HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-28 City Council (13)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
October 28, 1996 CMR:451:96
Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and
Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 and Review
of Design Quality and Neighborhood Compatibility of Replacement
Structures; and Historic Preservation Regulations including
Compatibility Review Standards, Standards for Alteration of
Historic Landmark Residences, and Standards for Historic
Designation
REQUEST:
This report transmits for second reading the Proposed Ordinance establishing interim
regulations governing historic designation and demolition of residential structures
constructed prior to 1940. It also forwards Compatibility Review Standards for Replacement
Houses, Standards for Historic Designation, and Standards for Alteration of Historic
Landmark Residences. These are additional regulations authorized by the Interim Ordinance,
to be adopted by Council Resolution. These additional 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, after conducting a public hearing:
1.Adopt the Ordinance establishing Interim Regulations.
2.Adopt the Resolution containing Compatibility Review Standards, Standards for
Historic Designation, and Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences.
CMR:451:96 Page 1 of 8
BACKGROUND
Background information related to these Interim Regulations has been previously described
in the attached reports dated September 30, 1996 (CMR:417:96) and October 15, 1996
(CMR:436:96). On September 30, 1996, the City Council provided policy direction to staff
regarding the content of interim regulations. On October 15, 1996, staff forwarded the
Ordinance for first reading and forwarded the preliminary Compatibility Review Standards
and preliminary Standards for Historic Designation for review. The purpose of this report
is to forward the Ordinance for second reading and to forward the historic preservation
regulations, including Compatibility Review Standards, Standards for Historic Designation,
and Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences for public hearing and
adoption.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
A policy framework for guiding the Interim Regulations was presented in CMR:417:96, and
the Council provided policy direction to staff for incorporation into the Ordinance and
Standards.
A question related to Section 16.50.020 (d), the definition of demolition, has been raised
since the October 15, 1996 Council adoption. The definition includes the language: "or any
portion of a street-facing facade." This language implies a more stringent protection of the
street facing building wall than was intended by staff.
If Council intends for staff to use other than our traditional "demolition definition," which
allows removal of nearly all building elements except the studs in the walls, they should so
direct. It was not staff’s intent to require all portions of the facade to be protected, including
windows, exterior materials, etc. Staff can administer either interpretation, but prefers to
continue the traditional interpretation. It allows greater flexibility to the home remodeler.
DISCUSSION
Since the first reading of the Ordinance and the public review on October 15, 1996, the
Historic Resources Board, public and Council have raised several issues, which have
prompted staff to make adjustments in the Ordinance and Standards. Those modifications
are outlined below and highlighted in the documents.
It is worth noting that, prior to publication, the Compatibility Review Standards will be
further enhanced with instructional text and illustrations, after the regulatory elements are
adopted by Council. These embellishments are to make the Standards "user friendly" and
to provide further administrative and background information, including illustrations and a
checklist for applicants and staff. Space in the document has been retained for this purpose
with notations in several instances.
CMR:451:96 Page 2 of 8
Definition of Demolition
The Historic Resources Board expressed concern, in the minutes of their October 14, 1996
meeting, regarding the definition of demolition and how it might inadvertently create
difficulties for applicants who are trying to restore and reconstruct an historic structure. Staff
had already discovered such instances and agrees with the HRB. A modified definition of
demolition has been added to address the concern. (Refer to Sections 16.50.020 (d) and (g),
Ordinance, Attachment A.)
Standards for Historic Designation
The Historic Resources Board, in the minutes of October 14, 1996, expressed a concern that
the Standards of Historic Designation did not adequately address historic and cultural criteria
when designating Contributing Properties and did not sufficiently include "sites" and
"places" of merit. Staff agrees that the modifications recommended by the HRB are more
in keeping with current National and State definitions and has, therefore, added the wording
highlighted in Exhibit B.
It is worth clarifying, however, that the modified definition is not an amendment to the
existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, applying citywide. It will be applied only to
"protected residences" as defined in Section 16.50.020 (j) through these interim regulations.
Application of any updated definition throughout the community will take place only when
the permanent regulations are adopted by Council and the Historic Inventory isupdated.
Compatibility Review Standards - Council Questions
At the meeting of October 15, 1996, Council Member Rosenbaum raised several questions
regarding the draft Compatibility Review Standards. These are addressed as follows:
Is there a potential conflict between the requirements for certain roofing materials
(page 24 of the Compatibility Standards) and the Fire Department Codes and requirements
or State Law?
Staff contacted the Acting Fire Marshal to confirm that the materials listed in the
Compatibility Standards are acceptable to the Fire Department and meet Fire Codes. He
confirmed that these materials are all acceptable. The City of Palo Alto does not have an
ordinance preventing the use of wood shakes, as some communities have adopted. The City,
however, through the Site and Design review process, does require fire retardant roofing
materials in the "high" wildland fire risk area west of Interstate 280. There are no pre-1940
residential structures in the "high" fire risk area. The Health and Safety Code, Section
13132.7(a)(1), requires that both wood shake and wood shingle must be minimum "Class C"
fire resistive. This requirement will be imposed at the time of issuing a roofing permit, as
is currently the case with any reroofing or new roof permit.
CMR:451:96 Page 3 of 8
!s there a potential conflict between the Title 24 energy conservation requirements and the
requirement for using certain types of windows (page 20, of the Compatibility Standards)?
Staff contacted the Chief Building Official to review the requirements for acceptable window
treatments. According to the Chief Building Official, the Title 24 standards can be achieved
in a variety of ways, generally through a combined approach of any of the following: wall
and roof insulation classifications, number and size of openings, and the use of single, double
or triple pane window treatments. Title 24 does not require double pane windows, and the
Compatibility Standards do not prevent the use of double pane window treatments, so there
is no conflict between the two.
The Compatibility. Standards allow for double pane windows. When using divided light type
windows, the standards do not allow the type which place the "dividers" inside the two panes
of glass. With this type of window, the imitation muntins produce no relief or shadow line.
If divided lights are selected, they are required to be tree divided lights, which include single
panes with muntins; or alternatively, if double pane windows are used, the type which places
the imitation muntin on the outside of the double panes of glass is required. With this second
type, the imitation muntin produces a shadow line. It is, therefore, a higher quality imitation
than the type which places the "divider" inside the glass.
Is there a problem with the requirement for a 12-foot double garage door opening and
necessary clearance for automobiles to enter and park inside?
The requirement for 12-foot garage door width was an error in the first draft of the
Compatibility Review Standards. The error has been corrected in the current Exhibit A,
page 12, to require a 16-foot garage door, and the pavement widths related to this
measurement have been likewise widened.
Compatibility Review Standards - Revisions
The following refinements have been made to the Compatibility Review Standards since
Council last reviewed them on October 15, 1996. The Introduction and the first two sections
of the document, How to Use the Compatibility Review Standards, and Adding On or
Remodeling a Pre-1940 House, were in outline form in the previous draft, and these sections
have been developed to a more complete form in Exhibit A.
Changes that relate to regulatory requirements have been highlighted in the text of the
attached Compatibility Review Standards. Changes resulted from public input, additional
field observation, or research which has occurred since the October 15, 1996 document was
reviewed. The changes can be characterized as three types: 1) those made for clarification
and consistency, 2) those made to allow more flexibility in prescriptive dimensions and
CMR:451:96 Page 4 of 8
locations, and 3) an additional design requirement for both garage doors and wall material
application practices. The modified sections are summarized below.
Front Setbacks
1. Wording was changed to clarig~ that all of the house must be located at or behind the
prevailing setback line.
Garages
1. The requirement that garages located in the rear setback be at least 6 feet from the rear
property line was deleted.
A restriction on balconies over attached garages on comer lots was deleted.
3.The maximum width of garage doors was changed from 12 feet to 16 feet.
Design standards were added for garage doors to minimize the appearance of width
and increase architectural compatibilit3~ with the neighborhood.
The special allowance requiring only one on-site parking space for lots with width
less than 40 feet or area less than 4,000 square feet was changed to apply to all
substandard lots, to be consistent with the zoning definition of substandard lots. A
requirement was added that attached garages on these lots be recessed at least two feet
behind the main front facade of the house.
Driveways
1. The location at which a driveway may begin to widen from 9 feet to the width of the
garage door(s) was increased from 18 feet to 27 feet from the front of the garage.
o The requirement to provide a wall, fence or hedge to screen wide expanses of paving
was changed to apply in all situations, not just for comer lots. The width of paving
that triggers this requirement was increased from over 14 feet to over 18 feet.
o The minimum width of space required to allow for planting between a driveway and
the property line and the driveway and a building wall was reduced from 2 feet to 1.5
feet. This requirement was extended to apply to driveways adjacent to rear property
lines as well as to side property lines. An exception was added to eliminate the
required separation between the driveway and the building wall along the back half
of the house.
CMR:451:96 Page 5 of 8
Public
1.
Right of Way
Wording was changed to clarify, that the restriction on driveways to no closer than 10
feet from a street tree does not apply to existing driveways, but rather to relocating,
realigning or widening driveways.
Wording was added to clarify that the restriction on 5.5 linear feet of paving in the
planting strip does not include the driveway apron.
Landscaping
1. The requirement for the protection of oak trees was changed to include wording from
the tree ordinance regarding protection only of trees located within the required
setbacks.
Compatibility with Neighborhood Architectural Style
1. Wording and examples about using characteristics of a traditional architectural style
in a consistent manner, rather than combining architectural styles, was moved from
requirements to recommended practice.
Windows
1.The requirement to "reuse and match" original window materials was changed to
"reuse or match."
o The restriction on the use of nonrectangular or decorative windows on garage doors
was relocated to the garage section.
An exception to clear glass was made for frosted glass and glass block in bathrooms
or for privacy along property lines.
Entry_ Features
1. Wording was added to clarify that where the focal point on the front of the house is
a primary window rather than the entry, the primary window must be in a main living
area.
Roofline
i. Using high quality roof materials, where roofs are highlighted as a prominent design
feature, was moved from requirements to recommended practices.
Walls
1.
and Finishes
Wording was added to clarify what types of stucco finishes are compatible with
existing architectural and neighborhood character.
CMR:451:96 Page 6 of 8
o A requirement was added regarding changing wall materials only at certain locations
on the wall in order to avoid the appearance of a false, "stuck on" appearance.
National Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
The attached resolution references the National Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as the standards for evaluating modifications to historic
landmarks. This is consistent with Council policy direction on September 30, 1996.
ALTERNATIVES
Any number of alternatives are available to the Council, and a range of policy options was
presented in the earlier CMR:417:96, dated September 30, 1996.
Staff recommends that a four month status report on the Interim Regulations be returned to
Council for evaluation. At that time, it may be necessa~ to modify the Administrative
Regulations and/or examine some other alternatives or reexamine alternatives that were not
previously selected.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of administering the Interim Regulations is discussed in the City Manager’s Report
of October 28, 1996 (CMR:446:96) and was discussed in the previous CMR:436:96.
ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT
Because the interim regulations have been directed to strengthen the City’s Historic
Protection Ordinance, preventing demolition of historically significant structures for
protection of the environment, the ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under a
Class 8 Exemption.
,STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will return to Council 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, Ordinance to Establish Interim Regulations
Attachment B, Resolution Adopting Historic Preservation Regulations, w/Exhibits:
Exhibit A, Compatibility Review Standards
Exhibit B, Standards for Historic Designation
Attachment C, Historic Resource Board Minutes of October 14, 1996
Attachment D, CMR:417:96, dated September 30, 1996
Attachment E, CMR:436:96, dated October 15, 1996
CMR:451:96 Page 7 of 8
Attachment F, Front Cover of Rehab .Right. How to Realize the Full Value of Your Old
House, City of Oakland Planning Department (Council Members only)
Attachment G, Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto (Council
Members only)
Attachment H, Single Family Residential D.esign Guidelines for Palo Alto (Council
Members only)
CC:Historic Resources Board
Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage
Planning Commission
Chamber of Commerce
Architectural Review Board
Board of Realtors
State Office of Historic Preservation
PREPARED BY: Nancy Maddox Lytle
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Cib.¢ 19Ianager
CMR:45 t:96 Page 8 of 8
4~ttachment A
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 i. 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
961024 apc 0051636
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 is at least equal
in design quality to the existing structure. The Compatibility
Review Standards shall include an exception process to provide
hardship relief when site conditions cause unusual circumstances
that make application of such Standards an unreasonable burden.
(c) "Contributing Residence" 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
of the perimeter walls, or removal of any portion of a street-
facing facade, of a Protected Residence other than a Historic
(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 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
2
961024 ape 0051636
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.
(i) "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
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 Rehabilitatinq Historic Buildings, as they
may be amended.
(1) "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 ~i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!ii~iiiiiiiiiiiii~ii{ililili ii~i~i i i i i i i i~iiiii!iiiiiii i~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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
3
961024 ~apc 0051636
Landmark Residence, except when a Historic Merit Evaluation is
sought directly as provided in Section !6.50.070(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.
(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.!20(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 alteration 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.
4961024 apc 0051636
(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).
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
961024 ~pe 0051636
5
administrative directions
implement this chapter.
to city departments necessary to
(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
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 within ten days after the mailing of notice of the
decision of the director of planning and community environment. An
appeal shall not be processed unless 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 councilsufficient 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
6961024 apc 0051636
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 additiona! recommendations as it deems
proper. The findings of~the board shall 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 shall be in the sa!ne form as
required by this section for appeals to the historic resources
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.
16.50.140 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.
961024 ape 0051636 7
(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.
16.50.150 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.
8961024 ape 0051636
rm
./,
an
961024 epc 0051636
9
SECTION ~. 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 ~. This ordinance shall become effective upon the
commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption
and shal! remain in effect until the earlier of its repeal or
November 30, 1997.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED :
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Director of Planning and
Community Environment
I0961024 apc~51636
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADOPTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS
INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS,
STANDARDS FOR ALTERATION OF HISTORIC LANDMARK
RESIDENCES,AND STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1996, the Council adopted an
ordinance entitled, "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;" and
WHEREAS, the above-referenced ordinance requires the
director of planning and community environment to promulgate
written Historic Preservation Regulations to facilitate
implementation of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Regulations must
include, at a minimum, Standards for Historic Designation,
Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences,
Compatibility Review Standards, and any administrative directions
to city departments necessary to implement the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed
Historic Preservation Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. The Compatibility Review Standards and
Standards for Historic Designation, attached to this Resolution as
Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively, are hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The Standards for Alteration of Historic
Landmark Residences shall be the Secretary of Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation and the Guidelines for Rehabilitatinq Historic
Buildinqs, as they may be amended, and are hereby approved.
SECTION 3. The Historic Preservation Regulations approved
by this Resolution shall be published and distributed to the public
as an appendix to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
961024 apc 0051639
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this resolution does not
constitute a project subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
2961024 ape 0051639
Exhibit A
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS
FOR REPLACEMENT HOUSES:
Requirements and Recommended Practices For the Design of
Houses That Replace Pre-1940 Contributor Houses
CONTENTS
Introduction
I.How to Use These Compatibility Review Standards
II.Adding on or Remodeling a Pre-1940 House
III.Requirements and Recommended Practices for Designing a
Compatible Replacement House
IV.Completing the Compatibility Worksheet: Identifying Neighborhood
Character and Architectural Style
V.Guide to Palo Alto Architectural Styles and Other References
VI.Compatibility Worksheet
INTRODUCTION
Background and Purpose of the Compatibility Review Standards
Between January and mid-October, 1996, permits were granted for 62 single
family houses in Palo Alto to be demolished and replaced with new houses.
Thirty-four of these houses were constructed before 1940 and located mostly in the
city’s older, more traditional neighborhoods.
Concerned that the loss of so many older houses would erode the distinctive
character of these neighborhoods, the City Council adopted Interim Regulations to
limit or restrict demolition of houses that have historic significance, either as
Landmarks or as Contributors to the historic character of the neighborhood, and to
assure that in cases where these houses are demolished the houses that replace
them will contribute the same qualiu of design and compatibility with
neighborhood characteristics as the original houses. These provisions help to
assure current and future residents that the character of their neighborhood will not
undergo radical change, and to protect the investments that residents have made in
their houses and neighborhoods.
When do the Compatibility Review Standards Apply
The Compatibility Review Standards apply to new construction that replaces a
house that was built before 1940 and has been determined to have historic
significance as a Contributor building. In addition, the Standards apply to
extensive remodels of Contributor buildings when 50% or more of the exterior
walls are being removed. In rare instances where a Landmark building is
permitted to be removed or demolished, the replacement structure also would have
to comply with these Standards. See Section I. for more details about how to
determine whether the Compatibility Review Standards apply to your project.
SECTION I:HOW TO USE THESE COMPATIBILITY REVIEW
STANDARDS
Consider the option of an addition or remodel of your house rather than
demolition and replacement.
An addition or remodel of your older house that is sensitive to its original
characteristics will help to preserve the distinctive historic architectural qualities
of Palo Alto. Before you decide to demolish and replace your house, consider
whether an addition or remodel will meet your household’s needs.
Read Section II.., which discusses in more detail the opportunities and benefits of a
successful addition or remodel. As you complete the Compatibility Worksheet in
Section III., consider the special characteristics of your house and how it
contributes to the special character of the neighborhood.
If you decide to retain at least 50% of the walls of your house, including the front
facade, you are not required to comply with the Compatibility Review Standards.
Instead, use the information provided in the Compatibility Review Standards and
the Compatibility Worksheet exercise to help you identify the essential
characteristics of your house and neighborhood and to design your addition or
remodel in a way that will celebrate and enhance the style of your house and the
special qualities of the neighborhood.
o Determine whether the Compatibility Review Standards are mandatory for
your project.
When do the Compatibility Review Standards apply?
Your project must comply with the Requirements of the Compatibility Review
Standards if both of the following apply:
The original house that is being replaced or extensively remodeled
was constructed before 1940 and has been determined to be an
Historic Landmark Residence or a Contributing Residence
The proposed construction plans will result in removal of 50°./o or
more of the exterior walls or the street facing facade of the original
house.
How do I know if my house is an Historic Landmark or Contributor
building?
First, verify that your house was constructed prior to 1940. Consult
the Assessor’s data, available on microfiche in the Planning
Department, which will show the date of construction for your
house.
Next, consult the Ci~r of Palo Alto’s current Historic Inventory, and
find out whether it has been identified in the Inventory as a structure
with historic architectural or cultural significance. Structures
identified as Category 1 or 2 are considered to be Historic Landmark
Residences, but structures identified as Category 3 or 4 will require
an Historic Merit Evaluation to assess their level of historic
significance.
Because the Inventory has not yet been updated to assure that all
structures with historic, architectural or cultural merit are identified,
the house may still have historic merit even if it is not identified in
the Inventory.
If your house is not on the Inventory, you must request a Historic
Merit Screening by Planning staff to determine whether the house
could possibly be considered to be a Contributing or Historic
Landmark Residence.
If based on the Historic Merit Screening, it appears your post-1940
house could not meet the Standards for Historic Designation, then
you are not required to follow the requirements which apply to
demolition, alteration and replacement of Contributing Residences.
If it appears, based upon the Historic Merit Screening, that your
house may meet the Standards for Historic Designation, a Historic
Merit Evaluation will be required. This evaluation will include a
recommendation by the Historic Resources Board to the Planning
4
Director regarding the determination that a pre-1940 house is either a
Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing Residence.
If the house is determined to be a Historic Landmark Residence,
no application for demolition will be approved during the current
interim regulations, except under special circumstances. Any
remodel or additions will need to be approved by the Historic
Resources Board according to National Standards and Guidelines.
If your house is determined to be a Contributing Residence, you
must comply with the Compatibiti~, Review Standards and obtain
approval for a replacement structure prior to demolition of the
contributing residence. Demolition is defined as removal of more
than fifty, percent of the perimeter walls, or removal of the street-
facing facade. Demolition does not include removal and
replacement in kind of deteriorated, non-repairable materials
required for the restoration or rehabilitation of the structure and
resulting in no change to its exterior appearance or historic character.
Process to apply for approval of an extensive remodel or for demolition and
replacement.
Outline the steps in the review process.
Submittal requirements:
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 neighborhood and
showing how the replacement house meets the requirements of the
Compatibility. Review Standards. (The Worksheet in the back of the
SFR Design Guidelines will be modified~ see Attachment.)
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
How to use the Requirements and Recommendations in the Compatibility Review
Standards
Difference between Requirements and Recommended Practices.
Exceptions:
An exception process will be made available that allows the applicant to seek relief
from the requirements of the Compatibility Review Standards when site conditions
cause unusual circumstances that make application of such Standards an
unreasonable burden. The process will involve a hearing opportunity and a
decision by the Director or his designee. 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
Compatibili~ Standards, the proposed alternative may be approved.
SECTION II.REMODELING A PRE-1940 HOME
Remodeling or adding on to an existing house may be the best alternative for households who
need more space or have changing requirements.
Increasing the size of a home presents both opportunities and problems. There may be an
opportunity, to improve the layout of the entire house and to enhance compatibility with the
neighborhood. By retaining elements of the original homes and continuing its architectural
character in additions, remodeled homes can preserve Palo Alto’s precious architectural heritage
and the charm and desirability of older neighborhoods.
The first step in planning an addition is to study the Zoning Ordinance regulations to determine
what may be built. Be aware that you can apply for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) if
you find that you cannot adhere to the strict provisions of the zoning ordinance for site
development regulations such as setbacks, daylight planes, height, lot coverage and incidental
amounts of floor area. Home Improvement Exceptions apply to projects where 75% of exterior
walls and 25% of existing roof area is maintained, and are intended to help sustain the integrity
of the existing house design concept or neighborhood character.
If you are remodeling a Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing Residence, you may also
be eligible to use the Historic Building Code. This code provides added flexibility in meeting
the intent of the code where strict interpretation of the Uniform Building Code could adversely
affect the preservation of historic buildings.
Next step, review these recommendations and requirements, recognizing that if you retain iiaore
than 50% of exterior walls including the front facade, the requirements are not mandatory, in
either case, following the recommendations will help you assure that your remodeled home
preserves its original architectural character and enhances your neighborhood character. You
may also wish to consult an architect to help you with the planning and design process.
Use the worksheet in Section VI and the reference materials in Sections V to identify
distinguishing characteristics of the neighborhood and patterns which contribute to the
streetscape. Refer to the Guide to Palo Alto Architectural Styles and the reference materials in
Section V to identify the original architectural style of your house.
As you design your addition, look for ways to continue the architectural character and features of
the original home in the remodeled portion. Be sure that if you are adding at the ground floor or
second story that the overall building massing is consistent with the houses architectural
character. Be sure to continue streetscape patterns that help define neig,hborhood character as
well.
SECTION III: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 a way
that preserves the special and desirable qualities of the neighborhood.
These special qualities come from characteristic patterns of building placement, open
space, landscaping and architectural detail. These patterns are similar throughout Palo
Alto’s pre-1940 neighborhoods, even though the styles of architecture may be varied.
It is the repetition of these qualities in hundreds of houses, each one different yet
conforming to the essential pattern, that gives these neighborhoods their strong character
of cohesion and visual richness.
The essential characteristics of these neighborhoods can be identified in the following
five points.
The main focus of each house is on the design of the front facade,
particularly the entry, and its connection to the front garden and to the
street.
The houses are located in a "garden" setting, with planting, open space
and views between buildings.
Garages and car parking are located at the back of the site.
The architecture shows careful attention to scale, balance, proportion,
detail, materials and craftsmanship.
Regularly spaced street trees and planted parking strips line the
streets.
(Provide photo illustrating these points)
This Section is divided into two parts. Streetscape and Open Space includes those
elements that determine the view from the street and the arrangement of buildings and
open spaces. Architectural Character includes those elements that comprise the design
of the individual structures.
Each of the characteristic elements is organized in the following way:
i.A discussion of how this element contributes to the special character of the
pre- 1940 neighborhood
2.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. This
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.
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, in 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 comer houses may be located closer to the
street than other houses on the block.
10
Requirements:
Locate at least 50% of the front facade of the house at the
prevailing setback line, with the remainder of the front facade at or
behind that 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.
o 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) 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 the 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:
1.Locate the garage to minimize its visibility.
Design the garage so that it is architecturally compatible with the
house but does not compete with the house as the primary focus.
11
Requirements:
Locate the garage at the rear of the site and detached from the
house by at least 12feet. If located at least 75feet 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 6feet is maintained. Locate the side wall of the garage no
more than l O 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. (This will be illustrated with
a diagram.) No part of the second story can extend over the garage
within 10feet of the garage side wall. The garage must have a
separate roof that is the same pitch as the house roof, or less. In
this case, 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 16feet from the street side property line
Alternatively, garages on corner lots may be attached if located
outside rear y ,"ar"t setback. No, ;;;c,r~ ~" -" 1 ca .......
__:,:.._ :~ _., ....,~o~ ~,~_~ ~.. _,, ~:~’~",’ s’ "" ~e ~-o~"~,,,~’~e garage
must be recessed at least 2feet behind ¢~e side wall .fete
In a single car garage, use a garage door that is 8feet wide, or less.
In a double car garage, use two doors not more than 8feet wide
separated by a vertical support at least 8 inches wide, or use one
door not over at-2 16feet wide. Where three car garages are
permitted by ordinance, use one door eight feet wide and one door
at-2 16feet wide, or less.
Design garage doors with square or vertically proportioned
elements to minimize the apparent width of the doors. If the door
12
is more titan eight feet wide, design the door so that it has the
appearance of being divided vertically into two distinct sections.
Do not use Rancher style doors, because the strong horizontal
proportions emphasize the width of the door. Do not use steel
garage doors. Do not use nonrectangular or decorative windows
on garages or garage doors.
(Photo illustration)
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 alleyway access is provided, required parking shah be accessed
from the alley and the garage shah be located within 5feet of the
rear property line.
7.
substandard lots, and where no alley access is available, only one
on-site parking space is required and a single car attached garage
is allowed. The front of the garage must be recessed at least two
feet behind the main front facade of the house. If two parking
spaces are provided, one must be tandem.
Carports are not permitted, unless they are located where the open
sides cannot be seen from a public street.
Driveways
Discussion."
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 asimple, unobtrusive surface of asphalt or poured
cement. In other cases the driveway is surfaced with bricks, cobbles,
13
stones, rubble or gavel, 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. "Holls~vood" strips with planting between the wheel tracks
may be used instead of solid paving. Use simple, traditional paving
materials, and provide planting that will help to flame the site and
screen the paving.
Requirements:
Make driveways 9feet wide or less. Driveway curb cuts must have
a vertical curb and be no more than lOfeet wide with a 3foot
radius. Within 4-8 27feet of the garage doors, driveways may
widen to no more than the width of the garage door(s) plus 2feet.
However, no driveway may be more than 12feet wide within 5feet
of the public sidewalk. Interior sidewalks, patios, etc. may adjoin
the driveway for no more than 6 linear feet.
¯,,,o ,,~-,-~,~,,.t o ,--, o,,.~ stT~ets,e driveway widens to
more than q-418 feet at any location, inside the property line that is
visible from a public street, provide a wall, fence or hedge along
the property line to screen the paving.
Locate driveways at least =2 1.5feet from the side or rear property
line and at least =2 1.5feet from a;;y L..:,.,: .......,,¯ ,,.,,,,,o,~ ,,.,,,, the side of the
house to provide space for planting on both sides of the driveway,
except that no planting space is required between the driveway and
the back half,f the house. (An illustration or diagram will be
provided)
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 For driveways, do not use
precast interlocking pavers or stamped concrete, ~
:-’~ since these materials generally lack the
appearance of craftsmanship associated with traditional materials.
14
Public Right of Way:
Discussion:
Street trees are one of the most striking features ofPalo 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
ofolder neighborhoods, while the variety, of tree species used provide a
range of shade, color and other characteristics.
Recommended Practice."
1.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:
1.Do not relocate, realign or widen a driveway to within l O feet of
any existing street tree, unless it is not possible to access the site
and still meet this requirement.
2.If street trees are missing along the property frontage on the street,
locate the driveway to allow replacement of the missing trees at
approximately 25feet intervals.
3.Limit paving or hard surfaces within the parking strip to no more
than 5.5 linear feet per street frontage, not including the driveway
apron.
4.Provide irrigated planting of ground cover or small shrubs in the
parking strip.
5.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.
15
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
some may be old species no longer generally available in the trade
and therefore rare. Retain and protect mature vegetation where
possible.
o Consistent with neighborhood patterns, 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.
o Design the landscape to be compatible with the house design and
neighborhood. 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:
All valley oak and live oak trees over 11.5 inches in diameter or 36
inches in circumference measured 4.5feet above natural grade
that are located in required setbacks are protected under the City’s
street tree ordinance and must be retained.
16
Prior to demolition and during 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 styles, with certain styles predominant in each neighborhood. Each
of these historic house styles is composed of a coherent and consistent
combination of materials, window treatments, building massing, ornamentation
and roof treatment. While individual details may vary, these characteristics
provide a sense of unit,:, within each house and with others of the same style.
Additions and remodels of pre-1940 residences should be compatible with the
style of the original structure. A first step in designing a remodel or addition,
therefore, is identifying the architectural style of the original building.
Common Architectural Styles in Palo Alto Houses
The list below includes the predominant architectural styles of Palo Alto homes
built before 1940. Illustrations and descriptions of character-defining elements of
these styles can be found in Section V. These houses represent the history of this
area, dating from the founding of the town of Mayfield and Palo Alto through the
start of World War II. While there are some other architectural styles represented
in pre-1940 buildings, these represent the most common styles.
Victorian
Queen Anne
Colonial Revival
Shingle Style
Spanish Colonial Revival
Craftsman
Bungalow
Tudor Revival
Streamline Moderne
17
Some of the predominant styles are particularly well adapted to the area’s climate
and building materials, such as the Craftsman, Shingle and Spanish Colonial
Revival styles. Prominent California architects such as Julia Morgan and Birge
Clark have designed buildings in these styles which are an important part of Palo
Alto’s architectural heritage.
For further information on Palo Alto and Bay Area architectural traditions, consult
the following references and the Guide to Palo Alto Architectural Styles in Section
V:
Historic and Architectural Resources of the Cit~, of Palo Alto,
Rehab Right: How to Utilize the Full Value of Your Old House.
and Single Family Residential Design Guidelines.
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.
Recommended Practice."
New residential construction should be compatible with the
architectural character of the neighborhood,,,,,~--’ ~’~,,, ,~ ~,,l,~ ~: ~’:-^*:-’~ ~
Each house should be desired wi~ ~ ~derst~d~g of the
ch~actefistic elements of~e p~icul~ s~le selected for ~e ho~e
~d wi~ c~e~l a~ention to scale, bal~ce, propo~on, detail ~d
cra~m~Np.
When using characteristics of a traditional architectural style, use
these characteristics in a consistent manner; rather than combining
18
characteristics of more than one st.vle in a single structure. For
example, Mediterranean!Spanish style stucco houses should not
employ neocolonial details such as shutters or steep roofs. (This
paragraph was moved from requirements to recommended practices.)
Requirement:
Plans which use traditional architectural features are required to
identify a style from the references: Section V Common Palo Alto
Architectural S&ies, Historic and Architectural Resources of the
~ of Palo Alto, Rehab R~ht. or Single-Family Des~n
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 ofcharacteristics 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 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
19
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 or 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. This
limitation does not apply to windows located on the front door.
(Restrictions on special windows in garage doors were moved to the
garage section.)
Windows must be wood, wood with vinyl or metal cladding, or steel
Vinyl or aluminum windows will be all, wed for bathrooms and
basements but must have the same or similar finish to other
windows. Windows must have clear glass, except that glass block
or frosted glass may be used in bathrooms or for privacy along
property lines.
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.
Recessed windows: In stucco walls, recess window pane a
minimum of 2.5 inches behind the outside 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 ofl.5 inches is required.
Dormer windows may be used only where they open directly into
habitable space. This does not preclude small,
~,, ~,~,~,,,,~,o,~, "eyebrow" type roof vents, where compatible with the
architectural style.
2O
Entr3.’Features
Discussion."
Entw 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 entryway, 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. In some cases, a large window in a primary living area is the focus
on the front facade, rather than the building entrance.
The materials, proportions and location of front porches, entries and
primary windows 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.
2.Ira porch is not incorporated, include an entry feature or principal
window (larger than other windows) in a main living area on the
front of the house.
m Design porches with a minimum dimension of at least 6feet 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.
21
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 visual impact of the two story volume with a
one story 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 story elements can affect sunlight
access, views and privacy for adjacent properties.
Recommended Practices."
Employ one story elements such as porches, entry features, and
arcades to create a transition in scale between the street and two
story building elements.
Consider neighbors needs for sunlight, privacy and views. Use
setbacks or sloping roofs to reduce shadows and intrusions on
neighbor’s windows and open spaces.
Roofline
o Building massing should be compatible with the house’s
architectural style and neighborhood-character. For example, for
Bungalow designs do not include two story elements unless they are
set back at least ten feet from front and rear walls. (This was moved
from requirements to recommended practices.)
Discussion."
Roof lines and the detailing ofr0of design and consmaction 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
22
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 ofthe 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, or tar and gravel for flat roofs;
Tudor and neocolonial houses sometimes used slate.
Recommended Practices:
Where roofs are specially highlighted as a prominent design feature, use
authentic, high quality materials such as wood shake, wood shingle, clay
tile or slate. (This was moved from requirements to recommended
practices.)
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 Cir. 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.
t The roofs over entry 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.
23
For roofs, use asphalt shingles, wood shingles, wood shakes,
genuine clay tile, genuine slate, or tar and graveL
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 white,
cream or other light colored paints on stucco for Spanish style houses, and
unpainted redwood shingles and beams on Shingle Style houses.
Requirements:
Stucco must be applied by hand. Do not use spray-on finish
materials or textured paints. Use a traditional stucco finish texture
found on pre-1940 buildings in Palo Alto, such as Float, Spanish,
Mission, Monterey, Californian or English. Do not use Lace or
heavy textures.
m Use real wood siding, not composite products, vinyl or aluminum
siding.
Change from one wall material to another only where there is a
change in wall plane and at an interior corner, not at an exterior
corner, since this gives the appearance that the material is only
applied to the surface and not integral to the structure of the wall
Where remodelling, use same materials and finishes as existing
house, or if documentation exists showing that the house originally
had a different finish, then that finish may be used.
24
SECTION IV.COMPLETING THE COMPATIBILITY WORKSHEET:
IDENTIFYING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
Completion of the Compatibility Worksheet in Section VI is required for your application
for approval of a major remodel or construction of a new structure to replace a
Contributing Residence. The worksheet should be completed at the very beginning of
the design process, so that the information you assemble regarding the character of your
neighborhood and your house can be used to guide your design decisions.
There are several major steps in completing the worksheet:
1.Identify Neighborhood Character and Streetscape Patterns
Identify the Architectural Character of Your Home and Other Homes
in the Neighborhood
Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement home in
relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape patterns
Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in
relationship to the Palo Alto architectural traditions and the original
house.
1.Identify Neighborhood Character and Streetscape Patterns
You may wish to photograph the streetscape, patterns of planting, and fencing, and anything
which makes the neighborhood special and gives the neighborhood charm. Study all of the
patterns which contribute to the richness of the neighborhood and choose those that are
consistent with the character of your home.
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 neighborhood character and streetscape patterns in various
districts in Palo Alto where most pre-1940 houses are located.
25
Crafts
Example: Professorville, Community Center and Old Palo Alto
Most of the homes were built prior to the 1940s.
Streets lined with mature trees which provide unifying feature.
Landscape strips with street trees between sidewalk and street.
Lots generally narrow with houses consistently set back on the lot
Predominant architectural style bungalow and craftsman style
Front porches are common, fences are low and houses are visible from street
Garages generally detached and located in the rear of the lot with a narrow
driveway to the street, minimizing views of parking areas and pavement.
Mixed
-Examples: College Terrace, Ventura, Old South Palo Alto, Downtown North
-Mixed or eclectic neighborhoods are the least uniform in Palo Alto.
-Amount of landscaping varies as does type and placement of street trees.
-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 help unify diverse character and scale.
Estates
-Examples: Crescent Park, some parts of Old Palo Alto
-Lots are very wide and large, with substantial houses set back 40 feet or more from
the street, with large side setbacks.
-Trees and lush landscaping dominate the streetscape.
-Planter strips add to the rich greenery along the street.
-Predominant house styles include Tudor, Colonial Revival and Mediterranean.
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.
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.
26
Identify the Architectural Character of Your Home and Other Homes
in the Neighborhood
Architectural character is derived from the harmonious combination of a number of character
defining elements. These elements include materials and finishes, roof slope, ornamentation,
massing, and window design and placement. Most pre-1940 houses are built in a distinctive
architectura! style, which combines these elements in a characteristic pattern.
Use Section V as a reference to help identify the character and distinguishing features of your
house.
Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement home in
relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape patterns
Using the Worksheet, describe how your design fulfills the Streetscape and Open Space
requirements and recommendations in Section III. Attach photographs or sketches to
show models you used in designing your house.
Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in relationship
to the Palo Alto architectural traditions and the original house.
Using the Worksheet, describe how your design fulfills the Architectural Character
requirements in Section III. Identig~ any portions or features of the original tiouse which
are being retained and integrated in the new design. Use photographs or sketches as
needed.
27
28
SECTION V. 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 Library.
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
29
30
GUIDE TO PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
SHINGLE
Predominant style in: Professorville, Old Palo Alto, Community Center
- late 19th century architectural style with New England influences.
- 1 or 2 stories with simple massing
- Walls and roofs are covered in redwood shingles and include curving surfaces.
- Brackets common at eaves, along with deep overhangs
- Emphasis on wood craftsmanship and details
- Wood windows with divided panes of glass
CRAFTSMAN
Predominant style in Professorville, Community Center
-Materials: unpainted redwood shingles and siding with massive redwood timbers, boulders, and
clinker bricks.
-Massing: generally low and horizontal
-Roofs: Repeated shallow gabled roofs with wide sheltering overhangs, exposed rafters and
supporting roof brackets.
-Architectural style of the early 20th century Arts and Crafts movement which combined a
respect for craftsmanship and natural materials with a life lived close to nature.
-Most often found in bungalows and two story structures employing overhanging rooflines with a
horizontal emphasis.
-Related to the Shingle Style, which also uses redwood shingles and simplified details.
-Frequent use of redwood in simple pergolas, fences and other built elements which continue
building style and blur the distinction between indoors and outdoors.
SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
Predominant Style in: Old Palo Alto, Crescent Park, Community Center
- Many fine examples designed by Birge Clark, prominent local architect, which feature massive
stuccoed walls with carefully irregular fenestration and ornamentation with colored tiles and
wrought iron.
- Complex massing of one or two stories, often partially enclosing courtyards
- Use of stucco or timbered arcades to create shade and indoor/outdoor transition
- Massive looking walls with recessed windows
- Shallow- to medium sloping roof pitch
-Colors - Light colored walls, red clay roof tiles, frequent use of colorful glazed tile as accent-
Materials: stucco walls with heavy- wood timbers, wood or wrought iron railings and clay tile
roof
-Windows: Occasional use of heavily recessed arched windows sometimes in series. Windows
generally composed on multi-paned metal or wooden casements.
31
BUNGALOW
Predominant Style in: Boyce Addition, Communib~ Center, Downtown North
Approximate original construction date 1920s to 1940s
-Generally 1 story
- Slightly raised large, deep entry porch on front of house
- Shallow roof pitch and generally horizontal massing
- Wood detail prevalent in details such as roof brackets, exposed rafters
- Materials: wood siding, stucco, or shingles
-Windows: true divided light windows, generally horizontal or square in shape, often with
unusual mullion patterns repeated throughout house.
COLONIAL REVIVAL
One of several styles in Professorville, Crescent Park and Old Palo Alto
-2 stories
-Medium to steep roof pitch, with hip or gambrel roofs
-Stately, symmetrical massing, revival of Georgian plans and forms
-Use of Classical details such as pediments with columns, Palladian windows
-Raised pedimented portico entry
-Materials: horizontal wood siding with shingle roof and wood window shutter
QUEEN ANNE
Predominant style in: College Terrace, some parts of Old Palo Alto
- 1 or 2 stories
- Picturesque asymmetrical plans, sometimes with comer towers, gables and bays
- Porch or veranda common
- Lacy wood ornament and trim with fish scale shingles, variety of textures
- Materials: contrasting wood siding materials with shingle roof
TUDOR REVIVAL
Found throughout Crescent Park, Community Center and Old Palo Alto. Characteristic of
"estate" neighborhoods with traditional, more formal styles.
- 20th century interpretation of English Tudor architectural style
- 2 stories typical
- Vertical emphasis
- Steep slate roof with shallow overhangs
- Sense of mass in walls with recessed windows
- Materials: stucco walls with wood trim and accents
32
VICTORIAN
Predominant style in: College Terrace, Downtown. Examples throughout older neighborhoods.
Approximate Dates of Construction
- 2 stories typical
-Frequent large front entry porch substantially above grade
-Unusual massing with dormer projections, bay windows and porches
- Vertical emphasis
- Steep roof pitch, complex roof forms
- Fanciful wood trim and siding
- Materials: varied wood siding and trim with shingle roof
STREAMLINE MODERNE
-Popular in 1930s
-Streamlined detailing, with curved lines
-Simplified detailing
-Generally flat roofs.
-Materials: generally stucco walls, metal windows
33
34
SECTION VI.WORKSHEET
Worksheet similar to the Worksheet in the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines
will be prepared.
1.Identify Elements of Neighborhood Character
Characteristic Lot Size
Your Lot Size
Characteristic Front Setback
Garage Placement
Driveway
Public Right of Way
Landscaping
2.Identify Architectural Character of the Original Home
Identify Architectural Style of Original Home
Distinctive Features
Entry Features
Building Massing
Roofs
Walls and Finishes
Windows
Enclose Historic Photographs, if any are available
Date of Construction
Name of Architect
Historical Events/Associations, if known
Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement home in
relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape patterns
Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in relationship
to the Palo Alto architectural traditions and the original house.
35
EXHIBIT B
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 Evaluming 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 histo~’ and cultural heritage
of California or the United States.
o
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 prehistory
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,
Draft Standards for Historic Designation Page 1
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 identified 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, structures, objects or sites
that relate to and support the historic character of a neighborhood grouping or district
because of historical or cultural importance or in scale, materials, proportions, 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.
Draft Standards for Historic Designation Page 2
Attachment C
Minutes of the 8:00 a.m., October 14, 1996 Meeting of the
Historic Resources Board- at the Squire House
Present:Monty Anderson
Dennis Backlund
Marty Bernstein
Roger Kohler
Mildred Mario
Carol Murden
Caroline Willis
The Meeting was called to order by the Chair, Mildred Mario.
Item #1 - Discussion of the City Managers Report #11
Pertaining to 453 Melville, 1531 College and 275 Lowell being exempt
from the Urgency and Interim Moratorium. We believe replacement
structures on these sites will be subject to the Compatibility Standards and
request clarification from Staff.
Board Member Backlund voiced his concern that Contributing Buildings still
have very little protection except that demolition will now be delayed until
the replacement structure review process is completed.
Board Member Murden is dissatisfied with the Landmark Residence Appeal
Process because the HRB cannot appeal.
Board Member Willis stated that she believes the definitions are weak and
should include cultural criteria for designation. They seem to be too focused
on neighborhoods instead of individual structures and the fees are
inappropriate. She also believes that the Compatibility Guidelines are geared
only to certain neighborhoods rather than to the city as a whole.
Board Member Kohler thinks that Compatibility Standards should apply to a
neighborhood that has historic structures even if the demolition is of a pre-
1940 house that is not designated as historic.
Board Member Anderson believes that the neighborhoods should determine
what controls are imposed in their specific area. We should get permanent
regulations as soon as possible. The HRB has been pushing for an ordinance
revision for years and this is an indication of what happens when you wait
until it becomes an urgent problem that must be dealt with immediately.
The entire Board discussed historic buildings and Compatibility Standards.
Two issues are becoming confused - saving historic houses which should be
the HRB’s chief concern, and the issue of the changing scale and character of
Palo Alto neighborhoods which is not an HRB purview, unless an historic
neighborhood is involved. The Board believes that neighborhood
associations should participate, in conjunction with Staff, in decisions
regarding the preservation of neighborhood character.
Board Member Anderson believes that the interim ordinance will be a
deterrent to people buying historic houses. The interim ordinance will be
filled with flaws that are associated with hastily prepared regulations.
Board Member Mario agreed that this is a possibility and that we need to work
on incentives.
Board Member Bernstein is concerned with the fees for the small home
owner. We should have incentives. How does the staff determine the age of
the house, etc. It should be very simple to determine whether the house they
have is impacted by the ordinance. If you are restoring the building and are
forced to rebuild and replace the facade, in kind, for structural reasons it
should not come under the demolition definition.
Item #2 - Recommendations
Board Member Willis moved seconded by Board Member Bernstein to
introduce a new definition of restoration and reconstruction which would be
exempt from the definition of demolition. This requires documentation of
the existing structure and reconstruction as documented.
Motion was approved 6 ayes one (Monty Anderson) absent.
Board Member Willis moved seconded by Board Member Murden to
encourage the Council to adopt attachment C - Draft Standards for Historic
Designation - but with modification of the definition of Contributing
Properties to add historic and cultural criteria; and to change the term
Contributing Properties to Structures and Sites of Merit.
Motion was approved 5 ayes two absent (Roger Kohler and Monty Anderson).
Board Member Bernstein moved that Compatibility Review Standards
should not define construction means but only define the artistic effect,
otherwise it may become cost prohibitive.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Board Member Willis moved seconded by Board Member Mario to endorse
the 6 staff recommendations under Discussion on pages 3 through 5 of the
City Managers Report #11.
Motion was approve 4 ayes 1 abstain (Marty Bernstein) two absent (Roger
Kohler and Monty Anderson).
Board Member Willis moved seconded by Board Member Bernstein to
strongly encourage City Council to establish Incentives for Restoration and
Preservation. We would like the Council to: 1. Initially consider waving fees
for HIE’s and zoning variances per HRB recommendations. 2. Direct Staff to
use the Historic Building Code where it would further preservation. 3. After
a property is designated Historic, Staff should be directed to explore relief
from inappropriate parking and set-back requirements or other inappropriate
R-1 zoning restrictions.
Motion was approved 5 ayes 2 absent (Monty Anderson and Roger Kohler).
Item #3 - Commentary
The Historic Resources Board had a discussion of the City Council’s
postponement of re-designating the AME Zion Church from a Category 3 to a
Category 1. Mildred Mario, Carol Murden, Caroline Willis and Dennis
Backlund voiced their concern over Council’s refusal to re-designate the
AME Zion for reasons other than the criteria for historic designation. Since
the State and Federal Government both determined that it is worthy of
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, and the State has placed
it on the California Register of Historic Resources, we believe the Council has
not allowed the Inventory to reflect the actual historic status of this building.
Motion to adjourn by Caroline Willis seconded by Carol Murden
unanimously approved.
Minutes prepared by Mildred Mario
TO:
Attachment D
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: September 30, 1996 CMR:417:96
SUBJECT: Policy Options and Potential Process Description for the Interim
Regulations Related to Demolition of Residential Structures Constructed
Prior to 1940
REQUEST:
This report outlines some policy and process options for the City Council and requests
direction on the content of the Interim Regulations that will replace the September 17, 1996
Moratorium Ordinance on demolition of older residences.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Council:
Direct staff to return with Interim Regulations after providing the following direction:
Provide direction to staff regarding the definition of"demolition" that should
be included in the Interim Regulations.
bo Provide direction to staff regarding the circumstances under which demolition
of pre-1940 residential structures will be permitted under the Interim
Regulations.
Co Provide direction to staff regarding the standards and decision-making body
that should be used to evaluate historic significance of a structure during the
Interim Regulation period.
do 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 recovery
basis, and/or to fund Design Compatibility Criteria, if these are desired;
Based on the accelerated time line shown in Attachment A, direct staff to return to
Council with an account of the costs of this assignment, both interim and permanent
regulations, on the Planning Division Work Program and budget for 1996-97, and
with a budget amendment ordinances.
BACKGROUND
The number of single-family demolition permits issue in 1996 reached 52 by mid-September
of 1996, 24 of which were for residences built prior to 1940. On September 12, 1996,
Council memb~ers 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 staffto prepare interim regulations. The interim regulations
are intended to be utilized during the period when staff will be updating the Historic
Ordinance and Inventory.. (Refer to Attachment A for time line) Testimony was received
from a number of builders, homeowners, real estate agents, and residents who would be
affected by the regulations.
As had been suggested in the Council Colleagues memo, Council directed staff to return
with an assessment of those "pipeline" projects that had applied for building permits, or
received planning entitlement prior to September 17, 1996. The intent was to allow
exceptions from the Moratorium Ordinance for projects in the "application pipeline". Staff
CMR: 417:96 Page 2 of 20
provided this analysis and ordinance language allowing Council to grant exceptions to the
Urgency Ordinance on September 24, 1996.
On September 17, 1996, the Council also directed staff to return on September 30, 1996 for
policy direction as to the nature and content of the interim regulations. These interim
regulations will serve to regulate demolition until the Historic Ordinance and Inventory can
be updated. The purpose of this report is to provide an outline of policy options and to
describe a potential process description for further Council direction.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
There are significant policy issues raised in the memo and Council action directing the
Urgency Ordinance and Interim Regulations. The current body of policy describing the
public interest in protecting historic structures is contained in the Comprehensive Plan,
Urban Design Element, and the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The City also has
significant legal obligations under its 1992 agreement with the State of California to become
a "certified" local government agency for historic preservation purposes. The bodies of
-policy which establish the interests of the private property owner are contained in the Zoning
Regulations; Single Family R-1 and Multiple Family RM Regulations; and in the ARB
Ordinance for Multiple-family structures. The R-1 Guidelines contain policies which
become critical when a single-family application requires an exception, variance, or ARB
review. Otherwise, in general the Guidelines do not bind property owners.
The challenge before the Council is great. Palo Alto is in the midst of an escalating single-
family real estate market and construction boom. The Objective of the regulations is to
describe, measure, and balance the public interest for retaining and preserving historic
structures and historic neighborhood integrity during the time it takes to prepare permanent
regulations, against the private interests of individuals and developers to sell, remodel or tear
down and rebuild residences on their property over approximately the next year or until
permanent regulations are adopted.
While this is a difficult assignment even without deadline constraints, Interim Regulations
have the advantage of being temporary. They will be in place only until the final regulations
can be studied and adopted. There is precedent for this use of Interim Regulations in Palo
Alto. The R-1 Urgency Moratorium and Interim Regulations in the mid-1980’s were used
for well over a year prior to being discarded by the Council and replaced with the current
floor area, daylight plane and dormer exception provisions in today’s R-1 regulations.
The primary policy areas which Council has raised relate to 1) demolition of historic
structures, 2) evaluation of historic structures not now on the inventory or reevaluation of
structures now on the inventory but insufficiently classified, and 3) compatibility of
CMR: 417:96 Page 3 of 20
replacement housing with the pattern, character, quality, and historic integiW of Palo Alto’s
traditional neighborhoods. ,
DISCUSSION
The following discussion provides both a policy-framework for making choices about what
to include in the Interim Regulations, and a process outline for implementing the interim
regulations.
I. Policy Framework
A. Demolition Policy
It is the requirements and standards for alterations and demolitions that are at the core of
historic resource protection ordinances nationwide. For purposes of this discussion, staff has
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 inventory. The intent of the Moratorium
is to place all demolition approvals in abeyance until some interim regulations can
be drafted which will serve to protect the public interest, balancing the property rights
of the individual, while permanent regulations can be studied and developed. The
interim regulations will presumably allow the City to evaluate the structure prior to
demolition, to prevent demolition in certain instances, and to allow demolition in
specified circumstances.
3. Demolition Policy Options, Interim Regulations
Two demolition-related aspects of the interim regulations require direction from
Council. Council needs to:
a) confirm or amend the definition of "demolition" now contained in the
Urgency Moratorium for use in the Interim Regulations; and
b) decide under what conditions demolition of historically significant
structures will be permitted.
The Council Colleagues memo directed that the interim regulations should allow
demolitions "when appropriate". It is assumed by staff that if the property is
determined through the interim process to have no historic merit as either a landmark
or a contributing structure, then demolition should be permitted. Other circumstances
which might warrant approval of the demolition need to be developed by Council, and
the method and findings for making this determination require direction.
Historic preservation ordinances throughout the country provide a range of options
for consideration. The most permissive (e.g., San Diego, Portland, Carmel) are like
Palo Alto’s current ordinance. They allow demolition or alteration of nearly all
historic structures, but delay demolition to allow the property owner and community
to explore alternatives and incentives for preservation. Some also provide ordinance
incentives for retaining historic structures. Other, less permissive ordinances (e.g.,
Atlanta, Oakland, Santa Barbara) prevent demolition or alteration of landmark
structures, except under the most extreme public safety situations or in the event of
a catastrophic event. The most restrictive ordinance staff reviewed does not allow
demolition of landmark buildings under any circumstances, and requires the owner
CMR: 417:96 Page 5 of 20
to rebuild the landmark to its former state if the structure is destroyed by a
catastrophic event (Los Gatos). Most ordinances that staff reviewed allow
contributing structures to be demolished and!or altered under certain circumstances.
Many require assurances for design quality and compatibility for replacement
structures.
a. Demolition Definition
The Moratorium Ordinance defines "demolition" as "removal of more than
50% of the perimeter walls of the structure." This definition is the one now
used by staffto 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:
Urgency Moratorium.
Retain the 50% perimeter wall definition in the
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 any structure on the Historic Inventory, Category I or
2, or any landmark structure which is discovered through this process, the
definition be strengthened to read "an act or process that destroys or razes
in whole or in part a building, structure, or site."
b. Permitted Demolition Circumstances
Staff recommends that, at minimum, demolition be allowed for either
landmark or contributing structures under either one of the following
circumstances:
Demolition Recommendation 1: The property "as is" cannot be used for any
economically viable purpose, and renovation is not economically feasible.
Demolition Recommendation 2: The property is determined to represent an
imminent safety hazard under PAMC 16.40, and that demolition of the
building is the only economically feasible means to secure public safety.
In addition to recommending the above criteria for both landmark and
contributing structures, Staff presents the following range of options for
Council consideration related to demolition policy, recognizing that a variety
of other options within and beyond this range are also available:
Demolition Option 1: Delay 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) CompatibiliO, by Staff Approval. The design quality of the
replacement structure meets the standards established in the
Design Criteria (to be prepared), including criteria which
require that the structure is compatible with the pattern of the
existing neighborhood and that the replacement is at least
equal in design quality to the existing structure; or.
b) Compatibili~_ by Design Review. The design quality is
approved by the HRB (or other body) to be at least equal to
that of the existing structure and is compatible with the pattern
and character of the neighborhood, as determined by the
discretionary standards (to be prepared) provided in this
interim ordinance;
and/or
c) Condition Hardship The existing facility is seriously
deteriorated and it is not economically feasible to renovate (to
be defined);
While staff is not proposing interior preservation standards, Council will recall from the
Varsity Theater entitlement and EIR process that the use of National Standards can result in
consideration of interior details. This is particularly germane if financial incentives, like the
Mills Act are anticipated to be used,
CMR: 417:96 Page 8 of 20
B. Evaluation Policy
1. Evaluation Policy, Pre Moratorium
Current standards for evaluation of historic merit are contained in Section
16.49.040(b), and 16.49.020 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.(Attachment b).
These standards were used in 1975 to complete an inventory of historic structures for
Palo Alto, and have been used in subsequent years on occasion to update the
inventory. Overall, the inventory is outdated and the HRB has recommended that it
is in need of update. The City Council adopted a Work Program for 1997-98 which
would initiate the Historic Inventory Update, requiring: 1) an evaluation of all historic
structures (built over 50 years ago) 2) a determination, after the Historic Protection
Ordinance is updated, of corrected designation for structures and properties on the
current historic inventory, and 3) a designation of structures determined historically
meritorious and worthy of public protection if they are not now on the inventory.
A copy of the current regulations .is attached to this report. One of the primary
deficiencies identified by the HRB is the current category system. An example of
a deficiency is that the landmark categories in Palo Alto’s Ordinance, Categories 1
and 2, only include structures with architectural merit and do not include structures
which are valuable cultural resources for reasons other than outstanding architectural
merit. This is inconsistent with National Standards for Historic Preservation and
creates confusion.
2. Evaluation Policy, Moratorium
The Moratorium Ordinance has placed in abeyance the demolition of any pre-1940
structure, whether on the inventory or not, unless they were determined exceptions on
September 24.. 1996, to allow time to develop interim regulations. With adoption of
the Moratorium, Council has also requested a new time line and cost assessment for
expediting the Planning Division Work Program item to update the Historic
Inventory. Likewise, Council has directed preparation of interim regulations to allow
a temporary process of assessing historic merit for properties which request
demolition until such time as the new Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic
Building Inventory can be updated. It is assumed that these regulations will provide
for analyzing the historic merit of the building for purposes of protecting those with
merit and allowing demolition of those without merit.
CMR: 417:96 Page 9 of 20
3. Evaluation Policy Options, Interim Regulations
In order to determine whether a structure has historic significance or not, a system of
evaluation needs to be used. Council should chose between the following options: 1)
decide if it wants to continue to use the current historic designation regulations now
contained in Chapter 16.49 (Attachment B), or 2) expand the evaluation classification
to include additional factors typically used in up-to-dat historic preservation
ordinances, such as including structures of cultural merit in the historic categories.
Staff forwarded a copy of the current standards for historic designation to Cherilyn
Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer, for her evaluation so that she might
recommend changes to bring the existing standards up to par with national standards.
She has agreed to perform this analysis quickly for the City, and to assist in a variety.
of other ways. (Refer to Attachment C). Her evaluation will be available for the
Council by the time of their meeting, but was not available at the time this report was
published.
Evaluation Option 1: Current Standards.
Continue to use the current standards for designation as evaluation criteria
for significant historic structures built prior to 1940
Evaluation Option 2: Strengthen Standards.
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 they do modern 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 majoriW of housing stock in Palo Alto was built
after World War II. One of the primary reasons for the development of an HIE
process was that the pre-1940 housing stock did not fit well into the "box" that was
eventually designed for the majority of Palo Alto neighborhoods. However, the HIE
process is used exclusively by people remodeling their houses, and is not available for
"new residences".
There are no compatibility gnidelines 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 Phge 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
~vindow shapes without any apparent rationale. Decoration and proportions
appear to be designed to call attention to the residence, rather than being based
on principles of proper proportion and balance. Sometimes, new residences
even include large expanses of blank walls, without any windows.
d. Prevalent front yard setbacks in the neighborhood are not being respected
with the new construction, and the zoning ordinance does not necessarily allow
the traditional prevalent setback to be observed. A modification to the zoning
regulations for establishing setbacks by block face in traditional
CMR: 417:96 Page 12 of 20
neighborhoods was assigned to staff in 1986, but has never been accomplished
due to competing priorities.
e~ Traditional homes were generally designed so that building architecture
dominated the front facade. A link was usually designed from the private
residence to the public realm, through the use of some type of porch or entry
feature and walkway, human scaled and properly dimensioned for the
architectural style of the house. These features create a "sense of welcome"
for the visitor. Many, new residences present the garage doors, which have
little architectural merit, as the primary entrance and dominant front facade
feature for the house. In some instances, if the new residence contains a porch
or entry features, it is designed without pedestrian proportions, as a one a11d
one-half or ~’o 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, staff has not
addressed it in this analysis. Staff would not recommend raising the citywide issue
of R-1 regulations until after completion for the Comprehensive Plan, when the
Zoning Ordinance Update is initiated, 1997-98.
3. Compatibility Policy Options- Interim Regulations
Should Council decide to utilize either Demolition Options 1 or 2, page 7,
compatibility criteria would not be needed. Compatibility Design Criteria would only
be needed if Council elects to pursue Demolition Option 3 a) or b), page 8. If either
option is selected, staff will require direction on the preferred method of
implementing these compatibility criteria:
Compatibility Option 1: Staff Approval
Develop easily enforced (e.g., clear and concise) Design Criteria to achieve
compatibility and quality in the replacement structure.
These Design Criteria could be prepared and enforced by a professional with expertise
in historic/architectural design and could include such provisions as: ) front yard
setbacks based on the prevailing setback on the block face, 2) garage placement to
CMR: 417:96 Page 13 of 20
match the pattern in the neighborhood, 3) circumstances when pedestrian scaled
porches or entry features would be required; 4) listed acceptable quality materials
authentic to the style of the house required, and 5) specifications requiring
architectural style integrity, while not dictating choice of style.
It is assumed that the Design Standards would control pattern, placement.
architectural authenticity and quality, of materials, but that style (e.g., Tudor, Queen
Anne, 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: Design Review. Require design review .for the
replacement structure.
This option would be a discretionary approval process, presumably with the HR (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 HRB
decision - either approve the Decision, return the decision to the HRB for further
consideration or forward the decision to City Council. The Director’s decision could be
appealed to City Council.
CMR: 417:96 Page 14 of 20
The current standards for designation could be used to determine significance, or a ~eater
or lesser standard can be quickly developed. (See Evaluation Policy Options 1 and 2, page
10)
Staff recommends the following process, depending upon whether a structure is:
A) Without Significant Historic Merit;
B)Landmark Structure (Category 1 and 2 or suitable for designation as
Category 1 and 2); or
c)Contributing Structure (Category 3 and 4 or suitable for designation as a
Category 3 or 4).
A. Structures without Significant Historic Merit
If the structure does not meet the standards for designation it would be determined to be
without significant historic merit. The HRB would recommend and the Planning Director
would approve issuance of a demolition permit. The project would be free to apply for a
building permit without further review.
B. Landmark Status
If a structure is currently Category 1 or 2 or is found by the Board to have potential for
landmark status (Category 1 or 2), an historic survey of the property would be required,
unless Demolition Recommendation 1 and 2 could be immediately substantiated by the
applicant. The survey would be conducted by a qualified professional in historic
preservation, restoration and classification. The survey would provide a basis for the
HRB’s further evaluation of the request for demolition. The survey would assess whether
all reasonable means had been pursued by the applicant to preserve the structure, and would
evaluate the condition of the structure and the cost needed to rehabilitate it.
1. Process for Demolition 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 HRB recommendation and Planning Director decision to deny or
approve the demolition. If denied, the structure would not be allowed to be
demolished until the Interim regulations are superseded. At that point, new
regulations would then provide the basis for future requirements related to demolition,
alteration and historic preservation of the subject structure. The Director’s decision
to grant or deny the demolition would be based on findings related to the merit of the
structure, it’s condition, and the economic feasibility of retaining it. The decision
would be subject to appeal to the City Council. Alterations would be permitted only
if they were found consistent with National Standards for Historic Preservation.
3. Process for Demolition Option 3, (Deny for Both, Unless Compatible
Replacement) page 7,
Same as 2. above.
C. Contributin~ Status
If a structure is found by the Board to have potential for contributing status (Category. 2 or
3). an historic survey of the property may be required, unless Demolition Recommendations
! 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 want 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 preservation, and using both Boards would
unnecessarily extend the process and add to the cost, this option is not recommended.
3) Utilize the Planning Commission in some manner in the process. The Planning
Commission is also not necessarily qualified to make the required evaluations and
recommendations, and including them as well as the HRB would extend the process and
increase the cost.
4) City Council, versus the Director of Planning and Community Environment, could be the
decision maker on all applications. This has the advantage of providing education and
experience with the interim regulations for the Cit?. Council prior to their taking action on
the permanent regulations. It has the disadvantage Of extending time lines, using Council
agenda time, and creating additional cost.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs for administering the interim regulations will be significant and will depend to a
large extent on the policy options selected by the City Council and to what extent Council
decides to make the interim permit processes subject to cost recovery.
The staffing for processing all applications for demolition can be "cost recove13~" and
processed by contract staff. Both professional and temporary support staff are likely to be
required. The hours and magnitude of staffing will depend to a large extent on the process
options selected by Council. For example, by expanding the definition of"demolition", a
much greater number of applications will be required and a larger number of hours of
contract assistance will be needed. The cost per application will also vary based on Council
direction, but could range from 10 hours to 100 hours, or $1,000 to $10,000, or more,
depending on whether the item is controversial and/or appealed, and whether or not design
review is required. Another cost in the process is the cost of a survey of the structure and
property, if it is determined to have potential landmark status, or if the HRB requests a survey
for a contributing status structure. These surveys can range in cost from $1,000 to $8,000.
It is assumed that while this cost will not be necessary for many of the applications, it would
also be billed to the applicant through the cost recovery application. Administrative
overhead, included in the hourly fee estimated, will be required to supply printing, mailing,
noticing and other costs.
If staff administered design criteria are determined to be desirable, they will require
professional preparation, a cost estimate for which staff is attempting to obtain estimates.
Once Council acts and costs can be estimated, a budget amendment ordinance to cover all
costs would immediately be required and sole source contract permission would be sought
CMR: 417:96 Page 18 of 20
in order to rapidly obtain contract and/or consultant assistance and temporaw support staff
hired to provide administrative services.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Because the interim regulations have been directed to strengthen the City’s Historic
Protection Ordinance, preventing demolition of historically significant structures for
protection of the environment, the ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under a
Class 8 Exemption.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
After the Council provides policy and procedural direction, staff will prepare the interim
regulations for Council adoption on October 15, 1996. At that time staffwill return with a
Budget Amendment Ordinance for implementation of the Interim Regulations and for the
revised Work Progam to complete both the Historic Protection Ordinance and Historic
Invento~ simultaneously and on a faster time line than anticipated in the budget adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Time line for Legislative Response
Attachment B. Historic Protection Ordinance
Attachment C. Letter from Cherilyn Widell, Office of Historic Preservation, September 15,
1996
Attachment D. National Standards for Historic Preservation
Attachment E, Definition of Landmark and Contributing Structures .or properties
CC:Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage
Chamber of Commerce
Architectural Review Board
Board of Realtors
Cherilyn Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer
Prepared by: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official
D EP ARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: .~/~¢~;~3:P. x~~.~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community. Environment
CMR: 417:96 Page 19 of 20
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
CMR: 417:96 Page 20 of 20
Attachment E
TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
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.
RE COMMENDATIO,~.S:
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.
Preliminary review and direct any needed revisions to the Standards for Historic
Designation, and direct staffto 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
recover5, 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 City Attorney budget, for 1996-97 in order to implement the
interim regulations and assume the Historic Inventory’ 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.
o Use Standards for Historic Evaluation Option 2: Strengthen the ev.aluation criteria by
updating the standards for designation as recommended by the State Office of Historic
Preservation.
Designate staff as 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.
o 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
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: Stren~hen 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 HR]3, 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.
"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: Staff has raised a concern that structures are likely to be.
discovered to be significant through the Interim Regulations, 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, staff would
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." Staff recommends 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 recove~ 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
Staff temporarily 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 staffplarmer, 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 weel~. 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 forward. 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 assignments, 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 CiB~
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 rega~lations have been directed to strengthen the City’s Historic
Protection Ordinance, preventing demolition of historically significant structures for
protection of the environment, the ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under a
Class 8 Exemption.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staffwill return with the interim regulations and Budget Amendment Ordinance for Council
adoption on October 28, 1996. Staff will 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 C, Draft Standards for Historic Designation
Attachment D, Draft Fee Schedule Adjustments
Attachment E, Work Program Items 4, 6, 12, 37, and 39
Attachment 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:4J6:96 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:
FLEMING
er
CMR:436:96 Page 9 of 9