historic Designation pursuant to this chapter.
(f) "Historic Landmark Residence Alteration" means any
alteration to the exterior of a Historic Landmark Residence,
including but not limited to removal or modification of siding,
roofing materials, windows, chimneys, walls, or any other
architectural features.
(g) "Historic Landmark Residence Demolition" means an act
or process, including neglect or failure to maintain, that destroys
or razes in whole or in part a Historic Landmark Residence.
(h) "Historic Merit Evaluation" means the director of
planning and community environment’s or his or her designee’s
written determination of whether a Protected Residence will be
designated as a Historic Landmark Residence, Contributing
Residence, or Structure without Historic Merit, which determination
shall be reached upon the basis of a recommendation of the Historic
resources board which has been developed during a public hearing
noticed pursuant to Section 16.49.040.
(1) "Historic Merit Screening" means a preliminary review
and written determination of the historic merit of a Protected
Residence, conducted by the director of planning and community
2961011 apc 0051615
environment or his or her designee following a public hearing
noticed pursuant to Section 16.49.040, for the purpose of
determining whether there is no possibility that the Protected
Residence could meet the Standards for Historic Designation.
(j) "Protected Residence" means a residential structure
that was originally constructed before 1940.
(k) "Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark
Residences" means criteria and standards promulgated pursuant to
Section 16.50.110 which govern Historic Landmark Residence
Alteration, and which shall include and be based upon, at a
minimum, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as they
may be amended.
(i) "Standards for Historic Designation" means criteria and
standards promulgated pursuant to Section 16.50.110 for the
determination of whether a Protected Residence shall be designated
as a Historic Landmark Residence, Contributing Residence, or a
Structure without Historic Merit.
(m) "Structure without Historic Merit" means a Protected
Residence that is neither a Historic Landmark Residence or
Contributing Residence.
16.50.030 Protected Residence Demolition Prohibited. No
person shall cause or permit Demolition of a Protected Residence
except upon a final determination that the Protected Residence is
a Structure without Historic Merit.
16.50.040 Historic Landmark Residence Alteration or
Demolition Prohibited. No person shall cause or permit Historic
Landmark Residence Alteration or Demolition except as authorized
pursuant to Section 16.50.090 and 16.50.100.
16.50.050 Contributing Residence Demolition Prohibited. No
person shall cause or permit Demolition of a Contributing Residence
except upon a final determination that the replacement structure
meets the Compatibility Review Standards.
16.50.060 Historic Merit Screening Required. (a) A
Historic Merit Screening shall be required upon application for and
before issuance of any building, demolition or other permit for the
alteration of any Protected Residence other than a Historic
Landmark Residence, except when a Historic Merit Evaluation is
sought directly as provided in Section 16.50.070(b).
(b) Any person may, with the written consent of the owner,
apply for a Historic Merit Screening for any Protected Residence
other than a Historic Landmark Residence without being required to
apply for any building, demolition or other permit for the
alteration of a Protected Residence.
3961011 ~tpc 0051615
(c) A Historic Merit Screening conducted pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section which results in a determination that
there is no possibility that the Protected Residence could meet the
Standards for Historic Designation shall be appealable to the
historic resources board by an Aggrieved Person as provided in
Section 16.50.120(a).
16.50.070 Historic Merit Evaluation. (a) A Historic
Merit Evaluation shall be required following any Historic Merit
Screening that results in a final determination that a Protected
Residence could meet the Standards for Historic Designation.
(b) Any person may, with the written consent of the owner,
apply for a Historic Merit Evaluation without a prior Historic
Merit Screening, or without being required to apply for any
building, demolition or other permit for the alteration of a
Protected Residence, if the director of planning and community
environment determines with certainty from the face of the
application that the Protected Residence is likely to be determined
to be a Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing Residence.
(c) The director of planning and community environment’s
determination shall be either to accept the historic resources
board’s recommendation or to return the application to the board for
reconsideration.
(d) A Historic Merit Evaluation shall be appealable
directly to the city council by an Aggrieved Person as provided in
Section 16.50.120(b).
16.50.080 Compatibility Review for Replacement of
Contributing Residences. No building, demolition or other permit
for the al~eration of any Contributing Residence shall be issued
unless the proposed replacement structure complies with the
Compatibility Review Standards.
16.50.090 Alteration Review for Historic Landmark
Residences. (a) No building, demolition or other permit for the
alteration of any Historic Landmark Residence shall be issued
except upon the director of planning and community environment’s or
his or her designee’s written determination that the proposed
alteration meets the Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark
Residences, which determination shall be reached upon the basis of
a recommendation of the historic resources board which has been
developed during a public hearing noticed pursuant to Section
16.49.040.
(b) The director of planning and community environment’s
determination shall be either to accept the historic resources
board’s recommendation or to return the application to the board for
reconsideration.
(c) Alteration review determinations shall be appealable
directly to the city council by an Aggrieved Person as provided in
Section 16.50.120(b).
4
961011 apc 0051615
16.50.100 Removal of Historic Landmark Residences. (a>
Removal or complete destruction of Historic Landmark
Residences shall be permitted upon application of the owner, or
other person authorized in writing by the owner, if the director of
planning and community environment or his or her designee makes a
written determination, following a public hearing noticed pursuant
to Section 16.49.040, that either of the following conditions
exist:
(I) The Historic Landmark Residence in its current
condition cannot be used for any economically viable purpose, the
current condition is not the result of neglect or failure to
maintain by the current owner, and renovation pursuant to the
Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences is not
economically feasible, or
(2) The Historic Landmark Residence is determined to be a
dangerous or substandard building within the meaning of chapter
16.40 and removal or complete destruction is the only economically
feasible means to secure public safety.
(b) The applicant shall bear the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the conditions listed in
paragraph (a) exist.
(c) The director of planning and community environment’s
determination shall be appealable directly to the City Council by
an Aggrieved Person as provided in Section 16.50.120(b).
(d) This section shall not be construed to permit Historic
Landmark Residence Alteration without compliance with Section
16.50.090.
(e) Any replacement structure on a site where a Historic
Landmark Residence is removed pursuant to this section shall comply
with the Compatibility Review Standards.
16.50.110 Promulgation of Written Historic Preservation
Regulations Authorized. (a) The director of planning and
community environment is authorized and directed to promulgate
written Historic Preservation Regulations to facilitate
implementation of this chapter.The Historic Preservation
Regulations shall include, at a minimum, Standards for Historic
Designation and Compatibility Review and any administrative
directions to city departments necessary to implement this chapter.
(b) The Historic Preservation Regulations shall be
presented to the city council for review and approval by a duly
adopted resolution. Following council approval, the Historic
Preservation Regulations shall be published and distributed to the
public as an appendix to this chapter.
16.50.120 Appeals. (a) Historic Resources Board Review.
When authorized by this chapter, an appeal may be taken to the
961011 apc 0051615
5
historic resources board by any Aggrieved Person in accordance
with the procedures in this section.
(i) An appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with
the city clerk withinten days after the mailing of notice of the
decision of the director of planning and community environment. An
appeal shall not be processed un!ess it is filed within such time.
The appeal shall state in detail the factual and legal errors
claimed by the Aggrieved Person.
(2) An appeal shall be subject to an appeal fee as
prescribed by the municipal fee schedule.No part of the appeal
fee shall be returnable to the appellant.
(3) Filing of an appeal with the city clerk shall stay all
proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed until the
determination of the appeal as provided in this chapter. Upon the
filing of an appeal, the city clerk shall promptly notify the
director of planning and community environment and chairperson of
the historic resources board of the appeal, and shall forward all
materials submitted with the appeal to the director of planning and
community environment.
(4 Upon notification and receipt of the appeal, the
director of planning and community environment shall set a date for
a public hearing on the appeal which date shall be no later than
sixty days after filing of the appeal with the city clerk. Notice
of hearing shall be given in the same manner as provided in Section
16.49.040.
(5) The director of planning and community environment
shall transmit to the historic resources board copies of the
original application, the appeal, and any other papers and exhibits
constituting the record upon which the action appealed was taken,
including a written statement setting forth the reasons for his
decision. The appellant at his or her expense shall be required to
provide for the board and council sufficient copies, as determined
by the director of planning and community environment of the
papers, including plans, that constitute the record of appeal.
(6) Upon the date set for hearing, the historic resources
board shall conduct a public hearing, unless, for cause, the board
on that date continues the matter. Upon conclusion of the hearing
on the appeal, the board shall make findings and recommend to the
city council that the decision of the director of planning and
community environment be affirmed, changed or modified, or in lieu
thereof, make such other or additional recommendations as it deems
proper. The findings of the board shal! be submitted in the form
of a recommendation to the city council.
(b) City Council Review. The city council shall consider
an appeal within sixty days of receipt of the historic resources
board recommendation, or the appeal if direct, by the city clerk.
The filing procedures and requirements shal! be in the same form as
required by this section for appeals to the historic resources
9610! 1 apc 0051615
6
board. The council shall conduct a public hearing on the matter.
The council may by motion reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or
may modify any decision, determination, or requirement recommended
by the historic resources board, and may make such decision or
determination or may impose such conditions as the facts warrant
with respect to the appeal and to the approval or denial of the
application, and the decision or determination of the council
shall be final. If granted by the council upon appeal, the
requested permit shall be effective immediately. Notice of the
council’s decision shall be mailed to the original applicant and to
the person filing the appeal.
(c) All appeals pursuant to this chapter shall be
conducted de novo so that any person, including city staff, may
introduce any evidence or argument, even if not presented in
earlier proceedings.
16.50.130 Enforcement.
demolition.
(a) Unlawful alteration or
(I) Violation--Penalties. It is unlawful for any person
or entity to alter, demolish or cause to be altered or demolished
any structure in violation of any of the provisions of this
chapter. Any person or entity violating these provisions is guilty
of a misdemeanor.
(2) Civil penalty. Any person or entity who alters,
demolishes or causes alteration or demolition of a structure in
violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be liable civilly
in a sum equal to the replacement cost of the building, or an
amount in the court’s discretion not to exceed ten thousand
dollars.
(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 replacement in kind of any structure demolished,
altered or partially demolished in violation of this chapter.
(4) Restriction on development. Alteration or demolition
of a structure in violation of this chapter shall authorize the
director of planning and community environment to issue a temporary
moratorium on development of the subject property, not to exceed
eighteen months from the date the violation occurred. The purpose
of the moratorium is to provide the city an opportunity to study
and determine appropriate mitigation measures for the alteration or
removal of the structure, and to ensure measures are incorporated
into any future development approvals for the property. Mitigation
measures as determined by the director shall be imposed as a
condition of any subsequent permits for development on the subject
property.
(b) Remedies not exclusive. The remedies provided by this
section are not exclusive.
961011 ~pc 0051615
16.50.140 Severability. If any provision of this chapter
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to
be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
shall not affect any other provision of this chapter which can be
given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to
this end the provisions of this chapter are declared to be
severable.
MORATORIUM ON ALTERATION OR D~v]OLITION Of THE STRUCk/SITE, OR
8
961011 apc 0051615
961011 apc0051615
9
SECTION 4. The City Council has determined that it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this
ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment because
the construction and reconstruction of single family homes on lots
of record is itself an exempt activity.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon the
commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption
and shall remain in effect until the earlier of its repeal or
November 30, 1997.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
i0
961011 apc0051615
Attachment B
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS
FOR REPLACEMENT HOUSES:
Requirements and Recommended Practices
For the Design of Houses That Replace Pre-1940 Contributor
Houses
INTRODUCTION
Background and Purpose of the Compatibility Review Standards
(Council’s action: "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.")
Protection of property values, assurance for current and future residents that
their neighborhood character will not change radically, etc.
Explain under what conditions these regulations apply
Explain the difference between Requirements and Recommended Practices
Exceptions:
An exception process that allows the applicant to seek relief from the
requirements of the Compatibility Standards will be made available. The
process will involve a hearing opportunity and a decision by the Director.
Based on findings that the proposed alternative better achieves design
quality and compatibility with the existing neighborhood than would the
strict application of the requirements of the Compatibility Standards, the
proposed alternative may be approved.
SECTION I: HOW TO USE THESE COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS
Researching the Historical and Architectural Significance of a Pre-1940 Home
Planning to Remodel a Pre-1940 Home
Designing a Replacement for a Pre-1940 Home
The Compatibility. Review Standards are to be used in developing the
design of the new home so that it is compatible with the existing
neighborhood character --refer to Section II for help in identifying the
character of the neighborhood and the architectural style/period of the
existing house and of other houses on the block.
Explain demolition process and new construction review process
Outline the submittal requirements and steps in the review process
Photo montage of the block, both sides of the street, and photographs
showing all sides of the original house and architectural details.
Completed Worksheet assessing character of the existing house and
of the block and explaining how the replacement house is compatible
with the bloc~neighborhood (Modify the Worksheet in the back of
the SFR Design Guidelines, see Attachment)
o New construction plans showing all existing and proposed
development and all existing trees on the entire lot, the location of
adjacent structures, and the location of all existing curbs, curb cuts,
paving, and other infrastructure including street trees located in the
Public Right of Way.
4. Aerial photo
2
SECTION II: IDENTIFYING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Identifying and defining each neighborhood by its own special character helps to
define important design criteria for an individual project. Here are some broad
characteristics to define and distinguish the various districts in Palo Alto where most
pre-1940 houses are located.
Crafts
Example: Professorville, Community Center and Old Palo Alto
In most neighborhoods that can be grouped as a crafts type, most of the homes
were built prior to the 1940s. The streets are lined with mature trees which
provide rich texture in the neighborhood. Adding to this texture are landscape
strips along the street. The lots are generally narrow with houses consistently set
back on the lot, often even beyond the minimum setback required by zoning.
The architectural style in these neighborhoods varies, but bungalow and craftsman
style are dominant. Porches are common and garages are detached and
inconspicuously located in the rear of the lot with a narrow driveway to the street.
Mixed
Examples: College Terrace, Ventura, Old South Palo Alto, Downtown North
Mixed or eclectic neighborhoods are the least uniform in Palo Alto. The amount
of landscaping varies as does the type and placement of street trees.
These neighborhoods are mixed in density and architectural style. On some
blocks, there is no uniform pattern with respect to number of stories, lot size or
garage location.
Nonetheless, there can exist elements of building appearance, size, placement on a
lot and!or landscaping, which give areas within mixed neighborhoods a unifying
feel.
In this case, the relationship to adjacent houses becomes most important in
determining neighborhood compatibility. Refer to Section IV: Guidelines to
determine which patterns ought to be reflected in your new construction or
remodeling.
Estates
Examples: Crescent Park, some parts of Old Palo Alto
The estate neighborhoods are also found in the older parts of Palo Alto. The lots
are very. wide and large, with substantial houses which are set back 40 feet or
more. Trees and lush landscaping dominate the streetscape, with shrubbery and
other planting dense near the street. Planter strips add to the rich greenery along
the street.
House styles in these neighborhoods are more traditional with Tudor and
Mediterranean most prominent. The houses are two and three stories and garages
are detached in the rear.
Rural
Example: Barron Park
The character of rural neighborhoods is dominated by trees and foliage.
Vegetation is abundant and streets have a natural look. There are many trees, but
no uniform street tree type. The rural character is emphasized by the lack of curbs
and sidewalks. Streets are rambling and narrow. The architecture is varied, but
most houses are small, one story and set back from the street.
SECTION III REMODELING A PRE-1940 HOME
Explain advantages of remodeling to meet changing needs while preserving
neighborhood and historical architectural character.
Describe process for analyzing remodeling opportunities and planning a compatible
remodeling project.
4
SECTION IV:RECOMMENDED PRACTICES & REQUIREMENTS FOR
DESIGNING A COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT HOME
The purpose of the Compatibility Review Standards is to guide construction of a
new residential structure or a substantial alteration to a pre-1940 residential
structure in such a way that the special and desirable qualities of the neighborhood
is preserved. These qualities include a predominance of pre-t 940 houses, which
contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood and preserve the heritage
of Palo Alto.
A neighborhood’s special character also comes from characteristic patterns of open
spaces, landscaping and building detail. Many of these patterns are similar
throughout Palo Alto’s pre-1940 neighborhoods, even though the styles of
architecture may be varied.
This Section is organized into the different categories of elements that comprise
neighborhood character. Within each category:
A discussion of how this element contributes to the special character
of the pre- 1940 neighborhood
An outline of "Recommended Practices" that will help to preserve
and enhance that character.
o A list of the "Requirements" that each project will have to meet in
order to be approved.
STREETSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE
The front yard, sidewalk, street trees, fences, driveways, landscaping; everything in front
of the house; all contribute to our experience as we walk or drive down the street. The
combination of elements constitutes the streetscape. The streetscape of older Palo Alto
neighborhoods is characterized by a high degree of architectural variety and pedestrian
detail, unified by certain characteristic patterns of landscaping and building placement.
5
Front Setbacks."
Discussion:
The front setback is the distance from the front of the house to the front
property, line (not the sidewalk). The minimum set by the zoning
regulations is 20 feet. However is historic neighborhoods with a different
setback pattern a smaller or larger setback pattern may prevail, and should
be respected by new construction.
Recommended Practice."
Maintain the existing setback pattern by building to the prevailing
setback line. Notice that corner houses may be located closer to the
street than other houses on the block.
Requirements."
Locate at least 50% of the front facade of the house at the prevailing
setback line. The prevailing setback line is the line closest to the
street with 75% of the houses located behind it. If the house is on a
corner and the original house is located closer to the street than the
prevailing setback line, then the required setback is the setback of the
original house.
If the front facade of the original house is being preserved, the
setback of the original house may alternatively be the allowed
setback.
Garages:
Discussion.
In most situations, garages in pre-1940 neighborhoods are separate from the house
and located at the back of the lot. This pattern continues the outbuilding
relationship to the main house that carriage houses had in a previous era. It has a
powerful impact on the character of these neighborhoods in at least five ways: 1)
6
the amount of paving in the front yard is the minimum required for access; 2) the
most prominent design element on the facade of the house is the entry or a major
window rather than a garage; 3) side driveways provide open space and separation
between houses; 4) cars can be parked in the driveway while still being out of the
front yard; 5) the difference in size between houses and garages establishes a
pattern of variety in building volumes, rather than mostly large, uniformly sized
buildings.
Recommended Practices:
Locate the garage so that it is not a dominant feature in the design of the
house or in the grounds.
Design the garage so that attention is focused on the house not on the
garage and so that the apparent size of the garage is reduced.
Requirements."
Locate the garage at the rear of the site and detached from the house by at
least 12 feet. If located at least 75 feet from the front property line, zoning
allows the garage to be located adjacent to the side and rear property line.
Alternatively, an attached garage can be located no closer than 60 feet from
the front property line, provided that a side setback of at least 6 feet is
maintained. The side wall of the garage may be no more than 10 feet closer
to the side property line than the side wall of the front part of the house,
thus partially screening view of the driveway and garage from the street.
No part of the second story can extend over the garage within 10 feet of the
garage side wall. The garage must have a separate roof that is the same
pitch as the house roof, or less. Second floor balconies are not permitted
over the garage to protect the privacy of the adjacent property.
If the house is located on a corner, the garage may be placed in the rear yard
setback and accessed from the side street. The garage must be located at
least 16 feet from the street side property line and at least 6 feet from the
rear property line.
Alternatively, garages on corner lots may be attached if located outside rear
yard setback. No more than 150 square feet of second floor balcony may be
7
located above garage, provided that the railing is at least 50% closed on all
sides. The front of a garage for more than one car must be recessed at least
2 feet behind the wall of the house.
o In a single car garage, use a garage door that is 8 feet wide, or less. In a
double car garage, use two doors not more than 8 feet wide separated by a
vertical support at least 8 inches wide, or use one door not over 12 feet
wide. Where three car garages are permitted by ordinance, use one eight
foot door and one 12 foot door.
o If the garages on the two adjacent properties and the garage for the original
house are on the same sides of their respective houses, then locate the
driveway for the new house in this same way so that the pattern of open
space between houses is preserved.
If alle.vway access is provided, required parking shall be accessed from the
alley and the garage shall be located within 5 feet of the rear property line.
On small lots less than 40 feet wide or less than 4000 square feet, and where
no alley access is available, only one on-site parking space is required and a
single car attached garage is allowed. If two parking spaces are provided,
one must be tandem. The garage must be located at or behind the front
setback.
7.Carports are not permitted.
Driveways:
Driveways at nearly all ofPalo Alto’s pre-1940 houses are between 6.5 and 10 feet
wide, with 9 feet being the most common width. They are typically located
several feet from the side property line and several feet from adjacent building
walls; usually this space is planted with a hedge or other landscaping. Surface
materials are treated in one of two ways. The most common treatment is a simple,
unobtrusive surface of asphalt or poured cement. In other cases the driveway is
surfaced with bricks, cobbles, stones, rubble or gravel, and adds textural interest
and an element of craftsmanship to the front garden.
Recommended Practice."
Minimize the width of driveways and the amount of paving on the site.
"Hollywood" strips with planting between the wheel tracks may be used
instead of solid paving. Use simple, traditional paving materials.
Leave space between the driveway and property line or buildings to provide
planting that will help to frame the site and screen the paving.
Requirements."
Make driveways no wider than 9 feet. Curb cuts must have a vertical curb
and be no more than 10 feet wide with a 3 foot radius. Within 18 feet of the
garage doors, driveways may widen to no more than the width of the garage
door(s) plus 2 feet. However, no driveway may be more than 12 feet wide
within 5 feet of the public sidewalk. Interior sidewalks, patios, etc. may
adjoin the driveway for no more than 6 linear feet.
o For comer lots accessed from the side street, if the driveway widens to more
than 14 feet at any point inside the property line, provide a wall, fence or
hedge along the side property line to screen the paving.
Locate driveways at least 2 feet from the side property line and at least 2
feet from any building wall to allow for a planting strip on either side.
o Use the following materials for driveway surfaces: asphalt; poured cement
with a troweled or exposed aggregate finish; real brick, cobbles, or stone ;
rubble; or gravel. Do not use precast interlocking pavers or stamped
concrete, which imitate other materials.
Public Right of Way:
Street trees are one of the most striking features of Palo Alto’s older
neighborhoods. Trees provide shade and canopy and help define the street and
sidewalk areas. They also provide a unifying element to the streetscape of older
neighborhoods, while the variety of tree species used provide a range of shade,
color and other characteristics.
9
Recommended Practice."
Note the location, spacing and type of street trees on the street and take this
into consideration in the design of the new house, locations of garage and
driveway and the design of landscaping and paving in the front yard and
planting strip.
Requirements."
Do not locate the driveway within 10 feet of any existing street tree, unless
it is not possible to access the site and still meet this requirement.
If street trees are missing along the property frontage on the street, locate
the driveway to allow replacement of the missing trees at approximately 25
feet intervals.
o Limit paving or hard surfaces within the parking strip to no more than 5.5
linear feet per street frontage.
Provide irrigated planting of ground cover or small shrubs in the parking
strip.
If there is a fence or wall along the property line, provide irrigated planting
in the space between the sidewalk and the fence or wall.
LANDSCAPING
Trees provide shade and canopy and provide an asset to both the individual
property owner and the neighborhood. Mature trees and other large plant material
are a part of the special quality of older neighborhoods.
Recommended practice:
Locate and identify all mature trees and shrubs on the property.
Observe their characteristics and what benefits they may be
providing in terms of shade, seasonal color, etc. and consider that
10
some may be old species no longer generally available in the trade
and therefore rare. Retain and protect mature vegetation where
possible.
Consistent with neighborhood pattems, fence materials and design
should be compatible with the house style and neighborhood
character. Solid fences and fences over four feet tall should be
avoided, except to provide backyard privacy. Locate perimeter
fences or walls behind the property line to allow planting to soften
the appearance of the fence.
Compatible with house design and neighborhood, etc. Be aware
that irrigated front lawns are the main source of water for many
street trees, so if drought tolerant landscaping is used, consider
providing irrigation to the street trees. If irrigation to the front yard
is being turned off during construction, use soaker hoses to water
street trees during the interim.
If there is an uninterrupted sweep of lawn across several properties,
maintain this pattern.
Requirements:
1.All valley oak and live oak trees over 11.5 inches in diameter or 36
inches in circumference measured 4.5 feet above natural grade are
protected under the City’s street tree ordinance and must be retained.
During demolition and construction, provide protective fencing and
frequent deep watering to all plant materials that are being retained,
including street trees.
ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER
Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods are characterized by a combination of architectural
sUles, with certain styles predominant in each neighborhood. Some of the predominant
styles are particularly well adapted to the area’s climate and building materials, such as
the Spanish and Shingle styles. Prominent architects have designed buildings in these
stvles which are an important part of Palo Alto’s architectural heritage.
11
The illustrations on the following pages serve as a reference for distinguishing the
predominant styles of houses found in Palo Alto.
Additions and new construction replacing contributing pre 1940 residences should be
compatible with the style of the original structure. A first step in designing a remodel or
replacement structure, therefore, is identifying the architectural style of the original
building.
Common Architectural Styles in Pre 1940 Palo Alto Houses
(Include photos illustrating predominant architectural styles in each neighborhood)
Common styles of pre-1940 Palo Alto houses will be illustrated and their characteristic
features identified. For further information on Palo Alto and Bay Area architectural
traditions, including Historic and Architectural Resources of the City_ of Palo Alto, Rehab
Right: How to Utilize the Full Value of Your Old House, and Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines.
Architectural and Historical Significance
This section will:
Explain basis for historical significance, including Architectural Significance,
Cultural/Historical Significance, Contributing to Architectural or Historical
Character of District.
Describe how to research architectural/historical significance
Urge preservation of landmark and contributing structures, or retention of
significant original features in new and remodeled structures.
Compatibility with Neighborhood Architectural Style:
Discussion:
Each of Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods gets its distinctive character from a
blend of architectural styles. Some neighborhoods and some blocks are more
eclectic and others are more homogeneous. Often there is a predominant style,
such as the shingle style or bungalow style, which gives the neighborhood a sense
of unity and distinctiveness.
12
Recommended Practice.
New residential construction should be compatible with the architectural character
of the neighborhood and the distinctive character of the original house proposed
for alteration or replacement.
Requirement."
When using characteristics of a traditional architectural style, use
these characteristics in a consistent manner, rather than combining
characteristics of more than one style in a single structure. For
example, Mediterranean/Spanish style stucco houses should not
employ neocolonial details such as shutters or steep roofs. Plans
which use traditional architectural features are required to identify, a
style from the references: Historic and Architectural Resources of
the City_. of Palo Alto, Rehab Right, or Single-Family Design
Guidelines,. Only those architectural characteristics included in the
description of a particular style in the above references may be
included in a single structure. Alternatively, if an applicant can
provide a local example of a pre-1940 residence with the same
combination of original architectural characteristics in a single
structure they may utilize that combination of characteristics in their
own plans.
Windows:
Discussion:
Windows contribute a great deal to the character of the house. An addition that
uses windows that are significantly different from those used in the original house
will severely disrupt the character of the house. For instance, using sliding
aluminum windows in a house that has wood double hung windows would detract
from the house.
Certain distinctive window shapes, such as round, arched, pointed, fan-shaped or
diamond-shaped windows, need to be used sparingly so that they complement the
architectural style and do not overwhelm the proportions of the facade. Extremely
tall windows can also disrupt the scale of the house. Most older residential styles
13
did not use non-rectangular and oversized windows at all; or used them only for
emphasizing the major living area or an entry.
Each architectural style is characterized by specific window proportions, materials,
mullion detailing, trim and placement. Refer to the description of common
architectural styles, and examples of original houses for models of appropriate
window treatment.
Requirements."
Where the architectural style of the original house is being retained, reuse
and match original window materials. Maintain proportions, detailing and
materials of original windows.
No more than one non-rectangular or "’special" window may be used per
street facade. No windows on street facades can be taller than the top of
the first floor of the building. Where non-rectangular windows are used,
they must be compatible with the architectural character of the house and
neighborhood. "Special" or decorative windows cannot be used on
garages. This limitation does not apply to windows located on the front
door.
Windows with divided lights must be true divided lights, or double pane
windows with full size (minimum 3/8" deep) muntins attached to the
exterior of the glass. Windows must be wood, wood with vinyl or metal
cladding, or steel. Vinyl or aluminum windows will be allowed for
bathrooms and basements but must have the same or similar finish to other
windows. Only clear glass will be allowed.
o
Recessed windows: In stucco walls, recess window pane a minimum of 2.5
inches behind the wall surface, not including trim around the windows, in
order to enhance the impression of the massiveness of the walls. In other
types of walls a minimum recess of 1.5 inches is required.
Dormer windows may be used only where they open directly into
inhabitable space. This does not preclude small, horizontally proportioned
"eyebrow’, type roof vents, where compatible with the architectural style.
14
Entry Features:
Discussion."
Entry features in Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods include front porches, alcoves,
loggias, terraces, and covered or uncovered stoops. Front porches can be viewed
as covered entry features which are open on two or more sides. These front
porches and entries often provide a seating area as well as an ent .ryway, and
become an important scene for neighborly interaction while providing visual
interest to the passerby. They also provide a transition in scale between the house
and the outdoors at the pedestrian scale.
The materials, proportions and location of front porches and entries should be
compatible with the house style and neighborhood character.
Requirements:
If there is an established pattern of porches on the block, (50 % of houses
on the block face or on both sides of the street combined), then provide a
front porch.
o If a porch is not incorporated, include an entry feature or principal window
(larger than other windows) on the front of the house.
Design porches with a minimum dimension of at least 6 feet in depth and an
area of at least 60 square feet to provide both an entry, area and usable
seating area.
Entry feature openings and roof eaves cannot be higher than the top of the
first floor of the building.
Building Massing
Discussion’.
Building massing is a fundamental ingredient of architectural style and
neighborhood character. While many houses in Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods
are two story, they often contain a number of elements which serve to decrease the
15
visual impact of the two stow volume with a one stoW portion, roof or gable
details, or entry, features. These features provide a pedestrian scale. The taller
building elements and trees help define the larger scale of the street. Together
these elements produce the overall character and richness of the streetscape.
Building massing is also a key concern of neighbors, where two stoW elements can
affect sunlight access, views and privacy for adjacent properties.
Recommended Practices."
Building massing should be compatible with the house’s architectural style
and neighborhood character. Bungalow designs should not include two
story elements unless they are set back at least ten feet from front and rear
walls.
2.Consider neighbors needs for sunlight, privacy and views.
Roofline:
Discussion."
Roof lines and the detailing of roof design and construction contributes to
the character of Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods. Generally, the existing
pattern is houses composed of simple shapes with simple roof forms. Some
newer houses have introduced a profusion of roofs over individual building
elements, which clutter the facade. Roofs should not over-emphasize the
garage or entryway to the detriment of the harmony of the overall facade.
Roof forms found in Palo Alto vary from the shallow to moderate slopes of
bungalow, shingle and Spanish houses to the steep forms of Tudor and
Victorian houses. Compatibility with neighborhood patterns and the
specific architectural styles of the house should be continued in new
construction.
Traditional roof materials in older Palo Alto neighborhoods depended upon
the architectural style. Shingle style houses used wood shingles and shakes,
Spanish style houses used genuine clay tile and tar and gravel for flat roofs,
Tudor and neocolonial houses sometimes used slate. New construction
should use original materials compatible with the house style.
16
Requirements."
Roofline, roof details and roof materials must be compatible with the
architectural style of the house to produce an overall, unified architectural
style. For traditional styles, the style must be identified and the roof
features must be consistent with those described for that style in the
following references: Historic and Architectural Resources of the City. of
Palo Alto, Rehab Right, or Single-Family Design Guidelines,.
Alternatively, if an applicant can provide a local example of a pre-1940
residence with the same combination of architectural style and roof
characteristics they may utilize that combination of characteristics in their
own plans.
The roofs over ent~ features must have the same roof pitch and detail as
the rest of the house. Eaves on entry, feature roofs must be located no
higher than the top of the first floor of the building.
o For roofs, use asphalt shingles, wood shingles, wood shakes, genuine clay
tile, genuine slate, or tar and gravel. Where roofs are a prominent design
feature, such as steeply pitched roofs or highly visible large roof surfaces,
use slate, wood shingle, shake or tile.
Walls and Finishes:
Discussion."
An important characteristic of older neighborhoods is the generally high level of
quality, and craftsmanship used in construction and finishing of wall surfaces.
Often the variations in color or texture resulting from hand craftsmanship add to
the appeal and interest of the finished wall. In addition, certain styles were marked
by specific finishes, such as light colored paints on stucco for Spanish style
houses, and unpainted redwood shingles and beams on Shingle Style houses.
17
Requirements.
Stucco must be applied by hand. Do not use spray-on finish materials or
textured paints.
2.Use real wood siding, not composite products, vinyl or aluminum siding.
Where remodelling, use same materials and finishes as existing house, or
original finishes if information is available.
SECTION V. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, RELEVANT CODES AND
REFERENCES
Historic and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto.
Historical description of Palo Alto architectural styles and neighborhoods. Available in
the Main Libra...
Rehab Right, How to Realize the Full Value of Your Old House, Helaine Kaplan
Prentice and Blair Prentice, City of Oakland Planning Department, 1978, 1986
Single Family Design Guidelines, City of Palo Alto Planning Department
SECTION VI.WORKSHEET
Worksheet similar to the Worksheet in the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines
will be prepared.
18
ATTACHMENT C: Draft Standards For Historic Designation
The following Standards for Historic Designation would replace the existing Historic Categories
and Criteria for Designation found in Section 16.49.020 (b) and Section 16.040 (b) of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The current designation Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be
replace by two categories-- Landmark and Contributor. The current designation criteria would
be replaced by .the new Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historical Resources.
Criteria for .Evaluating the Significance of Historical Resources
A property, would be deemed to be historically significant of it is found to be of significance to
Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the State of California or the nation under one or more of the following
criteria. Historic property, may include buildings, structures, objects, landscape elements or
natural features, e.g., E1 Palo Alto.
It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage
of California or the United States.
It is associated with the lives of architects, builders, other persons or historical
events that are important to Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the nation or to California’s
past.
It is an example of a type of building or is connected with a business or use which
was once common, but is now rare,
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life
important to the city, region, state or nation, represents the work of a master,
possesses high artistic values or contains elements demonstrating outstanding
attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistor3.,
or history of Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the state or nation.
Designated historic property will be categorized as a Landmark or Contributor according to the
following definitions.
Landmark Properties:
Landmark properties are exceptional or major buildings, groups of buildings, structures,
objects, landscape elements or natural features which are of preeminent national, state,
regional or local importance, exhibit meritorious work of the best architects, are an
outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture or landscape architecture
in the United States, California, the Bay Area or Palo Alto, or are indentified with historic
people or with important events or activities in the city, region, state or nation. The
Landmark may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
Contributing Properties:
Contributing properties are buildings, groups of buildings or structures which are good
local examples of architectural styles or types of buildings and which relate to the
character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion, setting or. other
factors. A contributing property 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.
Attachment E
Placrccing Division Work Program 96/97/98
4
PROJECT DESCRIPT,ION
Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan includes compilation, editing, and publishing of the draft
Comprehensive Plan. It will also involve preparation for the fina__...!l publication, which will occur
after Phase IV (i.e., public review and adoption) is complete.
This work item includes staff time for:
1) generating:
a. Msc. graphics to augment the text,
b.(1 l’x 17") thematic maps,
c. the large Land Use Map,
d. packaging aspects,
2) selectin~ interfacing w/printer re:
a. method of reproduction,
b. medium and language,
3) managing contract for consultants who:
a. edit the document,
b. cross reference/remove redundancies,
c. develop footnoting, appendices,
glossary, and index,
d. assist in developing format!style standards
e. assist in selecting the printer.
f. assist in interfacing w/printer,
4) compiling the fmal document in a digital format that:
a. facilitates deliver?., to the printer,
b. facilitates storage,
c. facilitates back-up,
d. facilitates updating,
e. facilitates archiving, and
f. facilitates subsequent re-printing.
Although development of in-house desk-top-publishing capabilities is a Subset of work item #48,
Systems Technology, this work item also includes some staff time for the development of in-
house capabilities that are particular to and critical to the Comprehensive Plan (e.g., translation
of GIS generated graphics and storage requirements due to the size of the document and the need
for it to exist in more than one software language).
It should be noted that the potential for translating the document to the Internet will be
maintained, but no on-line publishing has been budgeted for, in this work item.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Comprehensive Plan must be readable, usable, legally adequate and easily updated. Staff is
developing in-house desktop publishing capabilities simultaneous with Phase II. The final plan
and a format which allows for annual, professional-looking updates is a goal stated by the
Council when they directed staff to undertake the assignment.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
15
q6/97
Planning Division ........150
Contract Services . ........yes
97/98
Planning Division
Contract Services
...........NA
............NA
COST
5/97
$24,000 for contract services in CP budget
$45,000 for printing. ~he printing budget inclu-
ded no color graphics for cost sm, ing purposes.)
97/98
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Communiw Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
¯ Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead:Nancy Lytle
Staff :Gloria Humble (100)
Phil Dascombe (50)
Contract: yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Div. Lead: NA
Staff:NA
NA
Contract: NA
Date of Assignment: Oct. 1992
Multi-year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: Summer 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
16
Division Wor Progra 96/97/98
6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development of a Master Plan and construction documents to implement improvements in the
public right of way in the Downtown as identified in the Urban Design Guide. Once complete,
construction and installation of improvements will initiate in Phase II, FY 96/97, 97/98.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The increased number of visitors to the Downtown and the aging and dated street fumiture,
paving, signage, etc. has caused improvements to Downtown to be identified by merchants and
property owners as needing urgent attention.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........250
Contract Services .........yes
COST
9Z/
Planning Division ...........100
Contract Services ............yes
q6/97
$ 100,000 Consultant fees for design deve-
lopment - within 95/96 CIP budget.
$250,000 Consultant fees for implementa-
tion - within proposed 96/97 CIP budget.
9Z/
$250,000 Consultant fees for implementa-
tion - within proposed 97/98 CIP budget.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
¯Transportation Div.
¯Building Div.
¯Public Works Dept.
¯Utilities Dept.
¯Attorney’s Office
¯Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
¯Administrative Services
I-q Fire Dept.
¯Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯ Recommended for 96/97 [] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
t9
¯ Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 97/98 w!budget amendment
[] Not recommended
96/97 97/98
Div. Lead: Nancy L~le (50)Div. Lead:
Staff:Jim Gilliland (50)Staff:
Virginia Warheit (t 50)
yes (see Cost)Contract:Contract:
MISCELLANEOUS
NA
NA
Virginia Warheit (100)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: July 1995
Multi-year: Yes (implementation will go on for up to 5 years)
Expected Completion Date: November 1996 for Master Plan
Origin of Issue: Council
2O
Die, ision Program 96/97/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A joint meeting between City Council and the HRB is scheduled to allow Council to provide
policy and regulatory, framework direction on any hisotric ordinance update, should they decide
to proceed. The Historic Resources Board has identified the following areas to be included in an
update.
a)Authority of the Board. Currently the Board is a recommending body. Although HRB
review is mandatory, compliance with Board actions is voluntary. There is a belief that the
Board’s effectiveness could be improved if compliance with HRB decisions is required. If
this change is enacted, the HRB’s relationship with the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
could change. Corresponding sections of the ARB Ordinance (Chapter 16.48 of the
PANIC) would also need to be amended. Additional city. staff resources would be required
to support another decision - making function.
b)Category definitions. There are currently four categories of historic structures specified in
the ordinance: 1,2,3, & 4. These categories range in significance from 1, which are
exceptional buildings to 3 or 4, which are contributing buildings. While the
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value of the structures that are either architecturally or
culturally significant, the categories in the ordinance place importance on only those with
architectural merit. The HRB is not convinced that the categories provide useful
distinctions when evaluating the impact of proposed modifications on historic structures.
This part of the HRB Ordinance amendment would look at different ways of categorizing
buildings and the possibility of not using categories at all.
c)Moratorium on demolition of significant historic structures in areas other than downtown.
There is currently a 60 day automatic moratorium on the demolition of significant historic
buildings outside of the downtown area. The HRB can recommend to the City Council
that the moratorium be extended for up to one year to provide the applicant additional time
to develop alternatives to demolishing the building. The Board has recommended
reevaluating and strengthening the demolition provisions.
d)There is neither consistency nor reference between our Historic Ordinance and the
National Standards. This effort could examine the value of incorporating standards into
the ordinance.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
31
The Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) was
enacted in 1974. It has not undergone a comprehensive update since that time. The role historic
preservation plays in Palo Alto has evolved over the last 20 years and the Ordinance needs to be
updated to reflect current public commitment to historic preservation,
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........200
Contract Services .........300
97/98
Planning Division ...........NA
Contract Services ............NA
COST
97
$47,000 for contract services.
97/98
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[] Transportation Div.
[] Building Div.
tt Public Works Dept.
[] Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
[]Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATIO,N
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
Staff recommends that this item be undertaken as soon as possible. Many other future HRB
actions depend upon the ordinance being up-to-date and reflective of the City’s commitment to
historic preservation.
STAFF MEMBERS
Staff: Lisa Grote (200)Staff:NA
Contract: (300) (see Cost)Contract:NA
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin of Issue: Historic Resources Board
32
Pla ccing Division Work Program 97/ 98
37
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This item includes purchase and implementation of an automated Permit Tracking and Condition
Monitoring System. The system is to be used to track and monitor all types of permits activities
related to permits such as applications, licenses, inspections, utility service modifications,
complaints and code enforcement. The system will be used to monitor the complete
development process, from initial planning entitlement requests through the final building
inspection, including ongoing conditions of approval following occupancy. The system is to be
interconnected so information regarding any application can be obtained by all participating
departments and provided to applicants and members of the public during the application
process. The system is to calculate fees, place holds, route information, require on-line
departmental sign-off, issue permits, and monitor project status, conditions of approval and
special fees. The system shall also include reporting capabilities.
The new system must incorporate the current Building Inspection Permit system (BIPS) and Fire
Inspection System (FIS), and interact with the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS),
IFAS and Cubis. The new system must also interact with the notebook computers used by the
building division.
Purchase/Implementation of the system is to include:
opermit tracking system software purchase, license, warranty,
oany necessary custom modifications to the system to achieve City. requirements as specified in this RFP,
¯ design of new screens/forms/permits/receipts/reports to be printed for permits tracked in the system,
¯ written system documentation and training manuals,
¯ staff training,
¯ system installation and implementation assistance, (start-up and debugging),
oon-going system maintenance and technical support,
#system updates, and
¯ access to optional future training and/or programming assistance.
This work item is a multi-year project. In 1995-96 the system will be purchased and
implementation will be initiated.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Project approved as part of Capital Improvement Program for 1994/95. The Planning Division
currently has no automated means of tracking the status of applications for planning approvals,
and monitoring compliance with conditions of approval or satisfactory completion of
environmental mitigation measures.
81
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
96/97
Planning Division ........450
Contract Services .........yes
9Z/
Planning Division ...........350
Contract Services ............yes
COST
96/97
$90,000 within 95/96 CIP budget.
97/98
Continue w/previous year’s budget.
$50,000 added for enhancements.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
[]Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
¯Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
STAFF MEMBERS
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
q6197
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Lisa Grote (50)
Brian Dolan (400)
yes (see Cost)
MISCELLANEOUS
Date of Assignment: 1994 with CIP adoption
Multi-year:
Expected Completion Date: Spring 1998
Origin of Issue: Council
97/98
Div. Lead:
Staff:
Contract:
Lisa Grote (50)
Brian Dolan (300)
yes (see Cost)
82
39
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Historic Inventory is one of the most extensively used documents in the Ci~’ regarding
historic preservation. It was completed in 1979 and has not undergone a comprehensive update
since that time. Many of the buildings on the Inventor?, have undergone additions or
modifications and the descriptions need to be amended to reflect the changes.
Supporting information has also changed over the years, especially with regard to surrounding
environment, condition of the building, and potential threats to the site. This results in a
perception by HRB members that many buildings on the inventory are classified as less
significant than they actually are.
Additionally, the HRB is not satisfied that the classification system used is consistent with
nationa! Standards for Historic Preservation and have discussed changing the ordinance
definition of Categories 1.2 and 3 (see related Work program item titled "Historic Preservation
Ordinance Update").
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
To maintain usefulness of the Inventory, it is necessary to keep it current. This is important to
further the City’s objectives regarding historic preservation, but it is also an important customer
service objective. Currently, property owners often find the HRB taking issue with the
classification of their buildings and the result is poor customer service. Phase I of the Inventory
update would be to update those structures already on the Inventory. Phase II would be to
identify additional structures that might qualify under any new definitions of categories.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
q /97
Planning Division ........NA
Contract Services .........NA
COST
97/98
Planning Division ...........175
Contract Services .........1,000"
96/97 97/98
$95,000 for contract fees-not within current
budget*
85
*The t,000 hours of time of a consultant with expertise in historic preservation would be spent
conducting a site visit to each of the 500 properties currently on the inventor)’, assessing recommended
sites not now on the inventor)’, the structure on the site, and assessing the surrounding area. The
information collected in the field would then be compared to the information on file with the City.
Planning and Building files would be researched for planning entitlement and building permits. It is
anticipated that each site would require approximately two hours to visit, assess and research.
The 175 hours of staff time would be spent reviewing the consultant’s data and managing the consultant
contract (55 hours), preparing a staff report explaining the update process and the criteria used to
evaluate sites and surrounding areas (40 hours), 15 hours of Planning staff time to coordinate review
conducted primarily the City Attorney’s Office, Real Estate Division and Public Works, 10 hours of
public and staff contact meetings to discuss inventor)’ and 15 hours of revisions to the draft report after
initial staff review. 40 hours are allowed for HRB and City. Council hearings as well as any special
meetings needed with historic groups, property o,vners or the community organizations.
Significant hours of volunteer HRB time would be spent reviewing the consultant’s work .and draft
recommendations for changing the existing categorization of specific buildings. -
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
[]Transportation Div.
[]Building Div.
[]Public Works Dept.
[]Utilities Dept.
[]Attorney’s Office
[]Manager’s Office
[]Community Services
[]Human Resources
[]Administrative Services
[]Fire Dept.
[]Police Dept.
[]Auditor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[] Recommended for 96/97
[] Recommended for 97/98
[] Consider again in 98/99
[] Possible for 96/97 w/budget amendment
[] Possible for 97/98 w/budget amendment
[] Not recommended
STAFF MEMBERS
Div. Lead: NA
Contract: NA
MISCELLANEOUS
97/98
Div. Lead:
Contract:
Lisa Grote (175)
yes (see Cost)
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: N/A
Origin of Issue: Staff and Historic Resources Board
86
TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
CITY MANAGER
September 30, 1996
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:417:96
SUBJECT:Policy Options and Potential Process Description for the Interim
Regulations Related to Demolition of Residential Structures Constructed
Prior to 1940
REOUEST:
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 ! 7, 1996
Moratorium Ordinance on demolition of older residences.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Direct
ao
staffto 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.
do
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 staff regarding 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 recover?’
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 whichwere 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 Inventor?,. (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, 1996, 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 wilt serve to regulate demolition until the Historic Ordinance and Inventor3’ 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 Elemen~ 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. Polo 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- I 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 pattern, character, qualiU, and historic integrity of Palo Alto’s
traditional neighborhoods.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion provides both a policy-fi’amework 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 structures.
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 inventor3,,. 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
I be used for all structures in Category 3 or 4 and all structures not now on
the inventory. For an), 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: Dela_v 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 I 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
landmark and 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 ~gesign 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 H~rdsh~p 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.(Attachrnent 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, requiring: I) 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 ofpublic 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 Standard$.
Continue to use the current standards for designation as evaluation criteria
for significant historic structures built prior to 1940
Evaluation Option 2: Stren_~rthen ~qtandards.
Strengthen the evaluation criteria by updating the standards for designation
as recommended by the State Office of Historic Preservation
C. Compatibility 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, of Palo 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 the’,’ 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 HJE
process is used exclusively by people remodeling their houses, and is not available for
"’new residences".
There are no compatibiliu’ 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, frames, 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 staffin 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. Staffwould 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: Sta_f_f Ap_vrov¢l
Develop easily enforced (~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, modern) 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 I-IKB (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 HRB 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 HR.B
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. Land!~ark 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 Option 1, (Delay for Both Landmark and
Contributing) page 7
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 HR33 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, (Deny for Both, Unless Compatible
Replacement) page 7,
Same as 2. above.
C. Contributing 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 definition 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 preset-cation, and using both Boards would
unnecessarily extend the process and add to the cost, this option is not recommended.
3) Utilize the Plarming 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 stalTmg 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 co~ld 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 anclJor consultant assistance and temporar3’ support staff
hired to provide administrative services.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Because the interim regulations have been directed to strengthen the Ci~,’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 staffwill 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 Chedlyn 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 Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD 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 ~ architectural sig-
nifi~ located within the city are of cultural and
aesthetic benefit to the community. It is fun.her
found that the economic, ettltural and aesthetic
standing of this city will be enhanced by respect-
hag the heritage of the city. The purposes of this
ehapmr are to:
(a) Designam, preserve, protect, eahance and
neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural
~ ~e hea’itag~ of Palo Alto;
(b) Fost~ civic pride ha the beauty and ac-
complistmems of the past;
(c) Stabilize and improve the economic value
of c~rtain historic structures, ~cts and neigh-
(d) Develop ~xl maintain apprt~iam ~
for such smacv.m~;
(e). Kurich the educational and ettltural di-
mensions of httman life by serving nesthetic as
we.ll as mamrial needs md fostering knowledge of
the living herita~ of the past;
(f) F..nhaneo th~ vimml and ~’.,sthetic char-
acter, diversity and intea~’t of th~ city;,
~ of signifiemt historic ~nnaat~s within the
downtown area.
(o~. 3721 §1 (part). 19863
16.49.020 Definitions.
Throughcmt this chalet, the following defini-
tions shall apply:.
(a) "Downtown area" me.~aas that area of flae
University Avenue business district subject to
Chapter 18.48 of Title 18 ofthe Palo Alto Munic-
1Prior ordinance hista~. Ords. 3197, 32~3, 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 I: "Exceptional building" means any
building or group of buildings of preeminent na-
tional or stare importance, meritorious work of the
best architecls or an outstanding example of the
stylistic developmem of architecture ha the United
States. An exceptional building has had either no
exterior modifications or such minor ones that the
overall alvearatu~ of the building is ha its original
character.
Category 2: "Major bttilding" means any build-
hag or grtmp of buildings of major regional im-
portance, meritorious works of the best architects
or an oatstatxling example of an architectural style
or the stylistic development of architecture in the
siam or region. A major tmilding may have some
exterior modifications, but the ori "ginal cim’acter is
Category 3 or 4: "Contributing building"
means any building or group of buildings which
am good local examples of architeetmal styles and
which t~late to the character of a neighborhood
grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other
factors. A contributing building may have had ex-
temive or permanem changes made to the original
design, such as inappropriam additions, extensive
removal of architectural details, or wooden fa-
cades ~ in ~ or sat.co.
(¢) "Historic dist~ct" means a collection of
buildings in a geographically definable area pos-
sessing a significant ecmcemr~on or continuity of
buildings unified by past events, or aesthetically
by plan or physical development. A district
should have integrity of design, setting, 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 Alto Historical and Architr.e.
rural Resources Report and Inventory, and the
master list of categories for those structures or
sites.
(e) "Historic structure/site" means any struc-
ture or sir within the city which has been identi-
fied as having historic or archite, cmanl significance
and has been placed on the historic inventory of
the city of Palo Alto, including stractures and
sites within categories 1, 2, 3 or 4, and all struc-
tures within historic districts.
(f) "Significant building" mcms any build.
ing, group of building~ or sit~ eamgorizexl on the
historic inventory as number one or number two
(Ord. 3721 §1 (part), 1986)
16.49.030 Historic resources board.
(a) Composition. The historic resources
board shall be composed of seven members al>-
l~Ointed by the city council and serving without
pay. Members shall have d~tnonstral~l interest in
and knowledge of history, a.eehitecture or historic
preservation. One member shall be an owner/oc-
cupant of a category I or 2 historic structure, or
of a structure in a historic district; thn~ members
designers or other design professionals-mad ~t
least one member shal! posse.~ academic educa.
tion or practical experience in hismr7 or a ~.lated
(b) Terms of office. Membe~ ~ ~a’ve for
so that three positions are ret’Kled one year, and
four positions are refilled two year~ later.
Commencing on October 21, 1991, there ~ be
one member whose term expires I~ 31, 1992,
and one member whose term expires May 31,
1994. Subsequent appointments ~ be made
for terms of three years, or until their successors
are appointed. Terms of office commence ~une 1.
(c) Appointment. In filling vacancies on the
historic resources board, the following proce-
dares shall be followed by the city council:
(I) Foliowing 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 cotmcfl agenda digest, four time.s within two
weeks.
(2) Written nominations and applications
shall be submitted to the city clerk within one
week of ti~ dam of the last notice to be forwarded
to the city council for its consideration. Notwith-
standing the foregoing, if the nomina~on or appli.
cation of an incumbem board member is not sub-
mined to tl~ city clerk within the period specified
above, said period shail be extended for an adcli-
tional five days during which the city clerk shall
accept written nominations and applications of
(3) TI~ Paio Alto Historic Association
shall be given notice of vacancies on the board
and shall be encouraged to have its members sub-
(4) The city councilshall review ail nomi-
made by the city council at a regular city council
meeting after the periodfor subatittai of nomina-
(d) Organization. The board shall hold meet-
ings twice monthly or at the pleasm~ of the chair-
person, and shall establish ~uch rides as may be
appropriate and necessary for tbe orderly conduct
of its ~. 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, ard in the absence or dis-
ability of the chairperson, the vice chairperson
shall perform the dutie~ of the chairper~m.
Pour members shall constitute a quorum and
decisions of the board shall be determin~ by ma-
jority vote of those members present at the meet-
hag. Action minutes shall be kept by the board.
16102
B UIIADING R.EGULATIONS 16.49.030
(e) Duties. It is the duty of the historic re-
sou.rces board to:
(1) Render advice and guidance to a prop-
erty owner upon the owner’s application for alter-
ation of any historic single-family or duplex
building in the downtown area and any such
16102.1
B UIL.D I~G P,~GULATIONS 16.49.040
building designated as significant elsewher~ in the
city.
(’2) Inform ~ m,~’.hitectura.l review board of
the historical and/or architectural significance of
historic commercial and mukiple-family s’a’uctures
in the downtown area and any such buildings des-
ignated as significant elsewhere in tl~ city that am
under review by the architectural review board.
Submit re.commendations to the architectural r~-
view board regarding proposed exterior altera-
tions of such historic ~.
tion of additional buildings and districts as his-
toric.
(4) Research available information and add
historical information to the inventory sheets of
mined in ~ department of planning and commu-
(5) Perform such otl~r run.ons as may be
delegated from time to time to the historic re.
(0~. 4047 §§i-3, 1991: Or~. 3876 ~1, 1989:
Ord. 3~I §I (pro), 1986)
16.49.040 Designation of historic strut.
tures/sites.
(a) Procedure for designation of historic
stractures/sites or districts. Any individual or
group may propose designation as a historic
structure/site or district. Such proposals shall be
reviewed by she historic resourc~ board, which
will make its ~xa~meadaticm to ~ counc~ Des-
ignation of a historic structure/site or district must
be appmve.d by the city council The procedure
for such designation is as foIto.ves:
(1) Any proposal for designation shall be
filed with She depatmaeat of p~ and commu-
nity environment and shall include the following
(A) The address and assessor’s parcel
number of the site or boundaries of the proposed
district;
t’B) A description detailing the struc-
tumlsite 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 structuw./site or distri~
(D) A description of the current condition
of and any known threats to the structure/site or
distric~
(E) What restoration, if any, would be
necessary to return she structure/site or district to
its original appearance;
(F) Sketches, drawings, photographs or
other descriptive materiak
(G) Other supporting information.
(’2) Each proposa.l shall be considered by
the’historic resources board at a public hearing
within sixty days of the receipt of t1~ proposal. In
any case where an application for.a planning or
Ixu’lding permit aff~ng the exterior of a ~
is pending coney with a proposal for des-
ignation, the recommendation of the historic
resources board shall be made within tweaty days
of ~:eipt of tl~ proposal
(3) Notice of the time, place and purpose
of She 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 mall to the applicant, to the owner or own-
ers of th~ property, and to the owners of property
within thr~ hundred feet of she site.
(4) The historic ~v.sourr.es board shall rec-
ommend to the city council approval, disapproval
or modification of an application for tiesignazion.
(5) The city council may approve, disal>-
prove or modify a recommendation for desig-
nation and, in any case where an appIication for a
planning or building permit is pending concur-
rently with she proposal for designation, such de-
cision shall be made within thirty days of the re-
commendation, if any, of the historic resources
(6) After approval of the designation of a
stracture/site or district, ~ city clerk shall send to
the owners of the property so designated~ by
mail, a letter outlining the basis for such designa-
tion and she regulations which result from such
designation. Notice of this designation shall also
16103
16.49.050 PALO ALTO ~CIPAL 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 definirions of historic cate-
gories and districts in Section 16.49.020, shall be
used as criteria for designating additional Ifistoric
structures/sites or districts to the historic invert-
(1) The su-ucmre or site is identified with
the lives of historic people or with impormm
evems in the city, gate or nation;
(2) The structure or site is particularly rep-
resentative of an architectural style or way oflife
import~m to the city, staze or nation; .
(3) The su’ucv.tre or site is an example of a
type of building which was once common, but is
now ~
(4) The sm~cture or site is connected with a
business or use which was once common, but is
now rare;
(5) The ar..hitea or building was imporm~
(6) The structure or site contains elements
demonstratLng outstanding attention to architec-
tural design, detail, materials or ~anship.
(Ord. 3721 ~1 (pro), 1986)
16.49.050 Exterior alteration of historic
structures.
(a) Review pruce~. All applications for a
building permit for exterior almration to any his-
toric st.rucmrelske in the downtown area or a
significant building eisewhere in the city, new
construction on a parrel where them is ¢gmenfly a
historic structure in the downtown area 0~ta sig.
nificant building elsewhere in the city, or such
application for construction within a historic
distric~ shall be reviewedas follows:
(1) Review lxxlies.
(A) Pursuant to O3apter 16.48, the archi-
tectural review board shall review applications in-
volving any historic structure/site in the down-
town area and any significant structure/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
(B) The historic re.sources board shaIl
review applications involving single-family and
duplex residences which are historic slrucmres/
site.s in the downtown area or which arc signifi-
cam buildings elsewhere in the city. Compliance
of the property owner with the recommendations
shall be voluntary, not mandatory.
(C) The planning staff may review and
approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to
guidelines which the historic resources board may
adopt Minor exterior alterations are thc~ altera-
tions which ~ dir~:tor of plarming and commu-
nity environment or his/her designee determines
will not adverse.ly affec~ the exterior archimcmml
characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value
of the historic s~ucmm, its site or mrmundings.
(2) Time limit. Recommendations of the
historic resources board on aRe.rations Iv a historic
single-family or duplex residence shall be
dered within thirty days of the dam of referral by
the architemh’al review boa~ orthe chief ~
official. Failure to provide a recommendation
within the lime limit shall ~ an application for
a commercial or multiple-family use to be returned
to the architectural review board, and a single-
family or duplex application to be forwarded to
the chief building official for consideration of
issuance of a building permit.
(b) Standards of review. In evaluating appli-
cations, the review bodie~ shall consider the ar-
chitectural style, design, arrangement, textron,
materials and color, and any other pertinent fac-
tors. The prime concern should be the exterior
appearance of the tmilding sire.
(1) On buildings not in a historical disu’ict,
the proposed alterations should not adversely
affea the exterior arc.hitecmml chamcterirdcs nor
the historical or aesthetic value of the building and
(2) In historic districts, the proposed
alterations should not advemely
(A) The exterior architectural character-
istics nor the historical, architectural or aesthetic
value of the tmikiing and its site; or
16104
B I.YfLDING REGULATIONS 16.49.060
(B) The relationship of the building, in
terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its
surroundings, including neighborhood nrucmres.
(C) Appeals. Any interested party may
appeal to the city cotm~ the decision of the archi-
mctural review board rmt to recommend approv~l
of an application for a building permit m alter the
exterior of my historic structare in the dawntown
area, or ~ significmt m’ucmre eis~wl~re in the
city or in ~ historic district. Such ~ppeal shatl be
processed in accordmce with Section 16.48.090.
16.49.060 Demolition of significant
buildings in the downtown area.
(a) Permit and findings. No permit ~ be
issued to demolish or cause to be demolisbed all
or any pan of a significam building in the down-
(1) The city council decermin~ that under
the historic designa~on, taking imo account tbe
cumeat market value, the value of ~rahle de-
velogmem fights, and tl~ costs of rehabilitation to
meet the requirements of the tmflding code or
other city, state or federal laws, the property re-
taim no reasomhle economic use; or
(’2) The chief building official or the fire
chief, after consultation, to the extent feasible,
with the d~pamaent of plmning and commmity
environmenL determines that m imminent saf’e~.
haza~l exists and that demolition of the building is
the only feasible means to secu~ the public
safety;, or
(3) The city comcil ~__~_-~h’~,~_ that dsmoli-
tion of the b~dlding will not have a significant
effect on the achievement of ~ lmrIx~ses of this
(b) Application for a permit to demolisl~ 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(@(I), shall contain any appropriate
and relevant economic information which will
enable the council m make the necessary determi-
ration.
(c) Review of application.
(I) Historic resources boa~l. Applications
which a_re accepted as complete for a permit to
demolish a significant building in the downtown
area on the grounds specified in Section
16.49.060(a)(I) or (3) shall be placed on the
agenda of the historic resources board for hearing
and recommendation. If the historic resources
days of referral to it, the city council may procee.d
without a recommendation from the historic re-
(R) City oun~ hearing and decision. Any
application for permit to demolish a signlficam
building in the downtown area on the grounds
specified in Section 16.49.060(aX1) or (3) shall
be ~ by the city coun~ Notice shall be given
by mailed notice to all owners of property imme-
diate.ly adjacem to the property that is the subject
of the application, and by publication at least once
in a local newspaper of general citY,on. The
the fi~fia ~t forth in Section 16.49.060(aX1) or
(3) has becm me~. Tbe council may approve, dis.
approve or approve the application with condi-
~iom, and ~ mak~ findings relating its decision
to the gandards set forth in Section 16.49.060(a).
The decision of the council ~ be rendered
within flfirty days from the date of the conclusion
of bear .
(d) Permit to move a ~ignificant building in
the dowmown area or in a historic disu’i~ In
viewing an application for a permit to demolish a
significant building in ~ downtown area or
historic di.mict on the grounds specified in Sec-
tion 16.49.060(a)(1) or (3), the historic resources
board may decide ~ the building may be moved
without de.s~ying its historic or archit~ral in-
mgrity and important, and may recommend
the city council that the demolition permit be
denied, but that a permit to reloca~ be processed,
pumuam to Chapter 16.32 of this code. In that
16105
16.49.070 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
case, the time limits and notice requirements of
Section 16.49.070(c) shall also be applicable.
(Ord. 3721 §I (,pan), 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 conm’buting txtilding in the
downtown area or a significant building other
than downtown shall file an ~plication for a de.m-
olition permit in accordance with the pmc, edums
established by Chapter 16.04 of this code. With
the application, the applicant shall submit one
clear photograph of tlm front of the building md
such other information as may be required by the
chief building official in accordance with the re-
quirements for the demolition permit. A copy of
the application and plmtogr4~h shall be forwarded
to the city council as an information item in the
next council packgt. ~ chief building official
may not take action on the application for sixty
days following receipt of a ¢omplemd application.
(b) Referral to architectural review board or
moratorium, tl~ chief building official shall refer
the application for a permit to demolish to the
chitectural review board, in the case of all build-
ings other than single-family md duplex resi-
dences, for review and recommendation. The
chitecmml review board sl~ refex fl~ application
to the historic resources board for recommenda-
tions on the historical and/or arcl~imcmml signifi-
cance of the building and the apprvpriam ~im¢ for
the moratorium. A demolition permit appli~tion
for a single-family or duplex residence shall be
refened to the historic msour~s board for recom-
mendation.
(c) Council action. Tim mv.himcmml review
board, the historic msotm:es bom-~t, or may inmr-
ested person may recommend tlmt the council
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 re.c-
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 imdvertent
neglect the exterior re.arums of buildings desig-
rated as significant or contributory in tbe down-
town area, and the interior portions tbemof wlmn
such maintenance is ~ to prevent demri-
oration and decay of tJae exterior. All such build-
ings shall be pmserve, d against such de~ay and
deterioration, and shall remain free fr~n stmcnn~
defects through prompt corrections of any of
following defects:
(a) Facades which may fall and injure mem-
bers of n~e public or property;
(b) Deteriommd or inadequam foundation,
defective or deteriorated flooring or floor sup-
ports, deteriorated walls or otber vertical struc-
(¢) Members of-ceilings, roofs, ¢e.£1ing and
roof supports or otlex borizontal members which
sag, split or buckle due to defective material or
(d) Deterioramd or in~ff~tive wamrpmofmg
of exterior walls,.mofs, foundations or floors, in-
cluding broken windows or doors;
(e) Defective or insufficient weather protec-
tion for exterior wall overing, including lack of
paint or other prote~ve covering;,
(f) Any fault or defect in ~ building which
renders it not properly wamrtight or structurally
(Ord. 3~21 §I (part). ~9~6)
16106
B UILDING REGULATIONS 16.49.100
16.49.090 Enforcement.
(a) Unlawful alteration or demolition.
(1) Violation -- Penalties. It is unlawful
for a person or entity ~ demolish or cause m be
demolished any significant building or portion
thereof in the dowmown area in violation of any
of the provisions of thi~ chapter. Any person or
emily violating the~ provisions is guilty of a mis-
d~ne.~nor and, upon conviction of any such vio-
lation, such person shall be punishable by a fin~
of not mon~ than one thousand dollars or by im-
prisonm~t for not morn than six months, or by
(2) Ovil permlly. Any person or ~r~ity wbo
demolishes a building or causes a demolition in
violation of tl~ provisions of this chapmr may be
liable civilly in a sum equal to tl~ replacement
value of the building or an amount in tbe courfs
fliscr~ion, not to excee.zl mn tbo~ dollars.
(3) Injunctive relief. The city attorney may
maintain an a~’xion for injur~ve relief to restrain a
violation or cause, wbere possible, tbe complem
or partial restoration, mconsn’uction, or replace-
me.nt in kind of any building or site demolished,
almred or partially d~znolisbed in violation of this
(4) Restri~on on d~v~lopm~nt. Almration
or demolition of a historic sn’ucun~ in violation of
this chapmr shall ~liminam t~ eligibility of rbe
structure’s lot for any transfer of developmem
rigim, pummm to the Palo Aim comprehensive
plan, and such lot, ff it is tbe sit~ of an unlawfully
demolished historic stmcmm from which d~v~l-
opmem righm have be~n wangerr~, shall not be
developed in excess of the floor area ratio of the
demolished structure for a period of ~ y~a~J
from the unlawful demolition. A person or entity
may be relieved of the penalties provide.d in this
section if: (i) tbe unlawful alteration or demolition
did not constitute a major alteration, as demrmin~
by the chief building official, or (ii) as to an un-
lawful almration, the person or entity msmms the
original distinguishing qualities and characmr of
the building desrroy~ or altered. Such restoration
must be undertaken pursuant to a valid building
permit issued afurr a recommendation by the his-
toric resources board and a finding by the city
council that the proposed work wili effect ade-
quate restoration and can be done with a substan-
tial degree of success.
(b) Failure w abide by maintenance regula-
tions.
(1) Abatement. The proce.dures 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 unlawf~ for any
person or entity to fall to maintain any bm’lding in
the downtown area designated as significant 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 ~r are auflmrized to exercise the au-
thority in California Penal Code Section 836.5
and to issue citations for violation of Section
16.49.080.
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 m exceed one llmusand dollars.
Each day of violation constitutes ~ separate of-
lense for which a penalty may be assessed.
(c) Remedies not exclusive. The remedies
provided by this section are not exclusive.
(Ord. 3721 §1 (part), 1986)
16.49.100 Severability.
If any provision or clause of this chapter is
held to be unconstitutional or~tl~rwise invalid by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalid-
ity shall not affect other provisions of this chap-
tee, and clauses of this chapter am declared to be
severable. (Ord. 3721 §1 (part), 1986)
16107 Rev. Oral. Supp. 3/92
THE SECRETARY OFTHE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION
The following 5tandards 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.
(31 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.
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 ]east 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 material~, features or finishes that are
important in defining the building°s historic character. For example, certain treatments---if improperly appliedmmay cause or accelerate physical det~
rioration of historic building. "I’his 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 pro~ect work. In addition to establishing standards and guidelines, the Service develops, publishes, and distributes technical
information on appropriate preservation 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. 20013-7"/27.
;TATF. OF CALIFORNIA - R ’-~OURCE$ AC£NCY
DFFICE OF H’ISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
’.0. BOX 94259~
;ACP~MEI~r’0, CA 94296-000!
916) 6S3.6624
916) 653.9824 FAX
WILSON, Govcrno-
~eptember 15, 1996
.~{s. Lisa Grote, CLG Coordinator
Dept. of Planning and Urban Community Environment
Oity of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
Dear Ms. Grote,
News has reached this office that the Mayor and Council will be considering on Monday evening as an
agenda item, an Ordinance Establishing an Urgency Moratorium on the Demolition of Older Houses,
As a Certified Local Government under the National Historic Preservation Act in partnership with the
California State Historic Preservation 0ffiee, I wanted to offer the assi~ance 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 lii~oric properties as a
community continues "co grow and develop.
The city should also be aware that the costs associated with updating a local preset:vation ordinance are
an eligible eo~ for grant funds from the Certified Local Govea-am~nt gram funds. Please do not hesitate to
contact me or Sandra Elder should you need fta’ther assistance with your plans for protecting the heritage of Palo
Alto.
State Historic Preservation Officer
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.