HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-16 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting September 16, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-109 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 8, 15, AND 22, 1996............80-109 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Social Worker Services............................80-110 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................80-110 2A. (Old Item No. 2) Recommendation to Endorse Measure B, a new half-cent sales tax to begin in April 1997, and Measure A, an advisory measure indicating that the funds from Measure B are to be used for a specified list of transportation improvements, as developed by the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief........................................80-110 11. Assessment of Interest Level for Residential Parking Permit Program...............................................80-110 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application to modify and establish an existing Planned Community (PC) District 1802 for property located at 101 Alma Street in order to permit a Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility use; and a Variance to exceed the maximum height limit by 15 feet.......................80-111 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Historic Resources Board recommendations for development plans for proposed restoration and reuse of the historic Williams Property as a Museum and public park for property located at 351 Homer Avenue......................................80-122 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the
appeal of the Zoning Administrator=s denial of a Home Improvement Exception for an approximately 1-foot vertical encroachment into the accessory building daylight plane; and denial of a request to exceed the allowable floor area by 82
09/16/96 80-107 80-107
square feet where a maximum of 3,000 square feet is normally allowed in the R-1 Zone District for property located at 1424 Hamilton Avenue.......................................80-129 7. Request from the Historic Resources Board to Extend Moratorium on Demolition for property located at 453 Melville Avenue80-136 7A. (Old Item No. 13) Council Members Fazzino, Andersen, Kniss, and Schneider re Possible Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing an Urgency Moratorium on Demolition of Older Houses................................................80-137 8. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Telecommunications Program and Increase the Loan from the Electric Fund 80-146 9. Amendment to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PETROTEK for Fuel Site Improvements and Fuel Storage Tank Upgrade...............................................80-146 12. Development and Implementation of a Minor Operational improvement Project, including securing right-of-way from all affected property owners, on Los Trancos Road.........80-146 10. Acquisition of Site at 2700 Ash Street for Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities.......................80-173 14. Mayor Wheeler re Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting of September 23, 1996, to be Rescheduled to a Special City Council Meeting on September 24, 1996.................80-174 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........80-174 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 1:10 a.m.............80-174
09/16/96 80-108 80-108
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:13 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Human Relations Commission Chairperson Tina Gutierrez spoke regarding the sitting/lying down on sidewalk ban. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, spoke regarding representing the Palo Alto Civic League. Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Street, spoke regarding Spare the Air/Save the Bay Event. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Sand Hill Road Joint Committee with Menlo Park. James Lewis, 1498 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding Palo Alto Unified School District on Cable TV, Channel 77 (letter on file in the City
Clerk=s Office). Carol Lamont, 618 Kingsley Avenue, spoke regarding Floor Area Ratios (FARs) architectural review. Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, 655 Oak Grove Avenue, No. 6D, Menlo Park,
spoke regarding ΑQuitoland≅ (information on file in the City
Clerk=s Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 8, 15, AND 22, 1996 MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the Minutes of July 8, 15, and 22, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Social Worker Services MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
09/16/96 80-109 80-109
City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2 had been removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of a member of the public and would become Item No. 2A. 2A. (Old Item No. 2) Recommendation to Endorse Measure B, a new half-cent sales tax to begin in April 1997, and Measure A, an advisory measure indicating that the funds from Measure B are to be used for a specified list of transportation improvements, as developed by the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief. Irvin Dawid, 3886 LaDonna, transportation committee representative from the Sierra Club, said the Sierra Club was guaranteed a seat on the Citizens Watchdog Committee on the measure. Sierra Club had engaged in a lively and vigorous debate on the initiative. He was surprised the Council had decided not to discuss the issue so the
public could hear the Council=s comments. He suggested the item be reagendized for future Council discussion. It was a 10-year measure that would add a half-cent sales tax as opposed to a gasoline tax to complete 50 percent road projects and 50 percent transit projects. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve staff recommendation that the Council endorse both Measure A and Measure B, as developed by the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief and as included in the November 5, 1996, general election. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to bring Item No. 11 forward for the purpose of a continuance. 11. Assessment of Interest Level for Residential Parking Permit Program MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue Item No. 11 to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to bring Item Nos. 7, 10, and 13 forward to follow Item No. 6, as appropriate. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
09/16/96 80-110 80-110
CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
3. Conference with Labor Negotiator - Not held. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application to modify and establish an existing Planned Community (PC) District 1802 for property located at 101 Alma Street in order to permit a Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility use; and a Variance to exceed the maximum height limit by 15 feet. Mayor Wheeler said the item was quasi-judicial and subject to
Council=s disclosure policy. Council Member Fazzino asked about the City policy with respect to wireless communications and how the City would handle future applications. He said many communities were concerned about the legalities of such applications.
Chief Planning Officials Nancy Lytle said the City=s processes for handling wireless communications which was generally classified as a utility was that they were conditionally permitted in most districts and were always reviewed for their aesthetic impacts by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process. Staff dealt with applications individually except for assessory uses. The proposed application was dealt with individually through the Planned Community (PC) zone process. City Manager June Fleming said more requests were being received by the City, and staff did not have the benefit of guidelines. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. John Ford, 5619 Scotts Valley Drive, Scotts Valley, representing Diablo Communications, Inc., (Diablo) said the request was to modify a PC zone to allow a master plan wireless communication facility. The project would address many needs and would provide many benefits. The project would provide a place in Palo Alto for wireless carriers to go in a location that had been reviewed such that the design of all the facilities were coordinated and aesthetically acceptable. The media had been discussing the continued deployment of the cellular networks and also the recent deployment of the PCS networks. The articles had overlooked the wireless communications carriers that provided paging services and
09/16/96 80-111 80-111
mobile radio and telephones for fleet and personal use. Many jurisdictions looked for co-location facilities to solve some of the problems. The facility was a co-location facility and it would be master planned to provide three different types of antennas that would provide services for cellular, PCS, paging companies, mobile data, and or types of wireless communications. Diablo was a wireless carrier that had owned and operated a variety of wireless communication sites since 1959. Diablo had the expertise to operate the facility at 101 Alma Street without changing the normal operating conditions of the building. The review of the process had been very thorough and had resulted in several modifications to the project: 1) all the whip antennas would be uniform in height, 2) all the whip antennas would be painted a color which would be as inconspicuous as possible, and 3) all the whip antennas would be mounted simultaneously or simulation antennas would be mounted to maintain a uniform appearance. One of the requirements of a PC zone was that a statement of public benefit must be made. Diablo had worked with the Police Department to ensure that the Police Department would have access to the facility and would have antenna space and space to put a transmitter on the site. A master plan facility would minimize illegal installations and also encourage other carriers who might be persuaded to locate elsewhere to locate on the site because it was a permitted site. Diablo agreed with the staff recommendation and believed the site would benefit the City, the Palo Alto Condominium Owners Association (PACOA), and the wireless carriers that did business in the area. He urged the Council to support the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the ARB, and staff. Fred Eyerly, President, Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Condominium Owners Association, 101 Alma Street, said the project had been discussed by the Board in five open meetings; and after review, the PACOA approved the proposal by Diablo because it had not heard any resistance from the residents. After the Zoning Administrator sent notices to the surrounding area and the residents at 101 Alma Street, some resistance was created from some members of the building and a petition came forth. The letters from residents of the condominium were answered with proper
statements, and the PACOA=s attorney had provided information for
the residents and the City Council (on file in the Clerk=s Office). PACOA was eager for the project to move forward due to the number of capital improvements that were necessary for maintenance and rehabilitation. The project would be a valuable source of income for the PACOA so that monthly or special assessments would not have to be raised. PACOA did not agree with statements made in the petition and believed the life style at 101 Alma Street would not be impacted greatly by the project. PACOA urged the Council to support the recommendation.
09/16/96 80-112 80-112
Council Member Schneider asked whether the PACOA had received requests from other wireless communicators to use 101 Alma Street for a similar project. Mr. Eyerly said there were several companies that wanted to install a similar approach, but the PACOA had selected Diablo. He understood Diablo had a lot of interest if the installation went forward at 101 Alma Street. Kevin Frederick, 702 Marshall Street, Redwood City, said he was the attorney for both the Board of Directors of the PACOA and the people who signed the petition. The PACOA was surprised when the petitioners came forward and challenged the propriety of what the PACOA had done. He had investigated the matter and had determined that the PACOA was acting completely within its rights to enter into a lease. The PACOA had completed all the procedures required under its own internal documents and state law. The matter had
also been reviewed by the City Attorney=s Office and everything appeared to be in order. Mayor Wheeler clarified from the comments that evening, the PACOA was not convinced that the opponents, who had not appeared before the Council that evening, were entirely resigned to the project. Mr. Frederick said the Board members knew the Council was concerned about the welfare of all of its citizens of Palo Alto, and PACOA wanted the Council to know that their concerns had not been ignored in the decision-making process. Council Member McCown said one of points of internal concern mentioned several times was the issue of access to the roof and elevators. She asked whether the PACOA was comfortable that there would be a way in which that could be implemented without inferring with the use. Mr. Eyerly said the perimeter keys to the building would not be issued to anyone in the maintenance field or Diablo, etc. Representatives of Diablo would have to appear on a prepared list and sign in with the attendant on duty 24 hours per day. Regular maintenance work was limited to weekdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Emergency access would be 24 hours per day, but the person would still need to sign in. The penthouse owners would be heavily impacted but everything had been done to make sure those people were not disturbed. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Simitian referred to the draft findings for approval of a variance to the PC contained in Attachment 2 of the staff
09/16/96 80-113 80-113
report (CMR:393:96) which the Council had discussed previously. He was troubled by the finding necessary for variance which had nothing to do with the proposed project but the requirement of the variance for such a project. In order for the Council to grant the variance, the Council had to find that the applications necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The argument was that the applicant needed a variance because it was a tall building, so an antenna on the top of a tall building would need a variance. He asked whether the variance finding could be supported if the Council took that approach. City Attorney Ariel Calonne believed the finding would at least be
prima facie, but Council Member Simitian=s question was well directed. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff had considered other ways of dealing with legitimate, desirable requests for the new age of telecommunications but not use the variance procedure.
Ms. Lytle said the City=s current codes allowed the additional 15-foot height for that type of equipment in a normal zone district. The variance was only in a PC zone where the height of a building was fixed to the original approved plans. Council Member Simitian clarified that would be in a zone where the height limit was 50 feet. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff anticipated more PCS with similar requests. Ms. Lytle said the City had exhausted its commercial tall buildings in PCS, and previous PCS with that type of request had been granted. There had not been a previous residential project requesting that type of utility on the rooftop. Council Member Simitian asked about the visual impact of 32 whip antennas. Architectural Review Board Member James McFall said there was discussion at the ARB meeting regarding the visual impact of the antennas. There was a condition regarding color in order to minimize the appearance. The ARB believed with the appropriate color and consistent placement of the antennas that the visual impact would be minimal.
09/16/96 80-114 80-114
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to take the following actions: 1. Introduce the Ordinance, including findings and special conditions, to modify an existing Planned Community (PC) District that would expand the permitted uses to allow the installation of a wireless antenna facility on the rooftop of the Palo Alto Condominium building. 2. Approve the proposed variance (96-V-18) based on the findings below. 3. Approve the ARB-recommended findings below. Draft Findings for Approval of a Variance to the PC District Height Limitation -- 101 Alma Street Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility, File #s 96-ZC-8, 96-V-18 and 96-EIA-13 1. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that due to the height of the existing condominium tower on the property, an increase to the maximum height limit
is necessary in order to mount any rooftop equipment that would extend above the existing parapet wall. Specifically, the height of the existing residential
tower (top of parapet wall) is at elevation 140'-6". The
proposed whip antennas will extend above the existing building an additional 15 feet, to an elevation of 155'-6". 2. The granting of 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, in that a variance
for the increased height is necessary because the proposed facility is required by the nature of its operation to be located on top of the building so that it
is higher than other surrounding structures. Because the building is currently non-conforming, any type of roof top equipment that would extend above the existing parapet wall would require a variance. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to subject property or improvements in the
09/16/96 80-115 80-115
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that
the proposed antennas are designed and located so that they are of minimal visual impact. The antennas that will extend above the existing parapet wall will have
minimal visual impact on the residents on the site or
nearby, due to the existing height of the residential tower. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - 101 Alma Street Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility File #s 96-ZC-, 96-V-18 and 96-ARB-61 The project has been reviewed for compliance with Section 16.48.010 and 120 of the PAMC. The project complies with the ARB standards for review is as follows: Section 16.48.010
Χ The proposed project promotes the orderly and harmonious
development of the city (Goal A) in that the master planning of a multi-user rooftop wireless communication facility on this site provides a comprehensive, coordinated review of the overall facility, which results in a facility that has fewer visual impacts on the surrounding community. The multi-user facility has the potential to reduce the number of applications submitted by individual communications service providers for antenna facilities at different locations and at different times.
Χ The proposed project enhances the desirability of residence or investment in the City (Goal B), in that the improved communications capabilities made possible by the proposed facility will be advantageous to local businesses, residents and public agencies. In addition, the applicant has offered to make available to the City of Palo Alto, one antenna and one piece of equipment at no cost (except for utilities). This offering will benefit the public by
improving the City=s communications capabilities, especially during an emergency.
Χ The proposed project encourages the attainment of the most
desirable use of land and improvements (Goal C), in that 09/16/96 80-116 80-116
the project site and the existing multiple-story residential tower is particularly well-suited for the proposed communication facility due to its central location and building height, which allows the placement of antennas on the rooftop without significantly changing the height or roof line of the structure. Due to the height of the residential tower, the visibility of the antennas from the surrounding area is substantially reduced. Sites such as this are limited in the City of Palo Alto.
Χ The proposed project enhances the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas (Goal D), in that the project will provide improved communications capabilities (including improved emergency communications) that will be available to the entire community, while resulting in minimal visual impact.
Χ The proposed project promotes visual environments which are
of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of one another (Goal E), in that the site location, the height of the existing condominium tower, and the proposed method of installation, colors and materials will serve to minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed antenna facility. The placement of antennas around the existing roof top mechanical house structure provides a coordinated location, minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes the height of the antennas. Section 16.48.120
Χ The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Standard #1) in that one of the main objectives of the Urban Design Element is to promote improvements that are of high aesthetic quality and variety, as well as being considerate of one another. Aesthetic impacts are of primary concern when reviewing a proposal for the installation of antennas, such as those proposed. The site location, the height of the existing condominium tower, and the proposed method of installation, colors and materials will serve to minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed antenna facility. The placement of antennas around the existing roof top mechanical house structure provides a coordinated location,
09/16/96 80-117 80-117
minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes height of the antennas. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site as "Multiple-Family Residential". The proposed project will not change or interfere with the primary use or density of the existing residential condominium tower located on the site.
Χ The project design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standards #2 and 3). Specifically, the proposed rooftop wireless communication facility has been designed to minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area by integrating the antennas into the existing rooftop structure which is setback from the building face. Placement of antennas around the mechanical house structure provides a coordinated location, minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes antenna heights to facilitate signal coverage.
Χ The design of the project would be compatible with the existing improvements both on and off site (Standard #6). Specifically, the project site and the existing multi-story residential tower is particularly well-suited for the proposed communication facility due to its central location and building height, which allows the placement of antennas on the rooftop without significantly changing the height or roof line of the structure.
Χ The materials, textures, colors and details of construction are appropriate for the function and design of the project
and would be compatible with the neighboring uses.(Standard #12). Specifically, the proposed colors will help to minimize the visibility of the proposed antennas. All of the antennas and mounting structures are to be painted a color that is compatible with the existing rooftop mechanical house structure. In addition, the panel and dish antennas will not extend above the existing walls of the mechanical house structure. Furthermore, the electrical equipment associated with the project is proposed to be located within the rooftop mechanical house structure.
Χ The project design is energy efficient (Standard #15). FCC regulations requires that communications be optimized to provide effective communications using minimum power for proper coverage of the operating area. This is typically
09/16/96 80-118 80-118
done by selecting an antenna design optimized to meet those needs. Optimal energy use is achieved by allowing the different types of antennas that are proposed for this facility. NOTE: Standards 4,5,7,8,9,10,11,13 and 14 are not applicable to this project based on the following: Standard 4 is not applicable in that the existing condominium tower is not known to have any historical significance. Standard 5 is not applicable in that the proposal consists of installing an antenna faculty on the rooftop of a 140-foot residential tower. The antennas will not significantly alter the scale or character of the existing building on which it is to be located. Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 are not applicable in that the proposal consists of an unmanned rooftop antenna facility. No new buildings or activities are proposed (other than weekly maintenance) that would interfere with the occupants of the building, visitors or the general community. The proposal will not alter the amount or arrangement of existing open space. Access to the site will not be affected by the proposal. Standards 11, 13 and 14 are not applicable in that the site is already developed. Natural features such as mature landscaping will not be affected.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Known as 101 Alma Street from PC (Ord. No. 1802) to PC≅ Council Member Schneider asked about the offer from Diablo to make available to the City one antenna and one piece of equipment at no cost for public benefit and safety. She asked how it would help the City deal with an emergency. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the Communications Division of the Police Department believed it would increase emergency facilities which was the primary benefit of the PC. There was the additional benefit that it would concentrate the antennas in one location which would hopefully reduce the number of independent applications the City would receive.
09/16/96 80-119 80-119
Vice Mayor Huber suggested the Council include in the approval a condition that the City would be protected should there be litigation that arose from the malcontent in the PACOA. For example, if a lawsuit occurred, he wanted the City defended by the applicant. Mr. Calonne explained the applicant would be responsible for the reimbursement of the defense costs. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that a condition be included which would provide that the applicant would
be responsible for reimbursement of any City=s defense costs if any litigation incurred which involved the City. Council Member McCown said the Council had received several letters that commented on the controversy in Half Moon Bay about a proposed 150-foot tower for communication devices. She preferred a variance, if possible, to accommodate that amount of incremental square footage and the use of existing tall buildings for the structures without making them too high rather than being faced with proposals that involved building entirely new unsightly structures. Council Member Andersen asked about policy positions the City might need to take and whether staff needed to explore ways in which the City could handle the area of high technology antennas. He asked whether other jurisdictions had been approached. Mr. Calonne said the question would probably be a preemption issue similar to how the City dealt with ham radio antennas. He would explore the legal authority to restrict those kinds of installations if the Council desired. City Manager June Fleming said staff was exploring the issue and would return to the Council with information in the near future. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Historic Resources Board recommendations for development plans for proposed restoration and reuse of the historic Williams Property as a Museum and public park for property located at 351 Homer Avenue. This proposal includes historic preservation/restoration of the house, garage and gardens and minor modifications for life safety and accessibility requirements, construction of a 1,565 square-foot education building with accessible restrooms. Architectural Review Board Member James McFall said the
09/16/96 80-120 80-120
Architectural Review Board (ARB) was very supportive of the proposal. Historic Resources Board Member Roger Kohler said Historic Resources Board (HRB) was pleased to approve the project and was enthusiastic of the progress made during the previous year. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Joe Ehrlich, Board Member and Co-chair of the Design Committee, Museum of American Heritage, noted that the Museum of American
Heritage=s (MAH) request for a waiver of fees was not in his packet and he asked whether the Council had received the request. Mayor Wheeler explained that she had received the information at home. Mr. Ehrlich said the purpose of the letter from the MAH dated September 10, 1996, was to request a waiver of fees of the cost of plan check and building permit and any other fees that might be appropriate. The request was in accordance with the policy statement approved by the Council on February 28, 1994. MAH understood that the waiver had been previously extended to the
Children=s Theatre and the Senior Coordinating Council. The Williams Property was owned by the City and its historic gardens would not only be a public benefit but would be a public park as well. MAH preferred to use its private contributions for the improvement of the Williams Property and construction of the education center. MAH had already paid the City $5,000 required for the lease option and a $1,500 fee for ARB review. The plan check, permit, and connection fees etc., would cost in excess of $10,000. MAH was the tenant and the City of Palo Alto was the landlord, the MAH believed it was not unreasonable for the landlord to absorb the fees on the project it owned. Furthermore, the MAH considered such a waiver to be in the spirit of the public/private partnership policy that the Council adopted on February 28, 1994. The MAH asked the Council to consider the waiver of fees request in an expeditious manner in order that the restoration of the building could proceed without delay. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. She asked about
the City=s policy regarding the waiver of fees under certain circumstances. City Manager June Fleming said the MAH request was partially consistent with the policy that was approved in April 1996. The portion that was not applicable was that the Council agreed that the policy would not apply to any utility-related fees and the connection fee was a utility fee. The other requests were within
09/16/96 80-121 80-121
the policy guidelines and would initially be referred to staff or reviewed by the public/private committee, and staff would then return to the Council with a recommendation. Council Member Schneider said Mr. Ehrlich referred to the Senior
Coordinating Council=s building and the Children=s Theatre, and she asked whether there was a difference between the Williams Property and the two buildings in the ownership or the ultimate disposition of the properties. Ms. Fleming said the difference was a fine line, and she did not believe the difference was sufficient that the request should not
be considered. The Children=s Theatre request was in connection with fees related to a project. The City procedure was to give the
building to the Friends of the Children=s Theatre so the work could be done and then it was returned to the City for ownership and operation. The Williams Property would not be returned immediately to the City for operation and control, but there were other guidelines that would make it applicable for consideration by the staff review committee. Council Member Kniss said the Council had had previous discussions about the issue of waiving fees. She asked about the revenue if the Council waived the fees. Ms. Fleming said the General Fund revenue would be relinquished. Council Member Kniss clarified money would have to be taken from the reserves or another fund for another program. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. The current budget was not built upon the expectation of a certain amount of revenue being generated from that particular project. The revenues would not meet the projected target given to the Council, but the budget would be kept in balance. Council Member Andersen asked the amount of nonutility fees that would be waived. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Mr. Ehrlich indicated fees of approximately $10,000, including utility connection fees. Council Member Andersen clarified the total projected cost for fees was approximately $10,000, including utility connection fees; and if the other fees were waived, the total amount would be even less. He was sympathetic with waiving the fees. The public/private partnership was primarily a private partnership, and private funds would be used to provide a public facility.
09/16/96 80-122 80-122
MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to approve with the following conditions the proposed development plans for preservation/restoration of the house, garage and gardens; construction of a new education building; and the Historic Garden Preservation Plan dated April 1, 1996. This action will fulfill Condition 4 of the Option to Lease the property to the Museum of American Heritage. Further, that an additional condition be added which refers to the public/private staff review committee, a review of a fee waiver for nonutility fees, in response to the request from the Museum of American Heritage, and that staff return to Council with a recommendation. CONDITIONS OF HRB AND ARB APPROVAL 1. All work in the gardens and grounds shall be carried out according to the Historic Garden Preservation Plan and under the direction of the Garden Preservation Oversight Team. Prior to issuance of demolition permit: Utilities Electric 2. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 3. A plan for protection of the gardens during construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to submittal for building permit: 4. The applicant shall evaluate possible changes to the handicap
ramp at the Doctor=s Office to minimize intrusion into the view through the arched opening in the garden wall, and shall continue to study the design of the tower element and its
openings. The applicant=s preferred alternatives shall be presented for review by the HRB and ARB. 5. Building details, colors, materials and signage and any modifications to the approved plan shall be reviewed by the HRB and the ARB. 6. A plan showing location of bicycle parking spaces shall be approved by the Transportation and Planning Divisions. 7. A final landscape plan showing all proposed changes or new installation of plant
09/16/96 80-123 80-123
materials, irrigation, utilities infrastructure, paving and ground surface treatments, walls and gates, signage and other landscape features shall be approved by the Planning Division. Fire Department 8. Fire sprinklers required per PAMC Section 15.04.170 (dd) shall be provided, or an equivalent level of protection as approved by the Fire Chief. Public Works Engineering 9. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction that will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest [PAMC Section 12.12.010]. 10. A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with
the City of Palo Alto=s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. Utilities Electric 11. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements [PAMC Section 16.48.120(a)(13) and (c); and PAMC Section 16.82.060(c)]. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 12. The applicant shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service Connection Application - Load Sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.).
09/16/96 80-124 80-124
13. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 14. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well or auxiliary water supply. Prior to issuance of building permit: Public Works Engineering
15. The applicant shall obtain a ΑPermit for Construction in a
Public Street≅ from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way [PAMC Section 12.08.010]. 16. An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel. 17. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 18. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 19. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. During construction: Public Works Engineering 20. The Contractor must contact the Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way [PAMC Section 12.08.060]. 21. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
09/16/96 80-125 80-125
22. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best
management practices (BMP=s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP=s
with respect to the developer=s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall
monitor BMP=s with respect to the developer=s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (re Federal Clean Water Act). 23. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utilities Departments [PAMC Section 12.08.060]. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 24. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service(s) to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. 25. The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. 26. Utility service connections will be installed between 30 to 45 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. 27. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on- and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor. Prior to finalization: Public Works Engineering 28. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Vice Mayor Huber asked staff to indicate when the report returned to the Council, the number of times and at what locations the Council had waived fees.
09/16/96 80-126 80-126
Council Member McCown said the Council wrote a very tough policy, and if the project qualified, it should receive the fee waiver. She congratulated everyone who was involved in the approval of the project, and she looked forward to the work beginning. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the
appeal of the Zoning Administrator=s denial of a Home Improvement Exception for an approximately 1-foot vertical encroachment into the accessory building daylight plane; and denial of a request to exceed the allowable floor area by 82 square feet where a maximum of 3,000 square feet is normally allowed in the R-1 Zone District for property located at 1424 Hamilton Avenue. The site is listed as a Category 4 on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Mayor Wheeler asked what was the underlying purpose of a Home Improvement Exception (HIE). Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said a HIE allowed some flexibility in order to accommodate an existing architectural style or historic feature of a house, i.e., a small amount of square footage, small encroachment into a daylight plane, or a setback to accommodate a special nature of an existing house. Mayor Wheeler asked whether part of the rationale of adopting a HIE was the issue of granting an exception in a case where a development on a piece of property would be less unfriendly to the neighbor than if it were done in an allowable space. Ms. Grote said yes. She said that rationale could be found in
Finding No. 3...≅there is no detrimental effect of granting the
HIE.Α Sometimes, the granting of a HIE could have less detrimental effect on a neighboring property that if it were built according to the zoning regulations. Mayor Wheeler clarified staff could not make that finding. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. John Hanna, Attorney, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, presented overhead projections of the existing house and garage. The existing garage did not work because it was not wide enough to accommodate two
09/16/96 80-127 80-127
large automobiles and it was not easy to back a car out of the garage. The initial plan was to demolish the garage and have a single-car garage with tandem parking and a carport which both met the daylight plane. After further consideration, he decided to save the garage but move the wall and keep the roof structure of the garage. The new plan increased the square footage by an additional 82 square feet which was the reason for one of the two exceptions. The second exception had to do with the roof line. It was discovered that if the garage were saved with the existing roof line and the new carport were added with the daylight plane, the roofs would not line up because the new roof would have to be lower. If the new carport were built without the exception, the wall would have to be higher. He had requested an exception so everything would line up. The Planning Commission recommended the exception but not the additional square footage. He had had a
meeting with the neighbors to try and accommodate everybody=s wishes. There was no solution that would please everyone. He preferred a gazebo rather than a carport, but City regulations required a one-hour fire wall. Roger Kohler, Architect, 721 Colorado Avenue, showed a diagram of the difference between the daylight plane that affected the neighbor with and without the HIE. The granting of the HIE allowed
slightly more daylight into the neighbor=s residence because the roof line of the new carport would extend with the existing garage. The Planning Commission was concerned about the effect of the proposal on the neighbors, and he showed a photograph from the
neighbor=s house of the house and existing garage. He said the fence and the trellis were highlights. If a new carport and garage were done per the zoning ordinance, the line seen from the
neighbor=s yard would be higher. He was unclear about the impact of the existing foliage and the yard. He presented a sketch that showed the possibility of constructing the carport similar to an arbor which would allow plants to grow and soften the impact of the roof. From the street, the carport would look more like an arbor and it would meet the requirement of a fire wall. The removal of the existing garage was a hasty decision, and saving the garage was a better decision. The request for the HIE had not been planned and had evolved after reconsideration of that decision. Mayor Wheeler asked how Mr. Hanna responded to the Planning
Commission=s decision to allow one exception and not the other. Mr. Hanna was uncertain whether he would move forward with the original plan which was a new smaller garage and a carport built to the daylight plane or try and save the garage and build a carport with the roofs matching. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how the project would look if Mr. 09/16/96 80-128 80-128
Hanna followed the Planning Commission=s recommendation. Mr. Hanna said the extra square footage could not be added, so the wall would have to be in a different place and there would have to be a long overhang supported by pillars. Mark Harris, 1417 Dana Avenue, said he lived directly behind the property at 1424 Hamilton Avenue. He strongly recommended
upholding the Zoning Administrator=s decision to deny the HIE for the reasons stated in the staff report. He felt the Planning
Commission=s decision was disingenuous, and it was a stretch to allow a daylight plane inclusion for a carport in front of a garage, especially for a historic home. The improvements were not historic. It was important the Council send a strong message to property owners and designers that plan modifications not discussed with neighbors would not approved unless there was overwhelming community benefit. The neighbors had tried to resolve the issue
and the neighbors would accept the Council=s decision. He hoped the Council would revise the ordinance to avoid proliferation of carports and other features that overdevelop properties. Rick Roney, 1420 Hamilton Avenue, said the neighbors strongly
recommended the Council uphold the Zoning Administrator=s ruling. He preferred the existing garage to remain with no carport and for Mr. Hanna to proceed with the original plan, the lower daylight plane. The lower structure would provide more visibility, light, and growth of foliage on his property line. He would accept the
Council=s decision but said his preference was the two roof lines rather than the higher roof line on the carport. Mr. Hanna knew how much square footage the City would allow when he designed the property. There were three massive chimneys that overlooked neighboring properties, and a large balcony that did not count as square footage but impacted his yard and privacy. The house was built to the maximum square footage allowed by the terms and conditions. The additional 82 square feet should have been designed in the beginning. He agreed it was not a good way to manage growth and development in the City.
Council Member Andersen clarified Mr. Roney=s greatest concern was
the carport=s interference rather than the garage. He asked whether expanding the garage to 82 square feet without the carport would be a satisfactory solution. Mr. Roney said he would be satisfied if the existing garage remained the same and there was no carport. Mr. Hanna waived his right to the three minutes for concluding remarks.
09/16/96 80-129 80-129
Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Fazzino disclosed that he visited the site and observed the house and neighboring residences. Council Member Andersen disclosed that he visited the site and had a brief conversation with Mr. Hanna. Council Member McCown indicated she had spoken with both Mr. Hanna and Mr. and Mrs. Roney. She had visited the site of the house and
also viewed the house from Mr. and Mrs. Roney=s yard. Council Member Schneider disclosed she visited the site and spoke with the contractor and also spoke with Mr. Hanna on the telephone. Council Member Kniss disclosed she passed the site daily. Council Member Simitian disclosed he drove pass the site daily and received a call from Mr. Hanna but was unable to return the call. Mayor Wheeler disclosed she accompanied Council Member Schneider to the property and spoke with the contractor and other employees at the site. Vice Mayor Huber disclosed he drove pass the site and had a 20-second conversation with Mr. Hanna. Council Member Rosenbaum disclosed that he had not viewed the property. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation and deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial, in accordance with the following findings: PROPOSED FINDINGS For Denial of 96-HIE-15 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the site is an average-sized, rectangular-shaped lot with a demonstrated ability to be developed in full compliance with the zoning regulations (a remodel project has already been approved and is currently under construction). In particular, the proposed garage alterations which prompted this exception request are unnecessary to fulfill the site's off-street parking
09/16/96 80-130 80-130
requirements; 2. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that it allows for a continuous, uninterrupted roof line between the proposed carport and the existing, original garage structure built at the same time as the historic (category 4) 1930 residence. The proposed garage alterations were reviewed and approved by the City's Historic Resources Board; and, 3. The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed carport diminishes the quality of private outdoor living space and access to sunlight on the adjacent property (1428 Hamilton Avenue). The project is visually disruptive in that it creates a 36'8"-long garage/carport wall, located just 9 inches from the side property line, which is juxtaposed with the neighbor's existing rear deck and landscaped garden. In matching the carport roof pitch with the existing noncomplying garage, the project causes a further reduction in the amount of sunlight which accesses the neighbor's rear yard area. Council Member McCown said the HIE was different than variances and was intended for situations when some modest adjustment in the rules was a positive action for the homeowner and would provide a simpler process for applying for that exception. She understood the condition of the simpler process should always be something that was desirable for the neighborhood. A simpler process was provided so that someone would not have to go through the variance process because everyone agreed that it was the right solution to the problem. When there was a concern about a project as there was from the two neighbors that spoke that evening as well as the other people who spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, she believed the Council had to indicate the HIE was not appropriate. The reasons were illuminated in the Zoning
Administrator=s findings and the facts presented by the neighboring property owners about the effect of the change. She believed it was appropriate to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
Council Member Kniss said she had admired the Hanna=s house
09/16/96 80-131 80-131
for quite some time. The findings indicated the granting would be that it was desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style. Earlier comments indicated there was a problem with the carport and the fact that the house was a Category 4 historic structure on the City of Palo
Alto=s historic inventory. The staff recommendation was persuasive, and she would support the motion. Council Member Andersen supported the motion. He asked if the applicant decided not to include the carport and then requested the additional square footage which would satisfy
the neighbors= concerns, whether that would provide the justification to grant the HIE. If that solution were satisfactory to the applicant and the neighbors, he encouraged the applicant to apply for another exception. City Manager June Fleming said staff would need to consider
Council Member Andersen=s suggestion further before responding. Council Member Simitian supported the motion. He was
uncertain whether Council Member McCown=s comments were intended to infer that the issues would be decided by whether or not the neighbors were in agreement. He did not want to
send a message to staff that the Council=s decision on issues would be based on whether or not all the neighbors on a given project agreed or disagreed. Even when he voted against the staff recommendation, he looked to the professional staff to give his/her best professional judgment. The Council would not be well served if the staff felt some pressure to balance the competing interests of a particular neighborhood on a particular application. He shared the sentiment that the goal was to decide whether there were occasions when a little
Αwiggle≅ room should be provided with the rules so that a better project would be created which was what the HIE was for. The Council received many complaints about additions and overbuilding in size, but the issues that resonated the most complaints with him was additions that looked like an addition. The goal was to provide a renovation, rehabilitation, or addition that looked seamless. The applicant had tried to make the roof line not look like two different projects. Part of the use of the HIE process was to produce projects that did not look like an addition when viewing the site.
09/16/96 80-132 80-132
Council Member Schneider was impressed with the work that had been done on the house. A great deal of interest had been given to architectural elements in the interior of the house. A tremendous amount of time, energy, and money had been spent in making a beautiful house even more beautiful. She supported the motion and agreed with Council Members McCown and Simitian that the HIE process was not intended for that use. She stood on the large balcony at the rear of the house and saw that many of the homes in that area appeared to be overbuilt. Similar projects would come before the Council in the future as people attempted to get more out of their homes due to the high prices paid for them. Mayor Wheeler concurred with the comments of Council Member Schneider. Tremendous effort had been done by the applicant to correct some flaws in the house and to restore the historic look of the house even with the new addition. However, she would support the motion. There were two plans submitted previously which conformed to the zoning on the property and did not require the HIE but still protected the historic structure. It would be unwise of the Council, after the house had been enlarged, to allow the HIE which would adversely impact the neighboring properties and add additional square footage to the property. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 7. Request from the Historic Resources Board to Extend Moratorium on Demolition for property located at 453 Melville Avenue Historic Resources Board Member Carol Murden said in the booklet, Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto,
the statement was made that Αanonymous appearing shingled houses in Professorville help to establish and maintain a coherent environment for their more emphatic and individually stronger
companion.≅ Much of the visual texture of the City was composed of such buildings. The cottage at 453 Melville Avenue built in 1897 for Irene Hardy was a shingled house that provided a coherent environment. If 453 Melville Avenue were demolished, all the small cottages on the block would be gone. In spite of the dormer-type second story which had been added to 453 Melville Avenue, the smallness of the house, its shingled exterior, and the pine tree in front of it all contributed to the historic feeling of the Professorville neighborhood. The house contributed to the
Αsignificant concentration or continuity of buildings unified by
09/16/96 80-133 80-133
past events≅ that was referred to in Palo Alto=s historic
ordinance=s definition of a historic district. Another aspect of 453 Melville Avenue was the contrast it provided to the old large house next door at 433 Melville Avenue. Both of the houses were built for members of the Stanford faculty. For nearly 100 years, both houses had been a historic reminder that not all the Stanford professors lived in large Professorville houses. The variety should be preserved. For those reasons, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) requested a six-month moratorium on the demolition of the house. The applicant-owner of 453 Melville Avenue and the HRB had had several discussions about the property. Given the willingness of the applicant-owner to look into alternatives to demolition, the HRB felt that six months was an adequate period of time. Eric Hahn, Applicant, 465 Melville Avenue, said economics had caused many people to build oversized homes in his neighborhood. He did not deny those individuals the right to do so; however, he purchased the property at 453 Melville Avenue with the expressed intent of preventing overdevelopment on the neighboring lot. He had worked extensively with the HRB and invited the HRB and the public to tour the property. He had hired an architect to study both preserving and restoring the structure. He had even considered combining the adjacent lot with his own lot if he were unable to preserve the structure which would ensure that the property was never overdeveloped. He asked the Council to consider the good faith efforts already made and allow him to continue the process that had been started with the HRB. He was concerned about creating an adversarial relationship with property owners which might easily result in a reduced willingness for other people to do what he was trying to do. He wanted to preserve the quality of life in his neighborhood. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to extend the moratorium on issuance of a Demolition Permit for 453 Melville Avenue for a period of six months from the date of application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until January 16, 1997. This will allow time for the applicant and community to explore alternatives to the proposed demolition. Council Member Fazzino thanked Mr. Hahn for his efforts to preserve the home and to work sensibly and constructively with the City and the HRB to determine whether a solution could be found to preserve the home. Council Member Schneider thanked both the HRB and Mr. Hahn. It was an excellent example of what could be done with a home. Council Member Kniss concurred with the comments of Council Members
09/16/96 80-134 80-134
Fazzino and Schneider. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 7A. (Old Item No. 13) Council Members Fazzino, Andersen, Kniss, and Schneider re Possible Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing an Urgency Moratorium on Demolition of Older Houses Council Member Fazzino said many people in the community were very disturbed by the recent demolition of a wonderful old home in College Terrace. People had been equally upset by the demolition of other wonderful old homes throughout the community during the previous two years. The only good news about those insensitive actions was that it unwittingly led to the proposed motion that evening. During the previous year, the City had observed a major increase in the number of demolitions of historically valuable or attractive houses throughout the community. Staff would provide data which confirmed that very disturbing trend. Palo Alto was special for a number of reasons and in large measure due to the influence of Stanford University, tree-lined streets, and beautiful old homes. Those characteristics made Palo Alto quite different than most California communities. It was very important for the City to accelerate the preparation of a historic preservation ordinance in order to preserve that wonderful heritage, and as custodians of the City, the Council had that responsibility. During an interim period, he recommended that the Council pass an urgency ordinance prohibiting demolition of or major reconstruction of residential structures built prior to 1940. The action needed to be adopted on an urgency basis to protect against additional demolitions that would undercut the process of revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance which the Council had recently agreed to undertake. The City had one of the weakest historic ordinances in the country. However, at the same time, it was very important that the City balance the best interests of the community with individual property rights. It would be unfair to adopt a blanket moratorium on demolition of old homes for more than a few months. The Council needed to adopt interim regulations which established a quick review process for homeowners and allow some homes to be exempted from the moratorium process. He was a strong advocate of historic preservation but recognized that old did not necessarily mean attractive or historically valuable. Homes built before 1940 but extensively remodeled since that time should also be exempted from the moratorium. Cost of rehabilitation should also be a factor in the regulations the Council adopted. Those and other criteria should be incorporated into an interim set of
regulations that would guide the Council=s activities in that area. He looked to the HRB to provide leadership in that area. The HRB deserved credit for bringing a historic preservation ordinance concept before the Council previously. The Council needed to
09/16/96 80-135 80-135
accelerate preparation of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and inventory so the City could finally achieve its objective of preserving truly valuable old homes. Council Member Kniss said as Council liaison to the HRB, she had been watching the issue for some time. The Council was very alarmed about what was happening in the City and was also alarmed that many new homes did not typify Palo Alto houses but houses somewhere else. She understood that when the character began to fray around the edges, it was a quick process to destroy that particular piece of the fabric. However, the Council walked a tightrope on that particular path. The Council had been hesitant regarding the issue because it was a difficult decision to preserve private property rights and at the same time preserve the character of a neighborhood or city. The Council was considering an interim measure that evening. She strongly believed the Council needed to come up with criteria that considered architecture, the builder, the present condition, and what might have happened in the
older home or building. The Council=s action that evening would embark upon a very long look at how to preserve the character in the City. The City was not only feeling the pressure of that particular issue but many other pressures as well due to the success of the City and the fact that it was a destination place for many people who lived in the area. Council Member Andersen said he had previously been tentative about moving quickly in that area, but he was convinced that Council action was needed to stop the abuse on the part of many people who were maximizing profits at the expense of the
neighborhoods. The Council=s proposal would not preclude the demolition of pre-1940 houses, but it would require people who wanted to demolish a home during the interim phase to present the application to the HRB with approval of the request by Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber. It would provide an opportunity for old houses that had no historic significance to perhaps be demolished during the time the moratorium was in place. Council Member Schneider associated with the comments of her colleagues. She asked how many demolitions had taken place since the beginning of 1996. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said 52 demolition permits for single-family structures had been issued from the beginning of 1996 to date. Council Member Schneider asked how many of the permits were for pre-1940 homes. Mr. Schreiber replied 24 of the 52 permits.
09/16/96 80-136 80-136
Council Member Schneider clarified that 24 homes had been demolished. Mr. Schreiber said 20 homes had been demolished, and 4 of the permits that were recently issued related to the Classic
Communities= redevelopment project in Downtown North. He did not believe those homes had been demolished. Council Member Schneider asked whether the demolition permits had increased over previous years. Mr. Schreiber said staff did not have precise numbers by year for demolition permits, but 1996 had seen many more demolition permits than 1994 or 1995. The City had not had that kind of activity since 1988 and 1989. Council Member Schneider asked what months had the greatest increase of demolition permits being requested. Mr. Schreiber said the number of permits issued per month had escalated, and August 1996 had the highest number. Council Member Schneider asked what day the demolition permits were suspended. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he found good authority for the proposition that the Planning Division should not issue the permits
pending the Council=s action. He understood there had been one or two requests, neither of which were ready to be issued. Mr. Schreiber said the only demolition permits that were issued on
Friday were for the Classic Communities= project on Everett Avenue. It was a project the Council reviewed as a Planned Community and had gone through the Subdivision Map Act process. In consultation
with the City Attorney=s Office, staff was comfortable issuing those demolition permits given the extensive public review of the project. Council Member Schneider asked whether the houses that had had demolition permits approved and issued but had not been demolished at the present time were exempted from demolition or whether those houses were also in a holding period. Mr. Calonne said the proposed ordinance would exempt those houses that had demolition permits previously approved but had not been acted upon, so those demolitions could move forward. Depending upon the level of work that had been undertaken, the Council might have the authority to stop those projects if it desired.
09/16/96 80-137 80-137
Council Member Schneider asked whether any of the houses were a Category 4 historic home. Mr. Schreiber said 22 of the 24 pre-1940 structures were not involved with the historic inventory or a historic area. The home at 1021 College Avenue was on the historic inventory, and another home in Professorville was subject to the demolition moratorium that was placed on that particular structure the previous year. Vice Mayor Huber said the proposed ordinance referenced not only demolition but also substantial reconstruction. In the definitional portion of the ordinance there was no definition of substantial reconstruction. He wanted to know what was contemplated by that statement. He noted the memorandum from his
colleagues referred to Αaddition of square footage.≅
Mr. Calonne said the ordinance stated that Αno person shall demolish or cause demolition of a protected residence and no permit
shall be issued.≅ Protected residence was a structure prior to 1940 and demolition meant removal of more than 50 percent of the perimeter walls. Vice Mayor Huber said the reference was in paragraph c under Findings. Mr. Calonne said the language in the finding was a short end reference to 50 percent demolition of the perimeter walls. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the term had been included because there had been previous cases where people had taken the walls away and then brought them back. Vice Mayor Huber asked the time frame of the proposed moratorium ordinance and what it would cost the City to have it done quickly. Mr. Schreiber said information before the Council that evening was
staff=s effort to piece together the logical steps if the moratorium were adopted. The moratorium would be in effect for one month. Staff assumed if the Council adopted the moratorium ordinance, it would follow the advice in the memorandum and direct staff to return quickly with interim regulations that would supersede the moratorium. In order for staff to draft the ordinance, it needed policy direction from the Council regarding different ways of conducting a public review process that could be incorporated into the interim regulations. Staff suggested the Council hold a Special City Council Meeting on September 30, 1996, to discuss alternative ways to handle the issue and provide direction for staff. Staff would then return with an ordinance at
09/16/96 80-138 80-138
the October 15, 1996, City Council Meeting. The ordinance could be adopted as an urgency measure effective immediately or it could be adopted as a regular ordinance and the moratorium would continue until the interim regulations became effective. The interim regulations would be effective for one year with the possibility of an extension. The one year was based on the HRB ordinance revision and the historic inventory update. The HRB ordinance revision was an assignment the Council had given staff, and there were funds in the 1996-97 budget to begin that work. The adoption of a revised historic ordinance would be in July 1997, but the historic inventory was not funded. The ordinance would be adopted and then the historic inventory would be updated. The issues before the Council would have to involve both the ordinance and the inventory in order to carry out the protection the Council wanted regarding single-family structures. The tentative adoption of the inventory in October 1997 would coincide with the one-year life of the interim regulations which was a very fast track. A budget amendment ordinance would be needed to undertake that work. He reiterated that the moratorium would be in effect for approximately 30 days and staff would return on October 15, 1996, with interim regulations. Staff would need policy direction on September 30, 1996, and the interim regulations would be in effect for one year with the possibility of an extension given the length of time it would take for the inventory. The Planning Division Work Program that the Council reviewed as part of the budget process indicated a cost of $95,000 for the inventory update which did not assume a fast track or simultaneous preparation of everything else. Staff anticipated the work would cost more given the need to compress the work and hire additional staff to analyze the properties and collect the data. Staff recommended that direction if the Council desired to adopt the proposed urgency ordinance that evening. Vice Mayor Huber clarified that the $47,000 that the Council had already appropriated would be efficient to prepare the ordinance revision with the time frame of six to eight months. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the $95,000 figure for the inventory update had been discussed during the budget process. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Vice Mayor Huber clarified if the Council wanted to move faster, it would cost more than $95,000. Mr. Schreiber said yes, but staff had not spoken with any consultants who did that type of work.
09/16/96 80-139 80-139
Vice Mayor Huber clarified the ordinance revision could be accomplished as indicated. He asked whether the inventory could be accomplished as well. Mr. Schreiber said the inventory work program would be put together to meet a target date. Vice Mayor Huber asked when staff would provide the Council with a definitive in terms of the cost or the number of additional staff needed to complete the inventory. Mr. Schreiber said staff anticipated if the item returned to the Council on October 15, 1996, that would be one of the items that would be brought back at that time. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the period of 1987-1989 when the City had had many applications for demolition permits. Housing prices had increased at that time and the issue then was the size of houses. He asked about the legislative history at that time and whether there was a moratorium and how long the process took before the present ordinance became effective. Ms. Lytle said a similar process before the Council that evening was followed in the R-1 regulation process. The Council started with an urgency measure and one or two months later interim regulations were adopted for single-family residences that essentially limited the second floor of an addition to 1,000 square feet. While the interim regulations were in place, staff designed the existing R-1 regulations. She believed the interim regulations were in place for almost two years. Council Member Simitian asked how the 30-day moratorium contrasted with the date of April 1, 1997, in the ordinance. He suspected the comments that evening would be very different if it were 30 days or 6 months. Mr. Calonne said April 1, 1997, was a placeholder, and 30 days was a better refined time. To give the City some flexibility, the moratorium could be effective until January 1997 with an expectation that it would be replaced in October with the interim regulations. Council Member Simitian said the City had a development boom that was straining the Planning Division, a Comprehensive Plan process that was straining everyone, and a HRB ordinance revision which he believed would be complex, delicate, etc., and would require some extended debate and discussion in order to balance some of the competing interests. He asked whether staff believed it could be done in eight months.
09/16/96 80-140 80-140
Mr. Schreiber added Sand Hill Road corridor to the list of items that were being done in his office. The schedule was optimistic, and he anticipated hiring a qualified person who was familiar with that type of work. He said a critical piece of meeting that date
was the Council=s earlier comments at its Joint Study Session with
the HRB that the issue presented some very Αthorny≅ policy issues and a policy frame work would need to be brought back to the Council before the actual ordinance writing was undertaken. There was an obligation on the part of staff and the HRB to expeditiously move the item through the process. Mr. Calonne explained that the issues were not new, but the level of problem was new and urgent. The September 30, 1996, date for policy direction was a huge umbrella, and the Council could control the length of the result of the policy direction stage. Council Member Simitian asked if staff viewed the need for a moratorium prior to interim regulations that would take approximately 30 days, whether there was any reason from a legal or staff perspective that the time frame could not be 60 days to give some flexibility. Mr. Calonne said the 60-day time frame would be acceptable. Mr. Schreiber said that time frame assumed the new regulations would be adopted as an urgency measure. If it were adopted as a conventional ordinance with a second reading and 30 days to the effective date, everything could not be done in a 60-day period. Council Member Simitian said earlier Council Member Fazzino described the process that might be available to people during the interim regulation period. He understood staff believed that process could work. He asked how long the process would take under the interim regulations being considered. Mr. Schreiber said staff assumed there would be some type of discretionary review process with either actions being brought directly to the Council or on an appeal to the Council. There were various options in terms of the extent to which the Council, the HRB, staff, and other advisory bodies were involved in the process. Council Member Simitian asked about the time frame involved. Ms. Lytle said most discretionary review processes took approximately three months. Council Member Simitian asked whether there was any significance to the selection of the pre-1940 date.
09/16/96 80-141 80-141
Council Member Fazzino understood the HRB recommended 1939 and 1940, and he agreed that 1940 was a good year because most of the historic homes of concern to the Council were built before 1930. There was not a lot of construction in the 1930s because of the depression or in the early 1940s because of the war. He said the focus should be on pre-1932/1933 homes which were potentially historic. Council Member Kniss said staff had provided an excellent depiction of the homes constructed after the war which were so prominent in the City from 1945 and later. Mr. Schreiber said staff had been able to utilize the Santa Clara
County Assessor=s Office data which included a date built by each property. The data showed the houses built prior to 1940 and from 1940 on.
Mayor Wheeler asked the approximate percentage of the City=s single-family housing stock that that period represented. Mr. Schreiber replied approximately 25 percent or less. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to bring Item Nos. 8, 9, and 12 forward for the purpose of a continuance. 8. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Telecommunications Program and Increase the Loan from the Electric Fund 9. Amendment to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PETROTEK for Fuel Site Improvements and Fuel Storage Tank Upgrade 12. Development and Implementation of a Minor Operational improvement Project, including securing right-of-way from all affected property owners, on Los Trancos Road MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue Item Nos. 8, 9, and 12 to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 7A Christina Louise, no address stated, was a realtor in Palo Alto and favored historical homes. Most of the homes which had been torn
09/16/96 80-142 80-142
down had been termite-infested, eyesores which owners no longer occupied. She questioned who would restore or purchase the home or what would become of the homes if they were left standing. Homes listed on the historical inventory as Class 4 dictated how beneficial the property was. A certain amount of supply and demand was being met with the new construction, and people did not want to purchase homes such as the home on College Avenue which had been unoccupied and unlivable. People were unwilling to put money into a number of such properties. The areas in which new homes were being built should take into consideration the style of surrounding homes. In some cases, the style of housing had been inappropriate; however, in other respects the supply and demand was being met and additional revenue and employment was brought into the City. Historical homes in Classes 1, 2, and 3 were still standing and doing well. Class 4 homes in many cases were questionable, not occupied, and had more extensive and costly renovation requirements than if demolished. John Low, 1021 College Avenue, had been the individual responsible for demolition of the house at 1021 College Avenue. He challenged the statements which had been made in the Palo Alto Daily News (a copy on file in the City Clerk's Office). A statement was also provided by Ferma Corporation, a company with 30 years experience in demolition, evaluating 1021 College Avenue. The statements made on September 14, 1996, in the Palo Alto Daily News were largely a fabrication and Council Member Fazzino was quoted as saying, "Out of town developers do not know much about Palo Alto and are to blame. They do not know the difference between Palo Alto and Tracy." Council Member Fazzino was out of touch with reality. Mr. Low's family was not from Tracy and had lived in Palo Alto for nearly 20 years. William Hurt was a developer who was born in College Terrace with family descendants going back almost 100 years. James Witt was a developer who was born in Palo Alto and had resided in the City for more than 40 years with a family heritage of almost 100 years. James Segura was a developer and resident of Palo Alto for over 40 years. Pete Vilkin was a resident of Palo Alto for 25 years. Council Member Fazzino's information disseminated in the article was defamatory, grossly misleading, and was extremely unethical. The paper provided by Ferma Corporation regarding the home at 1021 College Avenue, last paragraph, stated, "...in particular, the house at 1021 College Avenue, from outward appearance, seems worth saving. Upon closer examination, I found an extreme amount of dry rot. The house was virtually on the verge of collapse. All support timbers in the basement were termite-infested. All electrical and plumbing, particularly plumbing, was all exterior. And this house was a code hazard in due for demolition." He felt Council Member Fazzino's statements personally attacked his integrity. He asked why the article failed to disclose to the public that 1021 College Avenue had been a serious problem for the Palo Alto Code Enforcement
09/16/96 80-143 80-143
Division. Either the disclosure of the information had been avoided because of being out of step, out of time, or out of touch, or Council Member Fazzino had intentionally misled the public for self-serving reasons. Council Member Fazzino's ability to disseminate accurate information was considered abysmal and his comments were resented. Peter Vilkin, 673 Maybelle Avenue, real estate developer, agreed with many of the people who previously spoke. The homes which came up for demolition were generally available to developers at a reasonable price because of their terrible shape. A home would rarely be purchased at a low enough price to make a profit if it were a home a family could use. Houses which were demolished were generally either too small or in ruinous condition. The house on College Avenue had been for sale for a period of years but had not been sold because people were unwilling to put sufficient funding into the home to fix it up. People within a neighborhood could acquire the homes if they considered the home essential to the character of the neighborhood or the City could acquire the homes and fix them up. It was wrong to force people to continue to live in an old home with asbestos, unsafe wiring, and other unsafe conditions. Developers were required to build houses that met strong earthquake codes. Some of the older homes might collapse in an earthquake resulting in a reconsideration of the value of older homes. Michael L. Tubbs, 3370 Louis Road, was concerned about the demolition that had taken place on September 13, 1996, for people who had scrimped and saved to build a home for their family in Palo Alto. As a carpenter since 1976 and participant in construction of hundreds of styles and types of homes in communities all around the Bay Area, he assumed he would be able to build his own home. Such was not the case in Palo Alto if the moratorium were enacted. He had been involved in the demolition of existing homes and had seen the disrepair and substantial cost to bring the bulk of demolished homes up to code as well as up to a standard home buyers expected. The home buyers and future tax payers of Palo Alto required more than overgrowth with foliage and decomposing homes. The homes tended to be in need of cost-prohibitive retrofit for seismic concerns as well as flooding in some areas of Palo Alto. He might purchase one of the homes under the condition that he could live in a manner or environment deemed fit by that community, even after they were gone. William Hurt, Louis Road, had been a Palo Alto resident for a long time. The house he had grown up in was a "crappy little shack" which, even if it had been the first house on the block did not make it historical and did not automatically give the house redeeming value. The Historical Review Board's (HRB) ipso facto
09/16/96 80-144 80-144
definition of historic was "if it was old, it was considered
historic, even if it was ugly.≅ He had torn down his mother=s house and built a house which was worth something. There were many "charming, crappy" houses which should be torn down. He had built one of the "monster" houses which pushed the envelope and sold it to a gentleman who paid over $1,000 per month in property taxes. The $1,000 per month went to streets, schools, services, etc., and also made Palo Alto what it was. He queried what had been torn down to build the ugly Civic Center building. The HRB and Architectural Review Board (ARB) had a particular point of view and considered "crappy" houses cute. The comments in letters written by the public about walking by College Avenue and thinking romantic
thoughts was the kind of Αnutty≅ thinking which ran the City. James Witt, 722 Chimalus Drive, spoke as the owner of a home which had been built in 1918 on Cowper Street and a 42-year resident of Palo Alto. The house was presently probably worth less than it had been the previous week, and he asked for compensation from the Council. He was a general contractor and had built his first house in 1971 and had continued to build houses since that time. He had seen most of the houses which had been demolished, and none of the houses had not been worth saving. New houses were better than old houses. The ever increasing, complex, and onerous rules with regard to seismic, structural, and the threshold of what was considered "new" was a tremendous disincentive to remodel. Not much in the way of improvement was needed for a house before the cost of replacing it with a new house was exceeded. The cost of remodeling was higher per foot than building a new home. Factoring in the 50-percent threshold to bring a house up to current standards, seismic, etc., showed remodeling meant a lot more extra trouble. Many homeowners came up against the same threshold, i.e., obtaining plans to remodel houses and going out for bids which returned astronomically high. In a redesign of the plans, a number of demolitions had resulted. A significant number of the 40 to 50 demolitions had involved homeowners either in the initial stages or in the planning stages, which meant the moratorium was not just affecting developers. If a big earthquake occurred in 20 years and houses older than 1940 had not had any improvements, the value would decrease, marketability would decrease, and people would be hurt in the houses. Many things should be considered besides the character issues. Character did not pay bills, protect individuals in an earthquake, make a place safe, strong, or clean. Most of the demolished houses were not safe for people to live in. John Hanlin, Attorney, 100 Bush Street, San Francisco, representing several of the property owners present at the meeting that evening. A letter was submitted to Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office) outlining concerns with the proposed ordinance. The first concern was that there was no emergency. Council Members had
09/16/96 80-145 80-145
indicated the concern had been in existence for over one year and he questioned the urgency of such a rash act to pass an ordinance which, when examined in detail, failed to provide any recourse in terms of getting an exception to demolition of a home. Everyone who had spoken had set forth what was at stake and the effects of the passage of such an ordinance. Many people who were about to close escrow were in a dilemma and did not know whether the interim ordinance would last until April 1997, whether the home could be demolished, or whether building in the interim would be possible. He asked whether the people should subject themselves to a liquidated damage clause or purchase a home in which City Council might not enact other initiatives until April 1997. Comments had been made that by October 15, 1996, something else would be in place; however, there was no such assurance to the members of the public and there had been a history in the past in which ordinances had not been passed in a timely fashion. People who would be directly affected financially were obviously concerned. The point was that the ordinance was not merely an anti-demolition ordinance, but an ordinance which provided for no additions to existing homes prior to 1940. The memorandum by Council Members Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss and Schneider dated September 12, 1996, stated, "We recommend that the Council pass an urgency ordinance prohibiting demolition of, or reconstruction involving addition of square footage to..." If the ordinance passed, no one would be able to add an extra bedroom for children or add an office, bay window, etc. The ordinance was more than an anti-demolition statute but was an anti-reconstruction, anti-remodeling statute which affected everyone with plans for remodeling which would affect the values of homes and the ability to expand. He said there was no urgency and asked that the matter be given timely and due consideration based on a public hearing. Council had taken an exception under the Charter for an emergency measure when no emergency existed. There was, within the statute, no exception for a procedure for a house to be demolished in the interim period, although Council Members had made reference to such language. The ordinance meant a total halt to demolition and reconstruction. To say the ordinance provided for a discretionary review, when no language was contained within the ordinance, was misleading to the public. The comments from members of the public with regard to dry rot, termite infestation, dilapidation, and public health and safety of the community did not warrant anti-demolition but supported demolition instead. Council was asked to consider the matter in a public hearing, wherein evidence could be presented. RECESS: 10:33 P.M. - 10:45 P.M. Kevin Stillwell, 550 Chimalus Drive, said the dates proposed by the Planning Commission seemed completely unrealistic. He had been involved in the demolition of the Victorian at College Avenue, as
09/16/96 80-146 80-146
well as other projects in other cities in California. After inspecting the property, he knew saving the house would involve many hundreds of thousands of dollars. He read a letter from Jim Segorac which had been collected along with dozens of other letters and many signatures of residents of Palo Alto who adamantly opposed to the moratorium. Mr. Segorac was quoted, "I recently purchased a house that was built prior to 1940. My intentions were to tear it down and build a new home. Had I known that I would not be allowed to do this, I never would have purchased the property. It was all right to have rules, but it was not fair to change them in the middle of the game without fair warning to the players. Had the people who suddenly changed the rules been playing the game, they might see it from my view point. The gravity of the situation goes much deeper than an economic loss by all parties involved. There is also an emotional loss which deals with trust, loyalty, justice and fairness." Mr. Segorac had also asked him to address another issue on his behalf regarding the fact that many of the projects demolished involved absentee landlords, and many of the properties were in a very dilapidated condition, an eyesore, and a safety hazard. The Building Division would probably confirm many of the properties had significant building problems. The moratorium was far too broad. Once the moratorium was enacted without certain deadlines, the floodgate would be open to not being able to go back to the current conditions. Issues should be worked out in terms of the preservation of historic properties in Palo Alto, but it should be handled sensibly and with a public forum at which the issue could be debated. Max Monas, 3110 Stelling Drive, spoke against the moratorium. An example of the kind of disturbance the moratorium could cause was found in a Victorian on the corner of Columbia and College which had historic status and had been vacant for up to six years. The house had been condemned since January 1, 1996, and 90 days had been given to bring the house up to code or to be demolished. The house was a liability because the condemnation was not being enforced. The house was a fire hazard, unfenced, and the City could be held liable should an accident occur. The number of houses affected by the moratorium would result in a number of houses sitting indefinitely in a hazardous condition. Basic issues of imminent domain existed. Government should not dictate home ownership policy, remodeling, and landowner options to build homes. The issue was one of property rights. The rights of many young couples who owned older than 1940 small to medium houses would be impacted by the moratorium. The term "individual freedom" had been applied to the homeless. The moratorium was an issue of individual freedom of homeowners to develop properties. The issue was constitutional and it took capital and value without compensation. A balance between regulation and individual freedom was necessary.
09/16/96 80-147 80-147
Dan Somers, 3110 Stelling Drive, strongly opposed the moratorium on demolition of older houses. No emergency existed. Only an average of 50 to 75 demolitions occurred per year, which was only 750 in a decade out of approximately 25,000 single-family homes in Palo Alto. A large majority of the houses being demolished had no foundation, were termite ridden, unsafe, and nearly uninhabitable. The new homes being built greatly improved living conditions in many areas of the City. The public demand was incredibly high for the modern homes. Contrary to the recent newspaper article, many neighbors had actually thanked the developer for removing the house on College Avenue, indicating it was crime-ridden, incredibly unsafe, and had previously housed too many people. He showed a picture of a home in Palo Alto in a state of severe disrepair, the homeowner of which was one of the leading advocates of the moratorium. Many people would not be allowed to live in a house which did not have safer, newer, and improved present-day building codes if the moratorium were passed. If a house were uninhabitable or unsafe, no one had the right to tell people they could not live in improved conditions. The opposition was challenged to pay for all the dilapidated properties and bring the houses up to code which would give new perspective about how impossible it was. Jack Witt, 875 Ilima Court, worked for some of the developers who had spoken. He was the first one on the job prior to tearing down a house. Most landlords were absentee landlords and not in touch with reality. A house on Encina Grande had been demolished in which the toilet had fallen down through the floor. The homeowner had rented the house, and a neighbor from across the street had indicated the renters had been peddling drugs. Because of his close proximity to the property, he had been concerned about such activity for his family. The house had been torn down and a doctor purchased the property which had been landscaped. Drug users were not wanted. Council was trying to pass something mandatory which was frightening. The issue should be reexamined. Council should be realistic and personally inspect the houses which were being torn down. Richard Mirabella, 355 Kellogg, had been a Palo Alto resident since 1975 and had owned one of the houses which had been torn down on Kellogg Avenue that was built in 1906 and purchased in 1986. At the time of his purchase, the house had been habitable. The house had been purchased because of the area and the desire to accumulate capital until a nicer house could be purchased. He would not be affected by the moratorium; but if the moratorium had occurred the year previously, it would have been financially ruinous to him. He appreciated the aesthetics of the area; however, a person might have a house which had been purchased for $500,000 but the valuation of the property was closely tied to the potential for building. With a very small house on the property, even if the house were valued at $350 per square foot for a rather old, poorly
09/16/96 80-148 80-148
built house, a person would see a financial hit of $150,000. If someone had recently purchased the house for $400,000, it would obliterated $100,000 or the entire equity the person had in the house and put the person in the $50,000 range at a time when there was a booming real estate market. All of which was an unconscionable act which the moratorium would cause. People would not even have the option of selling the property without taking an unconscionable financial loss. It was reasonable for the City to protect the heritage of the community and historic houses, but the only way to do so would be for the City to evaluate a house for historic merit, and if it had historic merit, the homeowner would be told that it would be designated a certain way. If the homeowner agreed to the designation, an irrevocable covenant could be made on the house by which modifications could not be made. If, on the other hand, the homeowner considered the designation unacceptable, the City should tell the person to either remove the restriction or purchase the house at market value without the restriction in terms of a fair market assessment. The City could rebuild the house and sell to another party with the covenants, since having the City incur a financial burden of $150,000 in a community of 50,000 people was reasonable. However, to impose on an individual family was a completely unreasonable thing to do and was a form of theft. Judith Garcia Bragg, 1036 Harker Avenue, said in 1945, her parents moved from Tennyson Street and purchased the home at 1036 Harker Avenue. Her parents had lived on Harker until 1991, a total of 46 years. She and her brother owned the home but wanted to sell it. The house was 82 years old, and currently needed $100,000 of upgrading and repairs. Insurance companies would not insure the house and very few people could afford to retrofit it. The City had a list of approximately 400 historically significant houses, but her house was not on it. Some citizens wanted to protect any house built before 1940. She queried where these people had been when the Harker School, a beautiful old building, had been torn down and Eichlers built on Harker Avenue. It did not seem fair to be penalized because some people had a misguided sense of history or a clue as to the needs of other citizens. The decision appeared to involve a rush process, with no regard for homes which did not fall within the ordinance. The people interested in purchasing her house were unsure as to whether to remodel or rebuild. It was grossly unfair to assume all old houses should be examined for historical value when such a list already existed. Time would be much better spent improving Downtown and not eradicating the charm which use to be Downtown Palo Alto by tearing down buildings with long histories and rehabilitating buildings to look like plastic-fronted lawns. Focus should be placed on important things within the resource parameters. Telling people what, when, and how to manage property was not part of the City's job, which could be
09/16/96 80-149 80-149
accomplished through building codes or planning commissions. To proceed along the path chosen with no plan, focus, or guidelines seemed irresponsible and rash. It appeared to be a reaction to a relatively new-to-the-community reactionary group of people. She shared the concern about over development in Palo Alto, but more planning and thought should go into the solution before any final decisions were made or moratoriums enacted. The moratorium should apply only to homes already designated as historical. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, lived in a house built in 1904 on Yale Street. Council and staff were thanked for listening to pleas made the week previously and for understanding the urgency of the matter. She was grateful for the speed with which the moratorium had been drafted and placed on the agenda. A great deal of backing existed for the moratorium in College Terrace. In the two weeks since the Ducker house had been bulldozed, she and her neighbors had spoken with many College Terrace residents, nearly every one of whom had expressed distress at the continuing destruction. Over 60 houses and 90 people had been asked to be part of the effort to prevent further demolitions. There was no consensus on the revised ordinance, but she was sure most of the concerned residents agreed demolitions should be halted immediately, while there were still buildings to be saved. Her house would probably be considered a "knock-down" according to much of the criteria just heard, but additional square footage was deemed unnecessary and the house was livable. If her house had been demolished rather than restored, no one would have found the original light fixture with two glass-stopper gin bottles buried beneath the back porch. There would have been no anchor for the story of John Burkett's fellow stone mason's hand carving a fire place mantle while honeymooning in Britain after his wedding. The stories were not big, but the world would be a much poorer place without such stories which would be lost if the fabric of the neighborhoods were demolished. Not all demolition should be stopped permanently, only postponed for a short period until Palo Alto could get a handle on what its future should be. Much had been said about money, but there were non-monetary values in College Terrace and elsewhere in Palo Alto. The historic area of Palo Alto was not the majority, but only a small segment. Developing the revised ordinance should proceed. She asked Council to support the moratorium which many residents considered vital and the urgency well-merited. Chung-Wey Wu, formerly at 243 Tennyson Avenue, said he had to move in March because his house had been unlivable. The house was leaking and his daughter had had to use a neighbor's rest room because the plumbing was stopped up so frequently. A picture was shown of the house. Even if he wanted to move back into the house, he would be unable because of the asbestos. The house was to have been torn down and rebuilt on October 1, 1996, but because of
09/16/96 80-150 80-150
Council's decision, a financial disaster had resulted. The mortgage still had to be paid for the house as well as the cost of renting an apartment for his family. He had already signed a construction mortgage, and the house would be charming. Before he had moved to California, he had studied architecture in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As a student of architecture, he appreciated old-style architecture, but his family was being put in a financial disaster. He did not understand the situation. He was not a developer or broker. He just wanted to raise his family and give his eight-year old daughter a good life. Jim Culpepper, 2121 Amherst Street, said although he was a friend of William Hurt and thought the house recently built on Amherst was attractive, he supported the ordinance. He had lived in College Terrace for 32 years. He had sent an E-mail letter to Council the prior Friday containing a little anecdote Birge Clark had written at the age of 77 in his memoirs about an itinerant dentist (on file in the City Clerk's Office.) The point of the story was that the demolitions seen in neighborhoods were the equivalent of 19th century dentistry still at work. If a tooth were defective in some way, it was removed and replaced with a new tooth. Palo Altans lived in the shade of trees they did not plant. If someone from another city came in and began bulldozing Palo Alto's street trees, the entire community would be horrified. He asked whether the community cared less about its housing than its trees. The City knew it had a severe shortage of moderate income housing. The look and feel which had attracted people to Palo Alto in the first place was being lost. The destruction should be halted with sufficient time for the City to "think" and make progress. Richard L. Ford, 2349 Cornell Street, said he had been raised in College Terrace. Council was urged to steer away from any building moratoriums or additional restrictions to building development due to the age of a structure. Renovation of old homes was a labor of love which took a considerable amount of time, money, and effort. Even after remodeling, much more energy was necessary to maintain old houses because of the continuous care required. No one who wanted to attempt such an endeavor should be told they could not do so. Neither should anyone who wanted a new home on their property be told they had to refurbish an old house instead. The current City standards were adequate protection against overbuilding and any further restrictions tended to invade a property owner's rights. A very small group of vocal people were being allowed to push the panic button for the City, and the Council should reconsider its stand. Myrna Kelly, 833 Hamilton Avenue, had sent a letter to Council regarding demolition of the homes at 821 and 827 Hamilton Avenue, both two-bedroom cottages to be replaced by four-bedroom homes on
09/16/96 80-151 80-151
50-foot by 120-foot lots. The two cottages had not appeared to need a great deal of repair. The house at 821 Hamilton had been demolished the preceding Saturday. Both homes had been built in 1942, which had not met the 1940 requirement, but she asked consideration for 827 Hamilton. The guidelines provided by the Building Division for single-family residents asked people to consider existing setbacks, garage locations, and how the new design might affect the neighbors. New developments did not appear to take such things into consideration, including the proposed houses on Hamilton Avenue. The City should find a way to enforce the guidelines. A site inspection should be conducted by the Planning Division before plans were approved for new single-family homes. A better idea of how a neighborhood would be affected by a plan could be obtained while actually on the site. Something might look fine on a plan but might not work on the site. Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, said two houses had been torn down on Santa Rita and replaced by far superior homes. The obvious attitude of Council was for a moratorium. An ordinance had been drafted. Five or six years previously, Council had done the same thing and established floor area ratios (FAR). The moratorium had been destructive to many people who lost a great deal of money, and homes had been devalued during a real estate boom. There were unintended consequences of the Council's actions. The issue was one of people's property rights when rules were suddenly changed. There was no emergency. The number of tear downs of the last decade was minuscule, yet a comment had been made that the character of Palo Alto had been changed. The character of Palo Alto continued to improve and evolve. If things were not allowed to change, a slum would result. People feared government because the government would ram through a sudden change because of a pressure group. Council Member Fazzino had suddenly become interested in the issue because a house across the street had been torn down. An emergency change should not be made which would caused a number of people financial destruction. A sudden action on a moratorium had previously cost him over $150,000. He had tried at that time to put the issue to the vote of the public. He asked Council not to do the same thing again. Time should be given to considering the issue and a decent ordinance should be written that protected people's property rights. Gladys Staun, 2222 Oberlin Street, said her husband had lived at 2250 Princeton Street for many years which was next to 1021 College which had been a rental with five to seven apartment sections until the time of demolition. In the 1950s, the house had been condemned for code violations and had probably never been brought up to code. In the past 25 years, electric and plumbing had been done without permits. The attic had been given illegal wiring to create a living area in the 1970s. Hot plates had been used to heat food
09/16/96 80-152 80-152
and electrical wiring was visible everywhere which created a dangerous area not only for the attic but a fire hazard for the entire house. There was no fire escape. She said some of the tenants and the manager at 1021 College were very unhappy the landlord refused to do any structural repair work either inside or out. Absentee landlords had no interest in the property, other than for income and disregarded the safety for people. The 1021 College house had been vacant for approximately one and one-half years prior to demolition. During the last year, the house had become a sleeping area for transients. Many neighbors repeatedly called the police because of safety and fire concerns. The absentee realtor/landlord would not cooperate with the police and had no interest in securing the premises. The house had been for sale for approximately three years with no buyers. Several people had expressed interest until they realized the house and property would be sold "as is" for between $600,000 and $700,000 at a cost of $300,000 to $400,000 to bring it up to code and with structural integrity. At least another $300,000 would be necessary to restore the house historically, not to mention the lack of a garage or landscaping. Because the house was old, neighbors had had some twinges when they knew the house was to be demolished. However, the neighbors had also considered it fortunate that no tragedy such as loss of life had occurred. Putting a moratorium on houses older than 1940 was unrealistic. Many old homes were not structurally well designed. College Terrace had some well-maintained older homes. However, there were many homes that were considered cottages that would collapse if the termites were taken away. The new houses built on the Terrace, apart from a few exceptions, provided a nice variety of well-built homes where style and color blended. Houses in Palo Alto should have a historical review and inspection conducted prior to granting a demolition permit. Howard Churcher, 1205 Fulton Street, had been in business in Palo Alto since 1965 and had a good feeling for what had gone on for the past 30 years. He enjoyed the old homes in Palo Alto but was concerned about the moratorium which had been brought about speedily without time to assess the impact and for an indeterminate length of time. Simpler ways could be found by which to address the situation without necessarily impacting the plans of homeowners who already had construction plans to rebuild or remodel extensively. A simple tweaking of existing rules could protect some of the existing historic homes and would make it more difficult for demolitions and would not affect neighborhoods. The plan which had been enforced in 1995 could be reenacted whereby a house could not be demolished until a building permit was issued. Currently, as soon as plans were submitted to the City for approval, a demolition permit could be given and commence quickly. Houses which were designated for historic interest could be subject to the same restrictions which applied to applications for
09/16/96 80-153 80-153
variance. The neighborhood could be informed the house was slated for demolition and a hearing date would be set for anyone objecting. He had remodeled a house at the corner of Byron and Hawthorne in 1995 at a cost of $195,000, and his investment had not been recouped. He had had difficulty meeting the requirements of the Building Division. Another property on Parkins had been demolished and a new home built which had been sold within five days and he had had absolutely no problem with the Building Division. It was easier to rebuild than to remodel under the existing rules. He currently lived in a very small house which had cost him $90,000 to remodel. Margo Dean, 540 Seale Avenue, expressed concern over the possible demolition freeze for any house built prior to 1940. She had made an offer on one such property. While the house on the property had a certain charm on the outside, it was riddled with termites and dry rot and did not meet her household living requirements nor would it meet the requirements of most people. The plan was to live in the house while developing plans for a new home on the site. The house would be demolished and rebuilt, which would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. However, if the proposed freeze passed, her family would be left in a precarious place. The offer would be withdrawn and her house would be taken off the market. Otherwise, the purchase of a home unsuited to her family's needs would occur without the ability to rebuild or resell easily. Many other buyers and sellers probably felt the same apprehension. She agreed with Council's intentions to preserve the charm and heritage of Palo Alto. She understood the City currently had a list of historic houses which were being preserved, but she asked whether it was fair to tell owners of pre-1940s homes that their properties could not be sold to someone who wanted to tear it down and rebuild. To do so was to deny equal opportunity to all to take advantage of economic growth. She asked whether the City would compensate homeowners for the devaluation of such property. She hoped the City could find a way to implement historic preservation and preserve the quality of neighborhoods while treating homeowners who wanted to purchase real estate fairly. Andrea Sutherland, 1143 Webster Street, said her house was built in 1894 but was not on the City's historical register although it was in University Park. The boundaries of the historic districts should not look like a Swiss cheese map. The neighborhood recently lost a Julia Morgan house. The duration of the interim should be extended until something could be worked out which would not make everyone unhappy. Council should extend the floor of the building ordinance to rise as the years incurred, although many people found bungalows charming or Victorians romantic, eventually ranch homes would be appealing. She had put in a new foundation and plumbing in her home. The moratorium should be extended to include houses
09/16/96 80-154 80-154
newer than 1940. She suggested the City contact Pacific Grove Charmer about the retro-historical list because something similar had been done there. Wally Parce, 754 Los Robles Avenue, had moved into his home in 1987 which, at the time, had been considered a "fixer-upper." Two structures were on the property, and the original 500-square-foot structure had been built in 1938, so it fell under the moratorium. The additional 1,000 square feet did not match the original cottage. He had spoken with architects about improving the house but found it was not feasible. Plans had been approved by the City for a new structure on the 95-foot x 137-foot lot. The new structure would be like many of the older Palo Alto homes and would fit very nicely on the lot. The house was currently vacant. Palo Alto had cut off the utilities to the house, which was at a point making it very difficult to move back in. A tractor was sitting in the front yard and everything had been put on hold. The mortgage was being paid on both the house, rentals, and construction loans. The situation was financially disastrous. He appreciated old architecture, having lived in a house in North Carolina which had been on the National Historic Register. Designating anything pre-1940, even if not charming, should not be done. Every week was important. Greg Van der Veen, 2133 Yale Street, thanked Council and staff for its prompt attention to the issue. As a construction supervisor and general contractor, his experience with adaptive reuse with many of the old houses had been to make them into very charming places to live with plenty of modern amenities. The issue was not a growth issue, but a how to grow issue. A system should not unduly encumber the construction process but protect the neighborhood fabric which made College Terrace and Palo Alto such special places to live. He hoped a speedy process would be extended to the drafting, implementation, and review process. People in situations such as the prior speaker could be alleviated if the iron-clad moratorium were moved out quickly. Brian Carilli, 2150 Columbia, said houses did not add value to property in Palo Alto but the neighborhoods, the people, the schools, and the neighbors. The character and people of the neighborhoods in Palo Alto brought it value. The developers talked about the money they would lose and the money they could make, but the families made the value. The structure should not be impeded. The homes in financial binds should have a mechanism by which to be assisted. The land was what was valuable or the houses would not be torn down. Pat Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, representing the University South Neighborhood Group, said the issue was of significant concern
09/16/96 80-155 80-155
within the neighborhood. The issue had been framed that evening in terms of what would be lost, but he wanted to speak about the concern of many of the residents in the neighborhood. The problem seemed to be accelerating. In addition, the greater concern had to do with what the community would be living with in the future as opposed to what had been lost. In some circumstances, the loss was quite great and in others it had been noted that there were structures that did not have great historical nor architectural value but what was being put up in their place was detrimental to the fabric of the neighborhood. That additional concern was not being met by a moratorium. Some of the structures were out of character and needed to be addressed. The demolition moratorium should allow variances for homes which did not have historic or aesthetic value or for circumstances when the house was truly beyond repair. However, the variances should be limited to linking them to a design review requirement. Currently, single residence construction was the only type of construction in Palo Alto that did not have a design review requirement. It was not an unreasonable concept, and there was probably no community in the area in which design review was more important or appropriate than in old Palo Alto. There had been several comments that evening regarding the interest of property owners; however, the current circumstance favored the interest of developers over the interests of the vast majority of residents who would be living in those communities for many decades. The neighborhood group believed an ordinance should be crafted to address the legitimate concerns of the owner-builders who might be in predicaments from a rigid moratorium; however, the current practice needed to be adjusted so that the buildings were in the character of the community. It was important to note that the character of the community had greatly contributed to the value of those homes. While an individual home or remodel might have some loss in value, overall the housing values of the community were enhanced by preserving the design of the community. John Weeks, 125 Tennyson Avenue, said there were many homes on Tennyson Avenue being torn down and the waste would go into the landfill. He wanted the Council to consider in the future a place that recycled old parts of buildings. It was an American idea that new meant better, and it was better to restore a house and preserve the history. Jan Aarts, Palo Alto District Governmental Relations Committee Chairman of the Peninsula West Valley Board of Realtors, 245 Lytton Avenue, said the Committee had tried to build a relationship with the Council and give the Council input on matters that affected real estate. Realtors supported the preservation of architecturally historic homes which was a very important part of the character of Palo Alto. The homes would definitely add value
09/16/96 80-156 80-156
to surrounding homes. The realtors had supported the annual Palo Alto historical home tour. The Committee was not certain that the urgency ordinance was the way to accomplish the goal of preserving those homes. The Committee was concerned about the potential for an overzealous and punitive regulatory process for Palo Alto homeowners. Private property rights needed to be protected, and the value of a property was determined by its highest and best use. The ordinance would affect market value. The Committee was concerned about the people who had recently purchased properties, and the Council should consider either compensation or exemption for those people from the urgency ordinance. The Committee hoped the process would be expedited and the ordinance amended with a clearly defined process to obtain permits and possible exemptions. The Committee hoped the staff and the Council would work closely with the real estate community and other community groups in drafting an interim and future historic preservation ordinance. The Council must ultimately distinguish between what was old and what was architecturally historic. Gladys E. Woodham, 601 Melville Avenue, said all the homes on her block were historic houses but only one was listed on the historic inventory. Mr. Aarts sold a beautiful Julia Morgan historic home on her block to a developer who quickly tore it down. She had tried desperately to save the house. Trees were destroyed every time a builder tore down a house and built a new one. She had spoken to a representative of the State Office of Historic Preservation who said the office would assist the City in any way
to mitigate the developers= losses and provide assistance in
revising Palo Alto=s historic code to protect its cherished past. She asked the City to contact that office for assistance. Sam Webster, 335 Lowell Avenue, said most of the comments that evening involved houses that were not historic. The issue had to be resolved quickly because it was very unfair to the people who would be impacted by the ordinance. There were probably no more than 100 truly historical properties left in the City. The Council needed to set up a procedure immediately to help the people who had a house in contract so his/her problem could be taken care of without waiting for a bureaucratic progress. The action would impact the rights of ownership, and the City should be prepared to compensate the people who would be affected by the moratorium. Benjamin Heywood, 960 Forest Avenue, said he and his brother had spent five months designing a remodel for their 1927 home and had received a variance approval. They worked very hard with the Planning Division to preserve the character of the home. The proposal as written appeared to ask them to put their lives on hold indefinitely. He asked that the exemption language include plans that had received Planning Division approval but not approval from
09/16/96 80-157 80-157
the Building Division. Judith Kemper, 326 Addison Street, believed Palo Altans enjoyed a quality of life that was unsurpassed in the Bay Area. A major
contributing factor to Palo Alto=s popularity was the historical
and unique character of the City=s neighborhoods. If the cottage next to her home were demolished and replaced with a new modern structure, the value of her property would be seriously diminished. There were many other lots in the City to build newer and bigger homes. Some of the arguments raised that evening against the moratorium were specious. Not all the structures that would be doomed to demolition were termite ridden, asbestos filled, and rickety structures that were ready to fall down. Absentee landlords who allowed the houses to deteriorate to a level that made them unlivable so that the lot was worth more than the lot and the house together should be dealt with. She supported the moratorium as a temporary measure to prevent the destruction of such architectural gems as the Julia Morgan house that was recently demolished. She hoped that a permanent historical preservation ordinance would be enacted in a very timely manner and that some consideration be given to individual homeowners who would be adversely affected by the moratorium. Rob Koch, 359 Stanford Avenue, said he would be directly affected by the moratorium since he had recently purchased a house. His growing family lived in a two-bedroom, one-bath house and needed space, and the moratorium would create an undue hardship. He was in the process of working with an architect and the foundation on the house was crumbling. The problem with homes that were built before the 1940s was that there was no rebar in the foundation. He had paid $500,000 for the house and for the City to impose a ban was unfair and he considered it to be discriminatory. He urged rejection of the moratorium. Eric Hahn, 465 Melville Avenue, said he would be directly affected by the moratorium. He was recently suggested as an ambassador of good faith for how the process could work. His objection was not with the intent but with the process which was highly flawed. The Council was taking value out of the equity of many homeowners and was removing choice in the way the process was being done. Due to the mercurial nature of the topic, he could not demolish or restore his home to its 1897 status because under the current proposed regulations it would be a major remodel nor could he rent his home due to its current condition. He encouraged the Council to give the people who were affected by the moratorium the opportunity to react intelligently before it went into effect. Specifically, people who currently owned homes or who were in a good faith process of buying a home should not have money retroactively removed by the ordinance and people who were in any stage of the
09/16/96 80-158 80-158
permit application process should not be adversely affected. If the Council failed to do those things, the Council was not putting older homes in value before newer ones but was putting homes of various random vintages before the families that lived in the homes which would kill the thing that drew many of the families to the neighborhood. It was a bad process with a good intent. If the Council failed to consider his two recommendations, he respectively declined the offer to be the ambassador of good faith. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, was astounded to hear Mr. Aarts indicate that he appreciated historic houses because he sold a house to a developer who was building an Italian villa in a neighborhood where there were old cottages. The houses were too big and inappropriate for the environment. A design review was needed, and the most beautiful cities had the strictest rules about what could be built. Karen Hollin, 725 Homer Avenue, said she had refurbished two turn-of-the-century homes in Palo Alto. The qualities of the homes could not be replaced by new construction because of the availability of materials and the affordability of the level of workmanship. The value of properties in Palo Alto was not based on the size or newness of the house on lot but rather by the neighborhoods, communities, schools, and an active Downtown. There were many things that determined property values. The issues of drugs and graffiti should not be confused with the issue of preservation and should be dealt with separately. Some of the houses that were historic in Palo Alto were on the historic inventory, and the inventory needed to be revised which the Council planned to address. If all the two-bedroom homes were torn down in Palo Alto to make room for new four- or five-bedroom homes, the City could not foster a diverse community. Aside from the issue of preservation, citizens of any community had to rethink what the community was about. It was easier to tear down a house and build a new house, but the throw-away society that it had become that had landfills bulging and forest being depleted. People had the right to a 6,000-square foot house but did not have the right to disrupt the history and character of a neighborhood. She asked whether the Council was willing to sell Palo Alto to the highest bidder a house at a time. Alan Mela, 567 Kingsley Avenue, said he had renovated his home and preserved all the beautiful features of the home. He had been given some of the materials from the Julia Morgan house recently demolished which would be used in his home. The Italian Villa that was being built at that location was unlike any other architecture nearby and would not improve his property values. Al Larson, 930 Paradise Way, said he had renovated his 1950s home
09/16/96 80-159 80-159
which was extremely well built. Most of the homes being demolished were functionally obsolete and were too expensive to restore. Since the recent earthquake, the seismic retrofit required on an older home had risen expedientially which was the reason houses were being torn down. He hoped there would be some sensitivity to the people who were already in the process or in plan check who had spent the time, effort, and money to reach that stage. Previous moratoriums had had an exemption to those people who were already in plan check. Some of the new homes were a design review problem rather than being a new house. People objected to design aspects of a house, and the guidelines were voluntary. It was difficult to legislate taste and balance private property rights. John Schaefer, 2280 Hanover, favored the principle of the moratorium and evidently some exceptions should be made. He supported community over greed. Greed had driven some speakers who had spoken that evening. He had rebuilt two old houses and it was a lot of work and more expensive than building a new house. He had found it easier to maintain old houses than to rebuild them after 50 years of neglect. He objected to the character of the new houses being built. There were few old houses in the City that needed to be demolished. Exceptions to the rule would be
appropriate. He supported the Council=s effort to maintain Palo
Alto=s community over slum lords greed. Council Member Fazzino wanted to address the legitimate concerns that had been raised about projects in the process. The Los Robles situation might require an exemption. One proposal he suggested beyond the moratorium was to exempt any residence that had had over 50 percent renovation since 1940, but that issue needed to be addressed as the ordinance developed. He asked whether other projects in the pipeline could be exempted from the moratorium. Mr. Calonne said the best way to frame the discussion would be to categorize the groupings of projects. The draft ordinance would not apply to any activity for which a building or demolition permit had been issued, e.g., if a permit had already been issued, the project was exempt. The other two stages that would be relevant earlier than permit issuance would be when the application was filed, deemed complete, and a permit issued. Any of those examples could be used as logical exemption points. The other issue that arose was when there had been some other discretionary planning approval, although the recipient of that approval might not have sought building or demolition permits which would be another category the Council could consider. The two broad groupings would be the time component of a building or demolition permit application and whether some other planning approval had been given.
09/16/96 80-160 80-160
Council Member Fazzino wanted to know how many properties would be captured under the other categories if the Council decided to include them. Mr. Schreiber said with a Building Division application process for plan check, he was uncertain whether there was a significant difference between the initial filing and deemed complete. The City might request additional information, but the Building Division process was complete when the application was accepted. Staff had identified 11 applications in the process, of which 5 applications involved removal of pre-1940 residential structures. There might be others due to the difficult tracking system at the present time. Council Member Fazzino asked whether any of the homes were part of the historic inventory. Mr. Schreiber was uncertain. Mr. Calonne said the relationship between the interim regulations and the existing historic ordinance would need to be dealt with as well. Mr. Schreiber said the second category was applications that had received some prior discretionary planning approval, and a specific application was on the property owner on Forest Avenue who had received approval for a variance but had not filed the plan check review with the Building Division. Ms. Lytle said along with the property at 960 Forest Avenue, there were two other homes that involved demolition that had received variances to build a new home, but the age and historic category was known. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Council could design exemptions which incorporated the current historic inventory. Mr. Calonne replied yes, but the interim regulations would need to clarify whether it broadened, narrowed, or impacted the existing regulations. He believed that was beyond the scope of the
Council=s actions that evening. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) required the ordinances be in writing. If the Council decided to move forward that evening, he would need the Council to call a recess so that he could edit the urgency ordinance and return with a revision that evening. Generally, there was an opportunity for corrections at the second reading of an ordinance. Council Member Simitian asked whether the additional language would address the issue of exceptions.
09/16/96 80-161 80-161
Mr. Calonne said yes for applications filed, completed, or issued. Council Member Simitian said if the Council wanted to move in that direction, he wanted to move as quickly as possible given the concerns that had been raised. Staff had indicated it would be doable in 30 days. If the City had already accepted properties for which a demolition or building permit had been issued in the language of the ordinance, then there were about six possibilities for exceptions or exemptions. However, it was uncertain how many properties were involved, the kinds of the properties, and whether or not the properties had historic value. The way to avoid a revision that evening and have more thoughtful exceptions or exemptions would be to indicate that the exceptions or exemptions would apply to an interim ordinance that the Council would be prepared to adopt in 30 days. The moratorium would exist for 30 days for all properties except those properties that had already been given building or demolition permits. In 30 days, the Council could reach the decision about the range of exemptions or exceptions it wanted to put in place in connection with the interim ordinance. Mr. Calonne said that direction was the original intent, but it was not responsive to some of the comments that evening. Council Member Simitian asked what would happen to structures that did not have building or demolition permits in the next 30 days that would not happen anyway in the next 30 days.
Mr. Schreiber said for example, Mr. Wu=s project would have to receive a building and demolition permit that day if it were legally possible. Mr. Wu indicated to staff earlier that day that it would be a significant disruption financially and personally to be in an uncertain situation and not able to begin construction. The Council had heard from several people who had that same situation that evening, and a 30-day delay would be a disruption for them. Council Member Simitian clarified several people were in a situation where a building or demolition permit had not been issued. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Those people were in the process and would have received the permits within the next two weeks. Council Member Simitian asked whether some exemptions or exceptions to the moratorium could be identified that evening and whether the list could be expanded if the Council believed it was appropriate
09/16/96 80-162 80-162
when the interim ordinance returned in 30 days. Mr. Schreiber suggested identification by category rather than by address. He believed the categories that would be workable would be projects that had a building permit or plan check application already filed or projects that had already been granted a discretionary planning approval such as a variance. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff was comfortable with that being an exception or exemption to the moratorium that evening. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Simitian asked the number of structures and their historic significance. Mr. Schreiber said the historic significance was unknown. There were at least five pre-1940s structures in the plan check process and three variances had been granted which might be for post-1940 structures. Mr. Calonne said staff could bring back exemptions at the September 30, 1996, if there were urgent hardship situations rather than the entire list of interim regulations if Council desired. Council Member Rosenbaum asked what would happen if the Council did not adopt the urgency ordinance until September 30, 1996. Mr. Calonne said there would be no immediate physical consequence, but the City would probably have an influx of permit applications which could led to legal problems when and if the Council enacted an urgency ordinance or interim regulations. Council Member Rosenbaum would be willing to continue the item until September 30, 1996, if staff were uncomfortable with proceeding that evening. Mr. Calonne preferred to return to the Council in two weeks with broader exceptions other than what was indicated in proposed Section 4. The ordinance would have an exception for building and demolition permits that were issued before September 17, 1996, which would leave some projects caught in the process for two weeks. One detail in the ordinance that needed attention was the sunset date in Section 6 if Council desired. Council Member McCown asked whether the broader exception wording could be brought before the Council at its September 24, 1996, City Council meeting rather than the City Council meeting on September
09/16/96 80-163 80-163
30, 1996. Mr. Calonne was not concerned about the time frame for drafting the language, but the factual investigation to determine whether the exemptions were meritorious would be difficult in that time frame. Vice Mayor Huber wanted the language to return to the Council at the next City Council meeting. Council Member Schneider said houses with purchase contracts in effect prior to the moratorium should be considered. A person who had bought a house under the assumption that he/she could proceed with remodeling might argue that the contracts had been made in good faith. Mr. Calonne said it would be difficult to authenticate the contracts. Council Member Andersen asked whether historic structures would be specified during the 30-day interim period. Mr. Schreiber said staff would be able to identify houses that were on the existing historic inventory. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Urgency Ordinance and direct the City Attorney to return to the Council as soon as possible with an interim ordinance that would modify the moratorium in certain respects with a revision to the sunset date to be December 31, 1996.
Ordinance 4369 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Imposing a Moratorium on Certain Development and Demolition of Older Houses, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof,
to Take Effect Immediately≅ Council Member Fazzino believed it was fair for people who were currently in the pipeline to be exempted. He felt strongly about the issue of extensive renovation of homes built since 1940 and hoped that issue would be captured in the interim regulations. Mr. Calonne understood the Council wanted exemptions for pipeline projects at the September 24, 1996, City Council meeting, and options would be presented at that time. Council Member Andersen was comfortable with the exemptions returning to the Council at the September 30, 1996, meeting. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff direction was necessary regarding the extensive renovation issue.
09/16/96 80-164 80-164
Mr. Calonne said Council direction was necessary if the issues should return on September 24, 1996. Council Member Fazzino preferred the issue returning at the September 24, 1996, if possible. AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to amend the motion to require that the question of exceptions as referred to in Section 4 of the Urgency Ordinance with respect to current applications within the City processes be identified and returned at the Tuesday, September 24, 1996, City Council Meeting. Council Member Simitian asked whether the Council would know the numbers and the nature of all the properties that would fit into all the exceptions or exemptions on September 24, 1996. He asked whether there was anything that would prevent people who were in the pipeline from moving through the system during the following two weeks so that if he/she were included on an exemption or exception in two weeks, he/she would be ready to move forward. Mr. Schreiber said staff would continue to process plan check applications and any other relevant applications. Staff would be able to compile the information on what projects were in the pipeline at the September 24, 1996, City Council meeting. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE AMENDMENT that the motion to require that the question of exceptions as referred to in Section 4 of the Urgency Ordinance with respect to applications within the City processes be identified and returned at the Tuesday, September 24, 1996, City Council Meeting. Council Member Kniss said the Council was dealing with an urgency measure, and staff had moved forward with extraordinary expediency and had produced documents that would allow the Council to move forward quickly and have some answers in place by the forthcoming meeting. Council Member Simitian suggested an expiration date on the moratorium of November 15, 1996. The Council wanted it completed by October 15, 1996, but the City Attorney indicated earlier that November 15, 1996, would provide additional time if necessary. He was concerned that the extra time might be used, and he believed the people who either supported or opposed the moratorium would still prefer to have the interim regulations sooner rather than later. People might be trying to complete transactions before December 31, 1996, and a realistic date should be in place. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the
09/16/96 80-165 80-165
sunset date would be set at November 15, 1996. Council Member McCown supported the motion. However, determining the right balance for the interim regulations would be a difficult
job; and the Council=s action that evening should not indicate what
the Council=s future decision might be regarding the right balance. It would be difficult job to give staff policy direction by the end of September 1996 and to have an ordinance prepared for the Council. The public participation on that issue would be healthy and important, and striking the right balance for the interim regulations would be a challenge. Vice Mayor Huber supported the motion and he echoed the comments of Council Member McCown. It was an extremely difficult process. The Council was concerned about the history of the City but was up
against the phrase Αmy home is my castle,≅ which was difficult to deal with. He believed it could be structured, and he wanted it to move forward quickly. The uncertainty of the issue would be a major problem for people.
Mayor Wheeler supported the motion. An earlier comment, Αthe value of Palo Alto had been greatly enhanced over its history by
the character of its residential neighborhoods,≅ spoke to the issue very well. She had recently driven around the neighborhoods and saw empty lots surrounded by cyclone fences where once there was a house and other lots that were being prepared for demolition or extreme renovation. There was evidence of a tremendous change taking place throughout the City. She believed the character of Palo Alto was at risk and that a serious and prolonged dialogue among the members of the community was needed to determine what kind of community Palo Alto would be in the future. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to amend
Section 6 to delete the word Αregular.≅ MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 10. Acquisition of Site at 2700 Ash Street for Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to: 1. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance to appropriate $411,000 in CDBG funds and $300,000 in Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds to the Page Mill Court housing development project. 2. Approve the loan agreement (with its attached form of promissory
09/16/96 80-166 80-166
note and deed of trust) between the City of Palo Alto and Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition providing funds for site acquisition and other development costs. 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in substantially similar form, and direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the agreement and to execute any other documents required to close the transaction for the acquisition of the 2700 Ash Street property.
Ordinance 4370 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Site Acquisition and Development of Housing for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities≅ Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Mid-Peninsula
Housing Coalition Concerning the City=s Funding of the Construction and Development of a Rental Apartment Building to be Used as Rental Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Janet Stone, 2225 Ramona Street, representing the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, suggested that Exhibit B, Section 2, be revised to reflect that the 3 percent simple interest would be deferred for the life of the loan. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that Exhibit B, Section 2, be revised to reflect that the 3 percent simple interest is deferred for the life of the loan. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Mayor Wheeler re Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting of September 23, 1996, to be Rescheduled to a Special City Council Meeting on September 24, 1996 MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of September 23, 1996, to be Rescheduled to a Special City Council Meeting on September 24, 1996. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler reminded the Council of the special meetings
09/16/96 80-167 80-167
scheduled for Wednesday, September 18, 1996, and the ΑThank You
Breakfast≅ for local businesses on Friday, September 20, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 1:10 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
09/16/96 80-168 80-168