The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-10-28 City Council (15)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: October 28, 1996 CMR:446:96 SUBJECT:Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) and Fee Schedule Modification to Implement Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designations and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 REQUEST This report forwards to Council a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $75,000 for contract planning services to implement the interim regulations governing historic designations and demolition of residential structures built before 1940. On October 15, 1996, Council directed that alternative fee structures to one hundred percent cost recovery be developed. Alternative fee schedule Options A, B and C are presented for Council consideration. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached BAO in the amount of $75,000 and approve the fee schedule Option A. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report implements Council policy direction given to staff at the Council meeting of October 15, 1996, to develop alternatives to full-cost recovery for the various regulatory review processes established in the interim regulations. DISCUSSION On October 15, 1996, the City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance that established interim regulations concerning the demolition of residential structures constructed prior to 1940. The Council also directed staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Fee Schedule, asking staffto present alternatives to 100 percent cost recovery fees for processing applications related to the interim regulations. Contract CMR:446:96 Page 1 of 4 technical and support staff assistance will be utilized to implement the interim regulations and will include: 1) processing of applications for demolition and replacement of residential structures built before 1940; 2) historic merit screening for any protected residence other than a historic landmark; 3) historic merit evaluation following any historic merit screening that results in a determination that a protected residence could meet the standards for historic designation; 4) compatibility review for replacement of contributing residences; 5) preparation for review by Historic Resources Board (HRB) for alteration to any historic landmark; 6) preparation and written determination regarding removal or complete destruction of a historic landmark residence, and 7) appeals of any appealable determinations. The contract planning personnel will provide assistance to the Director of Planning and Community Environment or his designee and the Historic Resources Board on all of the above applications. The fees for 100 percent cost recovery are shown for comparison on Attachment D, and were originally presented in a October 15, 1996 City Manager’s Report (CMR:436:96) as Attachment D. ALTERNATIVES At the October 15, 1996 meeting, Council requested staff to provide alternatives to 100 percent cost recovery. Three alternative options are presented, although other possibilities are available. Option A, Attachment A: Cost for Historic Merit Screening, Historic Merit Evaluation and Historic Landmark Alteration Review be set at 50 percent cost recovery; and applications for Compatibility Review, Compatibility Standards Exception or Historic Property Survey be set as 100 percent cost recovery. Staffrecommends that, if Council chooses to subsidize the interim regulations as an incentive for historic preservation, reduction in cost be given to those applications that are being initially screened and which relate to retaining and preserving the historic structure. On the other hand, the fees for those applications related to pursuing demolition would continue to be charged full cost recovery. The amount of fee reduction and a corresponding increase in City subsidy from General Funds could be any percentage from 0 to 100. Ifa reduced fee alternative is desired by the Council, staff recommends that a 50 percent reduction in cost recovery is a reasonable subsidy, although greater or lesser subsidy could be ,established. The Historic Property Survey would be subject to 100 percent cost recovery because it will likely be .required only in rare instances where landmark structures are revealed and the applicant is resistant to the City’s initial determination, intends to pursue demolition, or resists altering the structure according to National Standards. CMR:446:96 Page 2 of 4 Option B, Attachment B: Cost for Historic Merit Screening, Historic Merit Evaluation and Historic Landmark Alteration Review could be fixed at $300 (less than the fee for an Home Improvement Exception or a Minor ARB application); and applications for Historic Property ~Survey, Compatibility Review or Compatibility Standards Exception remain as 100 percent cost recovery. The second alternative could establish a set processing fee for those applications related to preservation while maintaining full cost recovery for applications related to demolition. Staff would, in this case, recommend that full cost recovery also be maintained for Historic Property Surveys and applications associated with demolition. This fixed fee could be raised or lowered so long as it did not exceed the actual cost of processing any single application. Staff does not recommend this alternative because it bears no relationship to the actual costs of the process. Option C, Attachment C: Cost for all processes, Historic Merit Screening, Historic Merit Evaluation, Historic Landmark Alteration Review, Historic Property Survey, Compatibility Review, or Compatibility Standards Exception could be set at 50 percent cost recovery, regardless of whether or not the processes are related to demolition. This option could also include either raising or lowering the percentage of cost recovery. Staff does not recommend this option, since it does not provide the same incentives for preserving the original structure as Options A and B. FISCAL IMPACT The $75,000 appropriation will be recovered to whatever percentage of cost recovery fee requirements the Council selects. If the Council reduces the cost recovery percentage, the costs will only be recovered to the percentage that Council directs and the remainder will be funded by the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserves. Staff can not at this time accurately predict the net amount of the impact to the General Fund Reserves, but will return to Council with an evaluation after four months of implementing the regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Hiring of contract planning assistance is not a project under CEQA. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Staff will seek the services of contract technical and support staff by November 30, 1996. Staff will return in four months with a report to Council on the status of the Interim Regulations. CMR:446:96 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS A. Fee schedule for Option A B. Fee schedule for Option B C. Fee schedule for Option C D. Fee schedule for 100 Percent Cost Recovery E. Budget Amendment Ordinance PREPARED BY: Nancy Maddox Lytle KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Ci CMR:446:§6 Page 4 of 4 Z: ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO HIRE TECHNICAL AND SUPPORT CONTRACT PERSONNEL TO IMPLEMENT THE INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1940 AND AMENDING THE MtrNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article Ill of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 24, 1996 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 1996-97; and WHEREAS, the City Council is reviewing interim regulations on the demolition of residential structures constructed prior to 1940; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the interim regulations additional technical and support contract personnel are necessary; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department’s costs for technical and support personnel are not expected to exceed $75,000 over a four month period; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that half ($37,500) of the cost of processing applications related to the regulation will be recovered by fees; and WHEREAS, City Council authorization is needed to amend the 1996- 97 budget and Municipal Fee Schedule as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. The sum of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) is hereby appropriated to non-salary expenses in the Development Review Functional Area in the Planning Department. SECTION 2. Planning Department revenue is increased by $37,500. SECTION 3. This transaction will reduce the Budget Stabilization Reserve from $16,427,196 to $16,389,696. SECTION 4. The Municipal Fee Schedule is hereby amended to establish new fees relative to Historic Interim Regulations, as shown in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 6. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not a project under the California Environmenta! Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 7. As provided in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Administrative Services Department Director, Deputy City Manager Director of Planning and Community Development Z Z z Z E E