Questioning the new-found power of the Historic Resources Board

Why the authority of the HRB and the city's contract architect has some Palo Altans vexed

by Elisabeth Traugott

Roger Kohler, one of the seven members of Palo Alto's Historic Resources Board, tells the story of what a friend's wife said as she tried to convince him to join the HRB. You might enjoy it, she said. "They don't really do anything."

Oh, what a difference a year can make.

When the Palo Alto City Council adopted the interim historic ordinance a year ago it did more than just tighten controls on demolitions in town. It also developed a process by which the city would review the historic merit of the city's older residences.

To account for the inadequacy of the city's historic inventory, review of the merit screening process was added to the HRB's scope of responsibilities.

Overnight, the Historic Resources Board moved from being an advisory panel to becoming a board with binding authority--one of the most powerful boards in the city.

"It's been an awakening process," Kohler said. "We're a little bit taken aback at the amount of pressure and the public awareness."

But the distribution of new authority goes beyond the Historic Resources Board.

The city also approved a compatibility review process to control the types of homes that were being built in place of demolished or significantly remodeled older homes. That process is administered by a contract preservation architect, Barbara Judy.

If the owners of a contributing structure don't comply with the compatibility standards as described by Judy, they won't get a building permit.

The two HRB processes--merit screening and landmark alteration--can be appealed to the City Council. But the outcome of the compatibility review process can only be appealed to a three-person committee of city planners.

No appeal of the compatibility review has yet been upheld. In fact, according to Judy, only one appeal of her compatibility findings has yet been made and, in that one case, the appeal resulted in a stricter interpretation of the design rules, not relief.

A year ago, city staff warned council members that design review was uncharted territory. A staff report dated Sept. 30, 1996, advised the council that "design review of single-family residences has been resisted in the past." It goes on to say: "Staff is particularly concerned about publicly noticed, discretionary review processes for single-family housing. The amount of staff resources required for mediation between neighbors, the lack of general public education about design and architecture, and the emotion that applicants bring to the process make this type of application potentially divisive and certainly expensive."

Previously, the Historic Resources Board would make recommendations to owners of landmark homes about how to restore them while maintaining the integrity of the original design. Homeowners could take the advice or not. Today, if the owners of a landmark home don't follow through with the HRB's findings, they are breaking the law. So are the owners of a pre-1940 home who try to change their facade without undergoing a merit screening.

Kohler sees his role as a paradox. "I have the charge that was given to the board by the council under the ordinance," he said. But on the other hand, "Having dealt with so many homeowners . . . they all have their own desires, and we're pretty much dictating to them what they can or can't do."

Although many backers of the ordinance admit the processes are complicated, they contend the rules are necessary in order to preserve the character of Palo Alto's neighborhoods. And glitches are to be expected, they say. After all, this is uncharted territory.

But many who have been through the process have been frustrated, although they have not always been willing to express their feelings openly because they still need to work with the city. Still others publicly question whether Palo Alto should get into the area of reviewing the designs of single-family homes in the first place.

"Do we want architectural variety in our city? Do we want top architects in our town?" developer Howard Churcher asked. "Can you imagine Frank Lloyd Wright coming into our town and dealing with these things?"

The issues have raised concerns among City Council members.

"There's a feeling that staff will penalize people if they take public exception to their decisions," said Council member Gary Fazzino. He said he knows of at least 15 cases where homeowners feared retaliation from the planning staff if they spoke out against the ordinance. "There is a concern that the council decided to act . . . but we haven't taken the next important step of creating a vision," Fazzino said. "Instead we've let staff tell us the vision."

Changes will no doubt occur before the final historic ordinance is adopted sometime in 1998. But no determination has yet been made whether the compatibility review process will be saved or scrapped entirely.

However, it's likely there will be a large contingent of Palo Altans who want to protect their neighborhoods this way to stop the "monster" homes from ever coming back.

"There aren't many other sets of competing interests which are as problematic for a city," said Fazzino, one of the original supporters of both the moratorium and the interim ordinance.

Concern has been expressed throughout the community about the power that has been vested in Judy in particular. She is charged with determining how Palo Alto's protected residences will eventually look and what will be built in their place if demolition is allowed.

Churcher, who is building a home on Fulton Avenue (see related story on page XX) said he got to the point in his review process where he felt like saying "just tell us what you want and we'll do it," he said.

But not everyone agrees with the criticisms. "I think, in the end, these homes that are done under compatibility review, they'll have a real finished look to them. They'll look like they've been there for a long time," Kohler said.

In the past six months, homeowners, developers, architects and real estate agents have steadily increased the pitch of complaint. Much of it has taken a personal tone. Else Begle, a local Realtor, said she has begun to call Judy's merit screenings "drive-by shootings."

But city officials urge residents to remember that it is the ordinance itself that places significantly more power in the hands of the Historic Resources Board and Judy. And furthermore, the compatibility process, which has caused much of the fuss, is a ministerial process, they say, not one governed by the discretion of a single architect.

"It's not discretion in the sense that Barbara (Judy) can say 'I don't think that building goes with its neighbors,'" said Virginia Warheit, a senior planner who is overseeing the revision of the historic ordinance.

A true discretionary process would require a publicly appointed board, such as the Architectural Review Board or the Planning Commission. But given the speed with which the interim ordinance was drafted, there wasn't time to think about another board.

Warheit compares Judy's role to that of the planners who issue building permits. "If you do X, you get your permit," she said, "but it takes a professional person . . . to decide they are doing X."

But the rules take up the better part of a 50-page booklet. They are also very specific. For example, "no more than one non-rectangular or 'special' window may be used per street facade." And, "windows must be wood, wood with vinyl or metal cladding, or steel. Vinyl or aluminum windows will be allowed for bathrooms and basements but must have the same or similar finish to other windows."

"These standards were developed in an attempt to be as clear as possible," said Senior Assistant City Attorney Debbie Cauble.

But because they are so complex, they often also take time to explain to applicants. And homeowners are charged for the time Judy spends explaining the rules and evaluating plans--to the tune of $118 an hour. (See related story on page XX.)

According to the city, the average cost of reviewing plans during the compatibility review phase has been $754, not including the $100 fee for the historic review and the cost of the building permit.

The merit screening process has also been the target of criticism, particularly from real estate agents who claim the process scares off buyers. The lengthy review process and limited alteration possibilities are seen as punitive to buyers looking to tailor a home or a property to their needs.

"They really should return to having the HRB function as it did prior to this interim ordinance," said Leannah Hunt, chair of the Palo Alto district of the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors. "Their span of control is really too broad at this point."

Back up to the Table of Contents Page