HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-07 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITYCOUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JUNE 7, 1999 CMR:259:99
SUBJECT:CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON THE DRAFT HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, THE ASSOCIATED FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FINDINGS
REPORT IN BRIEF
The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance) creates a Palo Alto Register that
will initially list 297 properties. For these properties, some exterior alterations and all
demolitions are regulated. In the beginning, the Palo Alto Register will be made up of
Category 1 and 2 properties on the City’s existing Historic Inventory, the Professorville
Historic District and the Ramona Street Historic District.
The Ordinance does not require the preservation of properties that are identified as
potentially eligible for the California Register. However, the owner of such a property may
voluntarily place his or her property on the Palo Alto Register.
The newly created Resource List will include an additional 517 historic properties, pending
further research to determine whether they meet the standards for the Palo Alto Register. For
these properties, only demolition or extensive exterior alterations that would significantly
threaten the historic integrity of the building are regulated. By November of 1999
determinations will be made whether these properties are eligible to be placed on the Palo
Alto Register. If they are found not to be eligible, they will be removed from the Resource
List. The Resource List is made up of Category 3 and 4 properties on the City’s existing
Historic Inventory, Landmarks designated under the Interim Historic Regulations, and
properties identified as potentially eligible for the NHRP in the recent historic survey
conducted by the City. In the future, additional properties that are potentially eligible for
the NRHP may be added to the Resource List by the Director of Planning and Community
CMR:259:99 Page 1 of 26
Environment, after recommendation by the Historic Resources Board. These properties may
be added to the Palo Alto Register by action of the City Council.
A number of incentives available to properties on the Palo Alto Register are provided in the
Ordinance. These include floor area bonuses, exceptions to setback and other site
development standards, exemption from Flood Hazard Regulations, and use of the State
Historical Building Code in lieu of the regular building code. Federal income tax credits are
available for rehabilitation of qualifying income-producing properties. In addition, three
other financial incentives are provided for City Council consideration: partial property tax
rebate, exemption of building permit fees, and refund of the City transfer tax.
The implementation plan proposed for administering the Ordinance provides owners of
historic properties with free professional assistance from an architectural preservation
specialist, the Historic Preservation Officer. These services will include design guidance,
technical assistance and information about local, state and national programs and benefits.
The implementation plan also focuses program resources on voluntary participation of
property owners. Priority will be given to working with property owners who want to
nominate their properties to the Palo Alto Register, and with neighborhoods that want to
form Historic Districts.
Historic properties are considered to be environmental resources under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As required by State law, the city has prepared an Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) that assesses possible adverse impacts to historic
resources that may result from the implementation of the proposed Ordinance, identifies
alternative proposals, and proposes mitigations to reduce adverse impacts. The most
significant adverse impact identified in the FEIR is the possible loss of potential California
Register-eligible properties whose alteration and demolition is not regulated by the
Ordinance. Prior to adopting the Ordinance, the City Council must find that the FEIR is
adequate, and if the Council adopts the Ordinance rather than the identified altematives with
fewer adverse impacts, it must explain why each altematives was rejected. The FEIR, which
includes responses to the Draft EIR (DEIR) received during the public review period, March
31 to April 30, 1999, is presented for the Council’s review and action, as well as a Resolution
finding the FEIR adequate and providing certain other findings required by CEQA, including
a statements of overriding considerations for adoption of the Ordinance.
CMR:259:99 Page 2 of 26
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Review and certify the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Historic Preservation Ordinance and make related findings, including statements
rejecting the identified alternatives and adopting overriding considerations as
provided in Attachment B.
Review, modify as appropriate, and introduce for first reading the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, including the replacement for Chapter 16.49, the Historic
Preservation Ordinance and the newly created Chapter 18.18, Special Single Family
and Two-Family Pal. Alto Register Property Regulations, and the Resolution
identifying properties initially designated to the Pal. Alto Register.
Direct staff to return with the following identified amendments to the Pal. Alto
Municipal Code relating to the Historic Preservation Ordinance:
Changes to the zoning code relative to references to Category 1 and 2
properties, change to Pal. Alto Register.
Changes to the provision relating to non-conforming uses in the zoning
ordinance.
Direct staffto retum to Council with additional information and a tentative proposal
for consideration of additional historic preservation incentives for properties listed
on the Pal. Alto Register.
Expansion of the Commercial Downtown (CD) floor area bonus for historic
rehabilitation of commercial buildings to Pal. Alto Register properties outside
of the downtown area.
Partial property tax rebate.
Fee exemption for building permits related to maintaining heritage properties.
Refund of transfer tax for sale of a Pal. Alto Register property.
BACKGROUND
At public hearings in December 1998, the City Council reviewed proposed components for
the draft permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance) and provided direction to
staff regarding various provisions of the draft Ordinance. At that time, uncertainty existed
CMR:259:99 Page 3 of 26
regarding the number of properties potentially subject to regulation under the proposed
Ordinance because the Dames & Moore report identifying properties potentially eligible for
the National or California Register had not yet been completed. That report was completed
and released on January 22, 1999.
Pursuant to Council direction, public outreach continued with a second roundtable discussion
on December 15, 1998 and a community forum on January 23, 1999. All owners of
properties identified in the Dames & Moore report as potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or those properties on the City’s existing Historic
Inventory were invited to the community forum.
The DEIR for the proposed Ordinance was circulated for public review and comment on
December 31, 1998, with the comment period ending January 30, 1999. A substantial
number of comments were received on the DEIR. Subsequently, staff recommended that the
DEIR be revised and recirculated to address the public comments. On February 16, 1999,
staff presented to the City Council a revised timetable for completing the Ordinance and
recirculating the revised DEIR. Based on Council direction in December 1998, staff revised
the draft Ordinance for public review and further City Council policy direction. On
February 17, the City Council endorsed a revised draft Ordinance and endorsed that draft as
the project description in the revised DEIR. The revised DEIR was recirculated for public
review on March 31, 1999, with the comment period extending to April 30, 1999. Responses
to the comments received during this comment period are discussed later in this report.
On February 22, 1999, City Council adopted revised Interim Regulations that ’ ensured
continuing protection of the most significant historic resources. These revised Interim
Regulations applied only to the 814 properties that were proposed to be subject to the draft
Ordinance (i.e. listing on the Palo Alto Register or the Resource List). These Interim
Regulations, which are an abbreviated version of the draft Ordinance, remain in effect until
a new Ordinance is adopted.
The City Council has authorized additional work by the Dames & Moore consultants to
identify and remove from the Resource List properties that do not possess historic merit.
Dames & Moore is presently evaluating properties designated as Category 3 and 4 on the
existing historic inventory to determine whether they .retain historic integrity and reviewing
properties in the Professorville Historic District in order to identify those that are not
contributors to the District (these evaluations will be completed by June 4, 1999). For those
properties on the Resource List identified as potentially eligible for the NRHP, final written
evaluations, including the preparation of the State documentation form (DPR) for those
properties that continue to meet eligibility criteria, will be prepared. This work is presently
under way and is scheduled to be completed within 3 months of the effective date of the
Ordinance, or by November 1999.
CMR:259:99 Page 4 of 26
DISCUSSION
This section provides a brief summary of the following: key components of the proposed
Ordinance; a discussion of the DEIR; a review of proposed historic preservation incentives;
a discussion of proposed miscellaneous Municipal Code amendments related to the
Ordinance; and a discussion of the proposed program for implementing the new Ordinance.
I. Key. Components of the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
The draft Ordinance (Attachment A) is the document endorsed by City Council on
February 17, 1999 as the project description for the DEIR. Several changes and
clarifications, generally of a non-substantive nature, were made to the document since then,
primarily in response to comments and requests for clarification made at public hearings by
members of the public, Historic Resources Board (HRB) members, Planning Commissioners
and City Council Members. The attached draft Ordinance has been annotated to show these
changes from the February draft.The key components of the draft Ordinance are
summarized below.
Palo Alto Register
The Palo Alto Register will include individual designated historic properties, identified as
"Heritage Properties," as well as properties, that comprise designated Historic Districts
(16.49.020(n)).
Initial List. At the time the draft Ordinance is adopted, the Palo Alto Register will include
a total of 297 properties, including Category 1 and 2 properties from the City’s existing
Historic Inventory, the Professorville Historic District and the Ramona Street Historic
Districts (16.49.050). The Category 1 and 2 properties that are within a historic district are
listed both as an individual.heritage properties and as a contributors to the historic district.
All of the properties proposed for initial listing on the Palo Alto Register are identified by
address and parcel number in the Resolution establishing the Palo Alto Register (see
Attachment C)..
Future Additions to the Palo Alto Register. Individual properties can be nominated to the
Palo Alto Register in two ways: 1) any property owner may nominate his or her own property
to the Register; and 2) properties that are listed on the Resource List (described below) may
be nominated to the Palo Alto Register by the City Council, the HRB or the Director of
Planning and Community Environment.
A property that has been nominated to the Register may be placed on the Register only if the
City Council, after notification of the property owner and completion of a public hearing,
finds that it meets the criteria for the NRHP, or that the property is exceptionally important
in Palo Alto and meets the criteria for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
(16.49.060(b)). In the case of owner-nominated properties, the property need only meet
CMR:259:99 Page 5 of 26
CRHR criteria, and the criteria are presumed to be met unless there is substantial evidence
to the contrary (16.49.060(a)).
Resource List
The Resource List is made up of potential historic resources which may, upon further study,
qualify for the Palo Alto Register (16.49.020(o).
Initial List. At the time the draft Ordinance is adopted, the Resource List will consist of:
properties identified in the 1998-99 historic survey conducted by Dames & Moore to be
potentially eligible for the National Register; Category 3 and 4 properties on the City’s
existing Historic Inventory; and 16 Landmark properties identified during the Interim
Regulations (16.49.110(a)). This is a total of 517 properties. The Category 3 and 4
properties will be added to the Resource List rather than the Register in order to allow for
review of their historic integrity, since some may have been so altered that they no longer
retain their historic significance. Potential NRHP properties and the Landmarks identified
via the Interim Regulations will be included in the Resource List because final evaluations
of historic merit have not been completed. The owner of a property placed on the Resource
List may request a hearing before the HRB to determine whether the property meets the
criteria to be placed on the Palo Alto Register. If the property is found not to meet the
Register criteria, it will be removed from the Resource List (16.49.110(b)). A draft of the
initial Resource List is attached for reference (Attachment F).
Review of Exterior Alterations
The definitions of "maintenance," "minor projects" and "major projects," and the review
requirements for these different types of projects, are intended to minimize City review for
most of the work completed by homeowners for general upkeep of their houses and for the
most common types of alterations and small additions. The amount of review and regulation
varies with the extent of the proposed work and is different for Resource List properties and
Register properties.
Maintenance. There is no City review for general maintenance and repair of either Resource
List or Register properties. Maintenance is defmed as work that does not change the design,
materials Or outside appearance of the building and does not require a building permit. For
single family homes and duplexes, repainting is also exempt from review, even if the color
is changed (16.59.130(e)).
Minor Projects.
¯ Definition: A minor project is one that the Director determines to be in substantial
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. A
project is presumed to be minor if it does not includes the any of the following:
alterations to a street-facing facade; removal of more than 20 percent of the exterior
CMR:259:99 Page 6 of 26
walls; expansion of the second story or above; requires a variance; constructs,
relocates or demolishes an accessory structure; or relocates the main building
(16.49.020(m)).
Review of Minor Projects for Resource List Properties: No review is required of
minor projects on Resource List properties.
Review of Minor Projects for Palo Alto Register Properties (Heritage Properties and
Contributing Properties Within Historic Districts): Minor projects are reviewed for
the purpose of providing the applicant with cooperative and constructive information
about ways to accomplish the project that are consistent with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This evaluation will take place in two or
fewer review sessions. Applicants may voluntarily participate in additional sessions.
Compliance with the Director’s" suggestions and recommendations is voluntary
(16.49.130(h)).
Major Projects
Definition: If a proposed project involves one or more of the six elements that
exclude a project from being a minor project (see definition of minor project on
preceding page), then it is presumed to be a major project. However, the Director
may determine that even though one or more of these elements is present, the project
is minor in nature and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and therefore should be treated as a minor project (16.49.130(k)).
Review of Major Projects for Resource List Properties: Major alterations of
properties on the Resource List are reviewed for the purpose of providing constructive
and cooperative information to applicants regarding whether the proposal meets the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Compliance with the Director’s
suggestions and recommendations is voluntary (16.49.150(c)(d)). However, if the
Director determines that the proposed major alterations would significantly threaten
the historic significance of a significant historic resource, there may be a delay of up
to six months to evaluate whether the property should be designated to the Palo Alto
Register (16.49.150.e).
Review of Major Projects for Palo Alto Register Properties (Heritage Properties and
Contributing Properties in Historic Districts): Proposed major alterations are
reviewed by the HRB at a noticed public hearing. Notice is also sent to owners of
properties within 300 feet (16.49.180). After the HRB review, the Director issues a
final decision (16,49.130). Additions that substantially comply with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards will be approved.
CMR:259:99 Page 7 of 26
Demolition
¯ Definition." Demolition is defined as removal of 50 percent or more of the exterior
walls of the structure. Not to be included in demolition calculations is removal of
deteriorated materials that cannot be restored and removal of non-historic additions
(16.49.020).
Demolition of Resource List Properties: The issuance of a demolition permit for a
Resource List property may be delayed, up to six months, to determine whether the
property should be designated to the Palo Alto Register. If the City Council does not
designate the property as a Heritage Property, it will be removed from the Resource
List (16.49.155).
Demolition of Palo Alto Register Properties: A property on the Palo Alto Register
can be demolished only when the City Council makes certain findings: an imminent
safety hazard exists and demolition is the only way to secure the public safety; the
City Council determines that preserving the building would cause immediate and
substantial hardship on the property owner(s) because rehabilitation is technically
infeasible or would leave the property with no reasonable economic value; or the City
Council determines that keeping the property in its present location precludes the
achievement of a competing Comprehensive Plan goal or goals (16.49.140).
The same circumstances that apply to demolition of Heritage Properties also apply to
Contributing properties within an Historic District, except that for Contributing
properties the City Council may approve the demolition if the Council finds that the
demolition would not have a substantial adverse impact on the historic significance
or integrity of the District (16.49.165).
Noncontributing properties, properties that are not historic but are located within an
Historic District, can be demolished. The design of the replacement structure will be
reviewed by the HRB for general compatibility with the character of the Historic
District (16.49.170).
Standards Used in the Review
The standard to be employed in the review of alteration to identified historic resources is
substantial compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This
established, national standard is a flexible tool which contains principles and guidelines that
provide useful information on how to make improvements and additions while protecting the
character of historic sites and buildings. These standards are intended to be used for historic
properties that continue in contemporary use.
Decision-making by the Director and HRB
CMR:259:99 Page 8 of 26
An applicant always has the option of HRB review, instead of or in addition to staff review.
All decisions of the HRB and the Director can be appealed to City Council (16.49.200).
New Historic Districts
Any person may propose the addition of a new Historic District to the Palo Alto Register.
Generally, most of the structures (approximately 75%) in any proposed Historic District
must be designated as contributors to the Historic District. Historic Districts are established
only if substantial support fi:om affected property owners exists, and in no case will a District
be established if the majority of the property owners object. If the Director determines that
a two-thirds majority of property owners in a prospective district have filed a written
statement of support for the district, no building or demolition permit will be issued which
affects a proposed contributing resource while the application for designation is
pending(16.49.085(h)). Written guidelines for establishing a District will be developed
which include these principles.
Effects of Disasters on Historic Resources
During the public review of the DEIR and the draft Ordinance, a number a property owners
raised issues relating to the effects of disasters, such as earthquakes, on historic resources.
California Public Resources Code Section 5028 (please see Attachment E) was adopted in
1989 in response to the Loma Prieta earthquake to clarify the role of the State Office of
Historic Preservation (SHPO) in determining the circumstances under which certain historic
structures damaged by natural disasters, including earthquake, fire and flood, can be
demolished, destroyed, or significantly altered. The SHPO’s responsibility is limited to
structures that are listed on the National Register, the California Register or any local public
register of historic places and, unless requested by the local jurisdiction, does not extend to
structures which present an imminent threat of bodily harm to the public or adjacent
structures.
Decisions to demolish those structures are made at the local level and are subject to whatever
local ordinances or policies govern emergency demolitions. However, PRC Section 5028
defines a procedure whereby a local government may apply to the State Office for its
determination as to whether the affected historic structure can be demolished, destroyed, or
significantly altered, taking into consideration the recommendations made by a team
comprised of three local (county) residents with historic preservation expertise. Any local
government may apply to the SHPO for such a determination. For example, if there is
uncertainty or controversy regarding the extent of the damage and/or whether the structure
presents an imminent threat to the public, the local jurisdiction may want the State’s
concurrence, or may simply want an additional opinion on the matter. The determination of
the State must be issued within 30 days of receipt of such an application.
CMR:259:99 Page 9 of 26
It should also be understood that there are many other factors at work in the aftermath of a
disaster. In general, property owners are reluctant to demolish their homes, particularly
under emergency order, for fairly obvious reasons. In a true emergency demolition, they
would be allowed little or no access into the building to retrieve their possessions. If the
building can be stabilized and the extent of damage more thoroughly assessed, it would be
to the homeowner’s advantage. Because of the extra protection afforded historic resources,
owners of those homes affected by PRC Section 5028 are in fact provided with additional
assurance against condemnations made in haste. The 30-day period in which the State is
required to render a decision is not excessive and, in fact, would buy some time for the
affected owner to have the condition of the structure more thoroughly evaluated, as long as
it can be safely shored.
Proposed Changes to the Draft Ordinance
The Revised Draft EIR contains a Draft Ordinance based on the Council’s February 1999
direction. The staff has included the following proposed substantive changes in the
Ordinance presented with this CMR:
16.49.010 (e). "Heritage Properties" Definition. Heritage Properties were originally
defined to include only those Category 1 and 2 properties outside of Historic Districts.
There does not appear to be a compelling policy reason to treat Category 1 and 2
properties in Historic Districts as less deserving of protection as individual properties
than those outside Historic Districts. Therefore, the definition has been revised to
include all Category 1 and 2 properties.
16.49.080(b)and 16.49.060(b). Designation Procedures for Heritage Properties
The Draft Ordinance authorizes the City Council to designate a Califomia Register-
eligible property of"exceptional local significance" to the Palo Alto Register without
the owner’s consent. This provision was intended to provide flexibility to the Council
in unusual Situations. This provision has caused considerable concern to some owners
of California Register- eligible properties. Given the few cases in which it would be
likely to be used, staff now suggests deleting this provision entirely. This change
would mean that only National Register- eligible properties could be nominated to the
Palo Alto register without the owner’s consent.
16.49.085 and 080(g). Proposed Historic Districts.
The Draft Ordinance made no provision for prevention of demolition or damaging
alteration of historic properties within a proposed Historic District. The revised
Ordinance provides that if two-thirds of the property owners within a proposed
District have indicated, in writing, their support for the District, historic properties
will be protected while the application is considered, and proposed replacement
structures for non-contributing properties will be subject to compatibility review.
CMR:259:99 Page 10 of 26
16.49.240. Maintenance Requirements.
The City has comprehensive rules in Chapter 16.40 requiring maintenance of all
structures in the city, including requirements for adequate paint or other treatment to
prevent weather damage to exterior features of a building. If an owner fails to
maintain property, the city can order repair or demolition. The purpose of a separate
maintenance section in Chapter 16.49 was to provide a means to address "demolition
by neglect." This terms refers to the rare but real practice of failing to maintain a
structure and/or its historic features until it is so deteriorated that it loses its historic
character or demolition is the only feasible alternative. After reviewing Chapter
16.40 again, both that chapter and Chapter 16.49 have been revised to require that
historic properties, including their historic features, be maintained to the same
standard as other buildings, and that in enforcing these standards, the City will require
maintenance, rather than demolition, of the buildings whenever possible.
II. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
In late December 1998, a Draft EIR (DEIR) was released for public review and comment.
On February 17, 1999, the City Council elected to direct staff to revise the DEIR. The
revised DEIR was then recirculated on March 31, 1999. The 30-day review period for public
input and comment on relevant environmental issues of the revised DEIR ended on April 30,
1999. The following discussion is on the revised DEIR.
Us~ of the FEIR (Program EIR)
The EIR on this project is a "program EIR" intended to serve as the environmental review
document for both the adoption of the Ordinance and its implementation. The CEQA
Guidelines authorizes this approach when analyzing the environmental impact of a the
issuance of regulations governing a continuing program such as the city’s historic
preservation program. The advantage of a program EIR is that it permits a better assessment
of the overall impact of a series of smaller decisions and a better opportunity to consider
alternative approaches. In addition, a Program EIR avoids future duplication in review and
paperwork by serving as the environmental review document for later discretionary
decisions.
This EIR is intended to serve as the environmental review document on historic resource
issues for all subsequent decisions to add or remove properties to the Palo Alto Register or
Resource List. It is also intended to serve as the environmental review document for all
design decisions for projects involving individual single-family or two-family dwellings.
This includes decisions on approving or disapproving major and minor alterations and
historic home improvement exceptions. These projects will not. require either an EIR or
Negative Declaration. Instead, the City and the applicant will be able to rely on the Program
EIR.
CMR:259:99 Page 11 of 26
The Program EIR can also be used as the environmental review document for commercial
or larger scale residential projects unless they have effects that were not examined in the
Program EIR. It is anticipated that the demolition of some very significant commercial or
non-residential structures might require further environmental review.
Significant Impacts
As the EIR points out, adoption of the Ordinance itself has no environmental impact.
Furthermore, because the Ordinance provides significant protection for approximately 800
important historical resources and incentive for the preservation over 1,600 more, its overall
effect on the environment is positive. However, because the Ordinance does not require
preservation of all the city’s identified historic resources, significant environmental damage,
in terms of loss of historic structures and attendant aesthetic losses to the neighborhoods in
which they are located, may occur. The extent to which these losses will occur is largely
dependent on the decisions of individual homeowners.
The Revised DEIR incorporated responses to issues raised by commentators on the initial
DEIR. The Final EIR responds to the comments made during the second public comment
period. The EIR identifies four unavoidable impacts (a detailed analysis of these impacts is
contained in Section 5.0, page 5-59, of the DEIR):
"Implementation of the Draft Ordinance could allow some non-Register propertie~s
now known to be of historic and!or architectural value to be demolished or modified
in ways that are incompatible with their historic character and the character of their
existing neighborhoods. The availability of detailed information on compatible
remodeling, combined with the incentive program and public education, will reduce
the incompatible mod~ficatlons to a minority. It is likely that.the demolition of these
structures and replacement with modem structures that are incompatible with the
visual character of existing neighborhoods will occur. This could have a significant
impact on the overall aesthetic character of the City."
"Although adoption of the Draft Ordinance will not cause historic buildings to be
demolished or altered, it does not preclude the occurrence of such impacts. It can
reasonably be assumed that resources placed on the Palo Alto Register will only
infrequently be demolished or modified so radically as to reduce their historic
integrity. The loss of any of these structures would, however, be a significant adverse
impact. While it is not possible to predict how many, if any, of the Palo Alto Register
structures would qualify for demolition under the rigorous findings required under the
Draft Ordinance, is likely that a few will."
"For those structures initially placed on the Resource List and subsequently
determined not eligible for the Palo Alto Register, there would be no impediment to
CMR:259:99 Page 12 of 26
their demolition or modification. Although it is not possible to predict how many of
this group could be found ineligible for the Palo Alto Register, it is conceivable some
number of these resources could ultimately be placed in the unprotected category and
demolished or substantially remodeled. The loss of those buildings that would be
demolished by their owners would be a significant adverse impact."
o "For approximately 1,800 historic structures which are not proposed for either the
Palo Alto Register or Resource List, demolition or substantial modification is both
possible and, for many, likely to occur. Particularly for the less unique and badly
deteriorated commercial buildings, it is likely that demolition would be allowed. The
demolition and/or substantial modification of many of the single family residential
buildings and some of the commercial structures in this category would be a
significant adverse impact."
The alternatives analysis in the DEIR (Section 7.0, page 7-74) found that two of the project
alternatives, the "Ordinance Protective of Resources Alternative" and the "Alternative More
Protective of Resources Not Included on the Palo Alto Register and Resources List," are
environmentally superior to the proposed project. Both of these alternatives would protect
a greater number of historic resources from demolition and/or substantial incompatible
modification than would the proposed Ordinance. However, both of these alternatives fail
to achieve other project objectives. A formal statement rejecting these alternatives is
included in Attachment B, Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and
Making Certain Other Findings Required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Rejection of Alternatives and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The proposed Ordinance cannot be adopted unless the Council concludes, after considering
the FEIR, that there is no feasible environmentally superior alternative, and that there are
"overriding considerations" that make proceeding with the Ordinance desirable even though
it has environmental costs.
This requirement is detailed in Section 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section
15091 requires the Council to identify the specific reasons that the environmental damage
is unavoidable, i.e, why the environmentally superior alternatives are rejected; Section
15093 requires the Council to identify and document the reasons for going ahead with the
Ordinance despite the adverse impacts.
In this somewhat unusual case, the most compelling "overriding consideration" directly
involves the most serious environmental impact: preservation of historic resources. The
ordinance substantially increases the protection of historic resources in Palo Alto. This fact
CMR:259:99 Page 13 of 26
is clearly documented in the EIR. A more comprehensive statement of overriding
considerations is also proposed in Attachment B.
Two important practical factors limit the feasibility of altematives that would regulate the
1,600 structures newly identified as potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic
Places. First, this identification is the result of an initial survey. The extensive work needed
to document how and why these structures actually qualify for the Register has not been
done. Secondly, the City’s recent and extensive experience with a screening and review
process involving a large number of residential structures has demonstrated that the City does
not have the capacity to carry out such a program in a manner that generates the public
support that is essential for any historic preservation program. While some property owners
have found the process manageable and helpful, others have found it difficult and
unmanageable. Uncertainty about the proper classification of particular buildings and the
extent of historic regulation has affected the ability of property owners and buyers to make
informed decisions about sales and purchases.
In addition, the Council has directed that a historic preservation program consider the
competing benefits of living in a city and neighborhood in which historic buildings are
preserved and living in a city and neighborhood in which property owners have considerable
freedom to adapt or demolish existing structures to meet their own needs, subject to general
zoning limits, taking advantage of modem construction and design techniques and without
having to adapt structures designed for a different time.
While less than 10 percent of the buildings in the City are proposed for preservation under
even the most protective alternative, staff has concluded that mandatory conservation of that
many buildings is not a feasible alternative. Historic preservation is primarily dependent on
the decisions and support of private property owners and the community at large.. Recent
surveys of properties surveyed in 1977 reveals that some have been demolished or altered
in ways that damage their historic character, but a substantially larger number have been
repaired, restored, and enhanced. This involves an investment of private care, time and
money that far exceeds any program the City could finance.
Recent real estate market trends have altered the previously existing incentives for
preservation and jeopardized the ability of those interested in preserving historic homes to
do so. Much of the City’s stock of historic homes, for example, consists of properties in.
neighborhoods that had gradually declined in maintenance and price. These homes were
purchased and restored by individuals who were willing to take the risks inherent in such
situations. However, their restoration efforts have produced sound houses, highly desirable
neighborhoods, and combined with the general economic trends in the area, high prices. A
"dual market" has emerged where those who can afford to buy a sound house, demolish it,
and replace it, compete with those who wish to buy the house and live in it, either as is or
CMR:259:99 Page 14 of 26
with some restoration. These trends justify the proposed Ordinance with its mix of
regulation and "incentives. However, they do not, in staff’s opinion, justify a more
comprehensive program.
Attachment B contains a more comprehensive analysis of reasons for rejecting the
alternatives more protective of historic resources.
III. Historic Preservation Incentives
Providing incentives that would encourage and support property owners in preserving their
historic property has been an important part of developing the revised Ordinance. Ideas for
a number of possible incentives were generated during the public participation process, and
many of those have been incorporated into the Ordinance. The following section identifies
specific incentives included in the Ordinance and where they are located in the ordinance.
Two financial incentives that may be used under certain limited circumstances, the Mills Act
and the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit, are also discussed. In addition, three other
possible financial incentives are presented for Council consideration, a partial property tax
rebate, a building permit fee exemption and a transfer tax rebate. Also discussed is making
the floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of historic buildings located in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) zone district available to properties on the Palo Alto Register. This bonus
is currently available to commercial buildings that are Category 1 and 2 on the existing
Historic Inventory. Staff also proposes that this bonus be extended to commercial properties
outside of the downtown area.
Incentives Included in the Draft Historic Ordinance
A total of 22 incentives and benefits to encourage historic preservation were identified
through a series of study sessions and public hearings with the HRB, Planning Commission
and City Council. The city Council endorsed 17 of these incentives and benefits. These
incentives and benefits have been incorporated into the draft Ordinance or they will be part
of the proposed Implementation Plan.
Exceptions to Development Standards. Four incentives which provide exceptions to
development standards for single family/duplex properties are included in the proposed new
Code Section 18.18. They are: 1) an increase in allowable floor area by the lesser of
15 percent or 500 square feet; 2) exclusion of basement and attic areas that would otherwise
be counted toward floor area; 3) provision of a new Historic Home Improvement Exception
(HHIE) process to simplify minor exceptions to the zoning code; and 4) use of the HHIE to
locate an historic structure on a new site when relocation is necessary to prevent demolition.
Since the purpose of the exceptions is to promote historic preservation, granting the
exceptions is conditional on the project being in substantial compliance with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. It should be noted that the incentive that
exempts the development of new basements under historic houses from allowable floor area
CMR:259:99 Page 15 of 26
(18.18.050(d)) does not apply in flood hazard areas. This is consistent with existing single
family zoning regulations as provided in Section 18.12.050(o)).
In addition, staff proposes a change to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Variance findings
(18.90.050 (a)(1)). In addition to two other findings, this section requires a finding of
exceptional circumstances to support a variance request, case law in California establishes
that the existence of historic resources on a site may constitute an exceptional circumstance
for this purpose. Staff proposes to codify this concept in order to encourage the use of this
exception to preserve Palo Alto Register properties.
Improvements to Development Review Process. Other incentives regarding improvements
to the development review process are provided in Ordinance Section 16.49. They include
a broader and more flexible definition of minor project so that more projects can be approved
by staff without the need for a public hearing(16.49.020 (m)); a provision that applicants may
request review by the HRB in lieu of staff review (16.49.190); limiting staff review to two
sessions unless the applicant requests additional meetings (16.49.130 (h)); a provision that
no fees be charged for review, except for demolition (16.49.130(c)); and a provision that
properties on both the Palo Alto Register and on the Resource List qualify for using the State
Historical Building Code in place of the regular building code ( 16.49.100 (a)) and ( 16.49.110
(d)).
Exemption from Flood Hazard Regulations. The Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) regulations allow cities to exempt buildings on the National or a State Historic
Register or on a local historic inventory from certain requirements that are triggered when
substantial improvements are made to a structure located within the designated floodplain.
Historic properties would be exempt from these requirements, provided that the
improvements to the property did not remove its historic status. The Ordinance provides that
this exemption would apply to properties listed on the Palo Alto Register (Section
16.49.100(c)). Modifications that would otherwise be required if substantial improvements
were made to these historic buildings include raising the lowest floor of the building above
flood level, filling any existing basements, providing vents under the building floor to allow
for passage of flood water, and removal or flood proofing of mechanical systems located
below the projected flood level. Palo Alto Register properties would be exempt from these
requirements.
Approximately 20 properties proposed for the Palo Alto Register are located in the special
flood hazard area and are, therefore, currently subject to the Flood Hazard Regulations. In
addition, approximately 100 properties recommended for the Resource List are located
within this area, as are 400 Potential CHRP properties. While a large number of properties
are potentially eligible to take advantage of this exemption, it is uncertain how many would
benefit substantially from it, as the flood depth in that part of the floodplain where many of
CMR:259:99 Page 16 of 26
the historic structures are located is relatively shallow, only 1 or 2 feet above existing grade,
and some of the historic houses have existing first floor elevations above this level.
When the City Council adopted revisions to the Flood Hazard Regulations in April 1999, the
issue of historic properties being exempted from Flood Hazard Regulations was deferred to
be addressed in the Ordinance and associated EIR. The Historic Ordinance amends the
Flood Hazard Regulations so that the definition of qualified historic properties for the
purpose of exemption from Flood Hazard Regulations will be consistent in both sections of
the Code (16.49.100(c).)
Financial Incentives
This section addresses Mills Act contracts and related property tax reduction options, and the
Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit for commercial properties and a similar Federal tax benefit
program currently proposed for homeowners.
Mills Act Contracts. The Mills Act provides property tax relief to owners of qualified
historic properties in California who enter into individual contracts with their local city, in
return for an agreement to comply with certain preservation requirements. The City of Palo
Alto currently has two such contracts with owners of historic properties. In reviewing
incentive options, the City Council recommended that a program for expanding use of the
Mills Act not be considered at this time, due to the complexities of the issue and possible
adverse financial impacts on the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The Council
recommended that Mills Act contracts continue to be considered as an option in limited cases
where use of this incentive could preserve an historic resource that otherwise might be lost,
and that means be found to reimburse, the PAUSD for any loss in revenues resulting from
Mills Act contracts.
This approach would appear to be consistent with the way in which the Mills Act is typically
used in other cities. As of 1997, 47 jurisdictions in California have adopted ordinances or
resolutions authorizing use of Mills Act contracts. Over two-thirds of these cities or counties
have entered into 5 or fewer Mills Act contracts, and only about 15 percent have more than
10 contracts. A majority, like Palo Alto, have only 1 or 2 contracts. Some cities target use
of the contracts in deteriorated areas to stimulate and encourage revitalization. However, it
is important to note that this is the primary and sometimes only incentive provided to historic
property owners. The three cities with the most contracts are Redondo Beach (24),
Escondido (26), and San Diego (61).
Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. A federal income tax credit is available for the
rehabilitation of qualified historic income-producing properties. The Historic Rehabilitation
Tax Credit offers a tax credit equal to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation work. To be
eligible, the property must be eligible for listing on the NRHP either individually or as a
CMR:259:99 Page 17 of 26
contributing property to a National Register Historic District, and the work performed must
comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Additional
information about this program is being provided to applicants as part of the outreach
activities of the Historic Preservation program in the Planning Division.
A similar federal income tax credit for homeowners is being considered as part of the Fiscal
Year 2000 federal budget. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act of 1999, if adopted,
would.allow homeowners access to the same 20 percent income tax credit for rehabilitating
their homes that are now available only for income producing properties, as described above.
Additional Financial Incentives to Consider
Following is a discussion of three possible financial incentives for historic preservation that
were suggested by several members of the public during the public review process. They are
property tax reductions, building permit fee waivers and city transfer tax refund.
Other property, tax reduction options. The City Council requested staff to consider another
possible incentive option which might provide a more general type of property tax relief for
homeowners with historic properties, without entering into Mills Act contracts. In a random
sample of taxes paid in 1998 for proposed resource list and register properties, the amount
of property tax paid ranged from below $500 to over $37,000, with a median of
approximately $3,000 and an average of approximately $5,000. The lower median value
would indicate that there are more property owners at the lower end of the distribution, with
some very high tax amounts causing the average to be higher.
Property taxes are all paid directly to the County, which allocates property taxes to the
various jurisdictions. The portion of the property tax that the City accrues is approximately
10 percent of the property tax paid. PAUSD’s portion is approximately 50 percent. For
example, the City’s portion of the average annual property tax of $5,000 for historic homes
is $500. If this amount, w.ere refunded for the approximately 300 properties currently
proposed for the Palo Alto Register, the annual cost to the City in terms of lost revenue
would be approximately $150,000; to the PAUSD, it would be $750,000. While these are
very preliminary figures, they give a general indication of the cost of a broad-based reduction
in property taxes for historic properties.
Building Permit Fee Exemptions. An incentive that the Council might consider is exempting
all or a portion of the building permit fee when work is done on historic properties listed on
the Palo Alto Register. Some speakers at public hearings on the Ordinance recommended
that an incentive be provided for homeowners who are not adding onto or substantially
modifying their homes. The building permit fee exemption could serve that purpose if it
were limited to maintenance and repair projects and other minor projects that do not involve
additional floor area, and would serve as an incentive for property owners to maintain their
CMR:259:99 Page 18 of 26
historic property. The building permit fee amounts to approximately 1 to 1.5 percent of the
cost of the project. For example, for a $5,000 project, the savings would amount to about
$50 to $75, while a $30,000 project would enjoy a savings of $300 to $500. For the
homeowner who maintains an historic house for a number of years, the savings over time
could be significant. The City’s building permit process is operated on a full cost recovery
basis, so to avoid passing the cost of the fee exemption to other building permit applicants
the cost would need to be reimbursed from the General Fund. Staff does not have an
estimate at this time of the anticipated cost to the City of such a program and will return to
Council with additional information if the Council wishes to pursue this incentive.
City Transfer Tax Refund. The Municipal Code was amended in 1992 to provide for a City
real property transfer tax at the rate of $3.30 per $1,000 on the price of property transferred
within Palo Alto. This tax is in addition to the $1.10 County real estate transfer tax. Both
taxes are collected by the County when the deed is recorded, and the City’s share of the tax
is remitted to the City on a monthly basis.~ The City’s transfer tax is subject to several
rebates and exemptions, such as a rebate for low-income first time home buyers (used only
once) and more common exemptions for transfers resulting from divorce, bankruptcy, death,
mergers and other situations. Consequently, a rebate for the sale of historic property could
be accomplished without a need for substantial change to the already established procedures.
The total annual revenue to the City from the transfer tax is approximately $2.4 million, with
the amount from the sale of single family residences estimated to be about $1.5 million. If
the rebate is limited to sale of properties that are listed on the Palo Alto Register, or for
which the seller or buyer concurrently applies for listing on the Palo Alto Register, a
maximum of 5 percent of the City’s residences might be covered. This would result in an
estimated annual cost to the City in terms of lost revenue of perhaps $75,000.
Expanded Floor Area Bonus for Historic Rehabilitation of Commercial Structure
Floor area bonus for Palo Alto Register properties in the Downtown. This historic
preservation incentive is now available to Category 1 and 2 commercial properties that are
on the existing Historic Inventory and located in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone
district, as provided in Section 18.49 of the zoning ordinance. This provision allows for a
25 percent floor area bonus which is exempt from commercial parking requirements when
the building undergoes a certified historic rehabilitation. Since the Ordinance does not
differentiate Heritage Properties by the Category numbering system, staff recommends that
references to Category 1 and 2 properties in that part of Section 18.49 pertaining to the
historic rehabilitation bonus be changed to refer to properties on the Palo Alto Register.
There are approximately 23 Category 1 and 2 commercial properties in the Downtown area.
While initially the Palo Alto Register would not include any additional Downtown buildings,
75 buildings in Downtown are proposed for the Resource List and some or all could be added
to the Register in the future. In addition, 37 buildings in Downtown are potentially eligible
CMR:259:99 Page 19 of 26
for the Califomia Register and the owners of these buildings could request that they be added
to the Register. While, theoretically, a large number of buildings could take advantage of the
historic rehabilitation bonus, based on past experience, few of the eligible properties have
applied for the bonus.
IV.Historic Preservation Program Implementation
The adoption of the proposed Ordinance will require a substantial staff commitment to
develop and implement new procedures for a number of new tasks ~elating to historic
properties. The following section provides details of the proposed implementation program,
including a discussion of identified tasks and processes related to the Resource List and
Register, development review projects, demolition requests, non-residential development,
transition from the urgency regulations, staffing and a reassessment process.
The tasks resulting from the proposed Ordinance generally fall under three categories:
Additions and Deletions from Resource List and Register: For those properties
identified as potentially eligible for the National Register, the process for ~addition to
or deletion from the Resource List includes a formal review by staff, a staff
recommendation to the HRB. and final decision by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment.
2.
If the proposed addition or deletion relates to the Palo Alto Register, the request will
follow a similar path, but will be subject to final decision by the City Council rather
than the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Alteration Applications: In general, the framework for review of alteration
applications involves the staff and the HRB. acting as recommending bodies to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Director’s decisions can be
appealed to the City Council. Within this general framework, a number of distinct
types of development applications will exist, including minor and major alterations
for Resource List and Palo Alto Register properties.
o Demolition Applications: The demolition request process will be similar to that of
a deletion from the Resource List or Palo Alto Register, including review by the
HAB. for recommendation to the City Council.
Non-residential and multiple family development projects for properties on the
Resource List or the Palo Alto Register will be subject to the above-referenced
processes as well as the existing Architectural Review Board process, including
environmental review under CEQA. Both processes are subject to approval by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment.
CMR:259:99 Page 20 of 26
Transition from Interim Regulations
The urgency ordinance that was adopted by the City Council in February provides for those
properties that have been subject to the Interim Historic regulations, have been evaluated for
historic merit, deemed Contributing, and appear on the Resource List. This relatively small
group of properties has been allowed to proceed with and complete the compatibility review
process within a six-month period which ends on July 31, 1999. After this six-month period
expires, these properties will be subject only to the regulations of the new Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
Community_ Outreach
The implementation plan proposed for administering the historic ordinance provides owners
of historic properties with free professional assistance from an architectural preservation
specialist. These services will include design guidance, technical assistance and information
about local, state and national programs and benefits. The implementation plan also focuses
program resources on voluntary participation of property owners. Priority will be given to
working with property owners who want to nominate their property to the Palo Alto Register,
and with neighborhoods that want to form historic districts.
Ongoing Evaluation
During the initial stages of its implementation, the Historic Preservation Program will require
continual fine tuning and assessment. Staff will endeavor to understand the effectiveness of
the Program by developing opportunities for the public to provide comments and criticisms
of the Program and its associated processes. Staff will reach out to applicants during and
after processing, as well as to members of the community interested in the implementation
of new Ordinance. This outreach is expected to include public information workshops and
expanded educational material on the City’s Web page. Staff will return the City Council
in one year with a formal evaluation of program implementation.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW
Planning Commission ,
On April 14, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded comments to the
City Council on the above-referenced items. Specifically the Commission commented as
follows:
DEIR: The Commission provided suggestions to clarify various sections of the DEIR
and unanimously found that the DEIR was adequate in addressing the potential
adverse impacts relating to the Ordinance and that the DEIR satisfactorily considered
the associated alternatives to the proposed Ordinance and possible mitigation
measures. The Commission recommended that the City Council make a statement of
overriding consideration relating to the unavoidable adverse impacts detailed in the
CMR:259:99 Page 21 of 26
DEIR for the purpose of certifying the DEIR and adopting the draft Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
Chapter 18.18, Single family and two-family historic preservation incentives: The
Commission unanimously recommended that the Council adopt the incentives
package, including those development related incentives contained in the proposed
Chapter 18.18. The Commission made the following suggestions as to improvements
and/or clarifications to the text of Chapter 18.18:
The applicable definition and use of the terms "attic" and "basement" should
be clarified. ’
The floor area ratio (FAR) bonus should not allow any dwelling unit to exceed
the existing maximum floor area of 6,000 square feet in single family
residential zOning districts.
The scope of possible Historic Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) should
be clarified.
The second finding required to grant HIE’s should be reviewed and made more
general.
The purpose section of the Ordinance should be modified to reflect all of the
other historic preservation incentives that are proposed but are not included in
Chapter 18.18.
Historic Resources Board
On April 7 and April 21, 1999, the HRB. reviewed the revised DEIR and the Ordinance,
including the historic preservation incentives contained in the proposed Chapter 18.18. The
HAB. made the following comments/recommendations:
Recommended that the Council certify the DEIR as adequate in assessing unavoidable
impacts, discussing alternatives and proposing mitigation measures.
Recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance. The Board also suggested
that the section dealing with damage by natural disasters, property maintenance and
enforcement be reviewed by staff and clarified prior to Council adoption.
The Board recommended adoption of the proposed Chapter 18.18, Historic
Preservation Incentives. The Board also endorsed the comments of the Planning
Commission regarding Chapter 18.18.
CMR:259:99 Page 22 of 26
Suggested that the City be open to reviewing and modifying the Ordinance as needed
in the future.
Suggested that a photographic inventory be compiled of California Register-eligible
resources that area lost to demolition or alteration.
The majority of the comments made by the Planning Commission and Historic Resources
Board have been addressed in the Ordinance. Other suggestions will be incorporated as part
of the proposed Implementation Plan.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of the Historic Preservation Program will involve significant staff
resources, including the partial commitment of one existing part-time manager, one new full-
time historic preservation professional or "Historic Preservation Officer," one existing half-
time Associate Planner, one existing half-time support staff person and one-time costs
relating to computers, office space and supplies.
The "Historic Preservation Officer" is a new position that will become liaison to HRB. It is
expected that this position will be filled by a trained historic preservation specialist who is
well versed in the interpretation and application of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and who will be directly responsible for supervising the day-to-day tasks
under the new Historic Preservation Program. As the liaison to the Historic Resources
Board, this position will be the primary contact with the public and will also be responsible
for an ongoing program of public education, information and outreach. It is anticipated that
this program will include workshops with the general public on the application of the new
ordinance, architectural consultations, preliminary review of development applications and
the creation of guidelines for the Historic Preservation Program. This position is included
in the FY99/00 budget, and all efforts will be made to recruit and have a viable candidate for
this position in pl-ace in July 1999.
Estimated cost: $100,000.00 salary and benefits.
Twenty five percent of the time of the existing Planning Manager, who currently serves as
the liaison to the HRB and who manages the day-to-day activities of the HRB staff and
related consultant services, will be committed to the Program. It is expected that the
Planning Manager will serve more than 25 percent of his time until the Historic Preservation
Officer position is filled. This position will then supervise all Historic Preservation Program
staff.
Fifty percent of an existing Associate Planner will also be committed to the Program This
individual currently provides information on the Historic Preservation Program to the public;
CMR:259:99 Page 23 of 26
meets with applicants on a pre-application basis; schedules consultant services; accepts
applications, processes applications for staff and HRB, Director of Planning and Community
Environment and City Council review; prepares notices; prepares staff reports and collects
data. As with the Planning Manager, this position is expected to be used more than on a half-
time basis while the Historic Preservation Program is implemented.
A half-time support position is currently assigned to HRB and Historic Preservation staffand
will continue to provide support to the Historic Preservation Program. Duties include filing,
preparing notices and agendas, preparing minutes, meeting setup and breakdown, updating
logs, answering telephones, and assisting HRB staff in editing and finalizing reports and
other documents.
In addition to City staff, implementation of the Historic Preservation Program will require
extension of existing consultant contracts with Architectural Resource Group (ARG) and
Origins consulting services. These services will be used to provide services approximating
those of the Historic Preservation Officer until that position is filled. It is anticipated that the
existing contract allocations for these consultants will be sufficient to provide staff support
until the end of calendar 1999.
In addition to the above, there will be one-time costs for computer equipment for new
positions, office space and supplies not to exceed $5,000.
Per Council direction, no fees will be required for property assessments or for processing
development review applications. Demolition requests will continue to be processed on a
cost-recovery basis.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The staff-recommended Ordinance is consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan
Goals and Policies including, but not limited to, Goal L-7, Policies L-52, L-53, L-55 through
L-60 and Programs L-61 through L-69 of the Land Use and Community Design Element.
TIME LINE
If the City Council certifies the FEIR and approves the proposed ordinance at the June 7,
1999 Council meeting, second reading would occur at the June 21 City Council hearing, with
the Ordinance going into effect 30 days thereafteron July 22,1999. The Interim Regulations
now in effect will expire at the time the permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance takes
effect.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, PAMC Sections 16.49 and 18.18
CMR:259:99 Page 24 of 26
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Making
Certain Other Findings Required by CERA
Resolution Establishing the Palo Alto Register
Verbatim Minutes of the 4/7 and 4/21/Historic Resources Board Meetings
and the 4/14 Planning Commission Meetings
State Public Resources Code, Section #5028, Natural Disaster; and
definition of Imminent Threat
Resource List
Final and Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Historic
Preservation Ordinance (Council Members only - Appendices to DEIR sent
previously under separate cover)
PREPARED BY:Ed Gawf, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
George White, Planning Manager
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~~ ~
G. EDWARD GAWF
Director of Planning and Community Environment
EMIL½ HARRISON
PROJECT COORDINATOR: -
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City
Manager
cc:Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage
Palo Alto Historical Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
CMR:259:99 Page 25 of 26
Palo Alto Unified School District
Barron Park Association
College Terrace Residents Association
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association
Community Center Neighbors Association
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
Midtown Residents Association
Palo Verde Neighborhood Association
Ramona Homeowners Association
University Park Association
University South Neighborhoods Group
Ventura Neighborhood Association
John Paul Hanna
Palo Alto Homeowners Association
George Zimmerman
Architectural Resources Group
Origins Design Network
Carroll Harrington
Norman Beamer
Ann-Elise Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road
Monica Yeung-Arima
Members, Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Kent Stormer
CMR:259:99 Page 26 of 26
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING IN FULL CHAPTER 16.49 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE)
REGULA~IQNS_)_~,~...;:¢ADDING
STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY USES ONTHE PALO ALTO HISTORIC RE~ISTER)
EXCEPT.~ON.S ,’.:..AND~ ~ ,.:CONDo. !T’r.oN..AL CUSE,,.~ERMT TS)
The Council of the City of Palo Al~o does ORDAIN as follows:
The Council finds and declares:
A. The historic preservation ordinance of the City of
Palo Alt0 (Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) has not
been updated since 1986.
B. In 1996 the City Council directed that a new historic
preservation ordinance be prepared in conjunction with an extensive
survey of potential historic resources in the City.
C. On October 26, 1996, the City " Council adopted
Ordinance No. 4381, adding Chapter 16.50 ’ (Interim Historic
Ordinance) to the Municipal Code on an interim basis until a new
historic preservation ordinance could be prepared and adopted.
Ordinance No. 4381, as amended by Ordinances 4411, 4414, 4444, a~d
4491,’ expired on March 31, 1999.
~ouncl i ’..aoopt e~ .%~urgency ~urelnance ~
demol z t ion, :or~ :;damag zng .~= al terat z on ~.of ~:;~ ~t~ ..,~ Hz s~orzc ~:~rQpert-zes
during czrcula~zon,~nd ~:.revzew, of !?an ?;revzsed;;envzronmental:,;zmpactreport’~,_ and. , co~sid~’~ati6n < o~"~,[ ~a ,.;~e~anen£
ordinance?
D. This ordinance amending Chapter 16.49 and adding
Chapter 18.18 has been presented to and considered by the Historic
Resources Board; and the Planning Commission on ~p£~.:~i’~~-i9~’ and
was the sub3ect of a public hearing before the C~ty Counc~l on June
7, 1999.
E. This ordinance is adopted to promote the public
health, safety and welfare by furthering the purposes set forth in
Section 2 and Section 3, below..
.~’ Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
II
II
II
990528 lac 0090196r ’1 Draft:
16.49.010
CHAPTER 16.49
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Purpose.
Recognition, protection, enhancement, and use of
h~storically significant resources located within the city are of
great cultural, aesthetic, and economic benefit to the community.
To realize~these benefits and to implement the City’s Comprehensive
Plan goals, the purposes of this~hapter are to:
(a) Identify those structures, districts and other
historic resources that contribute to the heritage of Palo Alto;
(b) .Saf.eguard the heritage ~f the city by preserving
improvements ~and natural features that reflect significant elements
of the citY’S cultural history;~ ~
(c) Encourage public understanding of and involvement in
the unique architectural and environmental heritage of the city;
(d) Strengthen civic pride in the beauty and notable’
accomplishments of the past;
(e) Protect and enhance the city’s attractions to~
re$idents~ ~and visitors, and thereby supportand stimulate
business and industry and strengthen the economy of the city;
(f) Enhance the.visual and aesthetic character, diversity
and interest of the city;
(g) Promote the private and public use and preservation
of historic districts and structures for the education,~
appreciation ~nd general welfare of the people, in a manner
compatible with the continued codtemporary.use of property by its
owners;
(h) Conserve valuable material and energy resources by
ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment;
(i) Maintain, stabilize, and improve property values;
(j) Encourage and permit adaptive reuse of historic
resources as present-day homes and business sites while preserving
historic significance;
(k) Protect private property rights in a manner consistent
with the State and Federal Constitution;
(i) Implement the applicable goals, policies, and programs
of the Comprehensive Plan, and
(m) Fulfill the City’s responsibilities as a Certified
Local Government under federal preservation laws.
16.49.020 Definitions. Throughout this Chapter, the
following words and phrases, whether used in the singular or
plural, shall have the meanings set forth in this Section:
(a) "Alteration" means any change or modification to the
exterior of a building, _site, structure, or object which requires"
a permit under this Title or-Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of this
Code ~uh~L~t p=~,~it £~ ~, =it=~=tlu~, i~ Lh~ publi~
~i~hL u£ way u~,d~ TILl= i~ (~ubilu Wu~k~ =~d ULIIItI=~) u£ thi~
t~. Alteration does not include ordinary maintenance or repair
as prowided in Section 16.49.130 of this Chapter, nor does it
include landscape maintenance. For all proper.ties other than
single-family and two-family properties, alteration shall include
changes in paint color of buildings or structures and modification
or removal of site features such as grading, paving, signs, light
fixtures, street furniture, walls, fences, gate, steps, and uuLLI,~
~ ~=,~uv=l £~m6~&!~0£~j~iii~e~i~ of trees, hedges, and other
landscape features. ~
(b) "Demolition" means the removal of fifty percent (50%)’
or more of the exterior walls of a building~or~ structure.
Demolition includes the relocation of a building from one parcel of
land to another. Demolition does not include either i)the removal
and replacement in kind of deteriorated, non-repairable materials
required for the restoration and rehabilitation of the resource and
resulting in no change to its exterior appearance or historic
character, or ii) removal of non-historic features or additions
that may exist on a Historic Resource.
(c) ~Department" means the Department of Planning and
Community Environmentu~
(d) ~Director" means .the Director of Planning
Community Environment or his or her.designee.
and
(e) ~Heritage Property" means a Historic Resource tha~ the
City has designated for inclusion in the Palo Alto Register as an
individual property. It
Contr~butxng Resource~ ~n~a~<H~s~or~c ?~!strlct[~shal! ~be..regulate~ia~
a~.Heritage.Proper£y. It does not include properties for which a
Heritage Property designation been rescinded under Section
16.49.090 of this Chapter.
(f) ~Historic District" means a defined geographical area
containing a significant concentration of Historic ~Resources
unified historicglly, architecturally, or culturally, ~£~i~on-
contigu6us gr0up~ng~f~em~ti~ll~!~e~te’~ib~er~e~.~~ha~which
contribute .~to each~ other, that the City has designated for
inclusion in the Palo Alto Register as a Historic District.
(g) "Historic District Contributing Resource" means a
building, site, structure, or object within the boundaries of a
Historic District that adds to the historic, architectural,
990528 lac 0090196r 3 Dra~ CMR
cultural, or archaeological values for. ~which the district is
considered significant.
(h) ~Historic District Non-contributing Resource" means
a building, site, structure,or object within the boundaries of a
Historic District that does not add to the historic, architectural,
cultural, or archeologicai values for which the district is
considered significant because the resource:
(I) Was~not present during the period(s) of the
district’s historic significance; or
(2) No longer possesses historic integrity due to
alterations, disturbances, additions, or other changes.
(i) "Historic Integrity" means the ability of a resource
to convey its historical significance.
(j) "Historic Resource" means any improvement, building,
structure, natural feature, district, object or site .of historic
importance.
(k) ~Major Alteration" means an alteration of a Historic
Resource. that includes one or more of the following elements unless
the Director determines that proposed alteration is a Minor
Alteration.
(i)
(2)
the exterior walls;
Alteration of a street-facing facade;
Removal of more than twenty per cent (20%)of
(3) Addition to or enlargement of a structure above
the ~ ~i~ti-i~-~.~r~;
(4). The need for ’a variance or exception, other
than a Home Improvement Exception, from zoning or other City codes;
(5) Construction, relocation, or demolition of an
accessory structure of a type that requires a building permit for
initial construction; or
structure.
(6) Relocation within a site of a principal
(i) ~Majority of Property Owners" shall be determined by
allocating one vote to each developed parcel within the proposed
district. Provided, if adjacent assessor’s parcels are developed
as an integrated parcel, byT, for example, by construction of
buildings across parcel lines or within what would otherwise be a
required setback ~ area, those adjacent parcels shall be
treated as a single parcel.
(m) "Minor Alteration" means an alteration of a Historic
Resource which the Director determines is consistent with the
990528 lac 0090196r "4 Draf~ CMR
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and.
therefore does not have an adverse impact on the historic integrity
of the Historic Resource. There is a rebuttable presumption that
an alteration of a single-family or two-family resource is minor
if:
(1)It does not alter a street-facing facade;
(2) It does not remove more than twenty percent
(20%) of the exterior walls;
(3) It does not add to or enlarge the structure
above the ~uu~d £1~u~ I~i’[9~£~[~i~;
(4)It does not requir~ a variance;
(5)It does not construct, relocate, or demolish.an
accessory structure of the type that requires a building permit for
initial construction, and
(6) It does not relocate a principal structure.
(n) "Palo Alto Historic Register"~or ~Palo Alto Register"
means the list of officially designated Heritage Properties and
Historic Districts for the City of Palo Alto.
(o) ~Resource L~st" means a list of Historic Resources
which may upon further study pursuant to the criteria and
procedures set-forth in this chapter qualify for inclusion.on the
Palo Alto Register.
(p) "Secretary of the Interior’s Standards .for
Rehabilitation" means the Secretary of the United States Department
of the Interior’s Standards for- Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings, issued by the National Park Service (36 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 67), together with the accompanying interpretive
Guidelines-for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as they may be
amended from time to time.
(q) ~State Historical Building Code" means Part 2.7 of the
California Health and Safety Code, commencing with Sect±on 18950,
and the regulations promulgated thereunder, as they may be amended
from time to time (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, Part 8).
(r) ~Street-facing facade" means any exterior wall of a
structure which faces a public street, not including an alley, and
the portion of the attached exterior walls and roof within fifteen
(15) feet¯ of the street-facing side of the structure. All
structures, other than accessory structures, shall be treated as
having at least one street-facing facade.
16.49.030 Historic Resources Board. There shall be a
historic resources board appointed by the city council and serving
without pay.
990528 la~ 0090196r 5 Draf~ CMR
(a) Membership. The historic resources board shall be
composed of seven (7) members who shall have demonstrated interest
in and knowledge of historic preservation. Such interest and
knowledge may be demonstrated by professional experience in
architectural history, arche~logy,.~planning, history, architecture,
or other historic-preservation related disciplines. Lay members"
-shall have special interest, knowledge,_ or~._experience in
preservation-related fields. In making appointments~ the Council
will ~seek to find members .who represent a diverse -range of
disciplines~-. Three (3) of the members shall be architects,
landscape architects, building designers or other design
professionals. One-(I~ member.shall be an owner or occupant of~a
structure on the Palo Alto Register.
(b) Terms of Office. Members shall serve for terms of
three years and until their~respective successors are appointed.
Terms shall be staggered so that three positions are.refilled one
year, and four positions are refilled two ~years later. Terms of
office commence June i.
(c)~ Appointment. The following procedures shall be
followed by the city council when filling vacancies on the historic
resources board:
(I) Following notification of vacancy or pending
vacancy on the. historic resources board, the city clerk shall
advertise the same in a newspaper of general circulation, in the
city, including the council agenda digest, four times within two
weeks.
(2) Written nominations and applications shall be
submitted to the city.clerk within such two week period, to be
forwarded to the city ~council for its consideration.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the nomination or application of
an incumbent historic resources board member is not submitted to
the city clerk within the period specified above, said period shall
be extended for an additional five days during which the city clerk
shall accept written nominations and applications of’ non-
incumbents.
(3) The city council shall review allnominations
and applications, and conduct such interviews as it deems
necessary prior to selection. Final selection and appointment
shall be made by the city council at a regular city council meeting
after the period for submittal of nominations and applications has
expired.
(d) Organization. The historic resources board shall hold
regular meetings twice monthly and shall establish a regular time
and place for such meetings. Special meetings may be called by the
chairperson or by a majority of the historic resources board, in
accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The
historic resources board may adopt such rules as may be appropriate
and necessary for the orderly conduct of its business. In January
of each year the historic resources board shall elect a chairperson
and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall serve in such
capacity for terms of one year each. The chairperson shall.preside
over meetings of the historic resources board, and in the absence
or disability of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall
perform the duties of the chairperson.
Four members shall_ constitute a quorum and decisions of the
historic resources board shall be determined by majority vote of
those members present .at the meeting. Minutes shall be kept by the
historic resources- board. -
(e) Duties. It is the ,duty of the historic resources
board to :
(i) Recommend to the council the designation of
Historic Resources for inclusion on the Palo Alto Register;
(2) ~. Recommend to the Director the designation of
Historic Resources’for inclusion on the Resource List;
(3) Evaluate .and make recommendations to council
on applications for Demolition of~resources included on the Palo
Alto Register;
(4) Advise the Director on applicat±ons for Major
Alterations to Resources included on the Palo Alto Register;
(5) When an applicationfor Demolition of a
property on the Resource List is filed, advise the Director whether
the property should be referred to the council for possible
designation as a Heritage Property and, in cases where such
referral is made, to advise the council whether the property should
be designated as a Heritage Property;
(6) ~When an application for a Major Alteration to
a property on the Resource List is filed, and the applicant elects
to carry out the Major Alteration in a way that the Director has
determined to be inconsistent with the Secretary~of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation, advise the Director whether the
property should be referred to the council for possible designation
as a Hgritage Property, and in cases where such referral is made,
advise~the council whether the property should be designated as a
Heritage Property.
(7) Advise the Director on the compatibility Of
Major Alterations to, or replacement structures for., Historic
District Non-contributing Resources;
(8) Advise the Director on applications for
Historic Home Improvement Exceptions under the procedures in
Chapter 18.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code;
(9) Upon request of the Director or other City
officials, make recommendations regarding activities to be carried
out within or by the City which could potentially affect Historic
Resources.
990528 ia~ 0090196r 7 Draf~ CMR
(I0) Review and comment on application for historic
preservation tax incentives.
(Ii) Review. and comment on drift environmental
impact reports and proposed negative declarations involving
historic resources.
(12) Advise the council regarding actions.deemed
appropriate to further the purposes of this Chapter and the
Comprehensive Plan policies concerning historic preservation.
(13) Participate in City .efforts to educate the
public and property owners regarding the Palo Alto Rggister, the
requirements of this Chapter, and the importance of Palo Alto’s
heritage to the continued social and economic well-being of the
community.
(14) Research available information as appropriate
in order to maintain the accuracy of the City’s records with
respect to the Palo Alto Register, the Resource List, and other
~Historic Resources..
(15) Conduct an annual retreat as an open meeting to
discuss issues related to the business and procedures of the
historic resources board.
(16) Perform such other functions
deiegated from time to time by the city council.
as may be
16.49.040 Promulgation of Written Historic~ Preservation
Guidelines Authorized. The Director is authorized to promulgate
written historic guidelines and code interpretations to facilitate
implementation of this chapter. The guidelines and code
interpretations may include additional standards, time lines for
decision making, and interpretive guides. The guidelines and code
interpretations shall be published and made available to the
public. The historic resources board shall review, and make
recommendations to the Director on, proposed g~idelines and code
interpretations before publication.
16.49.050 Palo Alto Register.
The Director shall maintain and make available for public
review the Palo Alto Register. The Palo Alto Register shall
comprise those Historic Resources:
(i) Which were identified as Category~ 1 or 2
~significant buildings" under Chapter 16.49 prior to December i,
1996, which are hereby designated asHeritage Properties;
(ii) Those additional Historic Resources designated
as Heritage Properties by resolution of the city council pursuant
to Section 16.49.080;
(iii) The Professorville and Ramona Street Historic
Districts as ~ shown in Exhibits A and B;
990521~ la¢ 0090196r 8 Draft CMR
(iv) Those additional Historic Districts designated
by resolution of the city council pursuant to Section 16.49.085.
When the designation of a Historic R~source as a Heritage Property
is rescinded by the city council pursuant to Section 16.49. 090 it
shall be removed from the Palo Alto Register.
16.49.060 Designation Criteria for Heritage Properties.
(a~ .......!f._~.~pr9p@~y__o._wn_.er requests designation of m--E-~st~rrbz
R~s~xrr~ ~st~or.Qh~prope~ty ~as a Heritage Property, the city
council shall grant .the request if, in the’ opinion of the city
council:
(i) The resource meets the criteria for inclusion
in the California Register of Historical Resources as set forth in.
Public ResourcesCode Section 5024.1;(~) Th~ ~uu~= ~nd
possesses integrity of those features necessary ~to .convey its
historic significance, taking into consideration its Iocation,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association and
other relevant factors; and
(~) The city ~council finds that designation of the
Resource as a Heritage Property will meet the intent of the
policies, of the Comprehensive Plan.
A Hi~Lu~iu R~uu~u~ ~~6~ submitted for designation as a
Heritage Property by .the owner shall be presumed to meet these
criteria unless substantial evidence to the contrary is received.
(i) After considering National Register Bulletin
15, ~How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,~
as it may be amended from time to time, it is the opinion of the
city council that:
i. The resource is associate~ with
events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of history; or
ii. The resource is associated with the
lives of persons significant in the past; or
iii. The resource embodies th~ distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or
possesses high artistic values; or
990528 lac 0090196r 9 Draft CMR
iv. The resource .has y~elded, or .is
likely to yield, informati~on important in prehistory or
history; and
(2) ’ - The resource possesses integrity of those~
features necessary to convey its historic significance, taking into
consideration its locatio~, design, setting, .materials,
workmanship, feeling, association and other relevant factors; and
(3) The council finds that designation of the
Historical Resource as a Heritage Property would meet the d.ntent of
the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
16.49.070 Designation Criteria for Historic Districts.
A proposed- Historic District must meet the following
criteria in order to be added to the Palo Alto Register by the City
Council:
(a)the proposed district is definable area possessing a
significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites,
buildings-,structures, or objects united historically or
aesthetically by plan or physical development, or a noncontiguous
grouping of thematically related properties which contribute to
each other, and
(b) the proposed district is of importance to the history
of the City, state, or. nation for historical, architectural,
archaeological, engineering, or cultural values, and
(c) a majority of the property owners within the proposed
Historic District have not objected to formation of the Historic
District. ~
16.49.080 Designation Procedures for Heritage Properties.
(a) ~ Fo~propert~es.~,on.~.the~Respurce3~L~st, the
Director, city council or the historic resources board, may apply
for designation of a Resource List property as a Heritage Property.
99o~2s ~¢ ~0m6r 10 I2a~ CMR
!(’6~. ~nTy’-~p~i:i~’~ for designation shall be filed with
the department in the form ~pecified by the Director. ~=ppli~=tlu~ Ai~~i.~’_~a~i~s shall be reviewed by the historic
resources board, which will make its recommendation to the council,
unless it is determined by the Director that the application should
not be processed because a similar application has been reviewed
and denied within the past two years or because it can be
determined from the application that the proposed designation
cannot be supported. De~i~**=tlu~ ~u~t b~ ~pp~uv=d b~ th~ ult~
uuu~ull City council action to approve a designation shall-be by
resolution.
(c)~’~)~! Each proposal,shall.:be considered by the historic
resources board at a public hearing scheduled within forty-five
(45) days of date when the Director has found the application for
designation to be complete.- The HRB may continue the hearing from
time to time as it deems appropriate. ~
(d)~e~)i Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing
shall be given.at least twelve days .prior to the date: of the
hearing by publication at~east, once in a newspaper .of general
c~rculat~on,~by!~hc.e~f~.~~~h~,wner~Qf.2~e~Qrd.~h~
~£~p~t~,:~iand~by first class mail to the-applicant and the owners
of record of property within three hundred feet of the exterior
boundary of the property which is the subject of the application,
as such owners are shown on the last equalized assessment roll.
(~)~(~’).i The historic resources board shall, based upon the
criteria set forth in Section~-16.49.060 recommend to the city
council approval, disapproval or modification of an application for
designation. Application by the owner for designation of a
resource as a Heritage Property ’shall be presumed to meet the
criteria of Section 16.49.060 unless~substantial evidence to the
contrary is received-.~ Such applications shall be given priority in
establishing h~aring dates.
(9~)- Following receipt of the~ recommendation ~f the
historic resources board, the city council shall conduct a public
hearing on the application, which shall be noticed in the manner
provided for the historic resources board hearing. The city
council may approve, disapprove or modify a recommendation for
designation. A decision to designate a Historic Resource shall be
made by resolution.
(~h) No .building, .~de~olitiqn, ....?r o99her .~City pe_rmit~ for ~a~change~..that~.would.~constlt~’~..~an..i..Alt’er~tion.~0r
Demo!it~ion of a proposed Heritage Property shall be issued while
the application for designation is pending.
Alteratlon.-may, be .approvedunder the:procedures ~and.:.standards ’.of
Section 16.49.130,while anapplicatio~,.for, designation is ’pending.
Exceptions may also be considered and approved by the Director when
the work covered by the permit is deemed necessary:
(I) To shore, support, brace, or otherwise
stabilize a structure or property which is structurally unsafe and
990528 I~ 0090196r 11 Draft CMP,
posesa hazard to occupants, the adjoining property, or the public;
or
(2) To protect the structure~ or property from
damage Or deterioration which could adversely affect its historic
~significance and integrity.
~h~" After council approval of a resolution designating
a Historic Resource or Resources as a Heritage Property the city
clerk shall, within ten (i0) days, send to the owners of the
property so designated, by certified mail, notice of the
designation and a copy of this Chapter ~d ~d = ~=~Li~i~d ~up~
~j) After council approval of a resolution designating a
Heritage Property, the Director shall add the resource to the Palo
Alto Register and shall notify the chief building official and
chief planning official.
16.49.085 Designation Procedures for Hist6ric Districtso~
(a) Any individual or group, including but not limited to
a property owner, the Director, city council or the historic
resources~ar~,.o~ay apply for-designation of a group of Historic~ Resources as a Historic District. Any such application
shall be reviewed by the historic resources board, which will make
its recommendation to the council, unless it is determined by the
Director that the application should not be processed because a
similar application has been reviewed and denied within the past
two years or because it can be determinedfrom the application that
the proposed designation cannot be-supported.
(b) Any ~pplication for designation shall be filed with
the department, in the form specified by the Director. Each
building within a proposed Historic District must~be identified as
aproposed. Contributing Resource or Non-Contributing Resource.
(c) Each proposal shall be considered by the historic
resources board at a public hearing scheduled within sixty (60)
days of date when the Director has found the application for
designation to be complete. The historic resources board may
continue the hearing from time to time as it deems appropriate.
(d) Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing
shall be given at least twelve _days prior to the date of the
hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation, by~certified.-mail to the owners of record within the
proposed district and by first class mail to the applicant and to
the owners of record of property within three hundred feet of the
exterior boundary of the proposed district,- as such owhers are
shown on the last equalized assessment roll. The historic resources
board may continue the hearing from time to time as it deems
approPriate.
(e) The historic resources board shall, based upon the
criteria set forth in Section 16.49.070, recommend to the city
990528 lac 0090196r 1 2 Dral~ CMR.
council approval, disapproval or modification, of an application for
designation.
(f) "Following receipt of the recommendation of the
historic resources board, the-city council shall conduct a public
hearing on the application, which shall be noticed in the manner
provided for thehistoric resources board h~aring. The city
council may approve, disapprove or modify a recommendation for-
designation. A ~decis!~n~to designate an area as a Historic
District andLad~l~tQ~:ith~a~o~iAlto~eglster.~shall be made by
resolution and shall include the identification of each property as
a Contributing Resource or Non-contributing Resource.
(g) ~After council approval of a resolution designating a
Historic Resource or Resources as a Historic District the city
clerk shall, within ~en (I0) daysT
(i) S=~,d..~s~nd to the owners of the property so
designated, by first class mail, notice of~ the~designation and a
copy of this Chapter; =~d ~
Ex~p~i~h~71"~-~+~ta~E~"~e-°~6~<~r°’~’-’, ., , ., -slsered,~,andT,Tapproved,-by~;<the" .......--~’< .......’ .......................~ .....
Director when .the~workl-.~o~ered,by-.<the2pe~mit~is.deemed necessary:
~(i) .To ,-.shore,’ t..=.support, ;w_;~brace, .<.;:or .,;+otherwlse
Sh~abi~l i ze ~ St ruc~’hr~"; Or..Pr0P’ertyi!.whi Ch > i~ :.st>ructural ly _~;’,unsafe ,ahd
poses a hazard to~:_occupants,-7~.the .ad3olnlng property,.; or the.publlc;
or
(2! , ~o’. ~p£~~~’" the ~-~-~~6~e ;i~: ,pr,~,perhy; fr,omdamage or deterlora~ion-which’~could .~adv~.erse’ly..,aff.ect [Its,lhi_~torlc
significance nd,;,integrlty ~’,
~J0~lll I~ 00~0196r .I 3 Draft CMR
~)’ After council approval of a resolution designating a
Historic District, the Director shall add the District to the Palo
Alto Register and shall notify the chief building official and
chief planning official.
16.49.090 Rescission of "Designation. The Council may-
rescind the designation of any Heritage Property, or Historic
District, or reclassify a Historic District Contributing Resource
as a Non-contributing Resource, upon finding that the Heritage
Property, District, or Contributing Resou;ge in question no longer
meets the criteria ford~rb~m-~i~s~d.:~fo~.!ts~deslgnatlon~to~the’ ’ ~ ....~"~ .....~°~ ....~ ....’ ....~"’~"~ .........: .....
!i~’. The procedure for rescission of a designation shall be the
same as for the initial designation, as set forth in Section
16.49.080 for Heritage Properties and Contributing Resources or
16.49.~085 for Historic Districts. Provided, in reclassifying a
Contributing Resource, notice shall be given to properties within
the Historic District and within 300 feet of the property proposed
for reclassification< ~ ~
16.49.100 Use of Palo Alto Register. In addition to use
of the Palo Alto Register ("Register") for the purposes of
application of this Chapter, the Register_~hall~he used as follows:
(a) Resources on the Register, with the exception of
Historic District Non-contributing Resources, shall be deemed to be
~qualified.properties" for the purpose of application of the State
Historical Building Code and Section 16.04.310 Of this Code.
(b) The Register shall be deemed to be the local register
of historic resources for the purpose, of application of Public
Resources Code. section 5028 concerning natural disasters, and
Public Resources Code section 21084.1 concerning environmental
assessment of substantial adverse change in ~he significance of
Historic Resources.°~ The fact that a resource is not included on
the Register shall not preclude the City from determining whether
the resource may be a Historic Resource for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act (PuSlic Resources Code section
21000, et-seq.)
(c) The Register shall be deemed to be a local inventory
of historic places in a city with a state-certified historic
preservation program within the meaning of 44 Code of Federal
Regulations 59.1 as it pertains to repair or rehabilitation of
historic structures in applying the national flood insurance
program.
16.49.110 Resource List.
(a) The Director shall establish and maintain a list of
potential historical resources, which may, upon study, qualify for
inclusion on the Palo Alto Register. The list shall include the
following:
(I) Resources which have been identified as
Category 3 or 4 "contributing buildings" under Chapter 16.~9 of the
990528 lac 0090196r 14 Dm~ CMR
Palo Alto Municipal Code on or before March 31, 1999 and which are
not located within a Historic District;
(2)- Resources identified as
former Chapter 16.50 before March 31, 1999;
"landmarks" under
(3) Resources identified as potentially eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in the
Dames and Moore study dated January 22, 1999 and-on file in the
office of the City Clerk;
(4) Other comparable resources subsequently
identified by the director ~rr,~a~~ew by the historic
resources board, on the~ basis~ of competent evidence from a
qualified historian or architect, as potentially .eligible for
inclusion in the Palo Alto Register under the criteria of Section
16.49.060 (b) (I) (i}-(iv). No resource shall be added to the
~u~= li~t ~e~e~L~i~-without prior written notificati’on
~rtifi~d~ma~<to the property owner as shown on~the’most~ recent
assessor’s roll.
(b) ~ The owner of any property on the Resource List may at
any time request .a determination that the property is of
insufficient historic merit to be added to the Palo Alto Register
under the criteria of Section 16.49.060(b). If the Director
determines, after review-and recommendation by the historic
resources board, that a property on the Resource- List has no
potential for future inclusion on the Palo Alto Register under
Section 16.49.060 (b), the Director shall remove the-property from
the Resource List. The determination shall be made within 90 days
after an application, in the form required by the Direct~, is deemed
complete. This determination shall not disqualify the property for
subsequent inclusion on the Palo Alto Register at the owner’s
request.No .fee shall be charged for the application or its
review.<
(c)Any.properties on the Resource List which are
~n added to the Palo Alto Register shall also be removed from the
Resource List.
(d) The Director and other City officials shall consult
this list when conducting environmental analyses of public and
private projects pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
(e) Resources on the Resource List~shall be deemed to be
"qualified properties" for the purpose of application of the State
Historical Building Code and Section 16.04.310 of this Code.
16.49".120 Compliance with Chapter Required.
It shall be unlawful for any person to tear down, demolish,
construct, alter, remove, or relocate any improvement or other
resource which is on the Resource List or Palo Alto Register
except as permitted in this Chapter, and in full compliance with
the requirements of this Chapter, any implementing regulations or
code interpretations adopted pursuant to Section 16.49.040, and any
approvals granted pursuant to this Chapter.
16.49.130 Alteration of Heritage Properties.
(a) No person shall demolish ~a Heritage Property,
or cause or permit such demolition ~ to be done, nor
shall any permit for such work be issued unless the ’ ’
alteration has been approved bythe City in accordance with this
chapter.
(b) No city permits of any kind shall be issued with
respeCt~to a Major Alteration of a Heritage Property unless such
permits are in compliance with any modifications, conditions or
other requirements~determined by the Director, after review by the
historic resources board, to be necessary to assure ~
~b~~ai--~~~ with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation.
(c) Applications for an alteration of aHeritage Property
shall be made to the Department on a form provided by the Director.
There shall be no fee for review P~i.a..~P!PPP~.e~ ~er~’Q~iunder
this Chapter. Applications shall include all information specified
by the Director. ’
(d) Within ten (I0) working days of determining that an
application is complete, the Director shall ~) determine if the
proposed project qualifies as maintenance or repair exempt from
review under this chapter, ’a Major Alteration, a Minor Alteration,
or a Demolition; and ii) send notice to the applicant of the
determination. If ~the Director determines that the proposed
alteration is ~a Demolition, it shall be reviewed as provided in
section 16.49.140. Within ten (I0) days after notice is sent, the
applicant may request historic resources board review of the
Director’s determination ’ ° . If the
Director does not alter the decision after historic resources board
review, there shall be no further appeal.
(e) Maintenance and repair exempt from review~under this
chapter includes i) any modifications to the interior of a
building; and ii) any maintenance or repair of exterior features
that does nor require a building permit and does not involve change
in design, material, color or exterior appearance. For single-
family and two-family properties, ~maintenance exempt from review
includes the repainting.of previously painted surfaces, regardless
of color.
(f) The Director may utilize the services of an expert
consultant to the City where necessary to evaluate an application,
at the expense of the applicant if the proposed alteration is a
Major Alteration and the Historic Resource is neither a single-
family nor two-family use.
990528 la¢ 0090196r "16 Draf~ CMR
(~) A Minor Alteration shall be subject to review by the
Director for the purpose of. Providing cooperative and constructive
information to the property owner about alternative methods of
complying with the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for
Rehabilitation. The Director’s comments and suggestions shall be
provided in~mor more than two reviews, without requesting multiple
resubmittals unless additional resubmittal and review is desired by
the property owner. Compliance with the Director’s suggestions and
recommendations is voluntary. An application may be disapproved
only if it ~)violates a provision of Title 18 (the Zoning
Ordinance); ii) violates a provision of Title 16 other (Building
Regulations) other than those contained~in this Chapter 16.49. The
review shall be conducted under the procedures of ~z~-bi~n~!~_~
16 .49.190.
(~) A Major Alteration shall be reviewed by the historic
resources board as provided in Section 16.49.180. ~
California E I~,L~’.
16.49.135 Finding Required
Alterations of Heritage Properties.
for Approval of Major
(a) Afte~-review of the application by the historic
resources board, the Director] and city council on appeal, shall
have the authority to modify a proposed Major Alteration of a
Heritage Property, or impose reasonable.conditions and requirements
as needed,-in order to assure compliance with this chapter.
(b) . The following findings, based on substantial
evidence in the record, must be made by the historic resources
board, or by the city council on appeal] in order to approve a
Major Alteration of a Heritage Property:
(i) The alterations, subject to any conditions
imposed upon the approval, will not result in a substantial adverse
change in the significance of the Historic Resource; and
(2) The proposed alterations have been
reviewed in light of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation; and
(3) Th= alL=~=tiu~= ~ill b~ uu~i~t~t ~re in
substantial compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation.
990528 lac 0090196r 17 Drat~ CMR
16.49.140 Demolition of Heritage Properties.
(a) ~ No person shall demolish a Heritage Property, or cause
or permit such demolition to be done, nor~shall any permit for such
demolition be issued unless the demolition has been approved by ~the
City in accordance with this chapter.
(b) Applications for demolition of a Heritage Property
shall be made t6 the Department on a form provided by the Director,
accompanied by the fee set forth in the municipal fee schedule.
Applications shall include all information specified by the
Director. ~:
(2)A Heritage Property may be demolished if:
(I) The Chief Building Official or the Fire Chief
.has determined that an imminent safety hazard exists and that
demolition of the structure is the only feasible means to secure
the public safety; or~-
(2)~ The city council finds, after review and
;recommendation ~rom the historic resources board, that maintenance,
use and/or alteration of the resource in accordance with the
requirementsOf this Chapter would cause immediate and substantial
hardship on the property owner(s) because rehabilitation in a
manner which preserves the historic integrity of.the resource:
(i)Is infeasible from a technical, mechanical,
or structural standpoint, and/or
(ii) Would leave the property with no
reasonable economic value because it would require an unreasonable
expenditure taking into account such factors as current market
value, permitted uses of the property, the value of transferable
development rights_and the cost of compliance with applicable
local, state, and federal codes.
Costs necessitated by the neglect or failure of the current
owner(s) to maintain ’the property ~ need not be taken into
consideration in making this finding, or
(3) The City council finds, after review and
recommendation from the historic resources board, that retention of
990528 lac 0090196r 1 [3 Draf~ CMR
the Heritage Property in its.present location would prevent the
substantial furtherance of a competing Comprehensive Plan goal.
,. ~i~ °The application shall be reviewed under the procedures
set forth in-section 16.49.180.
~-16.49.150 Major Al~eration of Resource List
Properties.
(a) No person shall perform or cause to be performed a
Major Alteration of a Historic Resource identified on the Resource
List without first applying for and obtaining ,the director’s
review certification¯ for the proposed Major Alteration~,_in
accordance with this section -~
(b) Application for the director’s review of a Major
Alteration of a Resources List shall be made to the Department on
a form provided by the director;
(c) The Director’s review shall b~ for °the purpose of
providing cooperative and constructive informa~ion~to the property
owner about whether the proposed Major Alterations meet the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. ~If the
proposed MajorAlteration does not comply with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the Director shall suggest
and recommend design alterations that would eliminate or minimize
the areas of non-compliance. The Director shall provide
suggestions and recommendations in no more than two reviews,
without requesting multiple resubmittals unless resubmittal and
additional review is desired by the property owner.
(d) Compliance with the
recommendations shall be voluntary
Director’s review certification.
Director’s suggestions and
following issuance of the
(e) Major Alteration Delay. If the Director determines
that the ~proposed alterations ~~ ~L ~.~i~t~t ~ith Lh~
S~L=~ ~ SL=.d=~d~ =~,d may result in ~ub~t~.t~l slgn~flcant
adverse change in the ~i~ifi~=.u= ~i~h6ri6~:~i~h-~g£i~y of the
resource, issuance of the Director’s review certification for
Major Alteration of a Historic Resource included on the Resource
List will be delayed to permit the City to determine whether the
Historic Resource should be designated as a Heritage Property. The
delay may be ~up to six months in length, but shall be no longer
than is necessary to complete the determination.
(f)
16.49.190.
The procedure for review shall be that in Section
16.49".155 Demolition of Resource List Properties.
D=,.oIILIu. D=Iay. The issuance of a demolition permit for
a Historic Resource included on the ResodrceList will be delayed
to permit the City to determine whether the Historic Resource
should be designated as a Heritage Property. The delay may be up
to ~ six months in length, but shall be no longer than is
990528 lac 0090196r 1 9 Dral~ CMR
necessary to complete the determination. The procedure for
designation shall be that set forth in section 16.49.080. If the
council decides not to designate the property as a Heritage
Property, it shall be removed from the Resource List.
16.49.160 Major Alterations of Contributing Resources in-
Historic Districts.
Alteration of Contributing Resources in Historic Districts
shall be regulated inthe same manner as Alterations to Heritage
Properties.
/16.49.165 Demolition and Replacement of Contributing
Resources in Historic Districts.
(a) No person sh~ll demolish a contributing Resource in
a Historic District, or cause or permit such demolition to be done,
nor shall any permit for such demolition be issued unless the
demolition has been ~approved by the City in accordance with this
chapter.
(b) Applications for demolition ~of a Contributing Resource
shall be made to the Department on a form provided by the Director,
accompanied by the fee set forth in the municipal fee schedule.
Applications shall include all information specified by the
Director.
(d) The
uf Lh= C=llfu~i=E~v~u~m=~=~’ ’ ~~u=~ ~ ~y ~u~ .(=~ ..........~=~uu~u=~ Cud=
S=utlu~’~ 21000 ~t’~=~.)
(d)A Contributing Resource may be demolished if:
(I) The Chief Building Officia! or the Fire Chief
has determined that an imminent safety hazard exists and that
demolition of the structure is the only feasible means to secure
the public safety; or
(2) The city council finds, after review" and
recommendation from the historic resources board, that maintenance,
use and/or alteration of the resource in accordance with the
requirements of this Chapter would cause immediate and substantial
hardship on the property owner(s) because rehabilitation in a
manner which preserves the historic integrity of the resource:
(i) Is infeasible from
mechanical, or structural standpoint, and/or
a technical,
990528 lae 0090196r 2 0 ~Drat~ CMR
(ii) Would leave the property with no
reasonable economic value because it would require an unreasonable
expenditure taking into account such factors as current market
value,, permitted uses of the property, ~the value of transferable
development rights and +the "cost of compliance with applicable
local, state, and federal codes.
Costs necessitated by the neglect or failure of the. current
owner(s) to maintain the property ~h=il ~d not be considered in
making this finding; or ..
(3) The-demol-ition~ of the Contributing Resource
will not have° a substantial~ adverse impact on the historic
significance or integrity of the District.
(~) The appiication shall be reviewed under the~procedures
-se£-forth in section16.49.180.
(~,) ~Thereplacement structure shall be regulated in the
same manner as replacements of non-contributing structuresJ~
16.49.170 Major Alteration or Replacement of Non-
contributing Resources inHistoric Districts.
(a) No person shall perform Or cause tO be performed a
Major Alteration or Demolition and replacement of a Non-
contributing Resource in a historic district without historic .
resources board review of the proposed Major Alteration or
replacement structure in accordance with this section.
(b) Application for historic resources board review of a
Major Alteration or ~Demolition and replacement of a Non-
contributing Resource in a Historic District shall be made to the
Department on ~.for~provi~ed by the Director.
(c) Historic resources board review of a Major Alteration
shall be for the purpose of providing cooperative and constructive
information to the property owner about whether the proposed Major
Alteration is compatible with the Historic District. If the
proposed Major Alteration is not compatible with the Historic
District, the historic resources.board shall suggest and recommend
design alterations that would eliminate or minimize the areas of
incompatibility. The historic resources board shall provide its
suggestions and-recommendations in not more than two reviews,
without requesting submittals un}ess resubmittal and. additional
review is desired by the property owner. Compliance with historic
resources board suggestions and recommendations shall be voluntary.
(d) .Historic resources board review of a Demolition and
-replacement shall be for the purpose of determining whether the
proposed replacement structure or structures are compatible with
the Historic District and do not have an adverse affect on other
properties in the vicinity. The new structure need not imitate
the architecture of the district but shall be
designed to bei~com~i~ib~e with the District in terms of scale,
size, material, color and texture. If the proposed replacement
990528 la~ 0090196r 21 Draft CMR
structures meet these standards, the historic resources board
shall-recommend to the Director approval of the project. If either
standard is not met, the historic resources board shall recommend
to the Director either approval, denial, or approval with
conditions and modificationsthat-will permit the project to meet
these standards. Compliance with conditions and modifications is"
mandatory.
16.49.180 Historic Resources Board Review.-
(a) Each application for a Major Alteration or Demolition
of a Heritage Property or any~property within a Historic. District
shall be considered..byJthe historic resources board at a public
hearing. The historic’resources board may continue the hearing as
it deems appropriate. ’~
(b) Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing
shall be given at least twelve days prior to’the date of the
hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation, =~,d b~ £1~t ~i=~ La=il t~ th~ =p~li~=~t, by,<certlfled
mall to the ownez (~) u£ Lh~ ~u~=~t~,~of,~record~of ~,the~property,~
and i,by~[,[f!rst-lhcl~a~ss~i[m~A!~Qi~he~app!A~a~t~ and to the owners of
property within three hundred (300) feet of the site, as shown on
the most recent equalized assessment role.
(c) The historic resources board, based Upon the
appropriate findings, recommend to ~the Director. approval or
disapproval of the application, and any appropriate conditions.
(d) Following receipt of the recommendation" of the
.historic resources board, the Director shall either accept the
historic resources board’s recommendation and act upon the
application accordingly, or return the application to the historic
resources board within thirty~ (30) days for reconsideration.
Following any ~econsideration, the Director shall act upon the
application, and may approve, disapprove or modify the historic
resources board’s recommendation.
(e) The Director’s written findings and notice of decision
shall be delivered to the applicant by mail.
~(f) The applicant shall bear the burden of proof for all
findings required for approval of an application for Demolition or
Major Alteration under this Chapter. ._
16.49.190 Director’s Decision Making.
(a) Each application for which this chapter requires the
Director’s review shall be considered by the Director unless the
applicant requests the application to be considered by the historic
resources board.
(b) No hearing shall be required unless consideration by
the Historic resources board is requested by the applicant. Notice
of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be given at
least twelve days prior to the date of the hearing by publication
990528 ia¢ 0090196r 2 2 Draf[ CMR
at least once in a newspaper of g~neral circulation, and by first
class mail to the applicant, to the owner(s) of the property, and
to the owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
site. ~-~. -~
(c) The Director shall, based upon the appropriate
~findings, approve or disapprove the application, and shall attach
any appropriate conditions.
(d) The Director’s written findings and notice of decision
shall be delivered to the applicant by mail.
16.49.200 Appeals.
(a) ~Ty Ex~ep_t~as~r.~o~!ded~n~Se_c~t!.on~:~6.~49.~i~(d).~!~ ;~ ,any
person aggrieved by the action of the Director or ~ historic
resources board may file an appeal with the city council. An
appeal of an action on a major project shall be filed not later
than eight working days after the effective date of the Director’s
decision and action on a project. An appeal of an action on a
minor project shall be filed not~ later than four working days
following the effective date of the Director’s decision and action
on a project. Any such appeal shall be filed in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.93.
(b) Any appeal shall be filed with the city clerk.~There
shall be no fee.
(c) The counci~ may reverse or affirm wholly or partly,
or may modify any decision,, determination, or requirement of the
Director, and may make such decision or determination or may impose
such conditions as the facts warrant with respect to the appeal and
to the determination appealed, and the decision or determination of
the council shall be final.
(d) The decision of the council shall be effective
immediately. Notice of the council’s decision shall be mailed to
the original applicant, to the person filing the appeal, and to any
other person who has filed a written request therefor with the city
clerk.
16.49+.~I0 Damage by Natural Disaster.~ No structure that,
is listed on the
.C=li£u~i= R=~I~t=~ u£ Hi~tu~i~ R~uu~u=~, ~ u~ th~ Palo Alto
RegisterLor ,Re~6h£5~-~L~{S£, and that has been damaged due to a
natural disaster as defined in California Public Resources Code
section 5028, may be demolished, destroyed, or significantly
altered, except in accordance with the requirements of that section
and this chapter.
16.49.220 Salvage of Building Materials. When demolition
of a property on the Palo Alto Register or Resource List is allowed
under this Chapter,. the City shall provide the owner(s) of the
resource to be demolished with information about salvage of
historical building materials. At least ten (10) days prior to
the date when demolition is scheduled to commence, the owner(s)
99052818~ 0090196r 2 3 Dra~% CMR
shall ~provide the Director with writtennotice, and publish notice
in a newspaper of general circulation, of the availability.of
materials for salvage, including the name and telephone number of
a contact person. Upon r~quest, the Director may~ make this
information available to persons who may be interested in
contacting the owner(s) to arrange for possible salvage of historic ¯
~building materials.
16.49.230 PreliminaryReview.
(a) Forthe purpose of securing the advice of the historic
resources board before making an application for the historic
resources board’s recommendation on a project, an applicant may
bring a project before the historic.resources board for preliminary
review during a regularly noticed study session. The comments of
the historic resources board members during a preliminary review
shall not be binding on the historic resources board’s later fo~rmal
recommendation on the project. If the applicant wishes to pro~g~9~
with th~ project, he or she must then file an application and~i$~in
the~as~;~of.~n~appl~.ga~n~Qr~demo!~i~io~ pay ~ny ~he. required
application fee.
(b) The Director may require a project applicant to
participate in preliminary review before an application for a Major
Alteration will be accepted as complete, upon a determination that
the project:
(i) Involves actions described as not recommended
in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation;
(2) Involves multiple city approvals
rezoning or variances; or
such as
potentiallY have a
resource.
Is of such scope or nature that it could
significant adverse impact on the historic
(c) Preliminary review will be conducted informally but
shall be noticed in the same manner as is required for action on
the underlying project application.
16.49.240
Register.
Maintenance of Properties on the Palo Alto’
(a) The owner, lessee or other person legally in
possession or control of a property on the Palo Alto Register shall
maintain it and keep it in good repair, and shall comply with all
applicable codes, laws and regulations governing the maintenance of
property. Good repair is that level of maintenance and repair
which furthers the continued availability a~d..integrity.of such
resource and prevents deterioration, dilapidation, and decay.
(b) The owner, lessee or other person legally in
possession or control of a building which is a property on the Palo
Alto Register shall preserve from ’ ’ ~t neglect
990528 Is 0090196r 2 4 Draft CMR
of¢:its exterior features, and the interior portions thereof when
such maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of
the exterior or the-loss of economic use of the property. ~
buildi,~.~ ~h=ll b= p~=~’~d =’~=I.~.~L ~u~h d~y ~**d d~t~i~ti~,
tb.~ public u~
(6)A~y fault u~d=f=ut i. hh= buildi,~whiuh
16.49.250 Enforcement.
(a)Unlawful_Alteration or Demolition.
(i) Violations-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~for each day of the violation.
(2) Civil Penalty. Any person or entity who
demolishes or ~t~~i’l’~alters or causes ~s~ah£!a~ alteration
or demolition of a structure in violation of the provisions of this
chapter shall be liable civilly in a sum e~q~._al to the replacement
cost of the building or rest~ti~:~f~.:.~i~it~ra~i6n.
(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 to issue a temporary moratorium on
development of the subject property, not to exceed twenty-four
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. ~
16.49.260 Integration with Other- Provisions. Nothing in.
this Chapter shall be construed as waiving, modifying, eliminating,
or mitigating ,th~e~_requirements of any other provision of .this code.
In the ~case of any~conflict, .the most restrictive shall apply.
16.49.270 Severabil~ty. If any provision or clause.of
this chapter is held tobe unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by
any court of competent jurisdictions% such invalidity shall not
affect other prov±sions of this chapter, and clauses of this
chapter are declared to be severable. ~ ,,~ -,,.~
SECTION 3. Chapter 18.18 is hereby added to the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to read as follows:
-CHAPTER 18.18
SPECIAL SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY PALOALTO
H~T6RIC REGISTERpROPERTIES REGULATIONS~
18.18.010 Specific Purposes.
The special design standards in this Chapter a~ ~h~
16.49’are intehded .~q pg~rmit and encourage the conservation through
contihued use of historic ~single-family and two-family properties
as residences. The goal is to permit desired alterations of such
properties that are respectful of the historic integrity of the
property, the desirable characteristics of ~the neighborhood in
which they are located, and the privacy of adjacent homes.
18.18.020 Applicability of Regulations.
The standards in this Chapter are applicable to properties
included in the Palo Alto Register as Heritage_ Properties or
Historic District Contributing Resources, ("Protected Historic
Resources") as described in Chapter 16.49.
18.18..030 Consistency
Standards Required.
with Secretary of Interior’s
No permit shall be issued for an alteration making use of
the special design standards of this chapter unless the Director
determines, after considering the recommendation of the historic
resources board, that the project is consistent with the Secretary
990528 la~ 0090196r 2 6 Dm~ CMR
of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as described in
Chapter 16.49.
18.18.040 Xncreased Floor Area Ratio.
The permitted floor area ratio for a Protected Historic"
Resource shall be increased over that otherwise allowed for a
parcel of the particular size and district by the lesser of fifteen
percent 4(15%) or five hundred (500) square feet.
Provl ded, ~ the maxlmum ~al lowable _.house :~ s I z~ ,~sb~l l.;,~be ,~s ix ~thousand
18.18.050 Exclusion of Basement Areas from Floor Area
Ratio Calculations.
(I), The pre.-.ex~st~ng :~z!r.sti~-)~!por::~!~e~el of the
historic structure is not altered; and
(2) Any grade change or excavation at the base of
the structure is minimal and consistent with the historical
appearance of the structure.
C. ~h~s ,exempt~on:~hall::-:,notapply,,,-,to~-newly,~;deyelopedbasements, ~ithin]]the ifloodpla!n, ,designated~i~Ch~p~ri~£Ai6:~,:~ ~
18.18.060 Exclusion of Attic Areas from FloorArea Ration
Calculations. l;
areas in,exlstenee,:at<the-t~me.a,~ope~Ey
is placed on hhe~Palo Alto Register,,shall n0t~be]i~ludedin,floor
area unless theyare enlarged or.expanded.~:,
B. For :th~]pUrp0sds ~6fl~hi~l’~c~ab~%’~~n~at~{6:~S ~defi~d
as that, ar4a.more than seventeen~(17):tab0ve!theifirst fl0orlev41
of a one story building and th~t~area more~than twenty six (26)
feet above,the first:floor level, for any,~two~storyiportion ofl a
building~
990528 lac 0090196r 2 7 DmR CMR
18.18.070 Historic Home Improvement Exceptions.
(a) The Director may, after review and recommendation by
the historic resources board, grant an exception to otherwise
applicable site-development Standards for construction of ~’~Minor
~ ~~h-i~ as defined in Chapter 16.49. Application.
shall be made as provided inSection 18.90.020.
(b) An exception may. be granted to th= £ulluwi~ ~i~
standards.~’~ncludmng,.,but,~ob~ !mmmted ~o : ,.~i.,~.~ ~i L=.
~=; minimum ~it= ~idth; ,.i,~i.,u., ~IL~ ~q~Lh; .,i~i,.u,, front yardT~
mmnmmum-rear yardT~.~, mlnlmum smde yardT.,~ mmnmmum slte coverageTj
m~imum height, including daylight planeT~ lot sizer[,}~d’~ covered-
parking retirements but not .off-street parking retirements;
=ppllu=tlu~. The hearing shall be open to the public. The
historic resources board may continue the hearing from time to
time. The historic resources board shall recommend to the director
of planning and community environment that the exception be
approved, disapproved, or.modified, including the imposition of
conditions, by making findings in accordance with the standards
contained in this chapter any such guidelines as are issued by the
Director from time to time pursuant to Chapter 16.49.040.
(e) .Within three working days after the conclusion of the
hearing, u~ if ~o h=~i,~ i~ ~=~u=~t=d, wlthl, t=~ w~ki~ d=y~
~ft~ th~ d=L~ fu~ p~upu~d di~utu~ =~tlu. ~t" fu~th i~ th~
~L~n~l~ ’, the director of planning and
community environment shall either approve, disapprove or modify
the exception, making findings in accordance with the standards
continued in this chapter and any such guidelines as are issued by
the Director from time to time pursuant to Chapter 16.49.040.
(f) In order to grant an exception, the director of
planning and community environment must find, after considering the
application, all testimony offered at the public hearing (if any)
and the recommendation of the historic resources board (if any)
that:
(I) There are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved,
including but not limited to the historic pattern of development of
the property and the neighborhood, that do not apply generally to
property in the zoning district;
(2) The granting of the exception is desirable for
the preservation of an existing historic ’~ ~ha£~e~ or
neighborhood feature, or protected tree as defined in Chapter 18.10
or other significant tree ’or landscape feature which would be
precluded by the Strict application -of- .site-development
regulations;~ ~
(3) The granting of the exception will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety;~
general welfare, or convenience; and
(4) The project for which the exception is
requested, as approved, will conform to .the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
18.18.080 Relocation of Structures toAnother Property~
When relocation of a Protected Historic Resource to another
property is necessary in order to prevent its demolition, a
historic home improvement exception may be used to permit the
placement of the relocated structure(s) on the new site. Notice
shall be given~
SECTION 4. Section 16.04.310 of Chapter 16.04 of Title 16
of the Palo Alto Municipal. Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
.o4.31o
amended - Purpose.
Section 8-102 of State Historical Building Code
Section 8-102 of the State Historical Building Code is
amended to read:
It is the purpose of this part to provide alternative
building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation,
restoration (including related recogstruction), or relocation of
buildings or structures d~1~Sted ~h~the-~Natio~ai.~Register
of Historic Places,;theCalif~rnia Register ~f Historic_Resources,
or, pursuant to Chapter 16.49 of this Code
~ HI~C~I~ DI~L~I~L C~t~ibuti~ P~up~ti~ u~,the Palo Historic
Register~ o£.~h~2alo~’Ai~o Resource List pr~mrr~T~rs. Such
alternative building regulations are intended to facilitate the
restoration or change of occupancy so as to preserve their original
990528 ia¢ 0090196r 2 9 Draft CMR
or restored architectural elements and features, to encourage
energy conservation and a cost-effectiveapproach to preservation,
and to provide for the safety of the building occupants.
~2~T~_Q~_~. Section "17958 of the California Health and
Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the
provisions in the uniform codes that ’are published in the
California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7
of the Health and Safety’C~de require that for each proposed local
change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in
the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings
used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings
supporting its determination that each such local change is
reasonably necessary because O~ local climatic, geological, or
topographical conditions.
The amendments to Section16.04.310 of Chapter 16.04 of the
Municipal Code set forth in Section 4 of thi~ ordinance are hereby~
found to be administrative ~amendments, needed to conform the
terminology in the State Historical Building Code to the
terminology used in Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
regarding historic preservation.
Varianc~e -- Findings and conditions.
(a) The zoning administrator may. grant a variance from
the site development regulations, the parking and loading
regulations, or the special requirements of this title applicable
within any district if, from the applicatTon of the facts presented
at the public hearing, he or sh~ finds:
(1) There are exceptional or extraogdinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do 9o apply generally to property in the same
district,!..i~ludlng~.b~ no~.~ii~i~ed~to the ,’presence of
historic buildings or. structures.,~subject to~’preservation
requirements~,under .the~.Palo Alto~Regisger.
(2) The granting to the application is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable
property loss or unnecessary hardship.
(3) The granting of the application will not be
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and
990528 ia¢ 0090196r 3 0 Draf~
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience.
(4)’ In addition to the above listed findings, in the
case of a flag lot, hhe zoning administrator may grant a
variance only if he or she makes all of the fol!owing
additional findings:
(A) The granting of the application will not
disrupt the established neighborhood character and
aesthetics, and will not affect the health of the residents
by significantly blocking out light and air;
(B) The granting of the application will not result
in excessive paving, parking,-potential traffic conflicts
on busy ~streets, street tree removal or loss of private
landscaping.
(C) The granting of the application will not
negatively impac£, the privacy and quiet ~enjoyment of
adjoining single-family residences for both indoor and
outdoor use.
(b) In granting such variance, the zoning administrator
may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she
deems appropriate or necessary to protect the public health,
safety~ general welfare, or convenience and to secure the purposes
of this tile.
SECTION 8. The Historic Resources Board created by this
ordinance shall be considered a continuation of the existing
Historic Resources Board, and theCmembers presently serving shall
continue to serve their appointed terms.
~E~T~6rN~’~.~ The Council has reviewed and certified as
adequate an Environment~l Impac~ Report on this project~ 4rt a in ~ indin~s ~ wi th~ ~re ~t~6~ ~t~’.~~ £~iq~ ~ed ~by t h~i ~al i f~rni a
Environmental~"Quality.~.Act~._.~nd<~doptedo~statement~6fiover~iding~
considerations,
S~CTI~i~.’For the purposes of section 18703.3 of
Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (Fair Political
Practices Commission Regulations), it is hereby found and declared
that the member of the historic resources board who must be an
owner or occupant of a structure on the Palo Alto Register is
appointed to represent and further the interests of persons having
an economic interest in real property included on or potentially
eligible for inclusion on the Palo Alto Register.
//
//
II
II
990528 la~ 0090196r 3 1 Draft CMR
~E~I~II. This ordinance,shall become effective upon the
commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
990528 lac 0090196r 3 2 Draf~ CMR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 16.49
16.49.010
16.49.020
(a)(b)
(e)
(h)
(i)(m)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
16.49.030
16.49.040
16.49.050’
16.49.060
16.49.070
16.49.080
16.49..085
16.49.090
16.49.100
16.49.110
16.49.120
Purpose .................2
Definitions ..............3
"Alteration" [ [~ [3~ ~ o o ¯o ¯o el o o o . o
"Demolition" .........: .....3
"Department" ...............3
"Director"- . ...............3
"Heritage Property"3o ¯o o ¯¯¯¯e o ¯¯
"Historic District" ............ 3
"Historic District Contributing Resource" . 3
"Historic District Non-contributing
Resource". . . . ...... ......~ .~4
"Historic Integrity" ...........4
"Historic Resource" ............4
"Major Alteration" ........0 . . . 4
"Majority of Property Owners" .......4
"Minor Alteration" ............4
~’Palo Alto Historic Register" or "Palo Alto
Register" .................5
"Resource List" ..............5
"Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation"_ . _ _ .........5
"State Historical Building Code" .....5
"Street-facing facade" ..........5
Historic Resources Board ..........5
Promulgation of Written Historic Preservation
Guidelines Authorized ........... 8
Palo Alto Register .............8
Designation Criteria for Heritage
Properties ..................9
Designation Criteria for Historic
Districts i0
Designation Procedures for Heritage
Properties .............. . .I0
Designation Procedures for Historic
Districts ...............12
Rescission of Designation ........14
Use of Palo Alto Register ........14
Resource List ..............14
Compliance with Chapter Required .....15
16.49.130
16.49.135
16.49.140
16.49.150
16.49.160
16.49.165
16.49.170
16.49.180
16..49.190
16.49.200
16.49.210
16.49.220
16.49.230
16.49.240
16.49.250
16.49.260
16.49.270
Alteration of Heritage Properties ....16
Finding Required for Approval of Major
Alterations of Heritage Properties . . . 17
Demolition of Heritage Properties .....18
Major Alteration of Resource List Properties.19
-Demolition of Resource List Properties. . 19
Major Alterations of Contributing Resources
~n Historic Districts.., ........ 20
Demolition and Replacement of Contributing
Resources in Historic Districts .....20
Major Alteration or Replacement of Non-
contributing Resources in Historic
~Districts ................
Historic Resources Board Review .....
21
22
Director’s Decision Making.
.Appeals ¯ ¯¯o ¯o o o ¯¯o ¯
22
23
Damage by Natural Disaster ........23
Salvage of Building Materials ......23
Preliminary Review~ ...........24
Maintenance of Properties on the Palo Alto
Register ................24
Enforcement ...............25
Integra on with Other Provisions ....26
Severability ................26
18.18.010
18.18.020
18.18.030
18.18.040
18.18.050
18.18.060
18.18.070
18.18.080
Specific Purposes ............26
Applicability of Regulations .......-26
Consistency with Secretary of Interior’s
Standards Required ...........26
Increased Floor Area Ratio ........27
Exclusion of Basement Areas from Floor, Area
Ratio Calculations ............. 27
Exclusion of Attic Areas fremFl~orArea Ration
Calculations .............. 27
~Historic Home Improvement Exceptions. . . 28
Relocat~i~ off, Structures to Another
Property -¯o e ~ e ~o o o ¯¯o ¯29
PC-2836
=’C-
2830
AOOISON SCHOOL
-...
EXHIBIT A
PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT
BOWLING
GREEN
PF ;E
1400
--
’b2o ~
)
o° ?.°Io
ZT7
//
PF
EXHIBIT B
RAMONA STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT
TASSO
JOHNSON PARK
ST
!
1802
PF
SOUTHERN PACIFIC R R STATION
3266 PC-3902
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO. ~
RESOLUTION ~OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINAL EIR AND MAKING
FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The
follows:
Council of the City of P~lo Alto does RESOLVE as
SECTION i. B~ckground.
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds,
follows:
The City Council of the City of
determines, and declares.~as
A. The City of Palo Alto has initiated the comprehensive
amendment of its historic preserwation regulations and program (the
"Project.")
B. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused
to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR").
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR
consists of the following documents and records: ~Historic
Preservation Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report, May,
1999", and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files
constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section
15000, et seq. The ~Final EIR is on file in the office of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the
planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the
record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The ’initial Notice of Completion was distributed on
December 31, 1998 and an amended Notice of Completion was
distributed on March 31, 1999. The-original Draft EIR was
circulated for public review between December 31, 1998 and January
29, 1999; the Revised Draft EIR was -recirculated for public review
between March 31, 1999 and April 30, 1999. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing on the~Revised Draft EIR April 14, 1999; the
Historic Resources Board held public hearings on April 7 and 21,
1999. The Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Board
found the Revised Draft EIR to be prepared in compliance with CEQA
and recommended certification to that effect by the City Council.
D. The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution,
is also approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to
Public Resources Code section21081.6, which program is designed to
ensure compliance with mitigation measures imposed to lessen the
significant effects identified in the Final EIR, and described in
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso. ’
detail, in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
E. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings,
including but not limited to testimony received by the Council
~during the June 7, 1999 public hearing on the Project and responses
by staff during that public hearing.
SECTION 2. ~. The City Council certifies that
the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City
Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and
written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project,
and all other matters deemed material and relevant before
considering for approval the various actions related to the
Project. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects
the independent judgment of the City as lead agency.
SECTION 3~ Program EIR. This EIR is intended to and does
constitute the full and complete Program EIR for adoption and
implementation of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and of the
mitigation measures and is intended for use in all discretionary
approvals granted by public agencies for its implementation with
regard to projects involving individual single-family and two-
family dwellings. It is also intended to serve as a Program EIR
for those other development projects within the City affecting
historic resources to the extent that the Program EIR adequately
describes the project for the purposes of CEQA.
SECTION 4. Significant Impacts Which Can B@ Mitiga~@d ~
a Less Than Significant Leve~. The City Council finds that there
are no feasible changes or alterations which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects on aesthetics and
cultural resources. Compliance with existing ordinances, laws, and
regulations would ensure that impacts associated with land use, air
quality, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology, and
water quality, energy and noise would be less than significant.
Consequently, no mitigation is required or proposed.
SECTION 5. Significant Impacts Which Canno~ B~ Fully
Mitigated. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies
significant environmentaleffects of the Project with respect to
aesthetics and cultural resources. _The City Council finds that, in
response to each such significant effect identified in this Section
5, while all identified feasible changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which lessen to the
extent feasible the significant environmental effects as identified
in the Final EIR, these effects cannot be totally avoided or
reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is-implemented.
Accordingly, the impacts summarized below remain unavoidable
adverse impacts of the Project°
2
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
A. Implementation of the Draft Ordinance could allow some
non-Register properties now known to be ~of historic and/or
architectural value to be demolished or modified in ways that are
incompatible with their historic character and the character of
their existing neighborhoods. The availability of detailed
information on compatible remodeling, combined with the incentive
program and public education, will reduce .the incompatible
modifications to a minority. It is likely that the demolition of
these structures and replacement with modern structures that are
incompatible with the visual character of existing neighborhoods
will occur. This could have a significant impact on the overall
aesthetic character of the City.
B. Although adoption of the Draft Ordinance will not
cause historic buildings to be demolished or altered, it does not
preclude the occurrence of such impacts. It can reasonably be
assumed that resources placed on the Palo Alto Register will only
infrequently be demolished or modified so radically as to reduce
their historic integrity. The loss of any of these structures
would, however, be a significant adverse impact. While it is not
possible to predict how many, if any, of the Palo Alto Register
structures would qualify for demolition under the rigorous findings
required under the Draft Ordinance, is likely that a few will.
C. For those structures initially placed on the Resource
List and subsequently determined not eligible for the Palo Alto
Register, there would be no impediment to their demolition or
modification. Although it is not possible to predict how many of
this group could be found ineligible for the Palo Alto Register, it
is conceivable some number of these resources could ultimately be
placed in the unprotected category and demolished or substantially
remodeled. The loss of those buildings that would be demolished by
their owners would be a significant adverse impact.
D. For approximately 1,800 historic structures which are
not proposed for either the Palo Alto Register or Resource List,
demolition Or substantial modification is both possible and, for
many, likely to occur. .Particularly for the less unique and badly
deteriorated commercial buildings, it is likely that demolition
would be allowed. The demolition and/or substantial modification
of many of the single family residential buildings and some of the
commercial structures in .this category would be a significant
adverse impact.
~ECTION 6. Partial
Cultural Resources.
Mitigation of Adverse Impact
A. As a partial mitigation of cultural resource impacts,
the City will conduct a public education and outreach program to
inform the owners of historic properties of the potential for
remodeling and reuse of historic structures in a manner that is
compatible with +historic preservation. This program would include
information on financial incentives available from State and
Federal agencies, as well as the incentives offered by the City of
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
Palo Alto itself. The City will add a qualified staff person to
administer the permitting processes for historic buildings and
public education and outreach and to assist in completion of the
applications for appropriate incentive programs.
B. As a further partial mitigation of cultural resources
impacts, the City will, prior to their demolition or substantial
alteration, document properties potentially eligible for the
California Register of Historic Places using standard DPR 523
forms. ~ -
SECTION 6. The City Council certifies that’the Final EIR
describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which
would obtain most of the basic objectives of the project and would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the
project. However, these alternatives would impede to a signi-
ficant degree the attainment of other project objectives. The City
Council has considered the alternatives to the Project analyzed in
the Final EIR and has determined that all of the identified
alternatives are infeasible. The findings set forth below stating
this Council’s reasons for rejecting each alternative in favor of
the Project describe several separate grounds for rejecting each
alternative, each of which this Council has determine constitutes
an independent basis for this Council’s decision to approve the
Project and reject the proposed alternative.
A. No Project-Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, no new historic
preservation regulations would~be adopted. The existing Historic
Preservation regulations set forth in Chapter 16.49 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code would continue in effect. That ordinance
restricts the demolition of only thirty of the City’s historic
properties. This ordinance is not a feasible alternative. The
existing ordinance fails to recognize hundreds of subsequently
identified resources not included in the 1977 survey of historic
properties, does not regulate damaging alteration to significant
historic resources; lacks strong preservation controls for most
resources; and provides no incentives to encourage preservation.
Many of the significant historic resource impacts
identified in the EIR as resulting from the Draft Ordinance relate
primarily to the ordinance’s failure to require protection for a
group of resources which were not identified as resources prior to
February 1996. Because most of these buildings were not included
in the inventory, upon which the City’s previously existing
preservation code and policies were based, they had no protection
under the previous system. While the proposed Draft Ordinance does
not provide mandatory preservation for all historic resources now
known to exist in the City, it does when compared to the original
ordinance, (1) protect more resources from demolition and/or
incompatible modifications, and (2) provide more procedural
safeguards and recognition for even those resources which are not
automatically protected through mandatory preservation.
4
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
and duplexes, the less likely property owners are to want to
demolish such buildings. There are a variety of reasons why an
owner might want to demolish or radically modify an historic
building, including wishing for more flexibility in how the
building and/or lot can be used. The more possibilities that are
available, the less likely it is that a property owner cannot
identify an acceptable substitute for demolition. The addition of
more incentives therefore increases the available techniques for
making an historic property more useful and/or valuable and reduces
the likelihood that only demolition can meet the land use or
economic goals of the owner.
Most of these possible additional incentives have land use
implications. If they are implemented by many property owners,
especially for properties in the same neighborhood(s), the impacts
~could be significant. Traffic, noise, increased demand for
services, and aesthetic impacts could be cumulatively significant
in an older established residential neighborhood as a result of
adding second.dwelling units, relaxing parking requirements and
modifying subdivision regulations. Modifying subdivision
regulations (decreasing setbacks and minimum lot sizes, increasing
allowable coverage, etc.,) ~could likewise adversely impact
neighborhoods having concentrations of .historic residences by
changing their physical character and density.
The use of Mills Act contracts could have a significant
economic effect on the funding allocated to the Palo Alto Unified
School District.
Cumulative adverse impacts could effect the City’s older
neighborhoods with the densest concentration of historic
residences. ~ These additional incentives, particularly if combined
in individual projects and concentrated in those same
neighborhoods, .could incrementally increase environmental impacts,
particularly impacts associated with parking and aesthetics, to a
greater degree than the Draft Ordinance. These additional
incentives could also increase the number of historic buildings
preserved over the number preserved under the Draft Ordinance,
reducing the historic resources impact of the Draft Ordinance.
This alternative is infeasible and incompatible with the
project objectives of maintaining the scale and character of the
City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due
to their size and scale, preserve the character of residential
neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be
compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures, and, in
areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character,
designing new development to maintain and support the existing
character. While this alternative could reduce impacts from loss
of historic structures, it could result in land use impacts in
established neighborhoods having concentrations of historic
residences. Aesthetic imPacts could be similar to those from the
990528 0090202 CEQA Rcso.
This alternative is incompatible with the project
objectives of enhancing the visual and aesthetic character,
diversity and interest of the city, promoting the private and
public use and preservation of historic districts and structures
for the education, appreciation and general welfare of the people,
in a manner compatible with the continued contemporary use of
property by its owners, and conserving valuable material and energy
resources by ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built
environment.
This alternatives is more environmentally damagingthan the
Project~.
Ordinance Protective of All Resources Alternative
Under this alternative,~allhistoric resources identified,
listed on the City’s 1977 inventory, identified as ~contributing
properties" or ~landmarks" under the interim ~istoric preservation
ordinances, or identified by Dames and Moore’s preliminary survey
as.potentially eligible for inclusion on the National-~Register Of
Historic Places or the California Register of Historic~Resources
would be provided the maximum level of protection. Demolition
would be prohibited except in exceptional cases involving financial
hardship to the property owner or the necessity to demolish or
relocate the property in order to achieve competing Comprehensive
Plan goals. Minor and major alterations of the protected
properties would be required to be consisten£ with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The preservation
incentives included in the Project would also be included in this
alternative, but they would function to ease regulatory burdens on
property owners or to make building renovations more practical,
rather than as inducement to participate in a voluntary program°
This alternative would reduce the potential loss of
historic resources to a less than significant level. While
demolition of historically significant buildings would still be
allowed in exceptional circumstances, the high market value of
historic properties within the City, even when the historic
buildings themselves cannot be destroyed and replaced by ~a new
purchaser, means that there would be very few cases of economic
hardship. The requirement that all alterations would have to be
compatible with the historic character of all of the identified
resources would ensure that the impacts associated with significant
incompatible alterations would be avoided. The significant
aesthetic impacts of the proposed project would be avoided.
This alternative is not a feasible alternative° The
processing of reviewing and overseeing the implementation of these
regulated procedures would incrementally increase the public
resources devoted to processing architectural and building permits~
The City has had recent and significant experience with requiring
screening of large numbers of building and demolition projects for
historic preservation and compatibility concerns. Such projects
require review both by staff and by the City’s appointed Historic
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
Resources Board. Appeals, which have been frequent, require review
by the City Council. Consensus has not yet emerged in the
community or ~among reviewers on how best to conserve or adapt
historic struqtures, particularly those which do not appear to meet
the standards for the National Register of Historic Places. The
City has only completed a preliminary survey of the approximately
sixteen hundred properties believed to qualify for inclusion in the
California Register of Historic Places. ~Context statements" which
enable homeowners, architects, and historians to fully evaluate the
significance of individual structures have not yet-been prepared
for many kinds of historic resources within the city.
This alternative would impose substantial regulations on
an additional eighteen hundred properties, most of which are
single-family residential ~structures. It is infeasible and does
not meet the project objective of balancing benefits of freedom of
individual choice by homeowners in the maintenance, remodeling, or
replacement of their homes with avoidance of adverse impacts on
neighbors and the community as a whole, minimizing the level of
uncertainty for residential property owners about the regulations
on the remodeling or--replacement of their homes, developing a
preservation program that can be administered efficiently, and with
a minimum of delay, for private projects, and streamlining, to the
maximum extent feasible, any future processes or design review of
historic structures to eliminate the unnecessary delay and
uncertainty for the applicant and to encourage historic
preservation.
C. Alternative More Protective of Resources Not Included on
the Palo Alto Register and Resource List
This alternative differs from the "Protective Ordinance"
alternative discussed previously, in that two tiers of historic
resources are created and different levels o~. protection are
afforded to each. Exceptional historic resources (existing
Inventory Categories 1 and 2, Categories 3 and 4, existing NHRP
properties, and properties identified as eligible for the NHRP by
Dames and Moore) would be afforded the highest level of protection,
with prohibition of demolitionsexcept in exceptional cases and
regulation of minor and major alterations consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Other
identified historic resources properties only eligible for the CRHR
could be demolished in a wider range of circumstances.
This alternative is less restrictive than the previous
alternative, and could allow a wider range ~of uses and
modifications for the larger group of less significant resources.
This same group of resources would also be protected from
demolition to a greater degree than the protection afforded by the
Draft Ordinance. However, since all of the additional resources
proposed for protection are proposed for inclusion on the Resource
List. Any of these resource which is in fact of comparable quality
6
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
to National Register-eligible properties Can be placed on the Palo
Alto Register by the City and afforded the maximum level of
protection. Under the proposed Ordinance, none of these buildings
can be demolished or altered in a damaging way until the City has
had an opportunity to review them for inclusion on the Palo Alto
Register. Therefore, this alternative does not provide greatly
increased protect±on for these resources. The proposed Ordinance
gives the owners of these.properties the right to an individual
hearing before any of their~ ~properties, which have not been
previously regulated as historic structures, are placed on the Palo
Alto Register.
~his alternative is not feasible because the research
needed to assess fully these additional buildings proposed for
maximum protection by direct listing on the Palo Alto Register has
not yet been completed.
This alternative is also incompatible with the project
objectives of balancing benefits of freedom of individual choice
by homeowners in the maintenance, remodeling, or replacement of
their homes with avoidance of adverse impacts on neighbors and the
community as a whole,, minimizing the level of uncertainty for
residential property owners about the regulations on the remodeling
or replacement of their homes, developing a preservation program
that can be administered efficiently, and with a minimum of delay,
for private projects, and streamlining, to the maximum extent
feasible, any future processes or design review of historic
structures to eliminate the unnecessary delay and uncertainty for
the applicant and to encourage historic preservation.
Do Alternative with Additional Incentives
The.proposed Draft Ordinance allows more intense use of a
parcel if its historic buildings are preserved _~.han if they are
destroyed. It permits construction of more square footage on a lot
if it can be done without impairment of the buildings’ historic
character or adversely affecting neighboring properties. However,
in some cases other zoning regulations will preclude use of the
increased square footage, or of the best reuse of a property, even
if it is compatible with the neighborhood.
Other incentives could be included in the Draft Ordinance,
such as relaxing the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance for historic
properties, relaxing the Parking Requirements for historic
properties, modifying Subdivision Regulations to make it easier for
property owners to gain approval of ~ lot splits and lot line
adjustments for historic properties, using the Mills Act, or other
tax relief incentives, which reduce property taxes for designated
historic properties.
The greater the degree to which the City can encourage the
preservation of historic properties, especially single family homes
7
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
proposed project. This alternative cannot be described as
environmentally_superior to the proposed project. ~- ~
Voluntary Ordinance-with Incentives
Under this alternative, properties could not be placed on
the~ Palo Alto Register without property owner permission. The
alternative does include a requirement that ~ ~property owner
proposing a major alteration to or demolition of a property on the
Palo Alto Register proceed through the same City review process
outlined in the_Draft Ordinance. Once a property is placed on the
Palo Alto Register, a-property would be subjecd to the same process
that is required by the Draft Ordinance. The alternative includes
all identified incentives for preservation as well.
This alternative is infeasible because it would provide no
protection for historic properties, even those of national
significance, if the owners wished to demolish them or modify them
in a way that destroys the historic character. While Palo Alto has
long been seen by many people as a desirable place to live, recent
changes in the local, national, and world economies have greatly
expanded the pool of people with considerable economic means
seeking property in the City. The emergence of a significant group
of purchasers who can afford to buy a sound residence and demolish
it for replacement with a new one has changed the market forces
within the City which have in the past encouraged the purchase and
rehabilitation of historic homes. The very success of private
restoration efforts and the resultant creation of attractive
neighborhoods is now attracting purchasers who wish to live in
neighborhoods well-supplied with older homes but prefer to demolish
and replace their particular older home, as well as developers
interested in supplying houses for this market. .Some of these
replacement homes have detracted from the ambience of the
neighborhoods in which they are located and valued city street-
scapes have been altered in undesirable ways.
This alternative would allow significant damage to historic
resources because it would include legal protection only for the
historic resources whose owners choose to place them on the Palo
Alto Register. There would be no City constraints on demolitions
or major alterations to any of the existing historic buildings in
Palo Alto, with the exception of the 30 protected structures
located Downtown). While the incentives may work to retain some of
the resources, it is unlikely, given the current economic
conditions and assuming that there are no constraints to demolition
of the older historic structures, that all or even most of the
existing historic resources would survive over time. In addition
to the significant loss of historic buildings which could result
from this alternative, the use of all of the incentives could also
result in localized land use impacts similar to those identified
above.
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
This alternative would probably result in the loss of Palo
Alto’s status as a Certified Local Government, which could have
cumulative impacts related to loss of tax benefits and other
incentives for owners of h~storic properties.
This alternative is not compatible with the project
objectives of safeguarding the heritage of the city by preserving
improvements and natural features that reflect significant elements
of the city’s cultural history, enhancing the visual and aesthetic
character, diversity and interest of the city, promoting the
private and public use and preservation of historic districts and
structures for the education, appreciation and general welfare of
the people, in a manner compatible with the continued contemporary
use of property by its owners, conserving valuable material and
energy resources by ongoing use and maintenance of the existing
built environment, encouraging and permitting adaptive reuse of
historic resources as present-day homes and business sites while
preserving historic significance,~ implementing the applicable
goals, policies, and programs of the Comprehensive Plan, and
fulfilling the City’s responsibilities as a Certified Local
Government under federal preservation lawso
This alternative is not environmentally superior to the
proposed project.
SECTION 6. Statement of Overridina Considerations. The
City Council finds that unavoidable environmental impacts of the
Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, are acceptable
when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even after
giving greater weight to its duty to avoid the environmental
impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent
feasible. This determination is made based upon the following
factors and public benefits which are identified in the Final EIR
and record of proceedings on the Project:
Benefits of the Project
The City Council has considered the EIR, the public record of
proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials
presented to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all
public hearings related to the Project, and does hereby determine
that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the
Project documents would result in the following substantial public
benefits:
(A)The proposed Ordinance supports and reinforces the City’s
adopted Comprehensive Plan, particularly the goal of
~maintaining and enhancing community character", which is
one of the seven major themes of the Comprehensive Plan and
for which ~maintaining the physical qualities" of the City
is an ~overarching consideration". The proposed Ordinance
I0
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
would allow demolition of Palo Alto Register structures
only in the interest of public health and safety, or
because of financial hardship. The Ordinance also
encourages the preservation of hundred of additional
structures through the use of procedural restrictions and
incentives. This Ordinance reflects the implementation of
Comprehensive Plan Programs L-54, L-55, L-56, L-57 and L-
58 and supports Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7. This
represents an improvement over the previously existing
condition in which only thirty structures were protected.
(B)The proposed Ordinance provides greater protection from
demolition or significant incompatible alteration for the
most significant historic structures in the City, and
provides a lesser degree of protection for less significant
structures. This hierarchy gives a greater certainty to
the community that the most important historic resources
are more likely to be retained, while flexibility in
redeveloping most residential and commercial properties in
the City is retained. Freedom to modify or redevelop
privately owned properties is considered essential by the
City to maintain an overall economic vitality.
(c)The proposed Ordinance represents a reasonable allocation
of Staff and other public resources. Given the significant
number of historic resources identified by recent studies,
the burden of strictly regulating all alterations and use
of those structures would increase processing time for all
land use permits, particularly increasing the uncertainty
and difficulties associated with ownership of all historic
structures~ This would be incompatible with the
programmatic~irection in Comprehensive Plan program L-63
and policy B-6, which encourage streamlining regulatory
processes and procedures.
(D)The proposed Ordinance imposes procedural and development
requirements only on the most valuable historic resources,
defined in terms of age, relationship to important historic
events and/or persons, architectural merit, and surviving
historic fabric. The procedural requirements placed by the
Ordinance on less valuable historic resources may allow
their loss or alteration, but minimizes bureaucratic
processes and uncertainty .-for property owners, about the
uses and restrictions on their homes or other property.
(E)
Overriding Considerations
The City Council finds that each of the overriding
considerations set forth above constitutes a separate and
independent grounds for finding that the benefits of the Project
II
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an
overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project.
SECTION 7. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant~ The City
finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains
any substantial evidence identifying, significant environmental
effects of the Project with respect to any of the environmental
impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses
on the initial Environmental Assessment (contained in Section
Draft EIR).
SECTION 8. Substantial evidence, supporting each and every
finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR and in the record
of proceedings on the Project.
i/
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIA
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I1
ii
12
990528 0090202’ CEQA Reso.
~. The Council finds that there is no substantial
evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information
has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of
the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5. This finding is based upon all the
information presented in the Final EIR and record of proceedings.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
13
990528 0090202 CEQA Reso.
Attachment C
RESOLUTION NO.
REsoLuTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LISTING CERTAIN HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS
ON THE PALO ALTO HISTORIC REGISTER PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 16.49 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby DECLARE as
follows:
WHEREAS, the City by Ordinance has established the
Palo Alto Historic Register as a means of conserving its most
significant historic resources and encouraging and enabling the
owners of historic properties to continue to use and adapt their
homes and business properties; and
WHEREAS, that ordinance designated both individual
structures (~Heritage Properties") and the Professorville and
Ramona Street Historic Districts to the Palo Alto Register; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to set forth herein the
address and assessor’s parcel number of each property included on
the Palo Alto Register, and to identify each property within the
Professorville and Ramona Street Historic Districts as either a
"Contributing Resource" or a "Non-contributing Resource," as those
terms are defined in Ordinance ;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. Heritage Properties. Those properties set
forth on Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and a part of it,
those properties on Exhibit B, attached to this resolution and a
part of it and marked "H-RC," and those properties on Exhibit C,
attached to this resolution and a part of it, and marked "H-PC" or
"H-PNC" are individual Heritage Properties on the Palo Alto
Register.
SECTION 2. Ramona Street Historic District.Those
properties set forth on Exhibit B are Historic District Contribut-
ing Resources are located within the Ramona Street Historic
District. There are no Non-Contributing Resources within the
Ramona Street Historic District.
~. Professorville Historic District. Those
properties set forth on Exhibit C are located within the
Professorville Historic District. Those identified as "PC" or "H-
PC" are Historic District Contributing Resources within the
Professorville Historic District. Those identified as "PNC" or "H-
PNC" are Historic District Non-contributing Resources within the
Professorville Historic District.
990528 lac 0090198
1
~Q,~__~. Future Chanae_~o The addition of new proper-
ties to the Palo Alto Register, the deletion of a property from the
Palo Alto Register, and the reclassification of any property on the
Palo Alto Register shall be by resolution of the City Council.
SECTION~5. E iv . This resolution shall take
effect on the effech~ive date:of Ordinance
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
990528 lac 0090198
HERITAGE_PROPERTIES 5/12/99
Site Address I Site Street ’1 Year I Parcel Number
367 Addison Ave 1905 120 17 071
1448 Addison Ave 1924 120 18 013
i25 Alma St 1917 120 26 093
529 Alma St 1918 120 26 092
799 Alma St 1940 120 27 079
2275 Amherst St 1893 137 07 021
119 Bryant St 1897 120 12 040
1680 Bryant St ~914 124 17 018
440-450 Bryant St -1927 120 26 095
529 Bryant St 1929 120 15 094
533-535 Bryant St 1897 120 15 105
661 Bryant St 1916 120 16 034
228 Byron St 1896 120 02 026
951 Channing Ave 1895 003 26 020
123 Chaucer St 1922 003 06 043
305 Churchill Ave 1913 124 07 052
460-464 Churchill Ave 1917 124 07 045
1021 Cowper St 1904 120 06 024
1451 Cowper St 1906 124 01 001
1550-1570 Cowper St 1930 124 07 038
928 Cowper St 1935 124 09 006
1950 Cowper St 1932 124 09 007
990 Cowper St 1932 124 09 008
706 Cowper St 1894 120 16 045
27 Crescent Dr 1914 003 09 010
2500 Embarcadero 1937 008 05 006
50 Embarcadero 1917 124 21 001
225 Emerson St 1893 120 25 134
536 Emerson St 1924 120 26 081
625-631 Emerson St 1902 120 27 023
51 Encina Ave 1900 120 33 006
401-403 Florence St 1904 120 15 004
1023 Foi’est Ave 1896 003 19 076
145 Forest Ave,1889 003 19 007
345 Forest Ave 1929 120 16 033
543-545 Forest Ave 1905 120 04 032
009 Forest Ct 1896 003 19 068
483 Fulton St 1900 003 02 008
509 Hale St 1897 003 05 023
567 Hale St 1904 003 05 031
1220 Hamilton Ave 1938 003 20 002
205 Hamilton Ave 1909 120 26 074
380 Hamilton Ave 1932 120 16 002
_575 Hawthorne Av~ee !9_0_8 120 01 042
_514 High St 1900 120 26 044
200 Homer Ave .....1905 120 28 007
206-210 Homer Ave 1907 120 28 008 EXHIBIT A
Page 1
HERITAGE_PROPERTIES 5/12/99
Site Address I Site Street I Year I Parcel Number
209 Homer Ave 1893 120 27 070
232 HomerAve 1928 120 28 011
300 HomerAve 1932 120 17001
351 HomerAve .1900 120 16 099
475 Homer Ave 1916 120 16 050
760 HomerAve 1894 003 32 081
190 Island Dr 1929 003 11 034
1370 Lincoln Ave 1927 003 09 016
.20 Maple St 1926 003 06 039
567 Melville Ave 1908 120 07 041
601-603 Melville:Ave 1905 120 07 036
1350 Middlefield Rd ~932 00346 001
628 Middlefield Rd 1916 12004 014
449 Monroe Dr 1899 147 48 217
450 N California Av 1937 124 11 075
4155 Old Adobe Rd 1847 175 20 088
184 PaloAIto Ave 1935 003 06 006
2110 Park Blvd 1909 124 27 019
628 ~" Ramona St 1929 120 27 013
630 Ramona St " 1929 120 27 013
668 Ramona St 1926 12027 016
610 S California Av .1898 I37 01 144
984 S California Av 1893 137 04 005
449 Seneca St 1895 003 04 045
1215 Stanford Ave 1905 137 06 011
1229 Stanford Ave 1905 137 06 010
595 Tennyson Ave 1928 124 02 064
121-131 University Ave 1925 120 26 038
1800 University Ave ’1930 003 10 027
1870 University Ave 1929 003 10 029
25-27 University Ave 1918 120 31 010
~36-452 University Ave 1927 120 15 068
~,56 University’Ave 1927 120 15 069
~,60-474 University Ave 1927 120 15 070
480-498 University Ave 1929 120 15 071
;’55 University Ave 1903 003 02 008
E}60 University Ave 1906 003 03 046
900 University Ave 1904 003 04 065
)39 University Ave 1916 003 04 012
95 University Ave 1940 120 31 011
970 University Ave 1909 003 04 076
100-110 Waverley Oaks 1931 124 10 052
~,~Waverley St 1902 124 07 040
2101 Waverley St 1934 124 10 047
2510 Waverley St 1937 .132 12 010
510 Waverley St 1894 120 15 082
745 Waverley St 1901 120 16 057
Page 2
HERITAGE_PROPERTIES 5/12/99
2Site Address I Site Street ;I Year I Parcel Number
310 Yale St 1889 137 01 108
Page 3
Ramona Street Historic Distdct 5/28/99
235
267
520-526
528-530
532-536
533-539
538-542
541-545
Hamilton Ave 1924
Hamilton Ave !1922
Ramona St 1925
Ramona St 1925
RamOna St 1926
Ramona St 1938
Ramona St 1927
Ramona St 1928
120 26 073
120 26 065
120 26 069
120 26 070
120 26 071
12026 067
~120 26~72,
120 26 066
RC
RC
H-RC
H-RC
!H-RC
H-RC
H-RC
EXHIBIT B
Page 1
Professorville Historic Distdct 5/28/99
271 ....
281
~301
310
319
326
327
350-352
358
370
376
960
1000
1005
1010
1017-1023
1020
1027
1028
1033
1036
1044
1052
1061
1100
1106
1116
1121
1130
1135
1140
1143
1148
,1160
1200
1201
1225
1251
940
943
944
951
1055
1107
1140
1201
1211
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
iAddison~,ve
Addison Ave
Addison Ave
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St_
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Cowper St
Cowper St
Cowper St
Cowper St
Cowper St
1894 12028062 PC
1900 120 28 061 PC
1901 120 17 085 =C
1938 120 18 002 PNC
1909 120 ~7 084 PC
1907 120 18 003 PC
1902 120 17 083 ~C
1912 120 18 004 ~C
1.896 120 18 005 PC
1904 120 18 006 :~C
~904 120 18 007 PC
1900 12028 061 PC
120 29 002 PNC
1893 120 18 001 H-PC
1902 120 29 003 PC
1893 120 18 040 PC
1901 120 29 004 PC
1898 120 18 039 PC
1902 120 29 005 PC
1899 120 18 038 ~C
1920 12029006 ~C
1902 12029007 ~C
1900 120 29 008 PC
1899 120 18 037 H-PC
1902 120 29 009 PC
1997 12029 010 PNC
1904 12029011 PC
1892 120 18 062 PC
1904 120 29 012 PC
1910 120 18 061 PC
1903 12029013 PC
11912 120 18 060 PC
1902 120 29 014 PC
1909 120 29 015 PC
1904 120 20 009 PC
1966 12020008 PNC
1964 12020 007 PNC
1901 120 20 017 .PC
1900 120 28 059 PC
1904 120 17 087 PC
1902 120 28 060 PC
1898 120 17 086 PC
1910 120 06 021 H-PC
1998 120 06 078 PNC
120 18 048 PNC
1963 120 07 001 PNC
1963 120 07 044 PNC
Page 1
EXHIBIT C
Professorville Historic Distdct 5/28/99
1225
1236
1238
1247
1300
1312
1325
11330
1335
1336
1345
1357
1390
1401
1415
223
235
251
281
359
425-427
467
473
475
5o5
1091
1101
1102
1111
1118
1121
1128
1129
1133
1134
1135
1174
1176
200
221
222
252
257
262
303
319
325
Cowper st 1948 120 07 043
Cowper st 1910 120 19 005
CowperSt 1904 120 19 006
Cowper st ~$ r 1927’ 120 07 042
CowperSt 1958 120 19 008
CowperSt 1910 120 19 009
Cowper St 1915 120 07 094
Cowper St 1904 120 19 010
Cowper St 1904 120 07 093
CowperSt 1925 120 19 011
Cowper St 1909 120 07 092
Cowper Sty,1908 120 07091
Cowper St 1937 120 19 012
Cowper St 1909 120 08 001
Cowper St 1927 120 08 058
Embarcadero 1906 120 20 013
Embarcadero 1906 120 20 012
Embarcadero 1906 !120 20 011
Embarcadero 1908 12020 010
Embarcadero 1901 120 20 025
Embarcadero 1907 120 19 016
Embarcadero 120 19 015
Embarcadero 1988 120 19 014
Embarcadero 1924 120 19 013
Embarcadero 1907 120 08 057
Emerson St 1909 120 29 045
Emerson St 1903 120 29 044
Emerson St 1925 120 30 009
Emerson St 1903 120 29 043
Emerson St 1909 120 30 010
Emerson St 1908 120 29 042
EmersonSt,1916 12030011
Emerson St 1908 120 29 041
Emerson St 1976 120 29 055
Emerson St 1907 120 30 012
Emerson St 1975 120 29 054
Emerson St 1980 120 30 051
Emerson St 1925 120 30 052
Kingsley Ave 11906 12020 014
Kingsley Ave 1902 120 29 052
Kingsley Ave 1906 120 20 013
Kingsley Ave 1908 120 20 016
Kingsley Ave 1904 120 29 016
Kingsley Ave 1908 120 20 016
Kingsley Ave 1963 120 18 059
Kingsley Ave 1908 ;120 18 058
Kingsley Ave 1940 120 69 006
PNC
:~C
=C
H-PC
PNC
PC
PC
=C
=C
H-PC
aC
=C
=C
aC
aC
!PC
H-PC
PC
PC
PC
H-PC
PNC
PNC
PC
PC
=C
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PNC
PC
PNC
PNC
PC
PC
H-PC
=C
PC
=C
PC
PNC
PC
PNC
Page 2
Professorville Histodc Distdct 5/28/99
327
333
334
335
343
345
1353
355
356
360
363
364
365
374
405
425
430
433
450
457-459
490
501
225
251
308
318
329
331
334
345
356
365
381
405
409
427
436
439
451
467
510
510
315
321
325
330
335
Kingsley Ave 1940 12069 001
Kingsley Ave 1940 120 69 002
Kingsley Ave 1903 120 20 006
Kingsley Ave 1940 120 69 007
Kingsley Ave 1940 120 69 003
Kingsley Ave 1940 !120 69 008
Kingsley Ave 1940 !12069~004.
Kingsley Ave 1940 120 69 009
Kingsley Ave 1893 120 20 005
Kingsley Ave 1900 120 20 004
Kingsley Ave 1940 120 69 005
Kingsley Ave 1899 120 20 003
Kingsley Ave 1940 120 69 010
Kingsley Ave 1899 120 20 002
Kingsley Ave 1929 120 18 050
Kingsley Ave 1975 120 18064
Kingsley Ave 1902 120 19 002
Kingsley Ave 1891 120 18 063
Kingsley Ave 1894 120 19 033
Kingsley Ave 1914 120 18 048
Kingsley Ave 1920 120 19 004
Kingsley Ave 1897 120 06 075
Lincoln Ave 1925 120 29 045
Lincoln Ave 1903 120 29 034
Lincoln Ave 1902 120 18 041
ILincoln Ave 1901 120 18 042
ILincoln Ave 1900 120 18 036
;Lincoln Ave 1900 120 18 035
Lincoln Ave 1897 120 18 043
Lincoln Ave 1893 120 18 034
Lincoln Ave 1896 120 18 044
Lincoln Ave,1903 120 18 032
Lincoln Ave 1894 120 18 033
Lincoln Ave 1923 120 18 025
Lincoln Ave 1922 120 18 024
Lincoln Ave 1926 120 18 023
Lincoln Ave 1920 120 18 047
Lincoln Ave 1929 120 18 022
Lincoln Ave 1924 120 18 021
Lincoln Ave 1925 120 18 020
Lincoln Ave 1931 120 06 080
Lincoln Ave 1931 120 06 080
Melville Ave 1903 120 20 018
Melville Ave 1902 120 20 019
Melville Ave 1961 120 20 029
Melville Ave 1912 120 20 027
Melville Ave 1958 120 20 028
PNC
PNC
H-PC
PNC
PNC
PNC
PNC
PNC,
H-PC
=C
PNC
=C
PNC
:~C
:~C
PNC
:~C
H-PC
H-PC
H-PC
PC
H-PC
PC
PC
PC
:~C
PC
=C
PC
H-PC
H-PC
H-PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PNC
PC
PNC
Page 3
Professorville Historic District 5/28/99
340
353
363
409
433
440
450
453
465
469
475
480
500
1000
1001
1013
1020
1021
1024
1029
1031
1032
1040
1047
1048
1057
1102
1103
1106
1112
1115
1116
1125
1139
1147
1010
1020
1022
1101
1110
1130
1135
1136
1146
1155
1177
1207
MelVille Ave,1987 120 20 026 PNC
Melville Ave 1897 120 20 021 =C
Melville Ave 1897 ~C
Melville Ave 1901 120 19 028 :~C
Melville Ave 1894 120 19 027 H-PC
Melville Ave 1926 120 19 021 ~C
Melville Ave 1983 120 19 022 PNC
~lelville Ave 1993. 120 19 026 PNC
Melville Ave 1993 120 19 025 ~NC
Melville Ave 1970 120 19 024 PNC
Melville Ave 1911 120 19 007 H-PC ....
Melville Ave 1958 120 19 023 PNC
Melville Ave 1904 120 07 045 PC
Ramona St 1905 12029 028 PC
Ramona St 1908 120 29 001 PC
Ramona St 1908 120 29 027 PC
Ramona St 1907~ 120_2_9 029 PC
Ramona St 1905 120 29 026 PC
Ramona St 1914 120 29 030 PC
Ramona St 1905 120 29 025 PC
~amona St 1904 120 29 024 PC
Ramona St 1954 1120 29 031 PNC
Ramona St 1914 ~120 29 032 -PC
Ramona St 1907 120 29 023 PC
Ramona St 1904 120 29 033 PC
Ramona St 1901 120 29 022 PC
Ramona St 1908 120 29 035 PC
Ramona St 1901 120 29 021 PC
Ramona St 1905 120 29 036 PC
Ramona St 1905 120 29 037 PC
Ramona St 1903 120 29 020 H-PC
Ramona St 1902 120 29 038 ~C
Ramona St 1902 120 29 019 PC
Ramona St 1903 120 29 018 H-PC
Ramona St 1906 120 29 017 PC
Wavedey St 1922 120 18 008 PC
Waverley St 1902 120 18 030 ~C
Wavedey St 1905 120 18 031 PC
Waverley St 1922 120 18 046 ~C
Waverley St 1993 120 18 045 PNC
Waverley St 1900 120 18 054 ~C
Waverley St 1927 120 18 053 ~C
Wavedey St 1893 120 18 055 ~C
Waverley St 1891 120 18 056 ~C
Waverley St 1927 120 18 052 ~C
Wavedey St 1928 120 18 051 PC
Wavedey St 1904 120 19 033 PC
Page 4
Professorville Historic District 5/28/99
1220
1221
1240
1245
1248
11303
1321
1327
1329
1331
334
373-75
Wavedey St !1899
Wavedey St 1993
Wavedey St 1905
WavedeySt 1902
Wavedey St 1904
Wavedey St 1919
Wavedey St 1916
Wavedey St~1988
Wavedey St 1988
Wavedey St 1950
Whitman Ct 1904
Whitman Ct~-1908
120 20 001
120 19 O34
120 20 023
120 19 029
120 20 024
’120 19020
120 19 032
120 19 030
120 19 031
120 19 017
120 2O O2O
120 20 002
PC
PNC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC,
PNC
PNC
PNC
~C
:~C
Page 5
Attachment D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28_
29
30
31
32
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS
April 7, 1999
REGULAR
City Council
Civic Center, 11
250 Hamilton
Palo Alto,
ROLL CALL: 8:10 AM
Board members:
Roger Kohler, Chairman
Carol Murden, Vice-Chair
Ken Alsman
Dennis Backlund
Martin Bernstein
Mildred Mario
Susan Havi~an~
White, Planning Manager
Planner
Tamale, Office Specialist
Riel, Chief Planning Official
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City
Attorney
draft Permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance (PHPO)
tmental Impact Report (DEIR).
Wynne Furth from the City Attorney’s Office. She is here to help
gh conflict of interest on this report. Would you like to do a little preamble
bn Wl~t:~we, arcati~u~ to do?
M~-:,:~Wvnne~’i~urth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Sure. Most of the time when the Historic
Resources Board considers an item you are dealing with a particular piece of property. Unless you
happen to own it or be working on it or live next door to it, it doesn’t present a conflict of interest for
you in the legal sense. But today you are being asked to comment on a Historic Preservation
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Ordinance that would categorize historic resources in the City in various ways and propose different
kinds of regulation and incentives for them. Therefore if you own an historic property or live in an
historic district or live right next to other historic houses it is possible that decisions that you’d be
contemplating today would have a financial impact on you that is different from the kind of impact it
would have on the public generally. So under the California Fair Political Practices Act we are
required, as public officials, to step down, to not participate in a decision if we have a conflict of
interest. It is a bit ritualistic. You identify the particular property or source that would be
a conflict of interest for you and you step down on that basis.
In our particular situation with the HRB you are asked
indeed One of you is required, under our local
well. I believe that in this situation many of you own
once everybody has announced their conflicts of
Board. The law has anticipated this situation. So after.
conflict, anybody who doesn’t have a conflict is seated
you until there is a quorum and only a quorum, that
BM Kohler: Are you going to define for us
but are you open for questions now? The
these items, that’s a conflict.
live in
and
that
be left on the
those indivi do have a
we draw lots among the rest of
alread
an
some conflict of interest,
house that is listed in one of
Ms. Furth: For your purposes
Register eligible or 1:Re
1, 2, 3 or 4 home, or if you .,~-.~.. .....Historic District. Those
identified as potentially National
is on the earlier inventory as a Category
or another property in the Ramona
likely to be affected by this
someone who owns an historic house?
Ms. Furth:
previous , ~,-
income ttiathas such
to you if they pay you $250.00 or more during the
pay you that amount. Again, if you have a source of
~that too would create a conflict.
Ou~ypothesis is that
BMKohler: Ok~,~:
~’:’:’:~eS:!.~OU do. If it’s a property, identify the property by address. If it’s a client, identify
the ct~ent:~ ~Then we’ll see who’s le~
to have drawing of lots today. They’ve been prepared.
the next step? Do we each declare whether we have a conflict or not?
BM Kohler: I guess we’ll start at the right end of the Board here who has an obvious conflict.
BM Mari0: I have a conflict.. I live at 900 University Avenue and it is a National Register property.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
BM Alsman: I have a couple of conflicts. I live in an historic house at 1057 Ramona Street. I’ve
been involved in projects with Jon Schnik on Ramona as well in doing development. And I’m in the
process of purchasing historic property at 1008 Bryant.
BM Murden: I have a conflict. I live at 1331 Martin Avenue which is eligible for the California
Register.
BM Kohler: I guess I have a conflict because I’ve received income fr0~m Professorville at
1052 Bryant, the Arima’s residence. I think there are one two but all it takes is
one.
BM Bernstein: I have a conflict of interest. I own a
at 617 High Street. Other conflicts would be that I
Professorville. I also live next door to an historic
BM Haviland: I have several conflicts. I own 1110
have a client at 1545 Waverley Street.
and 1130 Waverley Street. I
BM Bacldund: I do not have any conflicts
rather than ownership status in a family .....
Downtown. Before I came onto the Boa~d~I
was def’med by the Fair Practices Co~ssion
consigner status
The President,
leasehold which
no conflict in the area.
Ms. Furth: That’s correct.would be seated for this matter and
ar~i
ho a~Jeaving
~estions and Annoui~d~ments. On April 15th Carol and I will be leading an architectural week tour
D0~town of b~i!~figs that have renovated and are success stories from historic standpoint. All
th0seB6ard~M~b~rs who would like to participate are welcome to come and we’ll lead a tour
atound:.tO~i::~We are, right now, putting together lists of those potential buildings and houses to go
tour. -i~i~"at noon, Thursday, a lunch-time tour. We’ll be leaving from out here in front of City Hall
Plaza. There will be advertisements in the paper. There probably will be upwards of 20-25 people.
So if there are extra Board Members available that might be helpful. Some of the thoughts are
possible the Varsity Theater, the coffee place across the street, and other possibilities.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
I’ve just one more announcement. On April 17th, Saturday, at the Williams Heritage House Museum
of American Heritage at the Williams House is going to be in the Heritage Council Santa Clara
County Conference. Again, Carol Murden and I have been volunteered to lead a discussion on the
ongoing issue of historic preservation in Palo Alto. If there are Board Members who would like to
join us we are going to have a brief introduction with some slides. Then we’ll field questions from
the audience about the whole process of what we are doing here.
Martin, do you have an announcement?
BM Bernstein: Question. Is there any conflict issue
BM Kohler: I don’t know, I guess we will check
there is a conflict.
that if
BM Bernstein: I .would also like to announce for the
participating Agenda Item 3 today. Review and
Preservation Ordinance due to a conflict of interest.
Martin Bernstein, will not be
Historic
BM Kohler: Thank you for the official
the record. Millie I think you have to.
BM Mario:~ Millie Mario will not be
else their announcement for
of a conflict of interest.
BM Haviland: Susan Haviland be 3 because of a conflict of interest.
done yet. Are there any other
for j~ no matter how brief it was.
We will ,to
Preservation
and discussion of the Draft Permanent Historic
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
Staff,give u:as to what you are expecting from us today for those who are
left.
M~i~:White: As 3 is the review and discussion and recommendation regarding the Draft
~e~nent Historic ~r~rvation Ordinance and the associated Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Backm December~f 1998 the C~ty Council gave threct~on to Stuff as to ~e components of ~e Dra~
Preservation Ordinance. Subsequemly in Janua~, I believe, ~e Historic
~s~u~Bba~d reviewed a dra~ in association wi~ ~e Enviromenml ~pact Report for ~at
docu’M~n(. Subsequently the City Stuff received a large volume of co~ents and respomes to ~e
Draft EIR which led to a revision of ~e EIR and a re-circulation of ~e EIR which began on March
31, 1999. The public review period will end on April 30 of ~is year. The S~ff is requesting, from
the H~ today, to review the most recent dra~ of the Pe~anent Historic Prese~ation Ord~nce
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
which is both attached to the February 16th City Manager’s Report which was sent to you in your
packets and is also an attachment of the revised Draft Environmental Impact Report which you should
have also received. We are essentially asking for your comments and recommendations that will be
forwarded to the City Council for their consideration for a meeting scheduled on June 7. You should
also note that Eric Riel, the Chief Planning Official is here with, as well as Wynne Furth, Senior
Assistant City Attorney. Eric would like to make a couple of comments relating .t,o the revised and re-
circulated Draft EIR. ~. ~ ,::?~
Mr. Riel: Thank you George. Virginia is going to join us~as well.
reiterate what George had said. In December Staff was ~0~ded
preparation of the Draft Historic Preservation Ordmance~i~,Tks
EIR which was circulated on December 31. At the
substantial amount of comments which were very
draft the EIR and the Planning Department did thatin
consultants. The subsequent re-drafting of the EIR
review on March 31st. The review period ends on
consider the item at a formal public hearing
Their charge is to recommend to City Council
George indicated, the Historic Ordinance as
on June 7, 1999. As George indicated,
have on the Draft Ordinance. Then
forward to the Planning Commission~their
BM Kohler: Okay. As I sam, ~/a!a’not
her way. Just to
regard~g the
an
a
tore-
~’s Office and
and it was released for public
Commission will
!:00 p.m. within this room.
the Draft EIR. As
EIR is scheduled to occur
and any input you might
on the Draft EIR that we can
’. Thank you.
Sunday when I returned. I’m just looking
~~Well; there are four of us. We only need four? We’re seven, okay, so we’re four.
AnySugge~i0~ on how we want to -- do you want to do what we’ve done in the past? Sort of go
dow~i~t~i~ne and make comments. So we’ll field some questions for Staff first would be a good
idea. Carol.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
BM Murden: I had a question in reference to the actual Draft Ordinance and I must admit that I’m
taking it from the write-up and I have not looked this up in the actual Ordinance. So that may be why
I have a question. In Section 3, page 28, 29 and 30 there is a discussion about adding properties to
the Palo Alto Register. There are three things suggested. One is if a property owner wants to add his
property and it is simply an historic resource which according to the def’mition doesn’t mean
necessarily that it is on a list¯ Is that correct? It could just be a property that the~.~feel is historic¯
Mr. White: That’s correct. It can be considered even though it is no!~n oneki~f~ ~he designated lists¯
BM Murden: That was what I thought.X:~TD~"k~-~,".:,~,:~,,~!~t~,,,,
Is. Iurth: towever, it ,s not smaply that one can apIjl: becausTl co£i~Iiii~~iic but
basically it needs the standard that does e×ist independiiy of,~0wner’s olgi~i~
m at i= =o= of my ., ir an ow=,,
prope~ put on the Register there are several cond~tio~;~at{~ve~;to~be met but one of ~em ~s that
t~ prop~ mitt 1~ ~rit~rla for in~luSlO~ on th~ ~ahfo~a ~iii~hat ~ fin~. I haw no u t,on about at. mh n haw prop
designation¯ Agam, tire are celln sl~lfls ta~~ meT~’One of tim is that it has to
meet ~e criteria for ~e National Regl~and ~S ff0~go;t~, or ~e criteria for ~e Cahfo~a
Register¯ It so~ of ~e middle of ~e p~ge. It ~.a~ff, the r~66~+~while not appear~g to meet ~e
criteria¯ This is ~e one that I hav~’equesti~h 0n beca~k~ it ~en goes on to say, ~at if, and I’m
going to use the te~ non-own~r~<;~:,<lia is o~e Resource List and it is suggested by ~e
H~ or the Council or somebody~but so~one.o~e~an ~e owner of the prope~ ~at it go on to
the Reglster~,,+,~at prope~:~l~meet ~~~lTReglster criteria. By ~at I l~er ~at it would not
be eliglbl~i~t~e C~~glster. ~a~;~n~ersmna ~e reason between ~e difference of ~e
Ms. Fu~h: Therer~et~Q so~ of A~oss~u~ng issues here, I ~l~. One is ~at ce~y this
Or lnance ~+fl~i~!~’~that if~e propeay is Natio~l Register eligible essentially, and it is a
looald~tlllnation ~!!~,~lt~i:~Tt tlving t~ aulorl~ to mall tha~ dt~lslon to 1~ ftdtral
but saying if under lo~a[~tWyou bellow, or 1~ appropriate people, ult~at~ly 1~ Council,
h~li~Te that this huil~~i~Dational ~etister quali~ then te Counoi~ can choose to put it on
R~glst~r. If a prop~!<~!pp~ars to b~ of California R~glst~r quality and 1~ owner wants to put It on
!~~l!fist~r, 1~ ow~r~an ~o that. Th~r~ is also an ~x~ption to the teneral ~1~ that if th~ Council
+.. -, -+ _~-~i~71° do that irma7 to me~t National Register standards. That is, if it at least m~ets ~aliforsa
~tisi~;~{!~an~ t~r~ is som~ ~xceptionai tint about this buii~int as it r~lates to ~alo ~ito,
t~ ti"~il ~oul~ ~oi~ to in~lud~ a building on th~ Register without $e owner’s cogent ~wn
thoff~~ii’~sn’t strictly m~et ~ationai ~tister s~n~ar~s, Ihat is a respons~ to te mounoii’s
statement tat Icy wanted to be ahl~ to saw th~ ~xtraordina~, the best of the b~st, ewn if it’s of
fr~at impo~nt locally but for som~ r~ason doesn’t m~t ~ational R~gister StndarOs.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
BM Murden: I see, thank you.
Ms. Furth: So that’s not intended to be a large number of California Register buildings. It may not
be any but that’s to cover the situation of a building that has great local importance but perhaps not
National Register importance.
BM Murden: I see the reasoning now. Thank you.
BM Kohler: Ken, did you have a question?
BM Alsman: Not at this point.
BM K0hler: Dennis.
BM Backlund: My question is related to my search for
some information here. The question is regarding
page 1-5, in the middle of the page it refers to the
Incentives Alternative. It notes that there is no
buildings in the Downtown area. Then
means is owner consent, and if the owner
required by the Draft Ordinance. So I
protect the 30 Downtown buildings
or what is called the old
separated out in the Draft.
couldn’t find so I need to get
specifically the alternative on
Ordinance with
other than 30
7-80 i voluntary ordinance
be subject to the same process
for the clause that would
That is the case under the current
prot~,ets the Downtown but I didn’t see that
vBo~umKe°~!~Ye~ ~{~i~’~,. ’ i~°e°rk~fegr .here d~rUee;~i;~ tThehe Revised Draft,. the smaller
MS. Furth: ’I,’.m~so~i~.it is ~.ilt~to hear, unfortunately, from the Staff table.
BM Kohler:--:,Didn!.t;~ :that. Din~t they have speakers right here? Okay. While you are looking
for that otfie~ item I ~!j~s~nder this volume here, there are no references to the particular zone
designa~ti0n 16.49.403. o we, I guess my point is the Draft Environmental Impact Report, is
it ju~ii~ort of a general ~dnt document? It doesn’t really go down and talk about each of these
it~: individually. It j~ goes in general? I’m trying to understand this.
Mr: -White: Yes, ~ii~this particular case the Draft Ordinance is the project description that the Draft
tlR:wasibased]ii~.; So what we are asking for from you today is your comments on the Draft
ordi~e~ wtlJci is comments that the City Council would be eager to receive. As Eric mentioned,
the PIinnifig Commission has the purview to comment on the adequacy of the EIR itself.’ That will
happen next Wednesday evening.
BM Kohler: Okay, so you are asking us to look at the Draft Ordinance.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. White.: That’s correct.
BM Kohler: Not necessarily the Environmental Impact. Okay, I thought you were asking for the
Environmental Impact.
Mr. Riel: We’d like to get your comments on both obviously but we’d like to get, your main focus of
attention on the Draft Ordinance. With reference to your comment, the Appendi~i:G is the actual
16.49. It is reference throughout the Draft EIR.
BM Kohler: Okay. t~,~.~’~
Ms. Furth: Also the Draft EIR, remember, is an anal’~6~:~=0f~
preservation is, a description of the historic resources
environmental effects of various proposed regulatory
Ordinance. This is what we believe would or could
discusses, after analyzing these impacts, primarily
about alternatives and the environmental effects
explication of the Ordinance. The Ordinance ~s
EIR is intended to be a more narrative
property and the environment.
of the
the Draft
Ordinance is adopted. It then
resources, it then talks
as a section by section
and enforced. The
would affect people and
BM Kohler: Let me just ask then,me sort of. The Draft Ordinance
that is in this CMR is the same tha~,,~as this~as first published. Are there any proposed
changes? I remember we looked.~at:~s and;B0ard Mey~ber Alsman was co~ent~g about ~e large
draft le~ers here. My I’m~l°0klng~~¢re~o~= ~.~,~.~. ~,~~s still ~e proposed Ordinance or has it
changed?
Mr,is at~ched to ~e CMR from Febma~ 16~ and ~e dra~
¯ at is in are same dra~. That hasn’t changed s~ce Febmaw 16~.
BM Kohler
Mr. W~ite: Now 16th there were other drafts.
that. We did review this in some ....BM:Kohler: Right, I
~: There~ha~,e been some minor changes made to it based on the direction of the City
Cou~fi~ at~e~prevlous meeting. In Febma~ ~ey asked for some changes, pr~arily procedural.
~ls6~it:n~i~O be clear ~at the Council does have the au~ority, you ~ow under this Ordi~nce ~e
basic notion is there is a small group of protected prope~ies on the Palo Alto Register and ~ey
receive quite a bit of protection. They can o~y be demolished ~ cases of umafe build~gs or
considerable personal hardship. The Council also has ~e right, under ~e Ordinance, to dete~e
that even though a building is National Register eligible ~ere are competing Comprehe~ive Plan
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
goals that cannot be implemented without its destruction. So even a National Register building could
be destroyed if it couldn’t be maintained in its location without thwarting another major goal.
BM Kohler: Ken.
BM Alsman: There was,somewhere in the materials I was looking at, there was a list of those
additions that the City Council asked to have made to the Ordinance, if I’m correct. I can’t find it at
the present time. Do you know where that is? .~ ~
Ms. Furth: I don’t believe there is such a list. Most of
ask that the procedure for searching for new members
described in the same way that it is for other commissi
not be charged to property owners for, I believe, any
reviews, nominations, and so on and so forth would
technical.They did
be
would
All the
Mr. White: Except for demolitions.
Ms. Furth: Except for some demolitions.
the Register or on the Resource List would
removed if the owner had reason or
So there is a swift off-ramp if we errone6u~ly cla
have anything else?
:,it to be
a
owner of property on
of that property to have it
;sifted as an historic resource.
being on the Register. Do you
BM Kohler: Did any of the in February have to do with the make-up
of the Board? This looks like th~’.~ame there before.
Ms. Furtti.i,:Yi~i~are correet-~:is, the s
BM AlSman!-<:.~.WhaFare Staff"g,~,e~0iieerns:~about the Ordinance as it ~s now put together with respect to
your ability to’-’~."pldhaeiltdt? I th’~!~~bf the big issues all along has been that after all of this is
done and some0ne!~me~{~:,~e c&n{er and says I’ve got this old house I want to fix up. What do I
do? Doeg({he Staff i~{asehsg:pf what that process is really going to be, how long it is going to
take,,Uaw that is going ~3~a~aled?
Mr:;..White: Well, we Obviously haven’t worked out all the. details because we don t have an
Ordinance adopted or~i~~::place at this point in time. So budgeting for something that doesn’t exist is
~6mething we dgn}lS:i~ttS. However, we have prepared an implementation plan that will go the Councilin Jtme.-!t:,is-afi{iCipating that there would be a new position in the City called the Historic
Preservatio~Officer who is a qualified, knowledgeable preservation professional. Beyond that I don’t
know"exactly what sort of person we would get who would essentially implement this new Ordinance
and the Historic Preservation Program and any contact with the public via pre-application,
application, or review of applications would be handled through that one contact in the City. In terms
of timing, exact timing, I can’t really respond to that.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
B.M Alsman: Just from experience, I would urge that there be substantial back-up for when that
person isn’t around. I think, again, much of the problem started with, in my view, the fact that sort
of getting to that person, that became a whole process unto itself. It is very important that the Staff
feels comfortable that they can handle this expeditiously so that it’s convenient to people as they enter
this process, if it is going to be a process that really works effectively.
Mr. White: Just in response to that very quickly, I think we are conte~plating,~._ ~,,~,;,a~isystem where there
is suitable and adequate back up. We have now an Associate Planner?(~yjEi~ench, who deals with
the Board on a regular basis, who has half of her duties devoted to th~iHist6ric Preservation Program
and that would continue m addition to ~e H~stonc Prese~va~bn Offi~;;~::~well as at least ~e pa~-
t~e duties of a Manager which is myself~
Mr. R~el: I d l~e to cogent as well. In addition to~e~H~s[onc Preservat~oaOffi~r;~:~Smff ~s going
to do some additional public outreach. We are going t~o~o~e training sessioas~and reach out to
mose individuals, architects, homeowners, and do so~~ what the actual process willbe.
We will encourage hig~y pre-application co~erences.~’i6~j~~~will be provided to ~e
progr~. Prior to an actual apphcation being filed, and we af~to work wi~ prope~
owners and we’re going to ~plement a system ~~:~of owners that are
demohs~g propea~es to t~ to get ~em to ~~~an demohsh ~em, ~ose
that m~ght not m~e e~er of ~e hsts. So~e~ are proactiveamore stance on
educaung me pubhc and those homeow~ in te~ ~e:~i ~ As well as what oppom~ties are
avadable and what momes and ~nd~ng~as available, and ~h~nt~ves ~at are available. So we are
going to reach out ra~er ~an hav~gple Jus~eome ~n ~d tell them about ~e program. Hope~lly
they will have a better undersmM~g when~gy ~t~al~fio submit ~at application of what’s available
to mem in te~s of incentives ~d;~e pro~i~ver~};
Ms. Fu~)~er~ is an~~ of ~i~:~’t~ould be help~l to have your co~ents on when
you hav6~had :h,~nce to ~s[~i~~:~e Ordinance and the alte~atives a bit. We did t~ to write the
Ordinance, m~o.~ays ~t ~s ~nd~educe the ~pact on prope~ owners and ~e o~ers wor~g
w~th them. One~ofcourse, ~s ~t ~a~mu~h smaller group of affected prope~es. That s the most
~: I don t ~o~)~i:f~ ~at is ~e greatest idea but nonetheless.
MS.~ Furth: Pardon
~: I don~’:f:know that I necessarily think that’s the greatest idea, that it’s a shorter list.
~:i;No~ I understand but that’s one aspect of dealing with the bureaucratic aspect of this and
prob~ibly’ the most controversial. The other thing we tried to do was get an early sort out between
projects that don’t need a great deal of scrutiny because they are not going to destroy the historic
integrity of the property and projects that need more. It can be extremely frustrating to have to wait.
months to find out, I mean if somebody tells you after six months, oh never mind, that’s just as bad as
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39-
40
41
42
43
having to go through something more serious. So when you look at the discussion of maintenance,
minor alterations, major alterations, what we were trying to do there was to get a quick sort of the
projects that don’t need scrutiny, don’t need special scrutiny, at the Staff level. Then have a
relatively small number of projects that do require more scrutiny and more attention. In all cases,
we’ve also tried to design it so that there is a pretty quick determination that something is or isn’t
compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. If they are, then again,jit is an expedited
process with minimum opportunities for disruption. So that was our effort. You!~ave much more
experience than I do certainly, in that process, and if you’d look at thgseAefimtlons and processes in
particular that would be helpful to us.
BM Alsman: One that applies is Section 16.49.150 MajorAlteratio.n~0f,~S0~List Prop~ies. It
calls for a major alteration delay¯ It’s on page 19. CoUld someon6i.e~plai’h~,~tit0~!i~ea~lifti~~ more
thoroughly? Does this mean it gets to the HRB. It grn ~s stall sor~,of;al~:tlie"~Staff level
unless I’m mis-reading it.
Mr. White: I think I can respond to that. The .,is Section E, is what you’re
talking about?
BM Alsman. Yes.
Mr. White: Properties that are on the R~0urce Li~i tl~a[~¢~sed for alteration will be, under
this Ordinance, reviewed by Staff for.~v~mpliancdi’With th~:~ry of the Interior’s Standards. If
they comply, it is presumed that th~is no adverse impa~and they can go on and get their building
permit. If we get to the point that:it ~s not clear that t~ey. comply or it ~s clear that they don t comply,
we have the ability as Staff, ~th~irector p~01~a~ly in~is case, to ask for this one year delay and get
adwce from,~the H~stonc R~sourees Board~:~a~,~9~e" else that he feels he needs to get adwce from to
determ~neff.there is an~p~,!t~e resot~ree:~~ th~nk that ~s the intent here. To g~ve tmae here for
BM Alsman: I ’~juStisee that <~eone who is against the Ordinance might read that somewhat
~,It ~eemsiiike~fi-~,substa~fialdelay for something.
Ms. Ft~rth: Well, they h~al~::~lternative which is the so-called "exit ramp." If they believe that
the~rproperty ~s not Nat~0nalReglster ehg~ble and therefore cannot be elevated to the Palo Alto
Register, unless it is on~ibf those very rare cases, they can come in and ask simply to be removed
from~the Resource Lis’~: If they have a National Register eligible property however, that is not going
tobe an alternative,for them.
BM Aisman:,,~Would it make sense that there is another alternative, another off-ramp if you will,
whicli V;,0uld take you to perhaps a different solution which is that they could ask that it be designated
as a Palo Alto Resource and that it goes before the HRB?
Ms, Furth: That is an alternative as well.
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 11
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
~8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr, White: Yes, I think one of the possible outcomes of this review is the HRB’s recommendation to
the City Council that this should be placed on the Register which would give it a higher level of
protection.
BM Alsman: I would just suggest as one, I know we are asking questions but so I don’t forget it, it
might be helpful to mention the HRB in this section as a component of it. If it says nothing more, the
Director can refer to the HRB directly. I think that would be valuable.~ .~ ....
Mr.White: Yes, I think that may exist elsewhere.
BM Alsman: I think it is intuitive that you could do it.
Mr.White: It talks about probably in the nomination
BM Alsman: I’m just sort of reacting to the kind we often get. I can see someone
pointing at that and saying, ah, we ve created another~ort o~:too~powerful Staff position who can
delay my project for blank, blank, blank. . "~<(~.,’,~:7.,~;~,. .
Ms. Fllh: Ilcldelilly, It IS a SlX mol~ delayi~:~’Iola~’Ole~ylar
IM Alsmal: Ole last qlestlOl lom me:ald that l~$i[i~$~illtorlc districts IS ~ere aly$11g
specileally refe~ing to public realm or:public ~!hO~ wil!}fflstoric district Sat need to be
reviewed by ~e H~? ~A"]QI~;.
Mr. Wlite: Coull you be mom!specile,wlat you are refe~ing to.
BM Alsm~:~, Wi~in again my own bias, one of ~e more ~po~nt ~gs
than tleia!iVi!i!?lulliiii,~!!l~le~ies is tle setting, ~e enviro=e=t, wle~er it ~e the wil~ of
the street, Wnerime"nees ari’~.~)iw~at utilities ~o in, what siam ~o up in the neighborhood,
wlat kind of tra~¢eir¢ies Io in~ ~!at~iott of th~l. Is ~ere aa I£, anything ~at speeilcally putsthe onus ig ey are ayin =tt=ntio= anO thei, ae a e=ts are ayin
atte=io=~i~tie ~istoii~’iiiii~!:.,~.~ t~i~ in=itive~y S=ff wi~ want to say, yes we wa=t to ~o ~is ~ut
thi~i,ili~t ~e va~=aiii~ii£a~i some reference to any oa~ie ~roveme=s ~at ~o i=to an ~istoric
Mrs,,W~ite: We’re ~o!i~n~. ~ ~on’t fecal a slecific reference ~ut we are
~~ L["~eltioled it a few times but I jlst walted to meltiol it agail. Ole last lolelt if I
couid,RogCr~~ That is that my sense is that the Ordinance is about as Iooi as it’s going to let at ~e
momeit. [ hope there is an ope~ess to sort of watch for what lappens as a result of ~is aad, as
friglte~nl as it ~ay sound, to be open to considering clanges in the next year or so ~at are going to
Ine-~ne the prollems that are obviously loinl to emerge. It’s not going to be perfect. Anyboly
who ~i£s it is, is probably not riglt. So if we are open to Ine-~ng, iproving and lelp~g it, I
I
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
think it is Valuable.
Mr. White: Before we go on I wanted to ask Dennis if he felt his question was answered. The
question about the 30 properties and the alternatives?
BM Backlund: Actually, no. The only answer I could construe is if the City owned 30 historic
resources Downtown then they’d be protected. Z
Mr__,..W___hit__ge: I think the alternative contemplated a situationiwith/~_~_ __~,_ -,,~ _a, , ~, that would
exist in addition to the existing 16.49 which does have some:demolitioneontr01 over properties
Downtown. Those are the 30 properties that are lnd~cat~.
BM Backlund: Okay, what co~sed me was ~at the ~eX~gn ~e,volun~ alte~av~;~th ~ncenUves
said that if the owner gives co~eN then they would be~:s~bj~t~to the process ofthe:;~ia~ OrdNance
where I d~d not fred ~y separalng out of special Downtown:s~mres for protection. There was no
reference that I could tim ~n that d~scuss~on to ~e cu~ent
Mr. White: That could be m realm of ~ng a no~ma~n~ ~el~r.
BM BacNund" Yes, since so maw have ~ssed ~t~al~tiy22~ould reco~end ~at. Tha~
Ms. Vun~: I was just going to re~g to K~i~co~e~)~bout ~e public right-away in districts.
Clearly that is the nodal undersN~d[fig of ~istrict, is~e~aing within
looNng at ~e defiNtion sectio~~ere. The~,~gef~tion~f district and ~e deletion of contributors
within district. It ~lks ab~! resourc~}~i~ bounda~, etc., wNch would incluae ae public
right-awa~d):~ot just ~!~tion of ~~arcels. I ~ your point is ve~ well ~en. I
si~ee~dNv~have~t~~:[~ and aey were es~blished 20 years ago we’ve ~d of i~eritea
a situation":~ -~~re~N~is not,~t?~di~;i~ystem was more just bulldog basea. That we probably, at a
mi~um, need2to k~p:;~t in ~0nt:~ur minds as we proceed forward. I ~i~ the defiNtion here
clearly is ~.d~n4~;!~~way;~! wilr~eCo~odate for any ~mre districts and for any more refined
defiNtion ~f~ ~ ’~existing~6N~ri~N::exactly what you are ~lking about.
IM~llsman: I th~£ thi~ithere are some lood examples of how ~at lasn t apphed m ~e past aad
peilps could. One lastilhought since it was brouglt back to me and that is ~at as we get into,
Iol~lly some additiiial work in your work program next year with respect to lookiaI at building
desiga;,the relatio!l~p of buildings that are near listoric listriets. This is a Ife-edge line ~at gets isto,i i=tri ts. am amaze somet es at w at
BM Kohler! Actually, Ken, that brings up an issue. In an ordinary Zoning Ordinance if a property is
next door to, like an RM-30 is next to an R-1 district, there are certain conditions that the higher
density zoning ordinance has to respond to if it is adjacent to a lower density zone. That’s correct,
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39-
40
41
42
43
right? So I guess what you’re suggesting is that if you’re house is adjacent to an historic district there
ought to be some consideration taken into any development on an adjacent property if it is next to an
historic district.
BM Alsman: I think it would, from my standpoint, the architect and owner would do it intuitively but
that is obviously not the case. So, yes.
BM Kohler: Okay. Is that an official comment we want to include? ~ ~(,:?"
BM Alsm : As I said, I think the Ordinance is about,~ ,,- ;-,, ~,-~,~,÷~,~h~i~e;it is going ~,to~get.~ So all I’m~:dq~g is I
want to plant some seeds. It’s a cogent and I ~ i~:~,~somet~ngs~h~reflly,~needs to bq:90oked at
as paa of a new work program ~at ~s already on ~e d~ket,L:,, .,, as I ~ersmfia~it~::~~:~~:~, ~
BM Kohler: Carol, did you have some questiom? ~;:-~:~?~’,;’~:,~?~}~:~ ~;~:"~
BM Murden: I have ano~er question. I’m using theN~ff~},~:fln:page 3, it defines an historic
district, it is in ~e middle of ~e page, letter F. It says an h~stOnM~(~mct means defined geographical
area con~mng a s~gmficant concentration, etc..~h~n¢~hen ~t comes~:~g~to page 10 and it ~s ~lk~ng
about the criteria for an historic district, it ~Lb~g~N~ fact Na~y~u can have a ~emat~cally
related and that seems to me some~ing o[~6~ict::.~: ~?;~:?: ~.4: .
Ms. Warheit: We just d~d ~at to see ~o wouMreally r~Ad~eNlly. You got ~e prge, I ~
Wy~e will tell you is aat )2going d6e fixed ’aat it is co~istent and it c,n be thematic.what
The National Register S~ndard~iude,~, po~s~le thematic. We are not sure we have any m Palo Alto
but we may and s~nce we are using ~ose s~fi~rd, what we would ~ntend.
BM
happen
will they
perhaps people
are
related to the Ordinance. What is going to
properties? Those 1,800 properties, will they just disappear or
necessarily to be regulated, but I have always wondered if
basis come to the HRB if they are going to do
HRB gave would not be mandatory to follow., I just
out there as an identifiable group somewhere.
Mr/White: Certainly ~, will remain as a resource. A lot of effort was taken obviously by
Staffand the consultant~!ito compile data to identify these properties in the first place. Certainly we
are not going to just ~t~S~ that away. We would keep that as a resource in an archive for people that
wanted to use it.iBfit~as you indicated, those 1,800 properties are not proposed for regulation under
this = Ord’mance ~ :i ~#~
BM Miirden: Thank you.
BM Kohler: Dennis, do you have anything else? I have one while you’re thinking.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Under the membership make up of the Historic Resources Board there was some comment at a
meeting I attended at City Council about the members of the Historic Resources Board. Right now
this as written here it is fairly close to what we have now in terms of the Board Members. Is there
any other proposed changes to that make up in works that you know of?.
Mr. White: Nope.
BM Kohler: Actually the Mayor made a comment about the member~sfiip migtR~have to change. I
guess my comment would be that the current make up I th~nk is prettyL,~00tl~i :i like the mix of
abilities and histories and backgrounds¯ So for what it is,~wo~h, I thi~wehave had a pretty~good
success based on the type of membership that is here right~now. There was:~some~comment/made that
we should have more architects. ~,~:,,! ~::: ~i~:?: :~÷!N~
Mr. White: I think that was discussed but it certainly wasmot~somethIng that was:*entlorsed by the
entire Council and we did not receive that direction the~ef6~:~!~is~not in this draft.
BM Kohler: Okay, Another issue was kind of a follow up on~,\hat~Ki~:ffas talking about¯ I d just
like to comment that during the interLrn ordinanc~were seve~i~p~pmIes that came before the
Board that had been dealing with Staff. In f~~!~Out when it ~e to the Board, the Board was
-- I don’t want to use the word "hbera1" b,ul~’-!,~: shg~!~:~more;unders~finding and approved some
S~sted a rovln but the Board,~roiects and some comnonents of the pro~ects which Staff,had~pp g
overwhelmingly approved¯ I guess m~;2pomt ~s~at in tha~t~pr~ess Staff seemed to be very restrictive
and kind of hard to work with in ~ay. W~,~as when~i~:came to the Board the Board overruled." ’~,,(:~;~/4’ i ~’~ .,.Staff and a proved items that Sta~5~as reluctant to app!:ove. So my concern ~s that we don t get ~nto
another situation where Staff ~s ~be~ng ovetly~:;~i,~e,,mmo way to put this, it could the reverse, Staff
could be app~roving things,~-~t~ilie Board ~&:i~ecessarily want to approve¯ So is there going to
be any --:I .guess mhere~!y;,:We:~Will hear abo~tiie pluses or minuses of Staff process either through
the app4aim’~e’~Board o~’~i~neral public comments. I guess my point was that it still goes
back to the’~erlilNling ot’~ti~~:!~at they thought more of this review ought to be done in
public so that the!~ubi[e?~gould 1~ ~i~now in the past, in the interim ordinance there were a lot of
things said i~v’d’~?d with some and I heard from both sides directly and they
were l~e:black and ffMM~g~pphcant~_,~:~,> >~:~" would say one thing and Stuff would say ano~er and they
tomlly~d~fferent percepttg~~,~waat went on. So I m .lust tumg to say T hope ~at- we don t get,I
. :’,~’~ -~’~. .....th~t~at was w~at Ke~as{~plymg, ~at we don’t end up w~ an adversarml s~manon again w~ere
theapphcant ~s saying pne thing, Stuff ~s saying ano~er and there is no public record, no hearing to
ae~l!y say what we~on in these meetings¯
Ms~’Fu~:TY0~qi ~notice in ~e Ordinance when you look at it that in a number of simatio~ the
applicant ~s t~ option of going straight to the H~ if ~e applicant doesn’t want to work with
Mr. White,: Or go to the HRB in addition to working with Staff. So that could be a two-step process
if they so desire.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Ms. Furth: Because, as you say, it can work either way. There are people who will be happy with
an expeditious Staff review and won’t want to go any further.
BM Kohler: I guess what happened in the interim ordinance, the only review was to Staff for
complaints.
Mr. Riel: If I can comment. Obviously I think we understand your direction a~oO~e’ve learned a lot
from the interim ordinance in terms of the process. I can tell you tha[~iS~bsoliately not Staff’s intent.
We have provided and will provide the resources and educ~t!on to n~)~)~rocess work.
BM Kohler: The flip side is you approve things that th~Bbard and ~piibliC:~,:~igeneral w~d be
homfied at, and I don t th~nk that s going to happen either. So I~.~guess the
~s well token that I guess ~t s ~n here I d~dn t see ~t abs~l~ly ~en.
Ms. Furth: We tried to give choices to applicants as t~:~?~i~proceed. We tried to give
choices to prope~ owners to say w~ respect to the Re~ste[~I~~be on ~t, I want to be off; I
want to be ~ncluded because ~e ~ncent~ves are a~actwe to me~~s prope~ preserved and
it m~es seine to me eider economically or on o~unds or have tried to be sure that
big decisiom such as the removal of a Natio~~e~ectio a will be publicly
made. We have tried to hit a balance bas~0n wh[t,~W~[~ar~,you and ~e public ~at pe~ts
will be lost or projects won’t be will be u~appy wi~ ~at. We’ve tried
to write it so ~at on be better protected ~an ~ey would
otherwise be~and people review and re~lation.
Ms. Fu,h: ~~our ~, _ need to, I ~i~ we all ~ow ~at ~e Secrem~ of the
Interior’s ~ma~r~S~:w~eh~ou nrs?a k at them are ve~ sho~, they are s~temems of principal and
the leuer~ff0m ~e S~t~Hl;tb~ic.Preservation Omcer makes the same po~t. These need to be applied
flexi~and realistically~?’~ ~not t~ing to do a restoration. These are adaptive reuses of liv~g
BMKo~er: That’s~hat I meant. Paa of my cogent was ~at ~e...I thi~ it’s Free. I don’t want
~o:belabor the po~i:The point was ~at it is good to hear that the owners and applicants will have
ex~bili~:of~re~e~s’;: and appeals to a public forum. I mi~ t~at was me problem wi~
c~pafi~lli~¢~;iew" "" that the appeals never got imo a public forum. So I thi~ some of me things mat
~e~IiC£nts and people who are speaking in public were not founded co~ectly. I ~ow from fact
that they were not. I ~ow that Stuff in some ways I thi~ probably was a liale too restrictive.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
Ms. Furth: So another aspect of this ordinance of course is that it has created a much larger group of
modifications of buildings that will have minimal review. I think one of the things that was learned
from the earlier review process is that there are lots of kinds of changes that can be approved fairly
routinely either because they are reversible or because they are in portions of the building that aren’t
particularly visible or historically important and a great deal of mis-information has evolved about
what kinds of changes will be reviewed. I think it is important to keep in mind how major a major
alteration is which is the kind that is subject to review.
BM Kohler: Ken.
BM.Alsman: Just a comment. The reason I raised my~gmment be~ti~.boN{~taff ~s that I~ink that
they have, unfortunately, been subjected to a lot of cn~eism over~tfie last y~~N!,,~t think ~s
really deserved. ~ hope that they move forward in thi~}2~ a fa~’amount ~hd comfort
that they do have a huge amount of support from the ~~ink a!so what RSg ; aid several times
is we’re more than willing to provide the backup and re~ls!~’even on an informal basis if that’s at
all possible under our laws to do that, to provide
BM KoNer: Ken, ~ere is ~n here, ~t talks abou~i~m~na~ re~y2~the H~ which I ~ is an
excellent addition to ~e Ord~nce. I ~ess,~ ectly.’~t I was t~mg to say was ~at
mere was a lot of crmc~sm of Stuff and I ~ ~t w~~~d aN m pan ~ere was no way to
reNte some of ~e co~ems made becaaSe ~ese meeti~s~e~t m pubhc. There was no record
of it. It was just ne said/she said ~p~f ~g4~at’s ~i~s hop~g to avoid ~ ~e new
Ordinance so we don t get into ~oS~:Nnd of~els and~Nat s good ~at ~ere ~s an appeal policy
that comes to a pubhc hearing, ~t:s;on television, so ege~one can see what s going on. If we had Nat
~n the mter~ ordinance I thi~ wouldn,t~have had~ch the problems Nat d~d have.
can ge~:~ ~mds of tNngs ~at you were m~g about wi~
respect or or work with ~e Past to do trai~g session, any of that, it
is going to
BM Kohler ~
BM B~eklund: I’ll
B~iKohler: I know very unusual for you to say something but you’re welcome to do that.
~: Th~:~’you, thank you, Chair Kohler. It is on page 6 of the Draft Ordinance,
i6; 9;mo, s;bn the make up of the HRB. It seems to me the Clause A, membership, is worded
Pi.e~i:rnileh~iwh:~t i remember was there when I came onto the Board. Yet, I remember that the State
offi~’~isf"Preservation made some very critical statements about the City’s criteria for membership. I
think the comments were that it wasn’t clear that the professionals that were coming in had adequate
historic preservation specialist experience within their field. The way the State read it, it looked like
architects with an interest in preservation could come in. So my recommendation in Clause A is that
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
somehow it would be worked in that three of the members would be architects, landscape architects,
building designers or other design professionals with experience in historic preservation projects.
Something like that. I think that the Clause A is really saying that but maybe not clearly enough for
the State Office. I think Chair Kohler is right. In an ideal make up of the Board now. I could refer
to an example with Chair Kohler in his field of architecture, if he doesn’t mind. There was an
historic house on Addison that he changed a great deal because the house was doubled. It went from
a one-story to a full two-story home and it was a very big change. Yet, in the ~pfessorville
nomination form they knew about the addition, it had just been finish~;~an~§ listed the property
as a contributing property because of the highly compatlble~nature o~i~fi~ibflitat~on. While there
had been other properties that had been rehabilitated tha~put o~0~eg~t in 1978 as n~t,
compatible. So there Is an example of a Board Membe~that has ha~’:~[penenc~
rehabfl~tatlon that was applauded by a professional cor~tant ba~n 1978~I:i~tha~i~vhat the
State has in mind. An architect that has that kind ~i think that’~llht~five. Maybe
that could be just a little clarified along the longs .from the State offi~e~
BM Kohler: Thank you. Anything else?
BM Backlund: Not right now, thanks.
BM Kohler: I guess we are hearing that
problems with it from the Board’s
hearing has been the ability to get
That seems to be defined fairly
and there are appeals to public
good. The make up of the
and as it now, and past,
we’ve
four years a
previous week
The
what th~ey~ffere propo!
easy ormot. I’m not
thi~:part of the
Foroa preliminary
like we don’t see any big
I, sort of in summary, that I’m
on List or the Palo Alto Register.
fact that Staff will be reviewing this
is of the concerns we had, and I think that’s
I think the Board supports it as written
s had a good blend of professionals as well as
a good balance to the comments and discussions
is an important item because when I first came on the Board
would bring drawings in to Staff On Tuesday of the
we would look at these drawings and have a discussion.
good direction as to where the Board was in agreement with
with it. I don’t know if this preliminary review is that
how that works but that, in previous time, Worked very well. I
is that the Staff became aware that you had to notify neighbors.
would you still have to notify neighbors?
~: Th~m~not a legal, ~n the sense of a constltutmnal, reqmrement of a noUce of ap~e!~~: because there is nothing about a preliminary review can have a binding effect on
¯ e~pplieagOa’and ~erefore have an ~pact on adjacent propeW owners. That ~s a maaer of local
choid~’? .......
BM Kohler: But if an item comes before us for a home improvement exception that would be noticed
that it is going to be heard before the Board.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. White: That is correct. If you use the corollary of preliminary reviews for example for the
Architectural Review Board even though it is a non-binding review very similar to what probably they
are proposing here, we do neighbor notification as a courtesy.
BM Kohler.: Dennis.
I notic~in~e Agenda we
larger text than
be confronted with
BM Backlund: First of all, we’ve been commenting on the Ordinance.
were also asked to review and comment on the associated Draft EIR..
the Ordinance. I don’t know how the other Board Membe~£eel
this large document at the beginning of a holiday weeken ~l~aiid, to
before June in the space of a holiday weekend, I regarc as~not
document. So my hope is that we would also meet th~ ~xt
Draft EIR. Maybe I 11 just throw that out now for pec i~@$~ t~ about for I make
anomer comment. ~!~i~,
In the Draft EIR, on page 7-79 ~t talks about another~:~,,~alternafive:~!~The ~lternat~ve w~th addmonal
incentives that begins on 7-78. It makes a statement, ~at we’al times, that_,the incentive
would be a lot of extra square footage if it can i~!t ~~fif of the building s historic
character. I would just like to observe that ~~s st]i~i~Etty much an abstraction as far
as the City’s experience goes in making a ,~~e~i"~eeks ago, Dames & Moore was
given a revised contract to reassess the e nd to assess the changes that have
occurred over the last 20 years, I a of their review will be a lot of extra
review is to give the owners of inventory
great added values of the consultants
when it is okay, or in their conclusion is
think the conclusions there are going to be of
if their report is done in time, it will be a value in
So that’s it.
square footage. So while I think
houses certainty on their status
report, will be to show
okay, and~n it was
the greate~iie for
as ses sin~(~al~’~ative Draft EIR.
BM Kohler:
historic commercial building, is that just going to have
Histori~Resources is that also going to go on to the ARB?
Mi:;~’White: No, it also be subject to ARB review.
BM Alsman: Hogan~’that resolved?
Mr~i iWhj~ii.=~B0th decision are resolved by the Director.
.BM Alsman: Who’s got the biggest stick?
City of Palo Alto Page 19
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr, White: Actually, both Boards act as recommending bodies to the Director. So the Director
would decide.
Ms. Furth: I think it is important also to know that the Director has to find that a major alteration of
a Register property is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines. If it isn’t, he can’t
approve it.
BM Alsman: It will come to whom first?~f:~i% ,~;i::~
Mr. White: Usually, m the current state of affairs, we d~rmg to th~~fore we brough~t to the
ARB. Though I m not sure that that necessarily has to;~ppen m that~or~r~ilt~j~t has to ~pen
before the D~rector makes h~s decision that both Boards;:make a reeommen~tallon;~ ~uLu~ ~at
knowledge about the apphcab~hty and comphance ary s Standai~.~!~iNy good
knowledge to have when the ARB reviews the inclined to prd~c~d~iiem with that
information if we could.
BM Kohler: There have been, in the past ....
BM Alsman: ...notable problems.
BM Kohler: Well there have been
time the ARB respects the HRB
There have been a few times
historic structures but in
Mr. Riel: ~ ofthe
with the
when
particular
I
and
the .... for the majority of the
HRB recommendations.
ARB is not as good as it could be for
do is the Architectural Review Board more
have a better understanding. Then perhaps
understand why you had made a recommendation for a
guess D~ su
and the~Draft of this in~
with~iD~ennis that I
neXtl,meeting is it the
Ms’: ,Furth: No,
comments, discussion? Staff do you have anything else? I
do continue this item to the next meeting to discuss the Draft EIR
expecting us to look at these two documents as well? I agree
time to look through all of it. My question was if we continue it to the
four or do we draw new lots?
the discussion, It is not a rotating group.
means we all have to be here.
BM Kohler: Actually, if for some reason one of us gets sick I guess we just draw lots from
somebody else. Is that?
City of Palo Alto ’Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Ms. Furth: We would hope you all stay healthy. And if you don’t we’ll.look that up. The general
rule is that once you get a quorum you keep that going and you don’t bring other people in because of
temporary absence.
Ms, Warhei~: Roger, if I could I want to respond to Ken’s question about how might HRB review
differ from this new Ordinance versus the old ordinance, does the property still g~. to both Boards. I
think Wynne answered the question, which is under this Ordinance certain stan~rtls are established
that the projects need to comply with in order to be approved. That the old
ordinance.
BM Kohler: Okay. I think since we’ve completed the
item is then continued to the April 21st meeting.
I gueSs m~s
Mr. White: We need a motion to that effect.
BM Kohler: No one wants to make a motion. I a motion then please.
BM Alsman: I’ll move.
BM Murden: Second.
BM Kohler: It’s been moved by Bo
that this item be continued to the
opposed? That passes on a 4-0
That concludes our
by Board Member Murden
those in favor? (ayes) All those
for coming.
City of Palo Alto -Page 21
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON
April 21, 1999
REGULAR
City Council
Civic Center,
250 Hamilton.
Palo Alto,
ROLL CALL: 8:10 a.m.
Board members:
Roger Kohler, Chairman
Carol Murden, Vice-Chair
Ken Alsman
Dennis Backlund
Martin Bernstein
Susan Haviland
t presenO
White, Planning Manager
Chief Planning Official
Furth, Senior Assistant City
Board . ~Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Diana Tamale, Office Specialist
Please be of agenda items is as follows:
°.A~unce
¯i,~:Openpublic
Applicant pres~Oi~ation - Fifteen(15) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board.
. Historic Reso~i~e Board questions of the applicant/staff
~,’~"~:,5~u~l_ts,,~mment - Five(5) mtnutes hmttatton per speaker or limitation to three(3) minuteslarge number of peakers per item.
° " ~,~,~:ii~Applibant closing comments - Three (3) minutes
o Close public hearing
o Discussion/motions/recommendations by the Board
°Final vote
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Review and discussion of the draft Permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance
(PHPO) and the associated draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
I guess Board Members Haviland and Bernstein will dismiss themselves as they were not part
of the official selected group._ For those of you in the audience, if you are wondering what
happened, what happened is all the Board Members except Board Member Backlund had a
conflict of interest of some sort. We drew lots and the members that were the lots
were Board Members Alsman, Murden and Kohler, with Dennis a
conflict. That’s why Board Members Haviland and
Mr. George White. Planning Manager: Just briefly,a
7th hearing. The Board expressed the desire to have time
EIR and come back today and provide comments. In
Commission held a Public Hearing on this item as
which is the Historic Preservation Incentives.
that the Commission made a number of
EIR was adequate and made a number of suE
Chapter 18.18. Those are summarized in the ’ided
answer any questions relating to Planning
the
newly created 18.18
is a memo indicating
that the Draft
the proposed
will be happy to
BM Kohler: Any questions for Staff?.
The memorandum items here
suggestions, improvements and
and use of the terms "attic"
so they caI1Mnderstand.
the
second find
purpose
what that~|~t~’item is
Th~e~urpose section of
tO
was
:sion made the following
application to applicable definition
I’ll read these for the public
ratio bonus should not allow any
area.of 6,000 square feet. The next one is
exceptions (HIE) should be clarified. The
be reviewed and made more general. And, the
modified to reflect all of the other historic
but not included in 18.18. Maybe Staff could clarify
should be modified to reflect all the other historic
are they saying there?
blr::~White: As the Planning Commission when they made a recommendation to
an incentives package, they had about 22 incentives total. Some of them
were ~eveio_pn~nt related incentives. Some of them were process related incentives. Some of
ther~~~e i~fformation related. The Council endorsed 17 of those with some combinations
and some modifications. The Chapter 18.18 which is referred to here which is part of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance that is being proposed only includes the development related
incentives because those are actually changes to the Zoning Ordinance. The other incentives
will be handled administratively. The Planning Commission’s view was we shouldn’t lose
sight or reference to those other incentives and make a reference to the kind of the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
philosophical underpinning in Chapter 18.18.
BM Kohler: I guess that was one of my questions after looking over all these things. There
seemed to be several items that are administrative process to come forward. When does that
happen? When do all these various issues that we talked about, which I’m sure will come up
in the discussion, become a reality?
Mr. White: I think some of them have already become a reality.
between now and June 7th when we prepare and develop
have a way to implement the rest of them. The idea is
effect that we will have implemented all of those to the
the time
we will
goes into
BM Kohler: So you are saying there will be an
Mr.White: That will be part of the June 7th City
BM Kohler: Any other questions for Staff?. Dennis.
BM Backlund: Yes. We will be evaluating ’were two alternatives
that I wasn’t sure what they meant in a be the right time to ask
about those?
BM Kohler: Sure.
BM Bac~und: The f~st alternate is ~at is the alternative ~at ~ of
,~ ~,~. inclu~~owner come~t for ie ~is before so I’ll see where it is
today. O~pa~7-81, ~ ~tent~al w~ ~s alternative. That ~ere would be
no City e0m~a~on de~ifl~ ~ ~e exception of ~e 30 protected structures located
Dowmown. ~e:wo~d!ng ~1~ s~~at ~ose 30 st~cmres would not have owner coment
but that s not re~~:~at w~ ~Where ~n ~e d~scuss~on. So I saw a contradiction
between n~p~e~9~~d ~ ~i~matic 30 building protection.
M . ~te: I ~ ~e ~l~afive ~s based on ~e presumption ~at ~e existing 16 49 would
still,~ in effect which e~tihlly gives demolition protection to ~e Catego~ 1 and 2’s
Do,town.It doesn’t~ally state ~at.
BM Backlund: It,d~sn’t state ~t but that is what it means?
I think maybe we could clarify that.
BM Backlund: Okay, thank you. The other is on page 7-76 with alternative 7.3 and that is
Ordinance protective of all resources. On the next page, 7-77, it notes some potential
problems with that alternative. The first one is that it may be incompatible with balancing
benefits of freedom of individual choice on developing projects. So I wasn’t clear how
including all resources might threaten that balance but the project that includes mandatory on
City of Palo Alto Page 3
800 properties presumably would not have that kind of problem. It just seemed to me that
statement of balancing freedom was an absolute that applies to all or none. Unless it meant
including more property owners, a larger percentage of the City, into the picture.
Ms. Furth: That’s exactly right. It would be the proposal that is being advanced is to put
restrictions on the demolition or serious alteration of about 800 buildings and the alternative
proposal would be to put similar rules and incentives in effect for
buildings, both the existing inventory, the ones that appear to be Natiohal eligible and
the ones that appear to be California Register eligible. So and other
buildings in the City would be larger under this
BM Backlund: Okay.
Ms. Furth: They are simply different points on the 1’ re correct.
BM Backlund: Okay, thank you.
BM Murden: I had a question in the actual
book. On page 15 in the Draft EIR, right
after plans have been submitted, within II
maintenance or repair which is exempt
even if somebody is going to do
they still have to submit plans. I think was
nee.from the large
about the director,
the project qualifies as
To me this says that
doesn’t require any review
Ms. Furth: No, the notion
need revie~ project
clear. You~e6~d have
square
clear in the
would
BM M6~den: Right.
U~).,i~urth: I
bil~lding permit you
kinds;,of maintenance:
lal
that submit plans believing that they
and this is just to make it
proj non-historic sections of the
’deteriorated materials and it can involve a great deal of
but still is simply maintenance. It needs to be
that that’s what that project was, not that they
This doesn’t mean that if something wouldn’t otherwise require a
bring it in but it means that building permits are required for some
BM Kohler:’ Ken, do you have questions for Staff?. Okay.
Do we want to go through it page by page or item by item?
How do we want to work this?
BM Alsman: As I noted at the last meeting, I think we’ve pretty well gotten there. There
were virtually no areas where I thought that I could make any substantial change or that it was
City of Palo Alto Page 4
going to lead to anything substantially different. So I think perhaps the best way to go is to
see if there are places where people want to suggest changes or additions. For my part, I
don’t have anything to add at all. I think we have done it.
BM Kohler: Thank you. I guess I have a quick question. I didn’t get to the back section of
this with the Alternatives. Are the alternatives in here to give Council some alte~atives as towhat they want to include or not include? I’m not quite sure. How do we stand!~6~ what’s
going to be ......... Why are the alternatives here? Are they just to options?
Ms. Furth: Yes. The Environmental Quality Act
Report identify alternatives to the proposed project thal
Other ways of accomplishing whatever it is the
environmentally superior alternatives and the Council
explain specifically why not. Now, this EIR also
alternative and that’s the alternative of simply having
is an alternative that many people were interested in
that alternative along with the others.
an Impact
adopt
But because that
important to analyze
BM Kohler: So actually Council will have
either accept them or reject them and
question is should we do that too?
one alternatives and
it. I guess the
Ms. Furth: If you want to
ultimately make a decision.
the Environmental Impact
the
there
costs you
under
mitigation
other
and we
Co~i~erations. That’s
ttui~’the environmental
~ailloag the adverse"
be for the City Council when they
is to do is to read and consider
of that, what they hope to
do that deals with environmental issues and
pc the environmental ones. An EIR is
the decision makers so if there are environmental
to proceed in any event, whether the project
an historic preservation ordinance, you adopt
will reduce the impact and that you consider the
an alternative which has adverse environmental impacts,
the Council adopts the Statement of Overriding
of the specific social, economic, legal policy reasons
are acceptable. In this particular Environmental Impact Report
identified are the possible loss of all the California Register eligible
buittl .trigs, not that~t s thought to be very hkely but the Ordinance doesnt require their
prese~at!~iild,the loss of some National Register eligible buildings, though not very many.An~thin~li61Sd)~irginia? And some additional possibility of adverse aesthetic impacts because
of th~’i?e~lacement of an historic structure may be less compatible with the existing
neighborhood than the demolished structure.
BM Backlund.: On the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as you’ve said, the Council
will weigh the benefits of the project against the risks. I think it is a CEQA position that you
don’t adopt an environmentally less superior alternative if the superior ones are feasible. So
City of Palo Alto Page 5
will the Statement of Overriding Considerations demonstrate also the infeasibility of superior
alternatives not chosen? Why they are infeasible.
Ms. Furth: I believe it is simply a statement of the wider range of factors. Mitigation
measures, if you have a feasible alternative project that accomplishes all your goals then you
would be explaining...then that’s the one you would adopt¯ In this case, they are~oing to be
asked if they take the Staff Recommendation to explain the overriding onsider~f!6ns that make
this necessary. ~ ~
BM Backlund: Actually the overriding considerations imply that
the alternatives superior do not have those benefits that
Ms. Furth: That’s right.
BM Backlund: Yes, thanks.
BM Kohler: Carol, do you have anything else?
discussion. Dennis, while you were out of the
could not find any major corrections or chan
was a fairly decent report. So I guess we
see if there are any other comments to
to be
to proceed with the
suggested that he
i because he thought it
another look and
anything else?
BM Backlund: Actually the two found,already mentioned, that were in
the alternatives. Although I balancing benefits of individual
¯.~.~-~ ._~/~,i ..choice, just the way that ~t,~_m v here~!les~,~t-lt~ ~s some ~nd of an absolute good ~at
ce~in peoole~will not be~l~ ~ve but o able to have. So if ~ere was any ~nd of
respome~~at, tha ~lan~ ~s~~what that mea~, I ~ ~t would begood.
I m just a~e~oa~, ~at a ta~r~ ~tic would read ~at m the way ~at ~t struck me. I was a
httle co~se I ~ fi~~rally share what Board Member Alsman Said. I
th~, as I rea~~at ~ ~~n points ~n ~t ~at need to be com~dered most strongly
are whethe~:~@~~,~ ~,, ~ ~,~ ~ ~ s a ~Oject and ~t does The first EIR a~d not have a project
becaus~O~lackmg an O~ T~s one has completely co~ected ~at. It also g~ves ~e
sett~ng~and shows what sources and ~e extent ~at ~ey are and where ~ are. The
photographs and descri~of_~ ~e resources made it rather clear to me ~at a su~a~
statement ~at one cou~’~m~e is ~at Palo Alto was to an unusual degree a so~ of crossroads
~ithe early 20th cen~ of major practicing architects ~at were doing ~e ~pomnt aa styles
of~t~e:t~e. A~t Palo Alto ~s ve~ rich ~n an array of aa s~les not just old wooden .
buildings but actually an array of buildings that represent strong
~-~ ~~:~ So ~ey are cultural resources in that seine. I th~" ~at setting was ve~
well ~defined. Then a~er you’ve got your project, you have your alternatives w~ch we just
talked about and ~nd of eve~g ~ between is how you get from ~e project devotion to
your alternatives. That’s ~e way I read ~e E~ and I ~i~ it travels ~at road ve~ clearly.
So ~at’s my i~tial cogent and I’ll defer to other Board Members.
BM Kohler: Would there be an option for us to review the alternatives? As an historic
City of Palo Alto Page 6
preservation board I can pretty much guess which alternative we are going to prefer. Is that
something that the Board thinks we should try to do?
Obviously as you look through the fh’st one which is just going back to the previous ordinance
and the second one a more protective ordinance and the last one is voluntary compliance. I
guess it becomes pretty obvious that if we had a choice I suppose, speaking perso~n~ally, I...... ~,would say that the alternative that provides slightly more protection for more slteS~,~could be
preferred at by myself. I don t know if the Board wants to take a vot~ a st~tl or how we
want to do that. I’ll just run through them. The first alter~gve~ whi~~ack~.~~ to the
previous ordinance, I just have a feeling I understand w~in hei~e~~.you’ve ~:~.
explained it, this is certainly an altemaUve. Just to go back to the ~a~.’vce hich after~ ~i
these years, almost three years now, of discussion and n tha~e wout ~d
that. That would be my first thought.~!~.~
The second one which does, according to what it says more homes. Staff
mentioned that would up to 2600 homes under this
Then the last alternative which is all of the
which is, in a sense, worse than the first alte
So essentially that would have if it was
protection for anything.
all structures
previous ordinance.
no guarantee of
This goes back to a question I
One of the things we talked
would like it to be or can the
are saying will come
sure
puts
about you able
approval. I
alternative
speaking~I:;a6n’t
wouMStliink that a lot
there~i~as an easy
Pa’~i~aY~, ~,~o~.,_~ that homes
geti~what I’m trying ,.
of process or implementation.
house put on the list if they
to be put on the list? You
what I’m trying to say is that I’m not
encouraged to do this alternative which
’,t. My question is, and that is part of it mentions in here
on the Register unless it had the homeowners
that if from a preservation standpoint this
be the preferred alternative but realistically
what is going to happen. Maybe we’ll be surprised. I
feel more comfortable if there, as I mentioned before,
easy is not the right term. A fairly clarified and clear
the Register could be applied for and placed on a Register. If you
I do.
BM c: I’ve actually ran into several people who have said, gee I don’t understand why
my house isn’t on the Register. For a lot of different reasons it isn’t but those kind of folks, I
think, would like to be able to come down and fill out an application and see if their home can
be put on the Register. I see we have Staff over here saying yes.
_M~E.u.~: The Ordinance as proposed does provide for that. Any property owner who
City of Palo Alto Page 7
believes their property has historical significance at say the California Register level and
continues to have integrity can come and ask to have their house put directly on to the
Register. The Ordinance says that if the homeowner comes and proposes that, the
presumption is that the house is eligible.
BM Kohler: It’s in here?
Ms. Furth: Yes, I’ll look for it for you.
BM Alsman: Just to follow up onthat. What would be p~s if
determined to be histor,c by PAST as an example and ~y would
added to the Register? What is that process and what ~e
process?
Mr. White: Well, if it is not included on the Resource proposed and in
outside of the 800 that we are protecting initially, the~6i,,~,~,, ~,.~,~. .,;~have..=.~ to voluntarily want to
Ms. Furth: There is another alternative. If~~~~r~an or~tion~ or the HRBor
anybody else believed that there was a Na~~~}~I[~ible p~di~rty that hadn’t been
,ncluded on the Resource L, st or the RegiSter the~uI~i~rgposg~tliat that be added to ~e
Resource List. It woulan t be adde~ ~me Resource notice to ~e prope~
owner. If ,t was added to ~e Re~, ~-Llst a~r ~e=,,~Prg~ owner had been not,fled, ,t
would have to be on ~e basis o~eten~idence ~a qualified architectural ~storian
that ~is prope~ did in fact~aP]~ ~~ to be ~ml g~gi~ter~’~’ eligible. At ~at point it is on ~e
Resource L~t~,, If your p~ ~s on ~e ~st ~en ~t can t be demohshed Wl~OUt
C~ cle~an~h~ch es~f] ~yolves ~~ to see is ~s really a Nalonal Register
elg~ble pr!p!l~iat sloiTi~ ill to tle Palo Alto Register. If ~e Director, aler
co~ult~ng w~i~i~::l, beli!leg~ster ehl~ble and should be added to ~e
legister, it Council agrees with ~at conclusion ~e
propely and it can o~y be demolished in vel l£ited
circums out to be no at any of ~ose slges ~ea ~e prope~ comes
off !~i~souree List,~to ~e pool of o~er build~gs in ~e Cil. If it’s a
residiee then it is subj~same vel l£ited demolitioa restriction, s£ply requkiag
s£ei anl a ~at other buildings are. If it is not a single family residence,
I it~is part of a largii~eonere~al project or a big resilential levelopment, ~en ~at
demolition is goiig(~: be f~st stage in the entire project and it won’t rake place until ~e entre
p~oject. . ~.has~ ~~env~rO~ental,-- ,.- clearance.
IM Aliman: Wlat if someone, tlee years lore now, lecides that ~ey bought a louse that is
on ~e Register, it’s protected, l’m ~e owner of ~is house today. I lon’t want ~is to be
historic. What can ~ey do?
Ms. Furth: What the Ordinance says is that the property can be removed from the Register by
the City Council and must be, if there is no economic way to use the property consistent with
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 8
Register listing. That is going to be a rather limited number of situations probably. The
building can also be removed from the Register if keeping it where it is as an historic structure
is going to thwart some other important City Comprehensive Plan goal. It does not say that a
property owner has the power to declare his property un-historic and remove it from
regulation.
Mr. White: Maybe I could point out that these procedures are referenced__ in Ordnance. The
first one about how the heritage properties are designated and other p~rtie,s~s.......The last one which is recision of designation ~s 16.49.090¯ ~~,~:~,~:~i
Ms. Fuah. The one other ~mg we d~dn t mennon m t~ms of addL0g~~i~
Register, while ~t ~s not possible for an ~nd~v~dual or g~p to suzg~ ~at
prope~y be added d~rectly to ~e Register, ~e Counc~passTa motmn
Comldered. So while an ~nd~wdual Council Member c~,t~ the proposal a majotiu of the
Council can propose ~at a structure go on ~e Palo going to ~e
Resource List first.
BM Kohler: I got a little bit lost in your discuss
Ms. Furth: I apologize.
BM Kohler: Are you saying that
would go on the Palo Alto List?
the National Register
Ms, Warheit: I think what
consideratioii~that
you can list
for
have g
be eligible if there is
Register. Then it could be put on the
the final determination obviously before
for the Resource List.
Ms. Furth:
federal "*<
when y0a~I6ok at
that is~,an historic
or National Register
A![o!iRegister
filches to preserve a
because we are not talking about having the
properties should go on the Palo Alto Register. But
inclusion this is a two tier system. If you own a property
law and that would be either California Register eligible
both, then you’re entitled to add that property to the Palo
So for the homeowner or property owner, business owner who
that is an historic resource and to have some kind of legal
~tion and !,.o:., to take advantage of the special zoning and FEMA things then all
~iiey,:,~,~,,~e~~e California Register eligible.
BM K61aler: Okay, let me just interrupt.
Ms. Furth: That’s one tier¯
BM Kohler: That’s the first tier is the California Register and that is enough to qualify you
for the Palo Alto Register.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
MS. Furth: If you wish to volunteer.
BM Kohle..r.: Alright. If it is not voluntary but other people think it is, it then hasto be
National Register eligible. Is that one way to say it? So it’s kind of a two tiered eligibility.
Ms. Furth: Yes.
BM Kohler: So if the homeowner would like to have it put on the Re
qualify for the California Register. Whereas if other than
put on the Register it has to meet the higher standard of
Ms. Furth: It has to meet a higher standard either
that something is actually only California Register
important building, perhaps because of its very
or local architect, if there is some special Palo Alto
that even though they don’t believe that this would be
such importance in Palo Alto that they could make
Regi
has to
like to have it
Alto it
a very figure
the Council can decide
Register it is of
BM Alsman: It would be like the first
BM Kohler: I don’t think so Ken.
muddled in what was qualified.
when he first came on the Board
homes that we had one meeting
of outstanding quality but
ordinance
desi
were on !-I~~lght
Ms. Warheit:
Register.
regulatio~:~as
getting a little
thing ;ome of Ken’s frustration
last year. There were several
at three houses. They were all
of Landmark under the interim
frustration of.only being able to
some probably, if my memory serves me
California Register.
,se houses probably qualify for the National
we used as Landmark during the interim
than the National Register.
BM~hler: I know some real serious frustration about that. Okay, so that’s
was~my, when I left last week, that was what I guess I didn’t read this carefully
L "’-" fl~?..
enough. Basically !~(iVan easier process if a homeowner wants to put ~t on a Register and if a
non÷homeowner w~:ild like to it is slightly more difficult. I can understand that and it makes
~ense,::.SO~that’~i~hat brought me up to this alternative here which is including more homes.
If,that~ d0esn’~t~go in the place I just wanted and hoped that there was a system for voluntary or
non daa~w~s defined in this Ordinance even though I don’t see it.
MS, Furth: Ordinances are more like computer programs. I mean they are instructions about
a whole series of steps. They don’t read very well as narratives. We hope that the narratives
that are in the EIR,
City of Palo Alto Page 10
BM Kohler: Okay then I’m not sure we have to go through all that. I feel quite a bit more
comfortable in hearing that process. Actually I saw some people yesterday who have this
house that because it has new shingles on the exterior it looks like a new house. But in fact,
it’s basically the way it has been since the 20’s or 1915. They were wondering why they
weren’t on the list. They would like it to be.
Ms, Warheit: Do you know if they were potential California eligible?
BM K0hler: They didn’t receive anything. It’s all been painted
they did replace the window so maybe that was part of
house is just the way it’s been. So for those kinds of e who
could come forth and ask to have it put on the
shingles and
shell of the
Ms. Warheit: Yes, yes. You might after the
the Ordinance. That’s where all this is covered.
wants to come forward and put their house on the Re
submitted for designation by a property owner shall
substantial evidence to the contrary is received.
favor of the owner if they want their
look at pag~ 10 in
that says if the homeowner
°historic resource
these criteria unless
presumption is in
BM Kohler: Mine only goes up to 8. DtS~1 have
thought was the Ordinance but it is ap~,arently
<-
,~.Ms, Warheit: Roger, just one qtti~r~point
January are prel~na~ ~s~s.
owner ~at list need to
~eir
have this handout which I
is that those lists that came out in
word on anything.’ So because an
final determination has been that
and a preliminary assessment.
Ms. Furth:
better context
individual
BM K61iler: I guess jui
puhlle discussions, was
w!iat~we were doing¯
td:tti~,800. So I am
that as more information is gathered you have
and you are better able to evaluate significant
this whole issue, and I think it came up in a lot of the
of getting homes on a list. At the time we didn’t know
ear ago we were trying to protect 5,000 homes. Now we are down
quite comfortable now after hearing your discussion of how this
I know that there are probably, just a wild guess, 1,500 - 2,000 people
their house on the Register. So I don’t know why I said those numbers,
I"~have;nbiid~!’~’ But I think there are a lot of people who are very proud of the homes they live
in a~id~fli:~:~ would like to put it on a Register which will protect it for a length of time. I
appreciate the discussion you had and I feel pretty comfortable. It sounds like it has been well
thought out and I think it is an appropriate way to do something.
Ms. Warheit: Anyone who would like to do that, for the record, could either contact the
Planning Department or contact PAST. I know that Palo Alto Stanford Heritage is aware of
City of Palo Alto Page 11
this and is prepared to help people.
BM Kohler: By the way, where do we go for Planning Department now? Is it upstairs or
across the street? In fact there is no sign on the directory. I think she took it down of where
the Development Center was, I think that ought to go back up.
Mr, White: You can go either place. If it is obviously directly development r~elht~d you’d
want to go to the Development Center first.
BM Kohler: Ken, you had a comment?
BM Alsman: I just wanted to sort of reiterate that in
but we’ve gotten to a point now where, for a lot
with what can work in Palo Alto. And that what is
works once we get started on the process.
it
BM Kohler: That was part of my questions was
BM Alsman:
come in the middle of a district and land.
forgot something or whatever and it’s
we’re all sort of ready for that and
seen one of those flying saucers
mentioned the idea that there is
historic areas. The thing
districts is tlf~,~storic
how som~might
the pollcleg~that~deal wltt.
Departmen’~"~
I am sure there is going to be
to
gun-~,
nel
realm is
first
that l~S~rt of a
neiglilJorhoods that
character is. I think
tfid~sort of things
~xist~::~So when,
very
neces
is going to
thing up again, we
some way. I just hope
to respond to it. I’ve
is a - at the last meeting I
Hall responsibility, if you will, to
~ here except for the possibility of the
t know if any thought had been given to
but in the future, to the Ordinance or to
Department does, what the Public Works
do, what all the other folks who are affecting our
to of the neighborhoods. To me, that public
of what I see as Palo Alto. What happens after the
family house is a heck of a lot less important. But anyway,
I hope what comes out of this is that we end up with
character, that we work hard to understand what that
the problems right now with our ordinances and the zoning and all
designed for some sort of mythical neighborhood that doesn’t
to do something and build something within that, using the mythical
standiirdS:in:a7~i~aPneighborhood, you end up with some strange looking things and you’ve met
all .~e~c6des~afid the ordinances. They are still, to me, not a means of saying we could be a
lot ni0fff~eative and flexible and understanding of this. So that this whole idea of this next
step of Ed Gawf was talking about, whether that works or whether we actually get some
neighborhood review or whatever, I think is the essential component. When I say endorse
this, I endorse this as a set of things, not just the ordinance but all those things that are going
help make it happen on a day to day basis. That’s all I have to say about it.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
BM Kohler: Okay. Carol, do you have anything else?
BM Murden: I don’t think I have anything to add, no.
BM Kohler: Dennis?
BM Backlund: Well, you brought up the question of alternatives whether the should
make a statement about the alternatives. I don’t know if Board was
supporting the project as indicated here. The project is the support.
BM Alsman: If we need a motion I am prepared to
right terminology is for accepting or endorsing the
also the Ordinance as currently drafted.
motion,what the
BM Kohler.: I would suggest that you possibly
Commission comments per a memorandum. You also
endorsing any of the alternatives.
of the Planning
would not be
BM Alsman: Let me ask Starf. Give me
minutes sound right. Do you want
Report?
to make the
Impact
Mr. Reil: We would like for you
our desire is to have you select
other comments or su
the of the EIR and then obviously
desired alternative and then any
of the changes to the EIR.
BM ’s the main project but not the three
Mr. Riel: The Ordinance is the project description.
BM Kohl~ii Okay.want to say something?
BM.:~urden: Yes.in making a recommendation or acceptance, say that we
endorse this one?an alternative which gives more protection to the California
~egister properties. ~,,~ still have some, I don’t want to say concern, but .....
~;7:!I~S that’s what Starf is looking for. If we would like to make a comment
abo~;ithat~e~f~lt maybe the alternative that provided more protection. As I said before, as a
histo~ic~°’pi~’~ervation board, that would be the obvious first choice for us. Having heard a lot
of the public discussion, I’m hesitant to just come out and say that is what we’re thinking.
Maybe phrase it as a caveat or something.
BM Murden: That is what I was thinking. I agree with Ken, within the climate that we’re
doing this, I think that the alternative that is proposed or the Draft EIR is acceptable. But at
City of Paid Alto Page 13
the same time I feel that there should be perhaps a caveat about these other properties. I think
that is a good way to put it.
BM Alsman: I’m going to make a motion that as a first step that we accept or endorse the
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report as adequate. That’s my motion. One step at a
time.
BM Kohler: Dennis?
BM Backlund: Actually a discussion of that would have
BM Kohler: Yes. Is there a second? I’m not sure
want to do a modified motion is that what you are sug
BM Backlund: No. I was going to make a discussion
did not second it quite yet. In assessing the
assess the adequacy of the alternatives. Also the
the various alternatives. So I thought I’ll throw
thinks.
of
a second. Or to say why I
part of the task is to
of problems with
what the Board
On the two alternatives that give more
resources and then the other one has
Register. Both of those are more
potential problems becausethe
One of those objects is an of
there are could
the
unless
no matter
gotten in this Ci
going to
be obj to that ~
Al~;~ere is the
m~izing the level
~ure~how to lnterpr/aus’i’ i;mean to cut
the ordinance to all
tier for California
l’Vthen ive reasons why there may be
with the project objectives.
administration of the process if
in administering this. I do know that
s to be quite critical of that kind of objection
of demonstrating that there is a true infeasibility
would be. That given the ’resources that can be
done. There is just a suggestion here that there is
are all those resources. I think there is going to
on it.
the more protective alternative wouldn’t meet the objective of
for residential property owners about regulations. I wasn’t
~,. I think to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph minimize
the number of people who would have uncertainty. Like mayb~ cut
aoWn;~th~,~bi~i~ people that would be on a resource list in a kind of interim program. So
tfiat~tiha~2;iiff;ume--" ’ ~- that there is going to be a certain level of uncertainty for those who are
re~iit~dit~ matter how few their numbers are. I’m not quite sure whether that is a fully
adequate kind of objection unless it was explained more clearly because it implies that there is
a problem with the interim program. And that it has distressing levels of uncertainty that ’
somehow cannot be smoothed out. So the best alternative is to keep the numbers of people
affected down to the minimum number. That already, I’m afraid I must say, confessing to
certain potential problems in the administration of the program and the smoothing out of those
City of Palo Alto Page 14
in advance I think would be a good idea. I guess both alternatives have those same objections.
If the Board believes that those are valid and adequately expressed objections to those
alternatives then the Board has the discretion to say so but I think there should be a comment
about it as part of our overall comment on the adequacy of the text here.
BM Kohler: So is your comment that, under page 7-78, some of the descriptions of this
alternative are not adequate?
J~:,_
BM Backlund: I think the alternative is clear but the probl:~s that could
potentially raise were something of a problem to me. In~ihere wa~n!t~0~gh lnformalo~,,
¯.6~i~,~’:.~,,~ ],]~,~,:, ,:~÷,,to sort of prove to me, as it were, that these are really tneompalble ~ith,~j~.a,,~v,e,~ and
they ust can t be mlt~ ated to a os~uon of bern com ~tible ~,, -~,~:-:-~,~::~ ~
BM Kohler: This ~s getting confusing. ~,
Ms. Furth: Board Member Backlund ~s raised this ~ssue~e~i"rlie~:tliat~if a city is not going to
adopt a nulgauon measure or an alternalve that ~s en~ronmen~l~,rmr and that
accomphshes ~ts goals it has to explain why the ~te~i,,,~es are ~asibl~:-": Somettmes when
you read an Enwronmental Impact Report ~t ~~S~Uves a~eas~ble right there m
the proJect. That usually happens because,d~i~ an a!~~qI~t of support. Why don t
we put over there? V0r example, part1 iar , project. But CE A
doesn t reqmre the analysis of mfeas~bf~":alternati~s so ~~e to avoid that. We haven’t¯..~:~,:," .:i~=~ ..:~;,sa, , ,n tr s Ora. t at theso t,vos We haven t, as
often point out, taken the analysii;that far a~l~n~. We h~:"~e only said these are some areas
where problems may arise. :If ~e~:Counci~d~iO.e__s,:~j~ect these alternatives we’ll have to
have a fulle~’record in orde]~,to,klo that.
BM t if ~I, was just to initially suggest some of the problems that
could a ~:~’~bf Overriding Considerations then I would regard the
text as
BM Ko~::: Are yot
BM~Backlund: No, I
wliat~:she said was
f~,clarification that’s what it is saying?
to Wynnee’s statement. Trying to summarize it. I think
MsSFurth: I thi~nnis is saying that if we’re trying to meet a lower standard, we met it.
~!i:":~ot quite that. It’s just more clarification¯
Ms. Furth: We are not as far along in the process. The EIR is not trying to provide all the
information that would explain and support the Council’s ultimate choice whatever that is. It
is an earlier stage of the process.
BM Bacldund: There will be a final EIR document put out with the comments on this one.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Ms. Fur~h: It will include all those comments but in addition, if the Council proceeds with the
Ordinance that the Staff is preparing there will be additional material provided on the
feasibility of any analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that they don’t adopt that are
environmentally superior and the information for the Statement of Overriding Considerations
itself.
BM Backlund: The time line for the final EIR is for that to appear.
Ms. Furth: I defer to other Staff on that.’?÷~ ~
BM Kohler: It Would have to be before the Council gets, at.~;;:~,~M,~,,~%~:~-
r iel: t’s mid- ay. I’m not sure of the exact da ’. ut
is June 7th ~e same ~e ~e Ordnance is berg cons~er~W~L
BM Kohler: Okay. X~:~:.::~.,,,
BM Backlund: I ~ I would conclude then a~~e s co~~~ ~at ~e r~ge
of alte~tives, ~e different ones, ~at should ere b@~n presented. That
¯ ese are the reasonable range of alte~at~v~s~f" So I ~~~t con~ius~on about ~e adequacy
and I also ~ that the project ~s adeq~tely def~~~~ seaing and description of
resources and context ~s also adequately~resenN’. ~"
BM Kohler: Okay. So ~ere haS~ a motion on which hasn’t been seconded. I’d
be wiling to second it wi~ an the PIa~g Co~ssioners
memorandumt,
BM Kohler:that has been put forth by Ken Alsman that the
EIR is adef!~,ate:and ~ ..........the Planning Commission’s comments regarding the
Draft EIR~a~ part of 0iir~~endation. Any discussion of the motion9
IM/ilsman: Do we he,! tO¢I nolce that the Planning Commission recommendel that the
City, Council adopt a liiiement of Overridinl Consideration. I think that is really up to them.,~o,~.l--iOi!,t know that thatIii+ something that we need to make a recommendation on.
~iB..Yotiare correct. That’s the Planning Commission’s.
IM llilan: Okay, let’s proceel with the motion.
BM Kohler:, Any other discussion?
BM Backlund: I’ll just make one last point just for the benefit of any public that might be
listening in. That the Board vote on the adequacy of the EIR does not imply a position about
City of Palo Alto Page 16
the Ordinance. That the Ordinance would be a separate discussion and evaluation. It is just a
Board position on the adequacy of the environmental presentation in the EIR.
BM Kohler: Does Staff concur with that statement that that’s what it is?
Ms. Furth: That’s correct.
BM Kohler:
Mr.White:
BM Kohler:
Alright. Well I guess we’ll take a vote then. All those
Excuse me wa.s there a second to that?
I seconded it with the modification that
the motion?
comments. Actually if you want to further define tha~gi~,essAtSSthe~ i~
lncent~ves. I think we are not supposed to comment on,ttle~(~’r~t, one about the
BM Alsman: I hate to confuse those things but the ince~ii~i;~N apply to the Ordinance
as I understand it. So I accept what you are saying and that v in a motion
relative to the Ordinance. To the Draft EIR we EIR is f’me.
When we get to the point of the
BM Kohler: Maybe we should do the~,zlr(s ~
Ms. Furth: You can keep right o~g wha~u are
things, the Planning Comnusslo~b~ents,~er than
really perta~ to the Ordinance , Pro~ ~’ ¯
didn’t an inco~oration to th~]~
BM Kohleri
What?
or you can, in re-reading these
it is all fine in the Draft EIR
a clearer message if the second
comments.
Commission comments.
iBM Alsman:
the
BM K6hler: Okay, is
sec6rider. Any other
which is that the Historic Resources Board accept
Report as adequate.
on that? I’ll second it again since I was the original
of the new, current motion.
BMiMurden: I think÷ff~is a good one particularly in light of Dennis’ comments that it is
adequate. ~:~/
BM Kohie~i~.i~l] those in favor? (ayes) That passes with a quorum of four people voting in
favo~:~:K~hler, Murden, Alsman and Backlund, with Board Members Bernstein, Mario and
Haviland not participating and not present.
I’d like to boldly step forward with a motion on the Ordinance itself.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
BM Kohler: I don’t think we can do that. We are only talking today...oh, are we? Were we
supposed to get something on the Ordinance today?
Mr. White: I think you can make/forward recommendations, comments, etc. to the Council
on the Ordinance as well, yes.
BM Kohler" I guess it is on the hst so we can talk about ~t. Okay. ~:~,~,~
BM glsman: My motion is that we recommend to the Ci~¢ounci~~of the Ordinancew~th number one, endorsing the co~ents of the PlamgffCo~ss~o~,~elaf!~e~ to clanficat~
of ce~ provisiom; wi~ number two ~at it is our un~¢~nding ~~t~ation ~::
measures outlined .w~t~ ~e Rewsed Dra~ E~ will b~cluded.~ose m~gat~0~eas~s
dealing pr~arily wi~ education, wi~ neighborhood , wi~ assis ~le
in ~is process¯ And ~at we are open to continuing ~prove the ~ifi~ce as
we find areas ~at need such ~provement.
BM Kohler: I didn’t quite follow the last item¯
BM Alsman: In other words, this is one of~g~ kinds that I can just
imagine that something comes up in eight ~s o~’i~ w~$,we’re not getting near
that thing again¯ I just want to be open~t0÷say, I t~. "~hiiik ~~ty has done a phenomenal
job of trying to go through a very d~f~lt ~ssue~..~To assum~at ~t ~s going to cover
everytinng, that we are going to bFg(a~le to se~(~at far m~9~ the ~mre, ~s not co=ect. I just
personally would l~e to say ~a~l~e the sere of be~ag~open to ~er ~endments,
modificatiom or ~provemems ~f~is as ~e~-tbok at.d~That it is not locked in stone¯ But it is
deleteable ~e rest of ~e~?would 1 it.
BM Kohler~t~dersmnd. ~~fies ~t. Is ~ere a second for ~s motion. Ac~ally I ~
willing to s6~6hd~i~l.~m co~f~bt~With where we are especially aaer our discussion
earlier¯ So w~~otion ~~d~ember Alsman, seconded by Board Member Ko~er
and we are,~p~.~f0r;~p~~ on~~item.~ For those ~at didn’t want to second maybe you
can explain: Carol? ~?~(?:,~;~:~:~,~ ~
BM~Murden: I ~ess I ~filI~ave a hale b~t of concern ~at the prope~es ~at have been
r~e0~zed as eligible ~0r the Cahfo~a Register not just d~sappear.
~: I ~es~at s why I had that discussion about the items ~at were le~ off. That
¯ ere:was:a~de~te defined process for nomination and being put on ~e hst. So ~at s why I
amin?~SuppO~Of the Ordinance because now that Ive found ~e right section here ~t does
cle~l~d~e that it can be nominated and there is this two tiered process. Actually, I feel
comfo~ble wi~ ~at. I ~ess in a seine that, in a way, it’s ~nd of put your money where
your talk is in the sense ~at what may happen is we may be flooded wi~ just hundreds,
hope~lly, of applicatiom to be put on ~is Resource List¯ But if we aren’t ~en -- what I’m
t~ing to say is there has been a lot of talk about preserving all ~ese older homes which we all
want to do, at least I would l~e to, however my point is if in fact there is ~s fairly
City of Paid Alto Page 18
straightforward process and nothing comes out of it then you could say the opposition side is
correct.
BM Alsman: That’s part of what my sense of openness is. I just don’t think from a practical
standpoint we can drag this sled any further. That it is just the kind of thing that we need to
open. I would add one other provision if I can modify my own motion. That is ~:really think
that one of the most important elements of this whole thing is people being abl~t~!~see what
happens and that there be an extremely good photographic inventory. !~’v¢~i(~d for this a
couple of times over the last couple of months. We wanted~to do a phb.t6!~iii~ientory of what
has taken place but I think there also needs to be an extreme, !~nvent~i01~What s going to be..
ng place over the next year. That says, here s wha~Was, here s ~t ~s
to help us evaluate what changes might need to be madei:i
BM Kohler: Just as a sideline. At one point the
of all demolition permits. That never really came
the Agenda or anything just included in our
asking that it be put on
I still think
it does provide a process for tho
probably protect quite a
the process, ~!~That’s
it. Obviously we could
with what Staff has described as
BM
think it is a
California Regi
ordinance. Problems may develop but I do
As I say, I do have some concern about the
but~I~ill~support the motion.
BM
the motion I do need some more information on three
p~rts:of the Ordinance~i~The damage by natural disaster, the section on maintenance and the
seeti0n on enforcem~~:~ I’ve been trying to listen to the public comments at all the different
s lnclud~ ~’ e recent Planm~etirig " ’~g~t.h~ ’ng Commission and virtually all the meetings before that.
Itfiedito:ger:a-~.i~bi.~:~0f a profile of where the strongest objections are. There are those who
wil!~objec~:to;~y regulation or detail whatever in the sphere of preservation but there have
been"~6ine strongly, very passionately worded objections on these three sections of the
Ordinance that I just mentioned.
One of them, on the damage by natural disaster raised the objection that that is a terrible time
for anybody. It is a terrible economic impact for everybody. Some people have pointed out
that if it happens over a swath of the whole Town here, that there could be every single house
City of Palo Alto Page 19
on your block can approach the natural disaster in a certain way, maybe the affordable way in
that crisis, while the owner of the historic home could potentially be faced with very much
greater difficulties and greater cost. That is the objection I don’t know the full answer to it. It
is a very technical question but that alterations and repairs would need to be done in certain
ways and that this would be a very unusual situation. Of course the City has said, this will be
humanely carried out. Critics present a much worse case scenario of some dreadful thing
happening to them that they will be sort of frozen in their efforts while all of,.,,,theiii~eighb°rs
are moving ahead quickly to make the necessary repairs. I wold just l~ke, , to sexr’this issue
addressed more fully by the City. What people can actually,~xpect ma~i-isi~ like that where
one homeowner is affected on a block but nobody else ls.,~.+~’< ~ +,;:<~ i ~.~].~.
In the maintenance of properties, what I m not sure a ~s the re onsh~p~Ot)thisl~tectloil~to~.,3:,’~,, ~ ~.’,_
the broader C~ty requirements for maintenance that coy~r,~all hon~s. I’m not
this m~ght be to rules that affect everybody. It has beer~treseged by some CntlCS~s~’a section
that is very different than what other people have to co~ti!y),~i;~~, Where you have a
younger/middle aged families with a lot of money pre,s~ilbi)~:i!!~’t going to be a problem
or ~t ~s not even going to be an ex~slng s~tuatlon because as we~ii~i!tn]~e.:affluent parts of
Town things are beautifully maintained. You can~ii6vey the 197~phot~i~raphs of the
=nventory and you see agam, and agam, that~0~iS~9,! much ~%~ now than they aid
then. So in that way maintenance IS lot so=iiluch o!i~i:obliia.bu~l~en the regulatlol fallson
smaller homes or people who are on fixel’ mcome=~ serlor~eitlZells m smaller houses ald
somebody notices that something needi~io be m,.aiiitained ~ii£] they are ruling
that could force them to go ~nto 1 ~,,~,~ saving~ffall on ~m when it might not on other people
and to what extent could this hap~.~ And td:,-’,what extefi[’is this different than the
maintenance rules that do ex~ist ~ti:i.he Cityi~t~alo ~Alt~for everyone?
Then o!.e~oreement ~lr~)!~,0i~!ectlon, tfi~i~9.~50A2, ~e civil penalty has been co~ented
on olen a~!~Ot, I ~ll~~l~y r~s!ont~t to ty ~ Cir. I taw t~art som~ g~n~ralco ents an a terat=on or per=stent a out =at youcolld
be liable to the ~epla~ilt valli~ii~iiiome. This section has been charaeteried ~ various
sat~cal w~y~;:~,:~he2~s~ns~,~at I~e heard from ~e CI~ somet~es is well, ~s ~s going
to be reaS~nfibly carri~i~t~g&’s oNy in the most extreme circums~nces would such a
penaN~ set fo~. B~f~t:}i;:~ot what it says¯ It says or ~plies that wia an alteration, it
does~:~t indicate how s~!i ~)~:]arge it needs to be, there could be ~is penal~ in ~eoW. The
has been, but~practice we would not do ~at. I hold to ~e view that if the ~eoryresponse
il ~ect that the pradflce~ must work out with justice¯ The way this is worded that might not
S )wia this There could be unjust demands potentially or this has been said. So
i’d r el fi cation on that.
Ma’~e~:s~f could respond to some of ~ese points now.
Ms, Furth: I’ll start and then Planning Staff may wish supplement that. You identified three
areas: repairs after a natural disaster, the maintenance requirements, and the use of civil
penalties and enforcement. We’re looking further at all three of those sections to see how they
might be improved.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
The natural disaster section says that the historic preservation rules and the comparable state
rules continue to apply after a natural disaster. While that would require the rebuilding of a
destroyed house it could affect some kinds of rebuilding though generally speaking repair,
restoration and maintenance are not subject to regulation in this chapter but we will provide
more information about that. One of the reasons for the state law and for this kind of
provision in a local ordinance is that here we’re concerned about the situation of people who
may not wish or be able to rebuild in a way that is compatible to the Se, cretary 9fithe Interior’s
guidelines what has happened in the past, as you know, after the Coa!ihga earthquake in Simi
Valley and other places historic buildings have been ordereddemolisfiedbyihe government
oo quickly, m retrospect. So m attempting to address t~t,problem w,e.!need>to be sure that ~e
try to minimize the number of new ones we create.
With respect to maintenance we will compare this to 0ur~generabCity-wide r~
particular concern of course If the phenomenon of dernolmon~b;y neglect where someone
deliberately allows a house to fall to pieces¯ That’s a r~ire~ii~:b~t given the value of land in
this City it does happen. We will also look at that fu~rttier.
The objection in enforcement is to the notion o~i~{[ii~nalties. "~~at~es are comparable
to f’mes. They are awarded by courts but th~{ ~,m mwl ~ig~Ons not crmunal
actions. So they are civil fines not crimi~’~s. ~ii~v¢ ~{~ii~ed to be large enough so
it is not simply an acceptable cost of do~’busines~" ~f~illeg~i~77d~inolishinu a house doesn’t
a substantial financial penalty th~i~"will b~<~0seindivi k’ for whomqt is just soundhave
busmess to break the law, pay theffiile~and go, on. So web,will try to word it in a way that, I
agree with Board Member Back tind’s statement that law~~ should be written to be just on their
face, not just because someb.off ~applies ~,~:approp~{ely. We’ll try to write it in a way that
i~~dd one final question on ~e civil penal~. The objectiom
~iNon that is obviously a yew large act. It is ~e clause
on alteratmn an~:how~b~gone ne~s:~ to be an alteratmn ~at would quah~ Nr this kind of
penalty. R~plaeement:eoSt;of the hOle building is not defined.
Ms. F~h: ~ght, and I~one of the things Nat m~ght be relatwely easy ~s to Nlk about
major,alterations becaus~ are the oNy ones we would be conceded about under this
Ordnance. That might~elp a bit.
~ ~.~klund: ~g~’~D~ll I .m s.tis~d aat th~ Ci~ is seriously looki.g .t th~se po~io~ of
¯ e:ONi~ee~~)S0with that I would also be able to suppo~ the motion. Tha~ you.
BM K6hI~r: It has been suggested that we could amend ~e motion to just say that ~ese are
t~ee issues ~at the Board would l~e the City or ~e S~ff to at least look into before.
BM Alsman: I would accept that amendment.
BM Kohler: Alright. So those are items 16.49.20, items 16.49.240 and items 16.49.250.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
BM Backlund: 16,49.240, yes to generally evaluate that and to note the relationship of this
section to the City’s rules in general. 16.49.210, on damage by natural disaster, to clarify that
further. Finally, section 16.49.250A2 Civil Penalty, to clarify the nature of alterations that
would be subject to a penalty of replacement cost of the building.
BM Kohler: Do you accept that amended correction?
BM Alsman: I do.
BM K0hler: I accept it as the seconder. Carol?
BM Murden: I was just going to say on the damage bg~atural d,iff~ter
some regulation or condition that properties that are o~!it~e Hi~t6~’iC Register betoOk~;at
~ediately. In other words, so that ~ey ....o~er pe~ple~d say this ~s no go~’~and we
can tear it down.~ .i,~ ’
Ms. Fu~h: We are geeing more i~o~at~on from one of our"eo~ul~~: ~ --.~°n the subject.
There are both FEMA ana the s~te emergency age~i~s,are at t~i~int~bject to regulatio~
that require aem to treat historic resources ai~~:i;~~:.~,:~
BM Kohler: It does reference State Co~Section,5028~!~:~eeing that we don’t ~ow
what that says. ~;}~’~ ~~ ’~:~;~
Ms. Fuah: We will have more ~o~ation?~fore ~i}~bes to Council,
Mr. Whit~;~Ust had orig~al motion. I ~ it ~cluded
t~ee pa~: ~T~e~second~ation measures which will be included. I
wasn’t cle~’onW~t miti you were referring to.
BM Kohler: I Planning Commission?
mitigation measures outlined in pages 1 -
Mr:;’,White: Those wou mitigation measures in the Draft EIR?
BM Alsman: That make reference to public education, outreach programs, incentives.
~:;~’It.’is!lhe remainder of the incentives that aren’t included in Chapter 18.18.
BM¯’~6ht~i~: It is in the small binder of the Draft EIR.
Mr. White: I think I understand now, thanks.
BM Alsman: Included in addition to that was the work that is to be done on neighborhood
compatibility review. That was an additional one that I made. In addition to the ones.listed in
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 22
the EIR I mentioned the neighborhood compatibility which is in the work program¯
Ms. Warheit: Yes. There is actually a City Manager’s report in this packet going to the
Council for next Monday night moving forward with that. I think that’s what Ken is saying
his approval includes action on those things.
BM Alsman: Then the fluffy one on the vigilance for change. Then the other o~e>i mentioned
was a documentation or photo inventory of and then the other was theiamenJriients from Board
Member Backlund.
BM Kohler: Ken, when you were talking about draggl.ng,th~s sled, : tememNr: hen we w.e e
hstemng to the Water?ate Hearings and we kept a recfftd of all t~’~sayings
torch bearer, all these different ones. There was INe over~gne#~ndred hale itemsT~tthe
Wash?ton people used to described mings dragging,m67 led. Incredible.
d~ ress. We have a motion. Do we ned to re-read ~t..F~;~ :~y o~er d~scussmn or
co~ents? All ~ose in favor of ~e motmn say aye.~:{ayes)~{~t59~ses w~th four of us
and Board Members Haviland, Mario and<Be tdi ’ndt’: ipating and notvotingyes,
BM Alsman: I just ~ave a procedural ques~. W~,~l~:~fus~idn’t want to agree? Does
that mean this would have moved forw~, w~out~n e~or~e~t’from us~
BM KoNer: No, we would have gO~ and ~t,would have,been 3-1. If ~t would have been 2-2
we would have had a problem, d7,77, ,77,~
The next ltemon our AgeAda{~ew B~ls~ as~et~ ~ere is none.
Then BoardlteN,"Js there,~y;,Tdi~ussion of Board Items.
Then Reports F~O~;-O~ials. We~!~eard ~at Sandy ~ amongst all here other
gifficultles lS <no~-.tm}I!::~l.,<. If yoWare watching Sandy, we hope you get heUer and gett ough.a }our pers al) if 0 ties.
Board’Member and/or Announcements. I guess I have a brief
announcement. Carol ~dnvolved with Preservation Week which is coming up here in Palo
Altothe week of MaY;!9/15. By popular demand Carol and I will be doing our walking tour
again,for thos~ who~missed it.
he nextm~tir~g is on May 5, 1999 which was in jeopardy of being canceled for the first time
I’ve been On the Board a meeting might have been canceled but it is not. So we will be here
again on the 5th. Anything from the Board to the Council? Anything coming up like that?
Are we going to have to be represented?
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 23
Mr White:
BM Kohler:
for coming.
Not presently, no.
Okay. Seeing nothing else I guess this meeting is now adjourned.Thank you all
CiW. of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
April 14, 1999
REGULAR MEETING - 7:O0 PM
City Council Chambers Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Commissioners:
Owen Byrd Chairman
Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham-absent
Annette Bialson
Phyllis Cassel
Jon Schink- stepped down for ltem 1
Patrick Burt
Staff:
Ed Gawf Planning Director
Wynne Furth, Senior Asst. City Attorney
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
George White, Planning Manager
Commissioner Schmidt: I’d like to call the meeting to order. Would the Secretary please call
the roll. First I’d like to welcome everyone to the new facility. This is the first time that the
Planning Commission has met in this new renovated facility. I believe with the new sound
system that it is very important for us to speak very clearly and directly into the mikes rather
than sitting back away from them. SO all Commissioners please keep that in mind.
The first item on the Agenda is Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the
agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must
complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural
Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Mr. Yeats: I just wanted to remind you that the CIP as it stands now does go back to the
Finance Committee as part of the Budget Hearing Process, I believe it is on May 10th.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Okay, let’s move on to the big item on the Agenda
tonight.
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearings.
1.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DRAFT HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND NEWLY CREATED CHAPTER 18.18.
Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission:
1.Conduct a public hearing to receive public comments on the March 31, 1999 revised
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Review and comment on the adequacy of the DEIR and recommend that the City
Council find that the DEIR has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adequately analyzes the potential impacts
of the project, the related mitigation measures and a reasonable range o.f alternatives.
Review, comment and provide a recommendation on the Draft Historic Preservation
Incentives, referenced as newly created Chapter 18.18, entitled Special Single-Family
and Two-Family Palo Alto Register Properties Regulations was created.
Planning Commission Action:
Commissioner Schink: Kathy, can I interrupt? Unfortunately, I will have to abstain on this
item as I have been informed that my personal residence is I believe too close to an historic
property as well as I have property that I own in one of my businesses which is in
Professorville. So that would prevent me from participating on this item. I wish you the best
of luck.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you Jon. The other two Commissioners, I believe, have
stated before that they also must step down because of the their residences. So I believe that
is already in the record. Wynn do you have_ any comments?
Ms. Wynn Furth, Senior Assistant City Attomey: That’s correct and in Commissioner Byrd’s
case it is also where his business is located. It is the combination of interests.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. I want to make a couple of comments before we start
here. There are a lot of copies of the Ordinance available, down here on our right, if anyone
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
here does not have a copy. It is a document that has a very good listing of all of the
properties recommended to be included in that Historic category with photographs and
documentation. When we have had other meetings on this, we have had a very large
audience so we were going to comment that we would like to complete this tonight and I
think we will be able to do that. The last comment is to follow up a little bit on the document
over there. It is a very different document from the one that we had to review but did not
start to review a couple of months ago. As everyone knows there were a lot of questions
from the public and a lot of comments. So Staff, in answering these questions, has done
basically a totally new Draft Environmental Impact Report. That is what we are looking at
tonight and hopefully all of the questions that we and you had will have been answered in
this document. Now Staff has a presentation to make to us.
Mr. Riel~ Thank you. In addition to the folks sitting up at the table here I’d like to introduce
three individuals that are sitting in the audience that assisted the Department in completing
the Environmental Impact Report. Nancy Stoltz was design and planning and Michelle
Yesney with David J. Powers & Associates and Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner in the
Advanced Planning section.
As you indicated we do have draft copies of the Environmental Impact Report that are
available. I also have copies of the City Manager’s Report from February 16th available. I
also do have the original, first draft, Environmental Impact Report if anybody doesn’t have
a copy with them or would like an additional copy. The project addressed in the EIR is the
adoption of the implementation of the Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. In addition
to modifying the Palo Alto Municipal Code by replacing Section 16.49 with a new Historic
Preservation Ordinance the project also adds a new section, Section 18.18 which is
essentially modifications to the zoning ordinance creating incentives for preservation of
existing historic resources. The Draft Ordinance is Appendix A in the Appendices Volume.
The Draft Ordinance would create a new Palo Alto Register which includes the most
significant group of historic and architectural resources in the City. A resource list is also
proposed to be created which identifies those resources which may be suitable for inclusion
on the Palo Alto Register.
The EIR evaluates the direct impacts expected to result from the adoption of the Draft
Ordinance and any indirect impacts which also might reasonably be expected to occur if the
Draft Ordinance is adopted.
The purpose of the EIR is assess the potential environmental impacts on the physical
environment that might reasonably be expected to occur if the Draft Ordinance is adopted
as proposed. As I indicated the Departme.nt was the primary author of the document with
the assistance of consultants. The document is intended to facilitate, inform public view, and
assist City Officials in their decision-making process in deciding whether or not to adopt the
Draft Ordinance.
The EIR is also intended to provide environmental review or environmental clearance for
Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
various kinds of future decisions which are approximately 20 items which are located on
page 210 of the EIR. Wynn Furth of the City Attorney’s office will go into more detail on
those after my presentation.
The EIR is organized into eight specific sections. I won’t go into detail on each of those but
the most important on is probably the Project Description which is Section 3. We provide
the Summary of the proposed Ordinance, Project Objectives, detailed background
information on the evolution of the Ordinance, as well as analysis of City and other regional
plans and policies.
The notice of completion of the first EIR was distributed on December 31, 1998. At the
conclusion of that review period which was January 30, 1999 a substantial number of
cbmments were received. Based upon these comments and the number of comments, Staff
determined that additional analysis was needed. Therefore, we decided to recirculate and
create a Revised EIR which is under consideration this evening. Those comments previously
provided on the first EIR have been addressed in this Revised EIR. The review period for
this Revised EIR started on March 31, 1999 and the 30-day period ends on April 30, 1999.
Written comments can be received up until 5:00 p.m.,on that day. In addition to comments
received this evening as a part of the public testimony will become part of the record and
taken into consideration and responded to appropriately. All comments, including public
testimony and written comments, the response will be relative only to environmental issues,
again provided to us by April 30.
The Historic Resource Board started their discussion of this item last Wednesday. They did
not complete their discussion so they have scheduled it for further discussion on April 21.
Tentatively, the Draft EIR and Draft Ordinance are scheduled for City Council consideration
on June 7.
To go into a little bit more detail, the EIR provides an environmental setting, You’ll notice
in the document there are a number of maps, I believe there is a total of 12. Those maps
identify existing historic resources, interim ordinance landmarks, existing National Register
and California Register listed properties, as well as potentially eligible National and
California Register properties based upon the recent Dames & Moore assessment which we
also have copies of available this evening. You’ll also notice in the Appendices there are
photographs of examples of National Register properties as well as California Register
properties to give everybody an idea of what essentially these properties look like.
The Draft EIR identifies four unavoidable impacts as are indicated in the Staff report. The
first being the implementation of the Draft Ordinance could allow some non-register
properties now known to be of historic and/or architectural value to be demolished or
modified in ways that are incompatible with their historic character or the character of the
existing neighborhoods.
The second impact: although adoption of the Draft Ordinance will not cause historic
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
buildings to be demolished or altered, it does not preclude the occurrence of such impacts.
It can reasonably be assumed that resources placed on the Register will only infrequently
be demolished or modified so radically as to reduce their historic integrity.
The third impact: _-~or~those structures initially placed ont he Resource List and subsequently
determined not eligible for the Register, there would be no impediment to the demolition or
modification.
The fourth: for approximately 1,800 historic properties which are not proposed to be either
on the Register or the Resource List, demolition or substantial modification is both possible
for many of these and is likely to occur.
Five alternatives were also examined in Section 7.of the report which begins on page 7-74.
Based upon the analysis, two of those project alternatives: Ordinance protective of
Resources and the Alternative More Protective of Resources Not Included on the Palo Alto
Register and the Resource List, are environmentally superior to the proposed project. As you
indicated Chairman, Staff recommends the Planning Commission, and I won’t read those
they are up on the overhead in great detail, conduct a public hearing, review and comment
on the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and provide a recommendation regarding the newly
created Chapter 18.18. What I’d like to do is turn it over to Wynn for an explanation of
CEQA. After Wynn has completed her presentation Virginia is going to go through, very
briefly, what it means to be on the Register and what it means to be on the Resource List.
Thank you.
Ms. Furth: Thank you. Stafft_h_0ught it would be helpful to go through a bit of the basics of
what we are trying to do here and what CEQA involves in historic preservation. Although
you are very familiar with Environmental Quality Act in California in a lot context what we
are doing here is a bit different than what you usually see. This is an Environmental Impact
Report on a proposed ordinance not a proposed big construction project or shopping center
or Sand Hill or something like this. It has been a matter of great concern to people how
CEQA would be involved in subsequent decisions about remodeling houses or demolishing
them or altering them or replacing them, if an ordinance was adopted. So we’ll take a few
minutes to go through that.
When we do what we call CEQA analysis, Califomia Environmental Quality Act Analysis,
the first question we ask is whether we are dealing with something which is a project. Now,
projects are two kinds for the City. They are either projects the City itself is’going to
undertake, building a new fire station, or they are projects that the City approves, that we
have the right to say yes or no, or how something will be built. In this case we are
considering an ordinance which we would adopt but if we adopted it we are also considering
a lot of privately proposed projects that would be subject to City review. If we decide that
we have a project, for example building a fire station or something like that, or approving a
conditional use permit, the question is, is the approval discretionary. That is do we as a City
either through the Commission or the Council or a Staff member, have to apply a degree of
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
judgment, not simply holding an application up to a check list of objective standards and
saying yes or no. The classic example of a non-discretionary approval, what is called a
ministerial approval, is a simple building permit. The building official checks it off against
setback lines and load bearing calculations and so on and so forth and that’s it. You don’t do
an environmental analysis for that kind of decision because environmental analysis is
supposed to inform your decision-making and if you’re just checking it off against an object
or the standard, you don’t have discretion, you don’t need that information.
So if there is a project which is something that could have an impact on the environment and
is a discretionary approval we next check to see whether this particular discretionary project
is exempt from CEQA analysis. There are two kinds of exemptions. One set are created by
statute by the State Legislature. They are quite comprehensive and they are mandatory. An
example would be an emergency project. Another example would be setting rates and tolls
on the Golden Gate Bridge or a bus system. Another one would be providing financial
assistance for a low and moderate income housing project though not the project itself. It
would be the funding decision not the design decision. If there is a discretionary project and
there isn’t an exemption then we do something called an initial study. You’ve seen the check
list which says could this have an effect on air quality, on hydro-geology, on cultural
r,esources, on aesthetics, etc. If there are no potential impacts then we adopt what’s known
as a negative declaration. There is a public hearing, you propose it, there is a 21-day public
hearing process, sometimes we propose conditions that would make the project non-
damaging, in that case it is called mitigated negative debt. Once that is done you can go
ahead with the project. If there are adverse impacts, then you have to do an Environmental
Impact Report. It may be focused. That is you only analyze one or two or three or four,
some number of potential impacts that you’ve narrowed down in your initial study. You may
have discovered that there is no traffic problem, there is no air quality problem, there is a big
drainage problem, for example. When you do an EIR you describe the project, you identify
its impacts, you look for ways to reduce those impacts -- mitigation measures, and you look
for alternative ways of dealing with the situation -- the altematives analysis, to see if you can
come up with a project that would be environmentally less damaging. Whether Or not the
Council Or whoever the decision-making body chooses to approve that less damaging
alternative depends on a wide range of factors that are not considered in the EIR. The EIR
is the environmental background for the broader decision-making process. However, there
is another option if you have adverse impacts. That is you have to ask, where the
environmental impacts previously analyzed in another EIR or in a negative debt. If the
answer is yes, then you don’t do a new environmental document you just rely on the one you
already did.
This EIR process here for the ordinance adoption and its implementation started with an
initial study which identified some potential areas of impact. It led to a focused EIR and
furthermore a focused program EIR. A program EIR, which I don’t believe the City has done
before, is an EIR which not only analyzes the regulation yoti are setting up but the
implementation of that regulation, the series of decisions that would be made in the future
based upon this ordinance that you are adopting now. As I told you, when the environmental
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
analysis was done in the EIR it turned up significant adverse impacts. Primarily it said that
the ordinance that we’re proposing, while it won’t destroy any house, won’t stop it. It will
permit the majority of the historic resources in the City to be demolished. They would not
be regulated. Now, of course, how many will be demolished or altered so that they are no
longer historic is up to individual property owners. But from an Environmental Impact
Report you look at the worst case. You say what could happen and that is the answer. This
is not an ordinance that seeks to protect most of the resources in the City. As Eric also
mentioned, the EIR identifies other ordinances, other approaches, which would protect more
resources. Some of these were suggested in the comments on the first round in the EIR.
This means that because environmentally less damaging, more protective in this case,
alternatives have been identified, if the Council wishes-to-go ahead with the proposal that
Staff is recommending they will have to adopt a statement of overriding consideration.
That’s CEQA jargon for a statement that specifically says these are the overriding policy
concems whether they are economic or social or legal, that lead us to conclude that the
environmental cost of this proposal are acceptable and we propose to ahead anyway.
I’d like to talk a little bit about the program EIR and what that would mean for
implementation in the event that the Council decided to adopt this ordinance. As Eric said
this ordinance creates the Palo Alto Register. Properties on the Palo Alto Register would be
largely protected from demolition or from alterations that would eliminate their historic
character. A lot of additions and alterations would be permitted but they would be required
to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines on the subject. So I thought
I~ would start by talking about decisions which we believe will not require-further
environmental review either because they are exempt already under existing exemptions or
because they are covered by this program EIR.
So first with respect to the Palo Alto Register which starts out with a group of properties to
which others would be added, a Council decision to accept a property, to add it, would be
exempt. A Council decision to reject a property or to delete an already listed property, would
be covered by this program EIR. It would rely on this analysis. Similarly with the Resource
List, which is sort of a holding list for properties that we believe would qualify for the Palo
Alto Register but need further study and discussion, adding a property to the Resource List
would be an exempt activity, rejecting a property or deleting it would be covered by this EIR.
With respect to a Register property whether it was owned by the City or a private individual,
maintenance of the property would be exempt from CEQA analysis as would minor
alterations, as with major alterations which would again be major alterations consistent with
the Secretary of Interior’s guidelines. The new CEQA guidelines provide a presumption that
when you have an alteration that is consistent with the guidelines there is no adverse impact.
That’s part of the reason that we are suggesting using that standard. If the proposal was to
demolish a Register property we have addressed that in this program EIR. What you do is
take a look at, see if whether the impact of its demolition was adequately discussed and
covered in this EIR. If for some reason there was something that wasn’t adequately discussed
you might do a negative declaration and in a rare case you might to a focused EIR..
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
With Resources properties it is essentially the same. Maintenance, minor alterations,
consistent major alterations are all exempt. A decision, if after looking at this property more
carefully, it does indeed meet the standards for inclusion in the Register then that addition
would be exempt. And rejecting it for the Register is something that is discussed in here.
So that has already been analyzed. If the decision was that it’s a nice property but it’s not
so significant that it should be on the Register that also wouldn’t require CEQA analysis.
The last group of houses is, actually the biggest one, historic homes that are not on the
Register or the Resources List. That is somewhere around 1,800 houses and other structure.
They are not regulated under this ordinance. I should explain that California Register
eligible properties that aren’t also National Register eligible properties are [farcified] as
historic resources by the State and their loss is considered an adverse environmental effect.
What we’ve proposed’ in this ordinance is that the City would not require their preservation
but it would permit any owner of such a property to add it to the Palo Alto Register if that
property owner felt that was desirable either because they wanted to take advantage of
building incentives or because they wanted to be able to participate in the FEMA special
flood regulations for historic structures in flood districts or because they simply wanted to
preserve it. Again, maintenance is exempt, there is no review. Minor alterations, major
alterations, demolition all those are exempt. One of the reasons is at the moment they are
exempt because it is not a discretionary project. We don’t have discretionary review for
replacing a single-family dwelling so even tearing it down, even if it is historic, is not a
CEQA project. We’ve also analyzed it in some detail in this EIR so that in the event of a
dispute on that topic, I think the law is pretty well settled, but in the event that for some
reason an exemption didn’t seem appropriate we’ve also analyzed the environmental impact
of loss of those properties in this program EIR. That’s why they are all listed individually,
they are mapped, and in addition there are photographs of them to illustrate what is the
nature of that loss would be. So that’s an overview. Let me know if you have questions.
Ms. Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner: What I want to show is what properties in fact are
included. Kathy had asked us about this yesterday so we thought this might be helpful for
the rest of the Commissioners. I’m going to use the latex, my hands first, to explain what’s
on there. That is the universe of the protected properties, about 800 properties protected
under this proposed ordinance come from two places. They come from our existing historic
inventory based on the 1978 survey that we’ve had for 20 years and in addition to those 500
or so historic inventory properties, there is another at least 300 properties identified in this
1998 survey as potentially eligible for the National Register. They join the 500’that we’ve
already had on the inventory and that becomes the 800 protected properties that are proposed
to be represented by this ordinance. This sheet divides them into groups which would be put
under the Palo Alto Register and those, down at the bottom, which will be put underneath
those lists.
On the Register are the Category 1 and 2 properties from our existing inventory. That’s 90
of those. And properties in our two National Register Historic Districts, Professorville and
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
.30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Ramona Street. Those three groups, Categories 1 and 2, Professorville, and Ramona Street,
those are the properties that would be on the Palo Alto Register. The Resource List is the
Category 3 and 4 properties from the current inventory and the new identified 300 potential
National Register properties. The reason that they are going first to the Resource List and
not up to the Register is that they essentially haven’t finished the evaluation on these
properties. The Category 3 and 4 properties have had no City review or protection for the
20 years they’ve been on the inventory. They could be altered or demolished with no City
review or approval at all. We don’t know exactly which ones are still out there. We have a
consultant looking at that right now. He is looking at them not to determine whether or not
they are important, we are assuming that they are historically important, but to see whether
or not they still retain integrity. Are they still there and have they not been altered to the
point that they’ve lost their historic importance. The potential National Register properties
have just been assessed at its preliminary stage but the individual evaluation of each
individual property and the write up of that, why it’s important, the completion of the
documentation that says it’s important and this is why has not been completed. That will be
completed by about next November, this coming November. So because of that situation
these two groups are going to be on the Resource List. Any questions?
Commissioner Schmidt: Any questions?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes. In the future will more people be added to the Resource List
or will it just completely be dissolved? You’re talking about bringing that list down and
adding people in or rejecting them from this group.
Ms. Warheit: The ordinance provides for the Resource List to be there as a place where
properties could appear that they may meet the qualifications for being on the Palo Alto
Register. They could be put there and have some protection but as much protection while
investigation or evaluation is continuing. So there isn’t anything anticipated. There is
nothing in line for getting on the Resource List but the ordinance creates that mechanism for
future possible identification and evaluation of properties.
Commissioner,Cassel: I have another question that goes with thai. Will these units be
reviewed annually or every five years or way you have a pace for over time as more and
more units are more than 50 years old?
Ms. Warheit: I don’t think anybody is extremely excited about continuing on with this right
now. It is good practice to not wait 20 years like we did the last time. That’s one reason for
providing something like a Resource List. It sets up a mechanism for a more timely
consideration of these things.
Ms. Furth: You point out one of the issue which of course is the passage of time. To go on
the Resource List the property would have to viewed by the Director based on expert
evidence after consultation with the HRB as potentially National Register eligible. So we
don’t believe there are a large number of unidentified National Register eligible properties
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
out there but there may be some that we don’t know about or some that in a few years will
seem more significant than they do now.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question. Would you remind me if all of these will be put
on this list as a selection by the City versus any interest of the homeowner of these top 800.
Ms. Warheit: If we were very organized and property owner came in and said, as they have
a right to do, if everybody on the Resource List came in and said, tell me am I National
Register eligible or should I come out of this holding pen and go back with the other
California Register eligible properties, then the Resource List would go down to zero. And
every property either would have been found to be National Register eligible and added to
the Palo Alto Register or it wouldn’t have been and it would go off into the unregulated
historic resources. There are two different standards for adding property to the Palo Alto
Register. If the City Council wishes to add the properties to the Palo Alto Register either
they have to find that these houses meet National Register standards or they have to fred that
while they are only California Register eligible they are exceptional in the Palo Alto context.
They are extraordinarily important here. We would not expect that very many or most
California Register properties would not meet that test. However, if the property owner
wants to add a property to the Palo Alto Register all they have to do is show that it is
California Register eligible and the burden of proof is not on them. If the City believed that
it is not properly eligible the burden would be on us to show that. So it is a much lower
threshold if you want to be on than if the City pushes you on.
Commissioner Schmidt: Any other questions at this moment? Okay, thank you. Is there
any more presentation?
Mr. Riel: That concludes Staff’s comments.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, then are there any questions for Staff before open the public
hearing?. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: The definition of demolition on the Attachment A matrix says that
demolition means a 50% destruction. Could you clarify a little bit what that means. Is that
50% of exterior Walls?
Mr. Riel: Yes, it is exterior walls.
Commissioner Burt: Great. Then out of the homes in the Professorville Historic District
what quantity or percentage are on the Palo Alto Register for Landmarks?
Mr. Gawf: I think Virginia may have those numbers but I think what you are asking is
within the Professorville Historic District there are contributing and non-contributing
structures. Some percent, some number, of the contributing structures may also be Category
1 and 2 and consequently, in addition to being contributing they are also individual
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Landmarks. I think we do have that number.
Ms. Warheit: Yes. Is that what you were asking? How many are actually historic buildings
and how many are non-historic buildings that just happen to be there?
Commissioner Burt: Yes.
Ms. Warheit: There are about 40 non-contributing buildings and about 260 contributing
buildings.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Ms. Furth: We didn’t do an overhead on historic districts. We have two historic districts and
they are National Register Districts. The Ramona Street District as you know is all
commercial buildings and they are all historic structures. There are no non-contributing
buildings there and a number of them have also either have been or are under consideration
for modification. The current ones for modification consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s guidelines.
The Professorville District is a more complicated and a probably a more usually situation.
Most of the buildings are contributing structures. That means that they were built during
the period for which this district was created. Each district has a reason for being, it
exemplifies a particular period in history, a particular set of interesting characteristics.
Buildings that either weren’t built then or that have lost their integrity so that they can’t
convey what they used to convey are considered to be non-contributing. In this proposed
ordinance there would be no restrictions on demolition of the non-contributing buildings
because that is not a loss of historic resource. There would be restrictions on the replacement
structures which would be required to be, the short term is "compatible," this doesn’t mean
that they would be period pieces or fake pieces. It does mean that they would be designed
and built in a way that didn’t detract from the district. So as you looked down the street your
eye wouldn’t’ be disrupted by seeing them. For historic buildings we would regulate
alterations as we do for other historic properties. The Council would have the ability to
permit the demolition of a contributing structure in an historic district if loss of that structure
wouldn’t damage the district.
Ms. Warheit: The total in Professorville is about 200. About 40 non-contributors and 160
contributors.
Commissioner Butt: Out of that 160, do you know approximately how many are currently
Landmarks?
Ms. Warheit: That are category 1 or 2 on the existing inventory.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Schmidt: Any other questions for Staff before we open the public hearing?
One question. There is a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office in the Draft EIR
and this one is very brief saying that they had a rather short time to review the proposed
ordinance. Do you expect to get additional comments from them?
Mr. Riel: Yes we do. Initially that letter was received a number of weeks ago and they have
continued to review that and we would expect comments. I believe Virginia has even spoken
to them to today and they are in the process of drafting those.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, I believe that they had a lot of comments on the previous
Draft EIR and are you getting the response that they are having fewer comments on this
Draft EIR?
Mr. Gawf: When I talked to them approximately two to three weeks ago, I would anticipate
fewer comments than they gave originally. They still will have some concerns. One of those
concerns frankly, will be the potential loss of the California Register properties, the historic
resource. If you think about it from the State point since they find that it is an historic
resource is a fairly obvious comment but I think, we’ve taken care of some of the other
concerns that they’ve had which were procedural and clarification and things like that. At
least we’ve tried to.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. I have one more request from Wynn. In our meeting
yesterday you made some comments about the comments that you would ultimately like to
get from the Commission. I think that would be useful to give to us to again.
Ms. Furth: Certainly. The EIR is a very big document obviously and we hope it reads well
but we understand that others may feel that it is more boring than we do. What would be
very helpful is comments on these points:
Do we adequately describe what we are proposing so that a person who is reading this
understands what is proposed? In particular do they understand the setting in the City, the
nature and extent of the historic resources that we are dealing with here?
The next question is, did we think about and describe a reasonable range of alternative
approaches? We’re not required to analyze every approach that somebody come up with but
we are supposed to analyze a reasonable range of environmentally preferable alternatives.
A third thing is this notion of mitigation measures. We are more used to thinking of it in a
building project but are there modifications to this basic approach we’re proposing that would
reduce the environmental impacts as the ordinance was adopted and applied. Are there
mitigation measures that we didn’t think of that ought to be considered?
And finally, if the Staffs recommendation is accepted by the City Council, then they are
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
going to have to adopt a formal statement explaining why the environmental costs of this
proposal are acceptable. That this is the best of the available alternatives when you consider
a wider range of policy issues. Your comments and thoughts on that will be helpful to the
Council as well.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. I think it time to open the public heating and hear from
the public. At the moment I have three cards. If anyone else would like to speak please fill
out a card. The first speaker is Earl Schmidt to be followed by Nancy Alexander. Each
person, please introduce yourself and give us your address. You have five minutes to speak.
Mr. Earl Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. As a preface, I’ve been
actively involved in historic preservation and historic site marking within the Bay Area and
the California Gold Country ever since 1947. A little over 50 years. I’ve known and worked
with all the State Historic Preservation Officers and the growing State Staff since the position
was first created as a division of the beaches and parks.
On February 17th I made the following presentation to the City Council and handed copies
to the City Attorney, City Manager, and Planning Director. We own multiple residential
property located at the corner of Homer and Emerson Streets. It is currently zones and
hotel/motel on one lot. We did not achieve that. The property contains four occupied
residential units designated as 201 Homer which is our residence, 209 Homer, 761 Emerson,
and 795 Emerson. All are rentals with long-term tenants. None of the property qualifies as
single family under any existing or proposed historic plan. It is one property and all are on
that property. We also own two other commercially zoned buildings located on other comers
of Homer and Emerson, and have very proudly continued to protect and preserve the historic
character of all these long time casual family properties for more than 90 years, without any
City help, ordinances nor support. None of our properties fit the present planned single
family home nor a two family home designation but are all caught and tangled in the City’s
widely spread historic net. We are asking for immediate removal of these, our private
buildings, from any Landmark, heritage or other historic designation, zoning or other
considei’ation. Our family has successfully and proudly looked after these properties since
they were first developed and we intend to continue to do so.
That was the statement I made and have not had any response as a result of its presentation
to the City Council. although it was accepted in an open hearing with about as many Council
members as we have Commissions here tonight. Although I subsequently enjoyed a nice
visit and conversation with the City Planning Director, my February 17th request has never
been acknowledged or answered.
Now the new March 31, 1999 Revised Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance still lists 201
Homer along with two weird addresses, 231 and 738 Ramona. Both of these structures were
removed over 15 years ago. Yet they are still in there somehow clouding our record of our
property. We’ve called it to the City’s attention on numerous occasions. They were at the
other end of the block not even connected to our parcels. It also continues to carry 800
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Emerson, a commercial building that to our knowledge has never been given the valuation
nor is it presumed to be historic. It is surrounded by the Whole Foods parking lot. The
City’s proposed ordinance goes well beyond any accepted State limitation on the designation
of historic properties with restrictions on their owner’s fights. While it is being presented as
being in accord with State and Federal law, it is not so. The State law does not place the
restrictions that Palo Alto’s Ordinance proposes. It is time now to clean up all facets of this
proposal and get it in accord with State law.
When I say we’ve been actively involved in historic preservation, this involved the building
that is well over 130 years old. We maintain and preserve it in accord with proper historic
preservation standards in the Gold Country. I’ve been working with State people, as I.
pointed out earlier, from 1947. The City of Palo Alto is venturing into ground that is legally
indefensible in placing all the restrictions, no real incentives on the property owner. I think
that it is something that has to be recorded and known and recognized. When real incentives
and something that encourages property owners to do something different, and I don’t think
you can find any property that has been better maintained than the properties that we hold
in Palo Alto, then let’s give but you’re out there with a whip beating a dead horse. Thank
you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Would Staff like to comment on anything now or save
comments for the end. Okay, the next speaker is Nancy Alexander to be followed by Monica
Yeung Arima.
Ms. Alexander: Commissioners, I’m Nancy Alexander, 435 Santa Rita, a house that I don’t
know whether it has been placed on potential National Register after hearing the testimony
tonight or not. Certainly it was advertised in January as being placed on potential National
Register List. I have not looked at the EIR completely because it has just come out and it
is voluminous. However I do have a couple of comments that I wanted to pass along your
way. First of all I agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman ahead of me that this particular
ordinance does not offer any incentives that are commensurate to the taking that it being
proposed here. This ordinance is essentially a spot zoning scheme which is illegal as you
know. It uses a classic ends justifies the means approach. You say that your ends are good,
historic preservation, yet you are using a spot zoning scheme to achieve that. That’s not
right. An alternative that you could look at in the EIR would be to have an historic easement
on properties and to buy that, and to compensate the landowners for that historic easement,
or taking or whatever you’d like to call it. Properties right across the street from each other,
right next door to each other are being treated vastly differently in terms of entitlement. My
property by being placed on this list of potential National Register is going to be held to --
my entitlements are being withdrawn, I’m going to have to comply with much more stringent
requirements, if a major part of my house is destroyed in the large earthquake that is coming
as a certainty I will be required to rebuild, my next door neighbor will not. There is a whole
host of requirements that are being placed on these properties. They are major financial
burdens: I’ll be required to rebuild auxiliary buildings on my property and wing walls and
that sort of thing. That is not covered by earthquake insurance. Those are specifically
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
excluded by earthquake insurance. So that is another, my next door neighbor will not be
required to do that at all. So it is very much a spot zoning scheme and I for one would also
ask that my property be removed very definitely from this list. I do not want my property
on this list.
As far as the process, the EIR process is concerned, the way this should have been done is
that a scoping session should have been held to elicit from members of the community the
items that they wanted addressed in the EIR. State law recommends this as good practice
when you have a very controversial project. This project certainly meets the criteria of being
controversial. So there should have been a large meeting. They should have asked the
public what do you want in this EIR and then taken that into consideration and addressed
that. That was not done. It was recommended but it was not done for this project.
I think a second item, a theme, I keep heating over and over again is that the reason that you
did the second EIR it is in response to the public comments for the first. No, what really
happened here is that the City produced a legally inadequate EIR and they knew at the time
they did it. They knew before they released it that it was legally inadequate because the
project description was not complete. They knew that up front, they did it anyway, they
wasted and squandered tax payer dollars, and yet they did that. Here they try to, instead of
stepping up to the plate and saying we made a mistake or we went ahead and did this
anyway, instead of admitting that they tried to couch this in terms of "we’re responding to
the public comment." That just simply not the case. I think they really need to be up front.
So those are just some of my comments off the top of my head. You might want to consider
actually not coming to conclusion tonight because the EIR really has just recently been
released and it is only two weeks into the review period. Comparing the attendance tonight
with previous attendance at other meetings I would say that people perhaps aren’t aware of
that. So perhaps a greater effort should be made to elicit the public response.
Als0 1 received a certified letter here from the City. Paragraph two seems to be unclear.
First of all it says that the comments that have been made on the previous EIR, the December
31, 1998 EIR will become part of the administrative record addressed and revised EIR. But
when I look at ~e EIR I don’t see the comments being replied to here. So I have a question
about that. I mean, are they? In what way, is the question. Then the very next sentence says
that written response to your previous comments will not be provided and that new
comments must be submitted for the revised EIR. So what’s the deal here? Does this EIR
and its Appendix respond to the comments that have been made previously or hasn’t it? Do
they all need to be re-submitted again?
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you, your time is up. We apparently don’t have a buzzer
working tonight but the flashing red light over there indicates when the five minutes is up.
the next speaker is Monica Yeung Arima to be followed by Leannah Hunt.
Ms. Monica Yeung Arima, 1052 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: Good evening Planning
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Commissioners and City Staff. I live at 1052 Bryant Street in Professorville and I am the
owner of 273 Lincoln Avenue as well. Both of our properties are somewhat in some kind
of a register. I think I have a question for the City Attorney. The program EIR, I think but
I’m not sure, so I pose it as a question to her, does not cover modifications of historic
resource that need a variance. Am I correct? I too have a very short time and have not
finished reading the whole EIR but just quickly browsed through. I find I was kind of
troubled by a couple of things. One is the damage clause in the restored ordinance about the
damage by natural disaster. The homeowners have to take the respolisibility to rebuilding
the house according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. I think that, like the prior
speak said, it poses a very traumatic financial burden to the homeowners. Also the
maintenance clause about leasee and owners are responsible for the maintenance of any
damages to the historic property. I think that is also very problematic because if you look
at a lot of the property, especially the older historic property, there is a lot of places that
actually have termite damage. I am a realtor and I know a lot of these properties have that
kind of damage. Basically you are putting a lot of financial burden onto the homeowners.
I don’t know how we are going to address that. I’m glad that a little piece of revised
document from Dennis Backlund was included in the EIR. I’d like you to really study that
a little bit better and understand the document that we have over the last 18 or 19 years have
been working quite well to a certain extent. Look at Professorville and look at Ramona
District. Ramona District is mandatory review and mandatory compliance. Professorville
District, basically as I understand it, it is mandatory review and voluntary compliance. If you
look at the modifications and destructions that they have done over the last 19 years, I’d say
I salute the homeowners of the Professorville District. It really works quite well. There are
some areas where it doesn’t work very well. I think a lot of times people confuse the issue
with the neighborhood compatibility issues versus the historic property issues. Updating the
inventories is a necessary move over a long period of time to update your inventory to
include more necessary inventory that is being recognized by the City or protected by the
City, but that does not mean that you need to use a whip to whip the homeowners to do
certain things. Just identify the property that is historic and let people know they need to
take good care of it but you don’t need to whip the homeowners. The report that I mentioned
was Appendix K and if you look at Professorville, mandatory review does provide a tool to
educate the public about what needs to be done to those properties before any permanent
issue. Yet you don’t need to necessarily put mandatory compliance into it. I think people
in general, if you look at the record of what has been done, it is working quite well. So I’d
like to see the HRB grow to be like a kind of a consulting role to the public instead of a
police power to the public. Lastly, my experience is I’d like to minimize, ask the City to
minimize, Staff review. They have been very, very problematic form our own experience.
That’s why you have an HRB Board to have review process and sometimes people can mis-
use their power when they are given the power. That’s all I have. I’d really like people to
think carefully to have mandatory review but voluntary compliance. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Leannah Hunt to be followed by
Pria Graves.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¯ 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Ms. Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am the Chairperson for
the Local Government Relations Committee. I’ve been Palo Alto District of Penn-West
Association of Realtors. Our committee should be meeting tomorrow to discuss the revised
EIR and we do thank Mr. Gawf for attending one of our recent meetings to discuss the work
in progress. We certainly have appreciated him reaching out to gain our input. I just
returned from a wonderful trip to Charleston, South Carolina and Savannah, Georgia with
the Gamble Garden Center. Even realtors have quite an interest in the preservation of
wonderful homes. This was a very enlightening trip because Charleston, my understand was
that it was first area in the United States to actually develop historic districts. This has been
an ongoing process for 40 plus years. Of course, they have a wonderful inventory of
buildings that date back to the 1700’s. So you are dealing with truly historic buildings.
Those volunteers are certainly to be congratulated for all of the work they have done and
certainly the volunteers in our community who have worked with Dames & Moore are to be
applauded as well. I know many people have spent a great deal of time in this volunteer
effort.
As realtors we have from the beginning been concerned about the preservation of those gems
in our community such as the 20 some-odd homes in Professorville which are very
representative of architectural styles and designs. But we do continue to be concerned about
the 800 and some-odd homes proposed for the Palo Alto Register. In fact, as a resident of
Palo Alto for 30 years I was surprised that you have some homes included such as 2130
Byron where you don’t have a determination in the 2000, 21-2300 block of Byron which I
would view as historical. So it is interesting that there has been some arbitrariness, in my
view, where you have made a [craftmans] downtown were not included, other homes were
included, again very much like a drive-by by Dames & Moore.
We’re concerned that there could be additions to the Palo Alto Registry by individuals who
are not the homeowners and we have maintained from the beginning that this needs to be a
process where the homeowner is definitely participating and has a right to have his home
included or not included. In fact, we have had tenants in this community Who are not
homeowners who have been very vociferous and verbal in this whole last two and a half
years. I for one as a homeowner would be dismayed if my home were added to the list
simply because another resident of the community wished to have it included without my
authorization as a homeowner.
One thing going to Savannah, I found very interesting talking with two homeowners who
were currently undergoing renovation and rebuilding. Of course, they have to go by the
guidelines of the National Registry and use materials of the period or similar to the period.
In fact, what we find is that this a very expensive process. One gentleman who had actually
relocated from San Francisco to Savannah said that he has spent money well in excess of
what he originally envisioned as a result of having to go by the National Guidelines. Now,
if one has unlimited funds and this is a particular desire we applaud the effort, but if it is
going to be a burden on the homeowner then we would concerned about the monies that
would have to be incurred.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
There is a homeowner here who recently had to rebuild an entire dining room wall because
of subterranean termite damage. I am very concerned about the likelihood of undiscovered
damage even from a pest inspection. My pest inspection had shown some subterranean
damage in other parts of the house but there was no indication that this particular dining
room wall was so damaged. In fact, it has resuscitated my completely demolishing a wall
and rebuilding a wall. IfI had to do that with materials of the period or similar to the period
obviously I would have incurred great expense. At this point, of course, I could just have a
contractor put in new beams, new support pieces to take care of that damage.
I thank Mr. Gawf for adding the provision for additional FAR. We think that he is moving
in the right direction and we encourage Council to move in that direction, to include these
kinds of incentives for those properties which would be on the Registry. It is that bit of
cooperation, that bit of having entitlements if you will, the benefits of inclusion, that’s where
we need to be with our homeowners. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Pria Graves to be followed by Richard Alexander and
Richard is the last card that I have.
Ms. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at 2130 Yale Street a
Category 3 home which will therefore go on the Resource List and which I will request to
have added to the Register at the earliest possible convenience of the Council. I’m also the
incoming President of Past Heritage and we also have not, as an organization, had an
opportunity to finish reviewing the EIR and expect to submit comments again. We did on
the previous draft and will again on this one. I expect by the deadline. In my brief perusal
of it so far I am please that the new Draft EIR has come so far. It has, in particular,
addressed a couple of our serious concerns that the extent of the resources involved both on
the ones that were expected to be included and the California Register eligible properties that
were being excluded from the proposed ordinance are quite adequately documented at this
point. That was one of our areas that Past felt needed a lot of addressing. I am also pleased
that Dennis Backlund’s report was included, Appendix K. Unlike the previous speaker I
don’t think that without a time line that really shows the increase in rate of demolitions and
alterations that has been going on in Palo Alto in the last few years. From looks back over
the last 20 years our previous ordinance probably was sufficient over most of that time to
protect the resources that we had. The problems have been in more recent times, the
economic climate has changed and has modified the situation in Palo Alto. I think without
a strong and mandatory ordinance we will again see a large number of ur~acceptable
alterations and demolitions.
Finally, I would like to encourage the Planning Commission, as you review this, to look for
any possible incentives. Like Leannah, I feel that incentives are the best way to go in terms
of encouraging people to want to be part of this process. I think it is a very, very vital part
of what needs to be put in place for the ordinance. I’m particularly interested in incentives
that do not revolve around modification of homes but would be available to homeowners
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
who are quite content with the size and shape of their existing home. Something like a
modified Mills Act that, I guess it was Council Member Fazzino, proposed where the City
would rebate part of its share of the property tax to the homeowner. That doesn’t get into the
Mills Act problem of depriving our school districts of their monies. It is City money rather
than school district money that is given back to the homeowners. I think something of that
nature and also possibly as piece of state legislation or federal legislation regarding tax
credits for the rehabilitation of residential properties comes up we would ask that the City
support that and I would hope that you would be in line with that if that occurs. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. The last speaker is Richard Alexander.
Mr. Richard Alexander, 435 Santa Rita, Palo Alto: Hello, I’m Richard Alexander. We have
in place in Palo Alto now the ability to deal with the problem that has generated this
ordinance. Yet we are not using those available tools. Specifically that would be the interim
ordinance for design review and design controls on the demolition of the pre-1940 buildings
that you approved some time ago. The thing to do is to adopt that rule-making rubric and
impose it on all structures within the City we could solve the problem. The problem has
been the loss of Big Blue over in College Terrace and the construction what have been
referred to as the "taco bells" throughout town. That in large part has driven this historic
preservation ordinance. The problem with the historic preservation ordinance and your
endorsement of it in any way, shape or form, is that you are violating one of the cardinal
rules of government. That is, first do no harm, preserve the values of property, and do not
impose unnecessary cost. By designating a property as historic it automatically places it
under CEQA obligations. When you go look at properties that are on the potential National
Historic Register list, and I suggest you drive past our house, it is a nice big good looking
house, has great curb appeal, and I want you to lo0k diagonally across the street at another
house that was built by the same builder and the same architect. If you look closely, you will
see that it has the same design features, it has the same fireplace, it has the same gables, it
has the same pediment over the doorway. That building is not on the list. I get to carry the
financial burden of having our property on the list because it is nice to look at. I’ll concede
that it is nice to look at. I think what’s happened here across the City is we’ve had a beauty
contest. You’ll find as all the previous speakers have mentioned, some houses are on that
you say why is that on, and you’ll see others that are not and you’ll say why was that one
missed? That’s because there has been no objective scoring. Nancy spoke to you earlier in
-her opening comments that we have asked for the grading sheet on our property. Why is it
on the list? Where is the sheet? Well, there has been no sheet. It can’t be produced. It’s
taken something like seven weeks and it still hasn’t been produced because there has been
no objective evaluation. If there was a scoring sheet it would have been easy to just copy it
and put it in the mail to us. We haven’t seen it yet and that’s because in large part this
process has been arbitrary and capricious, to the extent to which an attempt to train
volunteers who only had a question of the validity of the database in the first place. This
program could be made to work if we acknowledge what we want to do. We want to
preserve certain designs that we think are worthwhile preserving. We want to keep them.
We should offer incentives so that instead of me opposing the ordinance, you should have
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
people like me lining up saying I’m ready to go. Remember, I bought this house. I paid for
it and I’ve been taking care of it. We’ve been taking care of it all these years. So we’re
already on the line to maintain it, we just don’t want to have the burden of an environmental
impact report if someone wanted to stuff that down our throats in the future. An EIR could
cost as much as $30,000 and it’s not covered by insurance. So when you vote in favor this
EIR, or when you vote in favor of this ordinance, what you are voting is to impose
unnecessary cost that we don’t have to do. We could just call it what it is, it is a beauty
contest. There are certain houses that we want on the beauty list. We will offer you
incentives if you will put your house on the beauty list without calling it historical we could
achieve the same goals without the expense, without the damage, without the harm, and
without the punitive divisive nature of this ordinance. This ordinance has a particularly
sinister, unconstitutional enforcement provision that I find absolutely vulgar and despicable.
You’ll find many preservationists tell you this ordinance is great. But I want you to look at
the civil penalty provision. It is in the Revised Draft Appendices, the ordinance is in the first
section, Section A, and it’s page 25. May I have additional time please?
Commissioner Schmidt: Finish your statement.
Mr. Alexander: If you look at the Civil Penalty Provision it says that any person or entity
who alters or causes alteration or demolition of a structure in violation of this chapter shall
be liable civilly in a sum equal to the replacement cost of the building. That in fact means
that no matter what the violation is, the slightest violation, the equivalent of a parking
violation, you could end up having the property confiscated. That is a grossly illegal taking.
It is punitive. It is a penalty in violation of the Constitution of the State of California. It is
contrary to public policy and it is evidence of a venial stick that is the philosophy behind this
ordinance in total. So that any vote for this ordinance in fact is not going to reflect well on
any of you in any circumstances.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you.
Mr. Alexander: You are most welcome. Thank you. I’m glad we had all this additional time
since we had so many people here this evening. It was nice of you to allow me to extend my
comments.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, are there any other members of the public who would like
to speak? I don’t see any so I will close the public hearing and bring this back to the
Commission.
Do we have any other questions for Staff at this point? I’ll start with Pat.
Commissioner Burt: There were a number of questions raised by the public and I wonder
whether Wynn could answer a few of them and other Staff members as they see fit. One had
to do with the issue of whether this constitutes spot zoning. Another was the potential
financial impact of earthquake or other natural disasters. Then I thought we had a good
Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
explanation of the potential imposition of EIRs on individual homes or lack of that potential
but if you could clarify that one more time. Then finally, if you could comment on the issue
of potential civil penalties for non-conformance. Thank you.
Ms. Furth: You are right the charges made that this is an illegal ordinance because it
constitutes spot zoning. Spot zoning is a term that refers zoning for which there is no
rational basis. As you know the City has the power to adopt and enforce regulations within
its boundaries that don’t violate the Constitution of the State or of the country. As you
exercise this power, this regulatory power known as the police power, you have to adopt an
ordinance which has a rational basis for accomplishing a legitimate government purpose.
Now the government purpose in question here is the preservation of historic buildings. In
my opinion, it is beyond question in the United States and in the State of California that the
preservation of historic buildings publicly and privately owned is a legitimate government
purpose. Probably the most famous case for those of my age involves New York and the
Grand Central Train Station and Mrs’. Onassis is a major plaintiff in which the Supreme
Court said yes, you can restrict the use of extremely valuable propegy, Manhattan’s values
do approach those of Palo Alto, in order to protect a valuable historic resource. The earliest,
as a member of the public pointed out, some of the earliest historic preservation efforts on
a civic basis as opposed to ladies’ associations buying Washington’s home, did involve
historic districts. They were defined bounded areas. Some of the early litigation on the
subject involved the French Quarter in Louisiana and the validity of imposing requirements
on the maintenance of the facades and other elements of buildings in an historic district.
That was held to be Constitutional. In addition, the selection ofbuildings, not because they
were within a geographically bounded area but because they had certain characteristics has
been upheld as Constitutional in this country. It certainly is true that we are required to have
a set of criteria and apply them. The criteria that we have suggested here are largely those
created by the Federal Govemment in the case of the National Register Standards and by the
State Government in the case of the California Register Standards. It is quite correct to say
that they are not objective in the sense that they are not numeric. The law does not presume
that the use of numeric scoring is more rational or legitimate than the use of other kinds of
evaluation. So I cannot agree with the statement that a score sheet or a tally sheet is an
essential elemeni of a rational basis for making distinctions among buildings. I know that
the Federal Government has been upheld in its application of National Register Standards
on which a great deal hinges in the balance. Primarily in terms of uses that can and cannot
be made of Federal money, entitlements to protection of privately owned historic properties
against alteration to accommodate federal programs, and eligibility of historic properties for
tax benefits and other grand eligibility programs. I think one of the difficulties that we face
in Palo Alto is that so many of the historic resources in this City are individual homes and
they are not rental properties. They are occupied by the owners and therefore the tax
programs and incentives that were designed for those that have rental property or commercial
property aren’t available. As was mentioned there is a proposal for a targeted tax exemption
for privately owned and occupied homes as well before Congress now it just hasn’t passed.
The point being that I do believe that we can say with some confidence that this approach
is not unconstitutional and it isn’t illegal zoning.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
"1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
On natural disasters, I believe Nancy Stoltz who is one of the City’s Historic Preservation
Consultants and Architects is going to comment on that.
With respect to the civil penalty section I should tell you that the City does make use of the
civil penalties. That is not a section that we’ve re-drafted recently. Civil penalties are a non-
port alternative to imposing sanctions for violations of City Ordinances. The City is in the
process of reviewing its civil penalty provisions generally and we’ll be sure to look at this
one as well. Certainly it is not our intention to impose unconstitutional penalties nor I
believe, our practice.
With respect to environmental analysis and impacts I think two points were raised. One was
a statement that by placing buildings on the Register we make them subject to CEQA, That
is not in fact true. What we have done in this City is we have done a study that has identified
buildings that qualify under state law and/or federal law as historic resources. It is the fact
that they meet those standards that makes them of interest when you are doing an
environmental analysis, when you are doing a CEQA analysis. The CEQA definition of an
historic resource is something on the National Register or on the California Register or
eligible for them or a locally identified property on a properly adopted register. We are not
proposing to add properties to our register that wouldn’t independently qualify under those
other two registers. So we are not creating a broader, larger category of historic resources.
But as you know, the fact that you have a house that is an historic resource or a commercial
building that is an historic resource doesn’t tell you by itself whether or not a particular
project is going to be subject to CEQA review when you go in to ask.for the City’s
permission to do it. In the case of a demolition of a National Register property that is
knocking it down or removing half of its walls or more, we cannot promise that there
wouldn’t be an environmental review. We can say that we have done a program EIR that
anticipates some of those losses. We can say that for the vast majority of changes to those
houses that people want to make that would not require an EIR. I cannot say with confidence
that every National Register building in the City could be knocked down without an EIR.
But essentially you are talking about demolitions of those buildings on a significant scale
as being subject to an environmental review that could include an EIR. Do you want to add
anything to that?
Mr. Gawf: Let me add that I think there were a couple of other questions. The first one goes
to Nancy.
Ms. Nancy Stoltz, consultant: I’d like to respond to the question or comment about
rebuilding in the event of a disaster. I assume the speaker is referring to the Proposed
Ordinance Chapter 16.49.210 which governs disasters. I’d like to point out that there is
nothing Ordinance that requires a property owner to rebuild something that has been
destroyed in a national disaster. Nor is there anything in California Public Resources Code
50.28 from which this section is sort of derived and referred. What these do say is that when
protected resources/historic resources are damaged in natural disasters, and that would
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
include earthquake, fire, flood, etc., and they pose an imminent threat to the public of bodily
harm or damage to adjacent property that they essentially would qualify for what is
commonly called the Disaster Exemption. They could be demolished or significantly altered
without any further review. Now, properties which are damaged in natural disasters which
don’t fit this definition of imminent threat, if those are proposed for demolition or significant
alteration, they would still be subject to CEQA as in the normal course of events. I would
like to add just one more point on the disaster situation and that is that following a disaster
that is a federally declared disaster such as a large earthquake, any federal agency that is
disbursing funds either grants or loans will have to consider the effects of their undertakings,
their grants, their loans, on National Register eligible properties. Therefore, the work that
has been done in updating the survey and in fact the Ordinance itself would actually expedite
the disbursement of funds because the federal government will have that information, which
are the National Register eligible properties, and then they can disburse funds if the projects
are found not to have a substantial adverse effect. That is, they meet National Register
guidelines when the work is done on them. I hope that is clear. Thank you.
Commissioner Bialson: I have a question. What is the maximum loan that the government
gives out that you are referring to?
Ms. Stoltz: I don’t have that information at my fingertips.
Commissioner Bialson: I believe the maximum loans are about $50,000 or so.
Ms. Stoltz: There is also the Small Business Administration. That is the predominant source
of funds. There are FEMA loans and SBA loans and the SBA loans do go to the residential
properties as well in disasters and not just for businesses.
Commissioner Bialson: It would be helpful if you could get those figures as to what the
maximums are and include that in your report to the City Council.
Ms. Stoltz: I could look those up.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Phyllis, do you have any questions at the moment?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes, but I’ve been too busy listening. Please go on.
Commissioner Schmidt: Annette, do you have some questions?
Commissioner Bialson: I have a question for Wynn. I know you had a lot of questions
thrown at you by Pat. It sounds like from what you said that an EIR might be required if the
program EIR is not found to be adequate.~ A homeowner would have to actually perhaps
respond to a neighbor’s complaint that an EIR was not prepared for whatever alteration or
demolition work was going to be done on the residence. Am I correct or not?
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Ms. Furth: Here is what I can say. The City intends that this cover for example, all
alterations and we would make that statement when we were approving the project and if it
was controversial we would probably file a notice of determination as well. In many cases,
people would just administer the program and don’t document it particularly but we would.
A person could sue the City and say you are incorrect, your program EIR, in fact, doesn’t
cover this. They couldn’t reopen the whole issue of the adequacy of the EIR but they could
say there are impacts here that haven’t been discussed and described. Incidentally, we are
talking about, in this case, what we are saying is that the EIR analyzes the cultural resources
lot not traffic impacts on a commercial project, or something like that. The City would
require to defend that law suit. I think our chances of succeeding are excellent, I suppose I
should say. A law suit can be filed although I think it is highly unlikely that an alteration
you have this kind of an issue.
Commissioner Bialson: Would a homeowner have to delay whatever alteration or whatever
they intend to do until a determination is made?
Mr. Gawf: No, it would be done concurrent with it. For example, I think we grant
exemptions for variances or home improvement exceptions and it’s done as just part of the
process. I’m not Staff is even aware that we probably do that. Let me say that the intent, and
I think we’ve achieved that, the intent of the Draft EIR is to make it a program or master EIR
to provide environmental clearance for the actions in which the City Council or the City
might take in implementing this ordinance. I mean, it truly is the intent to provide
environmental clearance for that as Wynn said, implementation or future actions of the
Ordinance.. There may be some very unusual circumstances where we haven’t covered it.
rll build on the example Wynn gave, is that you’re in an historic district, there has been
several demolitions, we are not at a point where it is in question whether any more
demolitions can occur and you still have an historic district. Well that may be new
information, new factors, that have to be considered that were not fully considered in the
master EIR. So in that type of case, maybe something happens. But I think the intent, and
I think we’ve been successful, is to provide environmental clearance for the actions in which
the Ordinance anticipates.
Ms. Furth: We got a lot of comments from the Preservationist Community on the original,
on the first Draft EIR, saying that if you want this to be a program EIR you need to discuss
and describe in much greater depth the nature of the resources that could be lost or destroyed.
We believe we’ve done that. We’ve consulted with people who are highly experienced in
the field, specifically of environmental review of historic structures and historic programs.
That’s why the photographs, the text descriptions, the listing, the maps and that’s why the
discussion of the specific impacts of losing possibly all of the California Register eligible’
buildings that aren’t also National Register eligible and losing some of the National Register
buildings. So nothing is absolutely certain but I think this pretty good.
Commissioner Bialson: So we are essentially asking residents who might be vulnerable to
having their project delayed or made a little more expensive as a result of the need for an EIR
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
to have faith that we’ve done a reasonably good program EIR?
Ms. Furth: This is the same kind of, I think what you are identifying is this is the same level
of concern that you might, some of these actions are going to be exempt in my opinion. But
others are going to be discretionary. You are going to be in the same situation that you’d be
in if you did design review on individual houses. That is a discretionary decision and we can
say it is exempt, it has no environmental impact or you might do an EIR in such an
ordinance, though I’m not sure it makes any sense. If you do design review as suggested by
members of the audience on individual homes, that is discretionary review, that’s therefore
not exempt as a ministerial project and therefore somebody could argue this does have an
environmental impact and you are wrong, City, to believe that it is exempt or to believe that
it is eligible for a negative declaration. Any time you have a discretionary review that is a
possibility. In my litigation experience, that is very rare.
Commissioner Bialson: So we’d need an EIR if we did have some sort of design review for
replacement residents?
Ms. Furth: There are two issues. One is, can somebody file a lawsuit and the other on is do
you need an EIR. Of course we all know anybody can file any lawsuit but that’s not what
you are asking.
Commissioner Bialson: No, I know this is a slippery area but I’m just trying to get it pinned
down not only for myself but for people who are listening.
Mr. Gawf: I wonder if I could maybe add something that might help. Trying to answer that
question with as much certainty as one can give, if you’ll go to page 210 and look at the uses
of the EIR that we’ve identified, if you are familiar with EIRs and look at how that section
is generally written, I think we’ve given more detail than I’ve eyer seen in an EIR. We’ve
tried to very clearly and specifically identify the actions that would be covered under this
master EIR. Again, at least in my experience, this is more specific and more detailed than
I’ve ever seen the use of the EIR section. We did that for the very purpose to provide some
certainty to the question that you’ve asked.
Commissioner Schmid~: The public heating is closed.
Ms. Stoltz: A point of order, please. Staff just referred to a master EIR and previously
they’ve been talking about a program EIR. Could you please just clarify that. Are we talking
about a master or a program EIR?
Ms. Furth: The CEQA uses both the term Master EIR and Program EIR. As planners we
tend to use those terms interchangeably but in fact, we’re talking about a Program EIR.
Program EIRs are an outgrowth of a kind of an environmental analysis that was originally
implemented under the National Environmental Protection Act. Their use is greatly
encouraged and advocated by the most recent set of guidelines.
Ciq of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you.
Ms. Furth: Another brief and perhaps more complicated answer to Commissioner Bialson’s
question which we are probably getting very lawyerly here. When somebody is sued on a
CEQA decision they proceed at their own risk if they g9 ahead before the conclusion of trial.
Of course it’s a risk.
Commissioner Bialson: So let me expand on that for the nonqawyers in the group. That’s
saying that a homeowner that proceeds with a project that the City has approved but which
is subject of someone seeking an EIR is proceeding at their own risk in going ahead with the
project before a court determines whether or not an EIR is required.
I think it would be very helpful to the public as well as the Council if we could somehow get
this in a form that could be reviewed by the public and maybe avoid having the issue arise
yet again in either the Council Meeting or the press or wherever. I think this is a great
concern to individuals whose homes may be subject to this.
Ms. Furth: I’m sure you are correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: I want to follow that a little bit. I believe Annette mentioned
design guidelines and EIR in the same breath. Design guidelines are mentioned as a possible
mitigation but not suggested as one that we would actually take on. If they were, would
another EIR or more EIRs be required?
Ms. Furth: I’ll do the technical garbled answer andthen Ed will try to translate. I must say
a couple of things are happening here. One is, we are talking about remote possibilities. We
are not talking about the likely outcomes or diagnosis. The second one is, we are using the
term "EIR" as a substitute for saying, "some environmental analysis." You remember that
when we were talking about this we said only projects that are discretionary are subject to
CEQA at all. If the City has no discretionary authority then it is a ministerial decision and
it’s not subject to CEQA. In theory, somebody could sue us on one of these and we could
have litigation even then. This has, in fact, happened on building permits on very big
projects. The City of Los Angeles said building permits are building permits, they are
ministerial and in "Friends of Westwood" the court said, yes, but not this one. They were
dealing with a very large project that had a great deal, in fact, of decision and discretion
vested in the building officials. They said, just because you call it a building permit doesn’t
mean that it is exempt from CEQA in this case. In our case here, we are really focusing on
homes, not on the commercial projects in the City. We are dealing with projects that,
generally speaking, are exempt, small additions to individual properties, construction of
individual homes. They don’t become subject to CEQA either because they are ministerial,
we don’t have any discretionary review or even though we have discretionary review the
project is so small that it doesn’t have any environmental impact. We declare them exempt
typically either under categorical exemption or locally adopted City exemptions which
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
comply with the State law. The point I was trying to make was that design review is a
discretionary review. You can pretty much figure anything in front of a Commission is
discretionary or why would we bother with .a Commission. Therefore, to the same extent
that somebody could challenge an approval of an historic modification they could challenge
that approval of a design modification on the grounds that we were wrong, this was not
exempt, and that it could have a significant impact in the environment and that either a
negative declaration or an EIR is required. Both of those are very remote chances of winning
in 99 out of 100 cases. I can’t tell you that there are no circumstances in which there
wouldn’t be some environmental thing but by adopting a program EIR talking about the loss
of historic resources, we are radically reducing the chance of a successful CEQA challenge
with respect to the loss 0fthe cultural resource. This is why we are doing this.
Commissioner Bialson: I really appreciate your going through this explanation. I think a
lot of the emotion and upset that has been caused by this Ordinance could be removed if we
had the information out there and the efforts by the City. What I’m speaking to is what sort
of education process we engage in.
Ms. Furth: We will keep struggling with that. Believe me, I have spent a lot of time on the
phone with a lot CEQA lawyers running my conclusions by them and getting their
agreement. We will try to write it. CEQA is like the tax code, it does not lend itself to
simple and clear explanations and we’ll try.
Mr. Gawf: IfI may add on to that thought. In addition, we at Staff have gone out to groups
and discussed the Ordinance as Leannah Hunt indicated. I met with the Board of Realtors
Group. We went over it in some detail. I believe that I’m going back and that we’re going
to go through the Ordinance in even more detail and look at the implications of it. Wynn and
I are doing this with other groups as well and I make the offer that any individual, any group,
that would like to sit down and discuss it, because it almost takes the small groups sitting
down at a table sitting down going through the details of it, we have sought that out and are
certainly open to that if someone would like to take us up on it.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: With regard to rebuilding after a disaster, just testing what I heard,
it sounds like if what is left of the building is an imminent threat to life, is that it? On what
basis would a homeowner be exempt? What happens if they are not exempt? I’d just like
some clarification. I apologize for asking the question again but I think we need to be very
clear about this.
Ms. Stoltz: The public resources code that said that the State of California Public Resources
Code section defines it as imminent threat to the public of bodily harm or damage to adjacent
property. So that is the emergency situation. In that case, a demolition permit could be
issued by the local building official after the disaster, without further review of the affects
on the historic structure. There is also a provision when there is doubt about whether this
City of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
situation actually exists. You can refer this to the State Historic Preservation Officer and a
locally appointed task force that includes three people within the county would consider it
in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Officer. That provision has been used where
there is doubt or controversy about whether an imminent threat really does exist.
Commissioner Bialson: If there is no imminent threat, what happens in that situation? A
homeowner who has a partial wall down because of an earthquake has to go through the
process that we have laid out.
Ms. Stoltz: Yes, the normal process subject to CEQA and so on.
Ms. Furth: But we should talk about how that would work in this case in this City. If it is
not more than 20% of their walls, they are going to be a minor alteration plus we exempt all
restoration and repair work. So it shouldn’t be long and it shouldn’t involve any actual
negative declaration or EIR. I shouldn’t involve an environmental document. I think we
need to explain this more thoroughly in the EIR after we respond to comments.
Mr. Gawf: Let me say, and maybe it is clear but let me make sure it is, that the Draft
Ordinance that we are reviewing is the Draft Ordinance that we presented to Council on
February 15th. We got comments such as this at that time. We decided to use that as our
project description so we had a stable project. We had a consistent project. We are
continuing to look at the Ordinance, trying to look at ways to refine it, to make it clearer, if
there are points that you think we should look at because you’ve identified something please
let us know. That is also the reason why we are meeting with various groups to understand
different perspectives. I know there will be changes made or at least proposed to it as we go
forward to the City Council.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Wynn, the repairs would be exempt. Is that just from various
processes versus rebuilding with historical materials and so on? If the wall of my house is
damaged by an earthquake and I need to replace it immediately, do I have to do in a more
expensive way or can I do it in a more efficient way?
Ms. Furth: ~I’m not the expert on applying these things. I know that if you are going to
replace brown shingle with stucco you may have a problem. I will let people who know
more comment on that. I was referring actually to, if you look at the definition of
maintenance which is exempt in the Ordinance that is what I was referring to.
Mr. Gawf: We want to take an additional look at it to make sure it’s clear and try to refine
it as well as we can. What you’re trying to do is not try to create a hardship, I understand
that, but you are also trying not to provide a loop hole that people can circumvent the
Ordinance as well. We are taking a look at that and I’m not obviously satisfied with exactly
how we have it worded but those are the two things we are trying to balance.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Ms. Furth: You’ll see in the comment letter, the initial comment letter, I can’t remember
which letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer, there is much discussion of the
need which is, incidentally in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards themselves, talk about
what’s feasible, what’s practical, what’s achievable, what lets people, the object of the
exercise is to let people live and re-use and adapt these houses for present use. They do not
require true measure beams and similar historic things. Some people want to do that but that
is their election not a City requirement.
Commissioner Schmidt: Phyllis, do you have some questions?
Commissioner Cassel: Actually going through my notes, I think everyone has pretty well
answered most of the questions I’ve had. I also found this description, though, on
Attachment A, Historic Preservation Decision Matrix, confusing under the historic district.
I was trying to figure out what happened to the Register properties there. So some
clarification, I think, either under contributing that they are both contributing or registered
units there. I couldn’t figure out what we were contributing to.
Commissioner Schmidt: Phyllis, that attachment might be -- was that an incentive Staff
report or the one that we just got?
Commissioner Cassel: It’s the Staff report dated April 14 and it’s in other items. I saw it
someplace else.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think that one is different from the one that is actually in the --
Table 4 on page 3-27. Historic Preservation Ordinance revised Draft EIR is the final
summary of key elements under consideration. Is that correct?
Mr. Riel: It’s a summary as of December 15th. When Council had their discussion in
December this was the Table that was utilized. So there have been some modifications
obviously that were included within the Ordinance but this was the decision matrix used at
that time.
Commissioner Cassel: It doesn’t correct the problem I have. ,Under Historic District it
doesn’t explain what happened to the registered units under historic districts.
Ms. Furth: You’re saying if you are both a contributing structure in the historic district and
you’re a category 1 and 2 building, what happens?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes. You don’t understand it here. It may be that it just follows right
along the line but just reading along you say, what happened to the registered units.
Ms. Furth: We need to fix it.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Schrnidt: Pat, do you have some more questions?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, under the definition of demolition it states, I believe, that there is
an exemption for non-historic elements of the structure. If a homeowner was going to
demolish 30% of their walls that were historic and 25% of their walls are non-historic and
they were also going to demolish that, is that a demolition or not? Say they were going to
do it in the same project.
Mr. Gawf: I think what you are asking is, if a portion of the demolition involves historic
elements and a portion involves non-historic do you separate the two to compare whether it
is major, minor or demolition?
Mr. George White, Planning Manager: I think ifI understand the question, you are asking
if there are some non-historic elements to a building that are proposed to be removed in
addition to some historic elements, do you add both of those together to get more than 50%.
The answer is no, because it doesn’t constitute a demolition if it is non-historic.
Ms. Furth: We had a proposal in a commercial context now which involves elimination of
a substantial non-historic addition and that is exempt from this whole discussion of historic
whatever. That is desirable from the point of view of the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. One of the speakers had mentioned that non-homeowners
can have homes added to the Registry. Can you clarify the process for having homes added
to the Registry?
Mr. Gawf: Yes. I know you’re looking at it right now to make sure I remember it correctly.
It’s been a few weeks. I think we clarified it. The intent was, but I think we actually
clarified it, that the City Council can in effect consider a property on the Resource List to be
added to the Register. The City Council itself. The property owner of the property in
question can nominate their property and that’s it. It is not the renter, it is not someone from
Mountain View driving down the street situation. It is not an organization, etc.
Ms. Furth: The Council brought up this issue as well in February. If a property is on the
Resource List, that is it is one of this group of 3’s, 4’s or newly identified potential National
Register eligible buildings, then it says the Director, the City Council, the HRB or any
person may ask to considerthe elevation of a Resources List property, one of the 500. For
other properties that aren’t on the Resource List it is going to have to initiated by the Council
or the owner of the property. Incidentally, it-is not a Council Member it is a resolution of the
Council.
Commissioner Burt: For property that is on the Resource List, if a non-homeowner
nominated that property, what would then be the process that needs to occur for it to then go
on the Resource List.
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
~3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Ms. Furth: First it goes to the Historic Resources Board with a recommendation and report.
Then that recommendation is forwarded to the Director. There is another procedure, the
property owner can ask for a determination essentially that it shouldn’t go on the Palo Alto
Register and that it should be removed from the Resources List. So ifa person believes that
their property isn’t National Register eligible or otherwise doesn’t meet those criteria, doesn’t
have historic integrity, etc., then they can ask for a determination on a relatively fast track.
Mr. Gawf: I can say that our goal right now and our objective is to evaluate the properties
that are proposed to be on the Resource List to actually make a determination if we think
they are, after a more ,thorough review, still eligible for the Register. If they are not we will
take them off the Resource List. I know there are a couple of comments including Mr.
Smith’s comments about that and have asked for that to be done on their property. We do
have a list of them and we are doing them. We’re approaching the ones first that have
requested that type of evaluation, such as Mr. Smith’s.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think I have some interest in having a short break before we
continue. So let’s take about a five to ten minute break.
Okay we are almost ready to get going again. Are there any more questions for Staff at this
point? None from Pat, Phyllis or Annette?
I have one small question. You talk about public education outreach to inform owners,
would that apply to the 1,800 homeowners on the potential list if they were interested as well
as the 800 property owners?
Mr. Gawf: Yes. Probably three weeks or so ago I Sent a letter to all of the owners of
properties on the potential California eligible list indicating what their status was. That the
Staff was not proposing them to be included within the Ordinance that was being considered.
That the interim ordinance that was adopted and went into affect and is now in effect does
not regulate them. If they have any questions to give us a call. I’ve gotten a few calls. I
hope it Was a very clear letter so that they understand that they are not being proposed to be
included within this Draft Ordinance.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Okay, since there aren’t any other questions let’s begin
our discussion. We have now done the first of our assignments here in conducting the public
hearing and receive public comments. Now let us address reviewing and coming to an
adequacy of the DEIR. Who would like to start?
Annette were you volunteering to begin? Okay, Phyllis, would you like to begin.
Commissioner Cassel: Yes, because I can be short. I like the EIR better than the last one.
It was easier to handle and easier to understand, rm not sure whether it’s just because I read
the other one and I had compilations of both together which is a little difficult when you
begin to read an awful lot of material. I think it fell together better. You obviously need to
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
add the comments we’ve already made. I felt it adequate to meet the program EIR as it has
been described by our City Attorney.
I guess while we aren’t discussing that, for me, the first’question I had to answer for myself
was do we want an historic ordinance at all. Going from there then the rest of it we had to
build on it. My answer was yes, we want some kind of an historic ordinance.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Those are your comments for the moment?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I thought that the EIR has demonstrated a great deal of progress. That
most of the questions and concerns that I have had have been addressed fully. I think it
represents what has evolved in the ordinance as the most balanced approach that we could
come up with as a community. We have some potential in the remote for EIRs to be required
on individual properties but they seem to be that they would be few and far between at best.
We also have some potentials for loss of valuable resources. I think the Staff has done a
very good job of attempting to arrive at the best balance that we could achieve in this
process. So I find the EIR to be adequate.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, I’d also like to mention that when we started we noted that
if we would make comments about the adequacy, about Whether the range of alternatives that
were considered are adequate and whether it has looked at feasible mitigation measures, and
why is it a better document than we had before.
Ms. Furth: You don’t need to comment on this now but some of you have indicated that you
do think this is a better approach than the more environmentally protective ordinances, that
is the ones that would require preservation of all 2,600 historic resources. To the extent you
can .articulate that, that would be helpful for us.
Commissioner Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I hadn’t intended to speak to the ordinance itself but it sounds like
you want us to. Wynn, is that correct?
Ms. Furth: I’ll let the Stafftalk about that but since we are asking you about statements of
overriding considerations that inherently involves a certain amount of comment.
Commissioner Bialson: I find the Draft EIR to be adequate. It does consider all the
alternatives. I think if the City has decided that the balance struck by this Ordinance with
regard to the properties covered, properties not covered, and the value of regulating these
properties is as the City finds it to be from the City Council’s perspective, I think the Draft
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
EIR is acceptable and certainly adequate, much better than the previous one that was given
to us. I would commend it to the City Council. I think that in looking at the loss of the
resources that we are talking about, I suppose it is a philosophical question that is left up to
the Council with regard to where do you strike that balance. I don’t necessarily agree with
this Ordinance but I can understand where the Council is coming from.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. I agree with basically what everyone else has said. I think
that this Draft EIR is an adequate analysis of the situation. I too, think it is a much better,
much more readable, much more informative document than the previous one. I think it was
excellent to include the photographs as well as addresses of all of the affected properties, and
to include the list of the 1,800 properties that are now not affected but were considered and
could possibly include themselves if they want to. I believe when we last saw this that list
was not available to us. So I think it is much clearer and much more well documented than
before.
I think the range of alternatives that is described gives a clear list of what we can do. That
we could leave the situation as it is and many people have commented that that situation has
worked well. I think that due to the economics of things at the present time and the rate of
change, I think it is reasonable to be doing something like this.
I think that mitigation measures were discussed here. Other than including again all 1,800
possible California Register properties mitigation would cover everything but I think that is
not what Council is looking for. I think that what is being proposed is a reasonable
approach. The alternative would meet or fall into the category requiring or needing
overriding considerations when it goes to Council.
I’d just also like to comment that I think that Staffhas worked very hard on this. It is a very
complex issue. A lot of time has passed. A lot of questions have come up and a lot of
questions have been answered and there will be more. But I think what we are looking at
now is an appropriate document for what the Council has instructed.
Any other comments?
Commissioner Cassel: Having been brief the first time. You wanted to know about the
range of approaches. Obviously this is a range of approaches that worked. Obviously there
is a great deal of compromise that comes then of choosing whether to preserve all units or
whether to preserve some units. I would rather we opt for preserving the Smaller’number of
units and having a little stronger ordinance for fewer units rather than a weaker ordinance for
a large number of units.
The economic situation is overpowering. The desire to pull buildings down and put up even
bigger ones is so intense at this moment that it is frightening. The price of housing is going
up so fast that it is hard to believe that anyone can lose anything in that. I’m not an economic
expert but I cannot believe the prices that houses are being sold for in my neighborhood
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
which is not a fancy neighborhood in any sense.
That has to be taken into consideration. If the houses are not in good condition they are
getting torn down, So some protections and some ability to consider needs and to help
educate people I think is very important. The most severe limits here are really in the areas
of demolition. So I think that this is a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation.
You asked about mitigation measures. I think I don’t have any comments on that at this time.
Commissioner Schmidt: Pat you wanted to make a few more comments.
Commissioner Burr: Just that in response to Wyrm’s request to comment on other mitigation
measures that would reduce the impacts. There are some under the incentives category that
perhaps it would be best to discuss in our next agenda item. Is that correct?
Commissioner Schmidt: I was going to ask the question. Do you want us to have essentially
two separate conversations. We have two items here to comment on the adequacy of the EIR
and then to comment on the incentives. Do you want to keep those two things separate?
Mr. Riel: We’d like to, yes.
¯Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, so should we vote after our discussion of Item 2 or do we
just forward comments?
Mr. Riel: I would like, if you could, on Item 2 provide a separate motion on that and then
a separate motion on Item 3. That would be helpful.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Any more commen[s then on the adequacy of the
DEIR?
Commissioner Bialson: I just would ask that the public submit their comments in writing
in the future so that Staff can respond to it in time for the Council or ourselves to consider
both sides.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. We should note that the comment period extends to
April 30, 1999. Please, any members of the public who have not commented or who have
not received their copies of the Draft EIR, we still have plenty of copies that can be picked
up at either the Development Center or the Planning Department. The Development Center
is across the street from City Hall.
Mr. Riel: That’s correct and they are free of charge. We also have them available at all of
the libraries for review as well.
Ms. Furth: To supplement what you just said, one of the commenters said, if you’ve
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
submitted comments before do you need to submit them again. We read all the comments
and we tried to respond to them when we re-wrote this. However, if anybody who believes
that their_original comments were not properly considered and wishes to comment on this
Draft EIR should do so in this comment period. We don’t plan to respond to that original
batch of comments except as we did in revising this Draft EIR.
Commissioner Bialson: I’d like to make a motion.
Commissioner Schmidt: Please do.
MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I~d like to move that the Commission find the DEIR to
be adequate and prepared in compliance with CEQA. It adequately analyzes potential
impacts of the project, the related mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives.
Commissioner Schmidt: Do I have a second?
SECOND: Commissioner Burt: Second.
Commissioner Schmidt: It has been moved by Annette and seconded by Pat that the DEIR
is adequate and prepared in compliance with CEQA. All those in favor of that motion please
say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say no. That passes on a 4-0 vote with Commissioners
Beecham, Byrd and Schink not participating.
The next item is to review and comment and provide a recommendation on the Draft Historic
Preservation Incentives, referenced as newly created Chapter 18.18. That is something that
we are much more familiar with than the rest of this documentation since we helped review
and create those incentives. We have spent a lot of time with them. Are there any questions?
Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have somewhat of a background question. In reviewing the
Ordinance 18.18 it seemed to me that you really needed to have in mind the HIE that would
be those regulations that would apply to the applicant. I understand that those are in another
chapter or section, is that correct? The regular HIE requirements.
Mr. White: That is correct. The concept of an HIE, which for the people that don’t know the
acronym is Home Improvement Exception, is actually in Chapter 18.90 of the Code which
is under Zoning Administration. The intent here was to create a "historic" home
improvement exception that would be acted upon or granted with only one public hearing
by the Historic Resources Board and then subsequently it would be granted by the Director
rather than go to the Zoning Administrator and the Historic Resources Board as is the
procedure now. So they would work in concert. This Section 18.18.070 of the Draft actually
refers to that section about application made subject to Chapter 18.90. They would work
together. -
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Bialson: So this does have a reference to 18.90?
Mr. White: Yes.
Commissioner Bialson: Can we start commenting about this now? ~ had a question with
regard to 18.18.070B. I found it rather confusing trying to determine just what this section
referred to. I tried relating it to the attempt that we had to increase the envelope within which
an historic homeowner might be able to put a staircase and have perhaps less than the
required setback from the side yards and such. This was very confusing. Is this because it
refers not those sort of exemptions but rather to a lot or something of that sort? Could you
explain this one and maybe make it clearer?
Mr. White: Yes. I think the short answer is we could do a better job clarifying this and
explaining it in this Draft and we will endeavor to do so. What a home improvement
exception is intended to be is a exception to the site development regulations for construction
of home improvements and minor additions. That’s what it is. So the context of these
statements in this Draft relate to that sort of project, a minor addition or home improvement
of some sort. So I think we need to do a better job in saying how Section B .there relates to
those kinds of projects. Perhaps just another sentence explaining how it does relate or
perhaps rewording it in a way that is clearer. That confusion is noted and I think we’ll work
on that.
Commissioner Bialson: The other question I had was with regard to is there a definition of
"attic areas" elsewhere in the Code? We have an exclusion of attic areas from floor area ratio
which is mis-spelled by the way. Is the term "attic area" defined somewhere?
Mr. White: I believe that is probably a building code reference. So there is a generally
understood definition of what "attic" is. I think the reason that is in there is because
occasionally historic homes will have large areas under the roof that isn’t living space but
technically counts as floor area. What this attempts to do is to alleviate them from having
that count as floor area.
Commissioner Bialson: I understood the intent. I’m just sort of looking at it from a view of
the layman. I tried reading it twice and I still was a little muddy on it so I’m pointing it out
to you. With regard to the concept of the Ordinance, I’m looking at Section 18.18.070F,
specifically looking at 2 under F. We say there that the granting of the exception needs to
be found to be desirable for the preservation of an existing historical style or neighborhood
feature. I thought that when the Planning Commission discussed these things we were trying
to make them easily attainable for the homeowner. At least from my perspective, and maybe
I’ve forgotten the process, it was supposed to be something that didn’t require a great deal of
justification provided that it didn’t compromise the historic character, etc. So I sort of look
at this as perhaps asking for something that we never intended to have there. Is that true,
George?
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. White: I’m not sure I can respond specifically to what was the discussion was through
all of those hearings that we had about these incentives. I think the way this number 2
evolved is related to what the equivalent finding is under generally under home improvement
exceptions which says, "the granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of
an existing architectural style or neighborhood character." That is the finding that we make
now. I think your point about whether that is attainable easily, I think it is in most cases.
I think that the hope here is that we would apply it specifically to historic homes. Hence the
language.
Commissioner Bialson: I guess my issue, and maybe this goes to Wynn more than to you,
George, is desirable for the preservation of an existing historic style or neighborhood feature.
I could see where there would be some confusion about that.
Ms. Furth: I think we did, in adopting this, lose site of it if the point -- this is intended to
enable people to use historic homes in ways that don’t destroy the character. They were built
before the current standards were adopted. They have roof pitches or setback or whatever
that don’t match the subsequently imposed standards and the notion of this was supposed to
be that those houses can be used, that they can use their FAR bonuses, if that is available on
that property and that we are doing this and the exceptional circumstance is, and we do
testify that you need an exceptional circumstance because you are proposing a deviation from
zoning, is to continue to use of that historic property and we probably did not make that clear
enough here because there is a line of cases that say you can grant variances to further
historic preservation.
Commissioner Bialson: We were asked to create an incentive and this being an incentive,
not just an allowance and so what I would like to see is rather than saying that the granting
of an exception would be desirable for the preservation, that maybe saying its not
compromise the character of the historic resource or the aspect ~of historic resource,
something that is more flexible or giving so that neighbors couldn’t come in and cite some
language and cause some difficulty a few years down the road. Again looking at the word,
Incentix)es.
Ms. Furth: You are right, there is a difference clause that is intended to protect the
neighbors and this is a another issue but we will see how far we can move in the direction
that you would like.
Mr. Gawf: Just following up. My recollection of the discussion of the Planning
Commission would emphasize Items No. 3 and 4. It seems to me that you wanted to make
sure that it does not adversely impact the neighborhood and we did generally preserve the
historic integrity of the structure which is Number 4 in the Secretary of Interior Standards
and those were the two major factors so we will take a look at this.
Commissioner Bialson: I just think that the fact is you then go on to state number 2 possible
grounds for confusion and argument and I think we have some augumentative people around
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
this issue.
Mr. Gawf: I have not discovered that yet but there might be.
Commissioner Schmidt: Question here is that the kind of matrix that we worked from and
Council took a few things out and included in the Staff Report, is that something that would
be part of what information is available to the public. I am assuming that that is what you
are trying to incorporate into 18.18 in Ordinance language but this list of what we called
Incentives, Development Incentives, Departmental review incentives, the things that were
outlined, that we said are x number of things that we think are incentives that go through this
process. Is that going to be part of this?
Mr. Riel: Yes, when we discussed originally, we were toying with the word Incentive
versus Benefit and the processing improvement, no fees, technical assistance, those will be
implemented, and might not necessarily be part of this Chapter, because they are internal
staff improvements and obviously the fee schedule needs to be changed. The intent is to
implement all these.
Commissioner Schmidt: I still think it might be useful to have this sheet that clearly sorts
out everything even though they are not specific Incentives but they do make the package
more bearable. So I think if an uninitiated homeowner comes in and sees a clear list versus
an ordinance that cloudy to understand, in plain English versus an Incentive Ordinance
language, it would be nice to have.
Mr. Riel: As a part of the Implementation of the Ordinance, after the Ordinance is adopted,
and that is something we will be working closely in providing a checklist and getting a lot
of information out to folks so it is clear in educating them and having an outreach in terms
of tailoring training to specific groups, architectural contractors as well as staff.
Commissioner Bialson: I think your point is excellent and what I would like to see is
perhaps some sort of indication within the language of the Ordinance itself to the background
that created this Section. Whether you modify the specific purposes to somehow indicate
that we intended to create incentives so that somewhere in the Ordinance, not just in the
background of how we reached this, because I don’t know whether people ten years from
today are going to remember it. It should at least bow to the fact that the reason we created
these was to create an incentive. So I think some reference to that would be appropriate. I
don’t know what you think Kathy but I’d like that.
Commissioner Schmidt: If that is reasonable thing to include in the Ordinance I think that
would be good because indeed time passes quickly and someone new will read it and not
have any idea that there are incentives and benefits and it was a long process to try to make
this less onerous.
Mr. Riel: We’ll provide some terminology in there that will emphasize that.
City of Palo Alto Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, Pat has some questions.
Commissioner Butt: One has to do with relocation. I was trying to locate where I had read
that relocation constitutes demolition. I see that under 18.18.080 it seems to be the intention
that relocation does not constitute demolition. Is that correct? Is there a need to clarify?
Ms. Furth: We may need to look at how those two uses fit together. The notion was that if
you have a register property and remove it from the lot where it was that’s a demolition in
historic terms. It is gone. But there is also a Council direction throughout to say it’s better
to have a property relocated to another site if it can’t be maintained where it is. So removal
requires Council permission as other kinds of demolition do but removal to another site is
seen as preferable when it is available to disassembling it.
Commissioner Burt: Great. Then there is also under 18.18.050A a restriction that the
basement would not be included in a floor area calculation provided that there is no elevation
of the finished floor of the historic structure. I was trying to recall our discussion in a
previous Planning Commission meeting and I had thought that we had intended to allow
basement to not count up to a certain elevation limit of the structure itself as opposed to
prohibiting alteration. But my memory may not be correct. The notion being that if an
historic structure has an elevation that would inhibit the owner from being able to turn the
basement into a more usable space and they had to elevate the house a foot or two to achieve
that objective. In this case if I understand it, if they elevated the floor then it would count
against their FAR whereas a structure that is not an historic structure would not have the
basement count against the FAR. Is that correct, Virginia?
Ms. Warheit: Actually two issues, one is that raising the elevation would probably not be
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards because the way the house sits on the
ground is usually a pretty important part of its characteristics. In addition, often, when
people are working on historic houses especially if they are adding new living space under
it, they are replacing the foundation which means they are removing the foundation, they are
excavating anyway and the obvious answer is you just excavate a little deeper. So you create
the living space that you need by going down.
Commissioner Schmidt: Phyllis wants to say something.
Commissioner Cassel: I think ifI remember that conversation Pat, it was a little bit the other
way around. What tends to happen with these houses is that they tend to be above the
normal footings that are normally placed now. So we often get these basement areas where
the flooring is a little high so they automatically get Counted into the floor area ratio. What
we were trying to do was eliminate that count, if they converted that, eliminate that count of
the basement which may not even be used because it’s too high in the process. I forget the
exact numbers but it may be four inches or six inches above is not counted but these tend to
be higher the way they were built at that time. Then they are automatically counted and we
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
didn’t want to include them.
Commissioner Schmidt: It is more extreme than that. In the Building Code or what the City
allows for a new is, I believe it’s, either 30 inches or three feet.
Mr. White: 36 inches.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, 36 inches. That your floor level can be 36 inches above
grade and you can have a full basement and it doesn’t count. If it is 37 inches or four feet it
would count. Many older homes are raised up over three feet. So what we are saying here
is that if you’ve got a high floor level you could add a basement and it would not count
toward your FAR. We are giving them a benefit, a privilege and incentive here.
Mr. White: I think it was also designed to give people who have existing basements, period
type basements, that don’t meet that standard some relief. In other words it doesn’t count as
floor area just like a standard basement if you built a new house today. They don’t have the
ability to go back and change it because obviously it is in our best interest not to have them
change it. So the idea is you give them that relief and then their floor area is reduced.
Commissioner Burt: I might be mis-reading this section. If so, maybe you could clarify it
for me. It says that the new basements constructed under the historic code shall not be
included in the floor area ratio provided that the finished floor elevation of the historic
structure is not raised. So if a homeowner were to raise the floor, does that mean then that
the basement would be counted?
Mr. White: It is counted now. In other words if they have one of these basements that is
more than 36 inches above grade, it counts as floor area right now.
Commissioner Burt: What if it is less than 36 inches?
Mr. White: Then it doesn’t count now.
Commissioner Burt: What if they raised it to 36 inches?
Mr. White: Well, by the current standard it would count and by this standard if they altered
the finished floor it would count.
Commissioner Schmidt: Virginia was saying that if they raise it that’s a violation of its
historic properties anyway. So they probably wouldn’t be able to raise the floor level, is that
correct?
Ms. Furth: The Ordinance wasn’t written to encourage the raising of the ground floor higher.
It was written with the intention of saying that we have these existing ones that are already
high, that under our existing rule get counted and they shouldn’t be. If it is a basement that
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
is no higher than it presently is, if it is an historic basement you can down further, you can
do minimal excavation, stairway or light well, ingress or egress, so it could become habitable
space. So it could become habitable space and not count as FAR as long as you are not
making it even more of a semi-basement than it was before.
Commissioner Burt: It would be allowed if you excavated but not if you elevated.
Ms. Furth: That’s right.
Commissioner Burr: Part of my memory of our discussion was that we wanted to make sure
that owners of historic structures did not have a penalty placed upon them that owners of
non-historic structures would not have. I can think of, I believe, two homes on Guinda in
the last year or two that they may not have been Category 1 or 2 structures but they were 60-
70 year old homes that were elevated a couple of feet and basements put in as living space
as apparently an alternative to adding a second floor. The design looked like it did a good
job of preserving the historic character of the home. I’m concerned that potentially that sort
activity would not be allowed under this Ordinance if it were an historic home but it would
be allowed for a non-historic home. Therefore we’re creating a penalty for the owner of the
historic structure. So that’s the basis for my concern.
Ms. Furth: I think it is not a penalty because it would be counted as floor area for these
elevated structures if they are over 36 inches.
Commissioner Butt: This is under 36 inches but in this case, the owner of an historic
structure who elevated their floor but not to a level above 36 inches it would count against
their FAR and it would not count against the FAR of a non-historic structure.
Mr. White: I think the clarification may be that if it meets the standard which is the 36
inches that defines what a basement is above grade or below that point, it won’t count either
way. I think maybe that it what we need to make clear in this section.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I think so. As it literally reads now it would count against the
FAR if there was any elevation.
Mr. White: I think maybe we made the mistake of assuming that people understood what
constituted a basement in the first place.
Commissioner Burr: Okay, so if you could make that clarification that would be great. One
other question was regarding an incentive of essentially some form of a modified Mills Act
where the City would give the homeowner the City’s share of the property tax but that the
school district would not be penalized. Has there been discussion about how that incentive
might be implemented?
Mr. Gawf: No, not really extensive discussion. The City Council at their last meeting in
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
February that discussed historic preservation did ask us to look at this issue. We have been
discussing it and we are. They asked us to look at it in a broader way and that is can you
recommend some financial incentives that we might consider in June as potential incentives
for properties that are on the Palo Alto Register. So we are looking at a broader range than
just the one ,that you’ve said. I know we will not have any concept worked out but what we
are trying to do is at least identify two or three that they could consider from a policy
standpoint and provide some direction for us.
Commissioner Butt: That would be great because we have some excellent incentives but we
admittedly lack incentives to encourage people to preserve structures as they are, as opposed
to incentives that encourage people to modify and expand historic structures. So that would
be very helpful.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question on 18.18.040, the Increased Floor Area Ratio.
We have discussed this a lot and I have asked this question before but I still want the
interpretation we are talking about here. It says the lessor of 15% or 500 square feet could
be added. Is that still that the HRB will review the homeowners design for this additional
square footage and the HRB may or may not determine that the 500 or 15% works with the
design? Is that correct or will they for sure get the 500 square feet or the 15%? Is it still a
discretionary item?
Mr. White: Right, because it relates back to the application of the Secretary of the Interior
Standards in the first place. In other words, the 500 square feet or the 15% or Whatever it
turns out to be is theoretical until you can make a design that meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards.
Ms. Furth: That’s really a forced choice because we can’t provide a special incentive for
historic preservation if you are going to make the resource un-historic.
Commissioner Schmidt: So, again, this is not a guarantee that each home can have maybe
up to 500 square feet additional?
Mr. White: That’s right. It would be subject to discretionary review. That’s right.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you.
Ms. Furth: Also the other limit that I think you’ve discussed is that this is not 500 square feet
more than you have, it is 500 square feet more than would be otherwise be allowable if you
have a house that already exceeds the present FAR by that much. That’s a problem and this
won’t be a benefit to you.
Mr. White: I think Wynn’s point was there are some homes that we encounter that are
already over their floor area by 500 square feet or more in which case they would not be able
to take advantage of this.
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Schmidt: Right, and those are shown in your examples which are very useful.
I don’t know if there is any clarification that is needed with that just to say that this is still
a discretionary review just as we’ve said that should be stated in here or if that is clear.
Ms. Furth: Whether it’s clear depends on whether you all read it in a way that we intended
it. We intended to say that in 18.18.020 where it says that if you want to use the special
standards for historic structures that are in this chapter, the additions, the modifications, the
change has to be in compliance and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines.
Commissioner Schmidt: Any other questions on incentives.
Commissioner Burr: I have one. On the Attachment C we had a list of different lot sizes and
the increase in the allowable FAR that would occur under the proposed incentives. Two of
the lots are large lots whereby with the bonus FAR the allowable FAR would be up around
6500 square feet. Our residential house size limit is 6000, is that correct? Is it the intention
of this Ordinance to allow a breach of that house size if it is an historic home?
Mr. White: I think you are correct. In residential zoning districts the maximum house size
is 6000 square feet. I’m not sure that we contemplated your question however, I think it is
a good question and we would welcome your direction on that.
Commissioner Burr: I think that I would oppose allowing an increase above the 6000 square
feet recognizing that there may be a small minority of historic structures who would then be
able to receive that particular incentive but I think in the community interest it would be best
to be consistent with that limit and that even without that additional FAR they are not going
to be stuck with a small home.
Ms. Furth: We couldn’t say that it was smaller than present day standards.
Commissioner Bialson: Do we need to discuss that because I actually agree?
Commissioner Schmidt: We do need to discuss it, yes. --
Commissioner Bialson: Let me kick that off by saying at least when we were discussion this
in the back of my mind was that the 6000 square feet would remain as the maximum. Shame
on us for not mentioning that but that is what going through these ordinances is for. I
appreciate your pointing that out Pat.
Commissioner Schmidt: Any other questions?
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll tell you what will probably happen in those situations. People
will probably try to subdivide their lot. These are very large lots but I agree that we probably
need to stick with the size limit.
City of Palo Alto Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28’
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Schmidt: Anyone want to start making comments on this.
Commissioner Bialson: I thought we did make the comments. Is there something more that
Eric would like from us?
Mr. Riel: I think we have some good direction.
Commissioner Bialson: I think the Ordinance was excellent. We just had to find something
that we could do with regard to it.
Commissioner Schmidt: Then do we need a motion?
Mr. Riel: That’s correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: We do need a motion. Some of the things that we commented on
were Annette wanted to add some words in the specific purposes to tell that we looked at a
range of incentives and tried to come up with incentives and benefits to go through this.
Also, a discussion about whether something was compromised or not. I don’t know if we
need to change anything on that. Then the comment that we just made saying that we wanted
to keep the 6000 square feet maximum house size.
Commissioner Bialson: Also with regard to the basement.
Mr. Riel: Right, clarification on the basement.
MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I’d like to sort of wrap up all our comments that have
been made and include those in the motion. Make reference to that and, I think I will so
move.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Annette has so moved. Is there a second?
SECOND: Commissioner Burt: Second.
MOTION PASSED: Commissioner Schmidt: Annette has moved that all of the above that
we’ve reviewed, commented and provided recommendation on the Draft Historic
Preservation Incentives and we had a number of comments and we noted the more significant
ones and those will all go on to Council. All those in favor of that motion please say aye.
(ayes) All opposed say no. That passes on a 4-0 vote with Commissioners Byrd, Beecham
and Schink not participating.
Ms. Furth: We’ll understand that when we forward your written recommendation to the
Council that you were endorsing each others comments.
City of Palo Alto Page 48
Attachment E
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
or on any local pu~llc register.of historic places, and that has
been d~maged due to ¯ natural disasters including, but not
limited to, an earthquake, fire, or flood, may be demollshed,
destroyed, or significantly altered, excep~ for restoration ~opreserve or enhance its historical values, unless the str~cture
presents an imminent threat ~o the p~bllc of bodily har~ or of
damage to adJacen~ proper~y, .or ~less ~e SSa~e office of
Hi~torl¢ Prese~a~ion dete~ines, pursuan~ to s~dlvls~on (b),
~a~ ~e ~cture m~y ~o demolished, de~royed, or signiEican~l~al~ered.
. . (b) ~y local gover~ent may apply ~o the Sta~e Office of
~is~oric Prese~a~ion for i~s de~e~ina~on as to whether ~
st~ctura meeting the.descrlptlon sot forth in s~dlvision (a)
shall be demolished, destroyed, or slgnIZicantly altered. Thatdeta~inatlon shall be based upo~ the extent of damage to the
st~ctura, the cost of rehabilltatlng or reconst~ctlng ~e
st~cture, ~he structure’s hls~orlcal significance, and any o~er~actor deemed by ~he Sta~e O~ice of Historic Prese~ation to be
Historic Prese~a~ion sh~ll co,elder ~he reco~e~da~ion made b~ a~oam selected by the State Office of His~orlc Prese~atlon,
Composed of three residents with historic prese~ation e~er~lse
who reside In ~he affected county. The dete~Inatlon of the
S~te 0££1ce of Historic Prese~atlon S~ll be issued no later
~an 30 days ~f~er ~he s~cture was d~maged, or 30 da~s after~ rec~ipn of the appllcat~on, whichever occurred later.
Resource List Attachment F
Site Addres~
471
650
933-939
935
951-955
1101
141-143
~433
201-205
RR Bddge
2230
695
2264
872
874
1301
1310
1325
1445
1501
1536
1600
162
1701-1703
2000
2020
215
2160
2183
541-549
535
~730
’737
802-804
806
840
846
1125
1350
1504
2130
2277
336
518
1621
526
555
Site Street I Year I
,Addison Ave ’1902
iAddison Ave ’,1926
IAddison Ave i1910
’,Addison Ave 11910
IAddison Ave i1927
iAIma St 1900
iAIma St 1919iA ma st11925
,,Alma St 11910
Alma St -
Amherst St 1904
iArastradero_R 1904
iBowdoin St 1907
i Boyce Ave 1927
Exprl
}120 17 055
}120 06 010100325011
003 25 01300325007
120 30 044
112o24o14
112416099
1120 25 060
None
137 07 062
167 03 019
!Boyce Ave 1927
137 07 004
003 25 067
003 25 039
}Bryant St
!Bryant St
Bryant St
!Bryant St
I Bryant St
Bryant St
!Bryant St
IBryant St
iBryant St
Bryant St
}Bryant St
i Bryant St
iBryant St
I Bryant St
IBryant St
!Bryant St
iBryant St’
!Bryant St
Bryant St
I Bryant St
I Bryant St
iBryant St
~Byron St
!Byron St
I Byron St
~_Byron St
Byron St
Byron St
I Byron St !1900
!Castilleja Ave ’1925
iCenter Dr ;1931
!1910 124 12 021
!1910 124 12 034
11911 12412011
11912 12407013
11925 12407011
i1925 124 16064
1923 124 17 080
1-~-12024038
!1913 12408078
1933 124 19019
1932 124 19 020
1939 120 14 012
~1 24 19 076
124 10 053
11947 120 15 091
11903 120 16 035
1902 {12027055
1903 120 16072
1910 120 28 015
1904 12028016
1906 112028020
!1904 120 28 021
190112006048
1926 120 08 037
11936 124 04 052
119~-~- 12405024
~-1~- 12002085
~120 03 055
124 23 055
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
iPot. NR
, tPot, NR
AssessmentI Proposed Lisitng
!RL _
RL
Rk
Rk
RL
RL
RL
Rk
RL
RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
IPoto NR ~L
!Pot. NR RL
,Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR
tPot, NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
New Landma
Cat 3 and 4
PoL NR
Pot, NR
Pot, NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4 -
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
!Pot. NR
iPot. NR’Center Dr ,1931
003 08 022
1003 10 016
]RL
~RL
’RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
Page 1,
Resource List 5/27/99
Site Address
560
B50
264
270
451-453
459
471
627 ]Channing Ave
633 iChanning Ave
667-669 !Channing Ave
751 IChanning Ave
764 ,]Channing Ave
825 !Channing Ave
545 !Chaucer St
560 IChaucer St
236 {Church.ill Ave
250 IChurchill Ave
263 IChurchill Ave
352 ’Churchill Ave
369 Churchill Ave
538 Churchill Ave
200 !Coleridge Ave
215 !Coleridge Ave
232 IColeridge Ave
265 lColeridge Ave
300 i Coleridge Ave
301 !Coleridge Ave
340 ,Coleridge Ave
345 I Coleridge Ave
356 IColeridge Ave
375 IColeridge Ave
380 !Coleridge Ave
418 iCo eridge Ave
435 Coleridge Ave
440 ,Coleridge Ave
455 IColeridge Ave
509 Coleridge Ave
512 ~Coleridge Ave
526 IColeridge Ave
537 iColeridge Ave
544 !Coleridge Ave
570 IColeridge Ave
B10 }Coleridge Ave
~31 !Coleridge Ave
~60 !Coleridge Ave
1021 I College Ave
1032 !College Ave
Site Street I Year I ,Exprl Assessment IProposed Lisitng
iCenter Dr 11935 {003 08 025
ICenter Dr 11939 003 27 025
iChanning Ave !1894 [120 28 055
IChanning Ave 11905 !120 28 055
iChanning Ave i1900 i120 17 018
!Channing Ave 11896 1120 17 017
!Channing Ave I1896 i120 17 090
120 56 001
120 05 019
120 05 014
003 32 060
003 33 019
003 25 022
003 07 046
003 05 016
124 16059
124 16 060
124 16 022
124 07 022
12407 049
124 01 006
124 17 012
124 16 092
124 17 013
124 16 066
124 08 016
124 07 008
124 08 019
124 07 007
124 08 020
124 07 006
124 08 021
124 08 068
124 07 OO3
124 08 023
124 07 002
12401 019
124 02 001
124 02 026
124 01 018
.124 02 003
124 02 004
12402005
124 01 010
124 02 010
137 04 093
}137,o3 o31
Pot. NR IRL
Pot. NR
Cat3and4 ~,L
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR !RL
iCat3and4 RL
ICat3and4 RL
IPot. NR iRL Pot, NR iRL
!Cat3and4 RL
ICat 3and4 RL
IPot. NR RL
IPot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot’ NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
,Pot. NR !RL
!1904
11897
[1898
!1905
11905
i1909
1931
1933
1927
1917
1904
1923
1917
1923
1924
1922
1925
1907
1927
1925
1915
1910
1913
1908
1931
1922
1925
1927
1927
1927
1928
1935
11923
1923
1925
1926
1925
1921
1999
11900
Page 2
Resource List 5/27/99
Site Address I Site Street
1080-1082 ~College Ave
181 :College Ave
1325 ICollege Ave
1487 ~College Ave
1528 ~College Ave
1540 ICollege Ave
335 ~College Ave
.~43-645 . College Ave
757 iCollege Ave
445 iColorado Ave
464 IColorado Ave
872 I Colorado Ave
2025 ]Columbia St
2115-2133 ICornell St
2127 ICornell St
1000 ICowper St
127 !Cowper St
1535 !Cowper St
1570 !Cowper St
1620 ICowper St
741 ,~Cowper St
855 ICowper St
965 iCowper St
2005 ~+Cowper St
2025 iCowper St
2065 ICowper St
2085 ICowper St
209 ~,~t
215 iCowper St
2150 ICowper St
2175 ICowper St
2200 ICowper St
223 lCowper St
2240 !Cowper St
250-252 ICowper St
321 ICowper St
327 ICowper St
330 ~per St
360 ICowper St
705 ICowper St
711 ICowper St
803 .Cowper St
818-820 ICowper St
904 !Cowper St
944-948 =Cowper St
,Crescent Dr
39 ICrescent Dr
I ¥’ear I Exprl
!1906 1137 03 036
I1890 1137 04 058
}1930 i137 05 053
~ i137 05 042
11890 1137 06 052
!1928 1137 06 053
i1910 !124 28 012
1914 1137 01 102
1906 !137 02 009
11945 132 08 014
1961 132 08 113
!1915 i27 27 068
1937 {137 06 040
1922 1137 02 042
11922 137 02 041
1923 1120 18 015
1936 120 09 019
1926 124 01 020
1929 124 07 039
1932~124 08 002
1927 { 124 02 072
1922 124 06 067
1932 124 06 010
1931 1124 06 008
1931 i124 06 007
1931 124 06 005
1931 124 06 004
1936 124 10 005
1930 124 04 019
1936 124 11 076
1905 120 02 053
1939 124 11 077
1905 120 14 024
1903 120 10 046
1903 1120 10 045
11903 ,120 14 059
1~93 ~+_120 14 061
11896 1120 04 037
1893 1120 04 083
1901 120 05 001
1925 120 17 011
11906 1120 17 049
11924 !120 17 091
11925 1003 09 012
{1927 1003 09 009
JAssessment I Proposed Lisitng
!Pot. NR
ICat 3 and 4 !RL
IPot. NR
tCat 3 and 4 !RL
ICat 3 and 4 }RL
ICat 3 and 4 IRL
INew Landma RL
IPot. NR ~RL
iCat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
P°t’ NR RR~Pot. NR
Pot. NR IRL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
,Cat3and4 RL
IPot. NR
RLRLIPot. NR
}Pot. NR IRE
ICP°t’ NR RR~Pot. NR
at 3 and 4 ~L
Cat3and4 RL
!Pot. NR RL
!Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
IPot. NR iRL
ICat 3 and 4 iRL
Cat 3 and 4 IRL
Cat 3 and4 ~RL
Cat 3 and4 iRL
!Pot. NR ~RL
IPot. NR !RL
{Cat 3 and4 IRL
IPot. NR RL
IPot. NR IRL
Page 3
Resource List 5/27/99
Site Address
50 ICrescent Dr ~1929
51 ;Crescent Dr 11926
63 I Crescen~ Dr 1192~6
70 iCrescent Dr 11930
75 ICrescent Dr !1928
79 !Crescent Dr 11925
1275 IDana Ave 1938
2050 IDartmouth St 11930
~IDartmouth St :1906
!525 -!E Crescent Dr ,1926
’530 IE Crescent Dr 1926
541 !E Crescent Dr 1928
548 i~-Crescent Dr 1927
590 IE Crescent Dr i1930
1400 iEdgewood Dr ’~1933
1401 IEdgewood Dr 1938
1414 ~Edgewood Dr 1934
1444 Edgewood Dr 1936
1449 !Edgewood Dr ,1928
1450 !Edgewood Dr 1918
Site Street , { Year I ,, Exprl IAssessment Proposed Lisitng
i003 09 028
1003 09 035
003 09 007
t003 09 029
1003 09 006
[003 09 005
003 20 022
137 06 043
137 O6 031
1003 10 026
!003 10 005
!003 10 025
1003 10 006
i003 10 009 __
t0o3 11 o01
1003 11 066
~003 11 003
ICat 3 and 4
IPoto NR
iPoL NR
IPot. NR
’Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
(Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
~003 11 036
~003 11 027
tPot. NR __ RL
(Pot. NR tRL
tNew Landma RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
IRL
RL
RL
New Landma RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3 and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
POt. NR RL
ICat 3 and 4 =RL
Cat 4 RL3and
ICat 3and4 RL
IPot. NR RL
1456 !Edgewood Dr 1866
1456 Edgewood Dr 1866
1474 iEdgewood Dr 1935
1485 !Edgewood Dr 1937
1490 iEdgewood Dr 1936
2171 !El Camino Re 1940
311-315 ,!El CarmeloAv 1896
317 !El Carmelo Av 1900
2560 iEmbarcadero 1940
330 ’~Embarcadero 1912
Overpass/Aim!Embarcadero 1936
1027 IEmerson St !1904
1035 i Emerson St I1904
1215 i Emerson St 1906
1260 IEmerson St 1924
1401 iEmerson St
1436-1464 iEmerson St 1936
150-152 iEmerson St ~,1923
1520 !Emerson St I1947
1570 !Emerson St i1937
210-216 IEmerson St ’1912
532 ,Emerson St 1941
534 IEmerson St 11940
540 "Emerson St I1904
541-543 IEmerson St 11922
544 IEmerson St 11926
611-623 IEmerson St 11923
003 11 037
,003 11 038
003 11 O38
003 11 041
003 11 022
003 11 043
124 31 077
132 19056
132 19 055
008 05 001
124 12 023
None
120 29 048
12029047
124 12 016
124 15 005
124 16 011
124 16033
120 24 023
124 16 073
124 17 085
12025 033
120 26 079
120 26 080
120 26 082
120 26 075
i120 26 083
120 27 024
Page 4
Resource List 5/27/99
Site Address I Site Street
$24-640 iEmerson St
~35 iEmerson St
731 IEmerson St
735 IEmerson St
~00-818 t Emerson St
945-949 iEmerson St
=412 I Everett Ave
’482 !Everett Ave
560 I Everett Ave
657 t Everett Ave
751-761 IEverett Ave
758 I Everett Ave
420 !Florence St
1001-1009 ~Forest Ave
1055 !Forest Ave
i Forest Ave
}Forest Ave
Forest Ave
Forest Ave
I Forest Ave
I Forest Ave
F~orest Ave
!Forest Ave
i Forest Ave
I Forest Ave
)Forest Ave
~t Ave
t Ave
Forest Ave
Forest Ave
Fulton St
,Fulton St
Fulton St
Fulton St
Fulton St
Fulton St
Fulton St
Fulton St
11924 1120
11938 1120
!1894 !120
11926 ~.120
!1923 1120
11923
!1895 1120
!190O 120 936 !20
1908 1120
!1916 003
11923 003
i1893 11120÷
1894 1003
1896 003
I1907 003
I1936 003
1925 120
1930
{1904
11940 120
11912 120
11916 120
1922 003
1931 1003
1916 003
1924 003
1928 003
.11~2~92!
003
OO3
O03
ii9~2 003
! 1934 003
11919 003
1908 003
1913 t003
1895 }003
1078
271
332
~60
446
555
644
680
705
721
736
765
788
804
939
1001
1011
1726
212
215
2t6
225
422
64O
1037
151
365
381
619
752
551
625
Fulton St ~_
Greenwood Av ~ 1003
IGuinda St !1921 1003
IGuinda St 11903 1003
IGuinda St !1910 1003
Guinda St 11924 1003
!Guinda St t~1928 .003
IHale St , 11939 1003
IHale St 11925 1003
Exprl
27 026
27 022
27 071
27 066
28 006
28 079
14 051
14 027
10 027
02 018
01 010
01 057
15 048
19 070
19 075
21 027
20 050
16 038
, IAssessment JProposed Lisitn9
iCat 3 and 4
!Cat 3 and 4
IPot. NR
iCat 3 and 4
!Cat 3 and 4
[Pot. NR
ICat 3 and 4
IPot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
!Cat 3 and 4
ICat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
New Landma
New Landma
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
!RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
’RL
Rk
Rk
120 16 039 Cat 3 and4 RL
120 16 043 Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
iCat 3 and 4
IPot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4IcCat 3 and 4
at 3 and 4
ICat 3 and 4
IPot. NR
~Pot. NR
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
INew Landma)RL
~-New Landma RRLL
!Pot. NR
!Pot. NR
ICat 3and 4 iRL
04 031
04047
04 051
32 023
32 022
32 096
32 007
32 052
31 035
04 036
33 037
33 036
58 033
01 025
01 015
01 026
01 014
02 017
32 020
35 013
34 044
03 053
03 007
31 065
32 031
05 021
19 089
Page 5
Resource List 5/27/99
Site Address Site Street
1044 iHamilton Ave
1133 !Hamilton Ave
1157 IHamilton Ave
122-136 I!Hamilton Ave
1266 iHamilton Ave
1300 i Hamilton Ave
1400 iHamilton Ave
1407 IHami ton Ave
1423 )Hamilton Ave
1424 Hamilton Ave
1452 !Hamilton Ave
1452 !Hamilton Ave
571 IHamilton Ave
723 i Hamilton Ave
!755 IHamilton Ave
780 iHamilton Ave
!855 Hamilton Ave
870 Hamilton Ave
909 Hamilton Ave
925 Hamilton Ave
940 Ham ton Ave
951 IHamilton Ave
955 Hamilton Ave
964 Hamilton Ave
972 Hamilton Ave
975 )Hamilton Ave
47 Hamilton Ct
2050-2080 ’Hanover St
2151 Hanover St
2257 I Hanover St
2301 }Hanover st
2305 Hanover St
2311 Hanover St
2051-2063 }Harvard St
2069 !Harvard St
2075 IHarvard St
2081 !Harvard St
2131 IHarvard St
365 I Hawthorne Av
375 !Hawthorne Av
I Year
i1924
11927
11941
11~24
!1934
11903
1934
1934
1933
1930
1936
1923
1938
1921
i931
1915
’1920
’1916
1910
1923
1908
1925
1922
1924
1910
1939
1938
1893
1893
1938
1938
1938
1930
1930
!1930
1930
1907
1906
1903
!381 iHawthorne Av 11903
544-554 i HawthorneAv 1907
!1141 IHigh St 11907
~212 High St ,1907
2160 !High St i1928
317 !High St 11905
323 !High St ii904
I Exprl
003~9028
003 07 027
003 07 025
120 27 003
003 20 005
003 20 009
O03 23 001
1003 11 012
003 11 009
003 23 006
003 23 014
003 23 014
120 03 061
003 02 042
003 02 033
003 32 001
003 03 033
003 31 001
003 04 023
003 04 022
003 04 070
003 04 021
003 04 020
003 04 027
!003 04 073
003 04 019
’003 07 034
137 06 076
137 06 001
137 05 007
137 05 005
137 05 091
137 05 090
137 03 072
137 03 071
137 03 070
137 03 069
137 03 O66
120 12 017
120 12 016
120 12 015
120 02 002
120 30 015
120 25 052
124 19
120 25
!120 25
Assessment I Prop0sed Lisi,tng
Pot. NR IRL
)Pot, NR IRL
Pot. NR IRL
IPot. NR IRL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
’Cat3and4 RL
New Landma RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
IPot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR iRL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
iCat3 and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
ICat3and4 RL
iCat3and4 RL
102 ICat 3 and 4 RL
104 Pot. NR RL1o3!Pot. NR !RL
Page 6
Resource List 5/27/99
ISite Address Site Street
334 iHigh St
342-344 IHigh St
617 IHigh St
621 IHigh St
7_90 !High St
865 I High St
900 IHigh St
201 IHomer Ave
212-214 IHomer Ave
230 t Homer Ave
248 I Homer Ave
260 iHomer Ave
460 I Homer Ave
469 }Homer Ave
505 i Homer Ave
817-619 iHomer Ave
880 Homer Ave
175 Island Dr
185 Island Dr
151 I Kellogg Ave
230 f Kellogg Ave
270 Kellogg Ave
320 Kellogg Ave
360 IKellogg Ave
555 Kellogg Ave
559 Kingsley Ave
356 Kingsley Ave
249 Kipling St
321 !Kipling St
1405 Kipling St
=411 IKipling St
i421-423 Kipling St ’
430 Kipling St’
431-433 Kipling St __
437 !Kipling St
443 Kipling St
815-819 iKipling St
817 ~-~pling St
823-825 IKipling St
832 !Kipling St
359 ILeland Ave
390 Leland Ave
1250 Lincoln Ave
132 iLincoln Ave
536 i Lincoln Ave
630 ILincoln Ave
660 ILincoln Ave
I Year Exprl
11899 120 25 107
11905 120 25 108
i1897 12027 036
1897 120 27 035
1936- 120 27 078
~1 20 28 039
120 28 049
i1906 1120 27 070
i1925 120 28 009
1928 120 28 010
11925 120 28 012
!1931 120 28 013
1910 120 17 008
!1905 120 16 051
11906 120 04 079
1926 120 04 061
1900 120 05 010
1935 003 11 005
1935 003 11 004
1923 124 15 013
1916 124 16 012
1908 124 16 017
!1916 124 07 014
11919 124 07 043
i1909 120 07 082
1912 }120 06 071
1924 !120 07 011
11903 i120 14 029
1897 ’120 15 010
1902 ’120 15 023
1900 120 15 022
1897 120 15 101
1901 120 15 021
1905 120 15 020
1897 120 15 019
1902 120 17 023
1908 120 17 022
1898 120 17 021
1899 120 17 025
1924 124 30 024
11904 124 30 038
1927 003 08 018
i19~ 30 037
1897 ~120 06 027
1904 {12006 033
1931 i120 06 035
Assessment Proposed Lisitng
IPot. NR IRL
Pot, NR iRL
ICat 3 and4 IRL
Cat 3 and 4 tRL
!Cat 3 and4 !RL
3 and 4 !RLiCat
tPot. NR }RL
ICat3and4 RL
{Cat3and4 RL
!Cat3and4 RL
!Cat3and4 RL
IPot. NR RL
iCat3and4 RL
iPot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot, NR
Pot. NR IRL
Cat3and4 IRL
Pot. NR ’RL
Cat 3 and 4 ’RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot, NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
ICat 3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat 3 and 4 IRL
!Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Page 7
Resource List 5/27/99
Site Address Site Street IYear I , " ,, Exprl
2931-2933 Louis Rd !1914 1127 04 024
1517 ILouisa Ct 1905 003 29 076
249 tLowell Ave ,1931 124 17 020
353 ILowell Ave 11919 124 08 011
tAssessment I Proposed Lisitng
401
426
535
663
265
411
555
667
771
851
1511
1585
419
419
441
460
1528
4O0
686
!960
56O
351-653
778
’778
863
211
218
225
251
258
220
260
218
224
226
230
355
1910
1990
2105-2115
2114-2124
2130
2136
i Lowell Ave 1908 124
ILowell Ave 1924 i124
Lowell Ave 1926 124
~owell Ave 1925 1124
Lytton Ave 1926 1120
Lytton Ave 1900 120
Lytton Ave 1896 120
Lytton Ave 1903 120
{Lytton Ave 1924 003
!Lytton Ave !1906 003
Madrono Ave 1927 124
MadronoAve 1923 124 24
Maple St 1928 003 06
Maple St 1929 003 06
Maple St 1926 003 06
Maple St I1930 003 06
iMariposaAve 1925 124 22
Marlowe St 1934 003 06
lMatadero Ave 1934 137 09
MataderoAve 1932 137 16
tMelville Ave 1926 120 07
Melville Ave 11910 120 07
Melville Ave ~1900 003 44
Melville Ave 1899 003
Melville Ave t932 003
Middlefield Rd 1920 003
[MiddlefieldRd 1903 120
IMiddlefieldRd 1916 003
.Middlefiel~d Rd 1913 ’003
lMiddlefieldRd 1924 120
IMiramonteAve 1926 124
!MiramonteAve 1926 124
iN California Av 1929 124
IN CaliforniaAv 1929 124
IN California Av 1929 124
IN CaliforniaAv 1929 124
N California Av 11925 124
INewell Rd 1941 003
iNewell Rd 1939 003
IOberlin St !1928 137
!Oberlin St 11928 137
’Oberlin St 11932 137
~Oberlin St !1932 137
08007
08 057
02 024
02 014
25 119
14 076
10 036
02 077
01 O48
03 004
24 005
040
038
038
023
027
024
007
071
016
048
022
016
44 016
34 036
01 035
02 012
01 034
01 076
02 017
23 013
23 001
14 079
14 08O
14 083
14 082
10 016
59 018
57 060
03 040
03 083
03 084
03 085
Pot. NR RL
ICat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
~RL
~RL
Rk
~L
Rk
Rk
RL
Rk
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
/Cat 3 and 4
ICat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
New Landma
Pot. NR ’
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and4
Pot. NR
,Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
New Landma
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
.....{Cat 3 and 4
Page 8
Resource List 5/27/99
site Addres~ Site Street
1030 IPalo Alto Ave
1120 IPalo Alto Ave
426 Palo Alto Ave
436 iPalo Alto Ave
’710 iPalo Alto Ave
750 Palo Alto Ave
Cistern/Hale Palo Alto Ave
1757 I Park Blvd
1795 I Park Blvd
3905 iPark Blvd
1120 IParkinson Ave
1230 iParkinson Ave
285 IQuarry Rd
245 I Ramona St
347 ~ St
734 iRamona St
819 iRamona St
828 iRamona St
935 Ramona St
942 tRamona St
948 iRamona St
272 !Rinconada Av
912 Roble Ridge R
925 tRoble Ridge R
955 iRoble Ridge R
466 [Ruthven Ave
1382 IS California Av
t590 IS California Av
321 !S California Av
2465 iS Court
350 ISanta Rita Ave
’435 ~anta Rita Ave
491 iSanta Rita Ave
’514 Santa Rita Ave
936-938 Scott St
943 IScott St
734 Seneca St
165 ISouthwood Dr
170 ISouthwood Dr
245 ~outhwood Dr
1247 i Stanford Ave
1425 Stanford Ave
352 Stanford Ave
374 ’,Stanford Ave
549 I Stanford Ave
591 :Stanford Ave
613 ’.Stanford Ave
I Year
i1929
!1896
{1907
11908
1913
1909
1924
1900!1904
1914
1928
1931
1906
1893
i1926
1924
1900
1895
1904
1904
1931
1926
1922
1927
1907
1895
’1906
1938
1930
1929
1936
1930
1936
11895
tl 906
1925
1933
1930
I1927
!1900
1928
i1906
11906
~1926
t1904
11899
t003 05 013
t003 ~6 002
120 09 059
120 09 060
003 01 039
O03 01 021
None
124 25 039
12425033
132 42 065
003 44 052
003 45 077
142 04 012
120 25 012
120 25 077
120 27 066
120 28 025
120 28 O27
120 28 065
120 28 072
120 28 O73
124 19113
137 16 015
137 17 008
137 17 006
120 09 048
137 05 025
137 05 066
124 33 001
t132 12 021
124 10 027
124 09 013
~124 09 011
I124 04 032
~120 17 081
120 17075
003 31 059
003 10 033
003 il 063
003 10 035
137 06 009
137 06 042
124 30 006
124 30 008
137 01 016
137 01 128
~137 01 059
Assessment I, ,Proposed Lisitng
Pot. NR
Pot. NR RL
JPot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
INew Landma RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
IPot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
New Landma
Cat 3 and 4 ~LL
Pot. NR
Pot. NR ’ !RL
Pot. NR !RL
Pot. NR IRL
Pot. NR iRL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Po[ NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3 and4 iRL
Cat3and4 RL
!Cat 3 and 4 IRL
ICat 3 and4 tRL
iCat 3 and 4 IRL
Page 9
Resource List 5/27/99
Site Address
1410 Tasso St
1416 Tasso St
181 ’,Tasso St
417 Tasso St
425 Tasso St
510 Tennyson Ave
604 ’Tennyson Ave
1005 , University Ave
1056 !U niversity Ave
1057 I University Ave
1068 I University Ave
1125 ,UniverSity Ave
1130 i University Ave
1250 !University Ave
1307 ,University Ave
11310 = University Ave
1330 ,University Ave
1341 !U niversity Ave,
1405 I University Ave
1425 :University Ave
1449 iUniversity Ave
1505 !University Ave
1531 iUniversity Ave
1545 ’University Ave
1560 !University Ave
1570 tUniversity Ave
1750 I University Ave
1755 i University Ave
180 i University Ave
223 I University Ave
251 !University Ave
271 I University Ave
323 !University Ave
367 l University _Ave
382-396 !UniversitY Ave
415 = University Ave
423 :University Ave
460-476 !University Ave
564 i University Ave
789 iUniversity Ave
851 IUniversity Ave
950 !University Ave
488 !W Charleston
536 iW Crescent Dr
70 ,Waverley Oak
121 iWaverley St
121 ,Waverley St
Site Street IYear I Exprt Assessment Proposed Lisitng
i120 08 053
1120 08 054
120 01 045
120 03 027
120 03 026
124 06 018
124 03 001
003 05 008
003 05 026
003 05 005
003 05 027
003 06 013
003 07 002
003 07 005
003 06 035
OO3 O7 009
003 07 010
i003 06 020
1003 07 051
i003 07 050
003 07 049
~003 09 015
~003 09 014
i003 09 013
003 08 005
003 08 006
O03 10 003
003 09 019
120 26 097
120 26 014
120 26 100
120 26 009
120 15 051
120 15 044
120 15 065
120 15 031
120 15 030
120 15 070
120 03 036
003 02 006
003 03 016
003 04 016
t32 46 072
003 08 046
124 10 035
1120 09 055
120 09 055
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
IPot. NR RE
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
IPot. NR RL
!New Landma RL
iCat3and4 RL
tPot. NR RL
IPot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR,RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR
Pot. NR !RL
Pot, NR RL
Pot. NR IRL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot, NR ’RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot, NR RL
Cat3and4 RL
Cat3and4 RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot. NR RL
Pot, NR RL
New Landma
ICat 3 and 4 !RL
11932
1922
1905
1896
1900
!1932
1909
119O2
1927
11924
11927
[1908
1927
11926
11925
1932
1925
1925
1929
1938
1925
1926
1924
1927
1930
1933
1935
1945
1899
1925
1906
1929
1925
1922
1925
1926
1927
1927
1904
1922
1903
1908
1928
1927
1928
11913
i1913
Page10
Resource List 5/27/99
Site Address
1525
545
550
1801
1808
2020
2051
2070
2149
2205
2261
311
313
324-326
,333
:526
650
704
’20
734-736
821
~45
947
959
1022
1026
128
151
1235
1345
1400
1432
1525
1651
1849
1935
2121
2280
251
530
119-623
727-725
2300
1295
2130
{ Site Street
’Waverley St
iWaverley’St
!Waverley St
~Waverley St
!Waverley St
IWaverley St
’Waverley St
IWaverley St
!Waverley St
IWaverley St
!Waverley St
"Waverley St
!Waverley St
!Waverley St
IiWaverley St
!Waverley St
IWaverley St
Waverley St
Waverley St
Waverley St
Waverley St
IWavedey St
!Waverley St
IWaverley St
IWebster St
!Webster St
!Webster St
/Webster St
Webster St
Webster St
IWebster St
tWebster St
!Webster St,
Webster St
Webster St
Webster St
Webster St
Webster St
Webster St
IWebster St
!Webster St
~-ebster St
’ IWellesley St
IWilson St
iYale St
IYear I,, Exprl
’,1907 J124 07 028
!1902 1124 07 026
1915 124 07 025
11924 124 09 036
11927 124 13 001
11935 ’~124 13 016
11923 1124 09 014
11931 1124 13 019
i1929.124 10 045
1932 124 11 072
1929 124 11 070
11910 120 14 050
11819 120 14 083
1904 1120 14 086
11900 120 14 080
}1927 120 15 083
11904 120 16 024
’1911 120 16 040
1911 120 16 061
11912 120 16 063
11898 120 17 033
11890 120 17 030
11904 120 17 060
1899 120 17 059
1893 120 06 011
1893 120 06 012
1894 120 06 067
11905 120 06 059
11905 120 07 037
1907 120 07 076
1918 120 08 004
11914 120 08 047"
1922 124 01 009
1922 124 02 018
1937 124 03 066
1937 124 03 067,
i1931 124 04 048
’1935 124 05 053
1904 120 02 032
11920 120 03’ 059
i1904 120 04 025
11905 120 04 067
11936 137 02 025
1895 003 45 014
11904 137 01 065
068
IAssessment ! Proposed Lisitng
!Pot. NR
!Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
ICat 3 and 4
iPot. NR
ICat 3 and 4
IPot. NR
IPot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
IPot. NR
iPot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
iPot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
iCat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Pot. NR
Cat 3 and 4
Cat 3 and 4
ICat 3 and 4
!RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
Rk
RL
RL
Rk
RL
RL
RL
Page 11