HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-24 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting September 24, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-180 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................80-180 2. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................80-180 3. Conference with the City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation............................................80-180 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-182 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 1996......................80-182 1. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S5050791 between the City of Palo Alto and Wackenhut Corporation for Security Services at the Municipal Service Center..........................80-183 2. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Janet Cox for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Public Outreach..............................................80-183 3. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and TechWise Consulting, Inc. for Utilities Customer Information System Application Development Services......................80-183 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and G. Swanson Construction, Inc. for Transformer and Switchgear Foundations for Alma Substation Expansion.........................80-183
5. Annual Status Report on Developers= Fees and Adoption of Findings regarding Unexpended Fees....................80-183 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................80-183 12. Update on Midtown Revitalization Plan Implementation and Request for Council Direction on City Participation in Costs......................................................80-183
09/24/96 80-178
6. Council Members Andersen, Fazzino, and Kniss re Proposed Direction to Staff to Develop a Comprehensive Approach to Downtown Needs........................................80-184
7. Ordinance 4371 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 the Telecommunications Program and Increase the Loan from the
Electric Fund≅ ........................................80-184
8. Ordinance 4372 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 the Fuel Storage Tank Upgrade Capital Improvement Project, 19205"......80-185 9. Development and Implementation of a Minor Operational Improvement Project, including securing right-of-way from all affected property owners, on Los Trancos Road.........80-185 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of Expenditure of AB 3229 Funds (Supplemental Funding for Citizens Option for Public Safety)......................................................80-188
11. Ordinance 4373 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4369, to Establish Exceptions to a Moratorium on Certain Development and Demolition of Older Houses, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof,
to Take Effect Immediately≅ ...........................80-188 13. Mayor Wheeler re Scheduling of a Special City Council Meeting on Monday, September 30, 1996.........................80-204 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........80-204 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.............80-204
09/24/96 80-179
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Human Resources Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke to Item No. 3 and the zoning regulations in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designee pursuant to Compensation for Unrepresented Employees (June Fleming, Jay Rounds) Unrepresented Employee Groups: Management, Confidential and Hourly Employees Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 2. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva, Janet Freeland, Judy Jewell) Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 3. Conference with the City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Written threat of litigation against the City of Palo Alto by John Hanlin with respect to with respect to unnamed parties (John Low, et al. vs. City of Palo Alto) Authority: Government Code sections 54956.9(a),(b)(1) & (b)(3)(C) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2, and potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 3.
09/24/96 80-180
Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2, and 3. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
09/24/96 80-181
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Yo Wong, 3766 Redwood Circle, spoke regarding threats from persons who were parked near her house. Linda Frost, 3065 Louis Road, spoke regarding Matadero Creek. Steve Pierce, 205 Cowper Street, spoke regarding the need for design review for single-family detached homes. Ryan McGinn and Courtney Carter, 259 Coleridge Avenue, introduced the new Youth Council members. Terra Morawitz, 4050 Amaranta Avenue, spoke regarding Matadero Creek. Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, 655 Oak Grove Avenue No. 6D, Menlo Park, spoke regarding a process to allow bicycles in the Palo Alto City libraries. T. J. Watt, formerly 426 High Street No. 312, spoke regarding selling under-used parking lots for $4 - $10 million to support fuel and economic growth. Lesley Ginsberg, 930 Clara Drive, spoke regarding Matadero Creek. Paul J. Kahn, 425 Grant Avenue, spoke regarding representing the Palo Alto Civic League. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of August 5, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 5. 1. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S5050791 between the City of Palo Alto and Wackenhut Corporation for Security Services at the Municipal Service Center
09/24/96 80-182
2. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Janet Cox for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Public Outreach; change orders not to exceed $22,000. 3. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and TechWise Consulting, Inc. for Utilities Customer Information System Application Development Services; change orders not to exceed $12,384. 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and G. Swanson Construction, Inc. for Transformer and Switchgear Foundations for Alma Substation Expansion; change orders not to exceed $14,800.
5. Annual Status Report on Developers= Fees and Adoption of Findings regarding Unexpended Fees MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to bring Item No. 12 forward for the purpose of a continuance. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. 12. Update on Midtown Revitalization Plan Implementation and Request for Council Direction on City Participation in Costs MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the item to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 5A. Conference with the City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation The item was discussed at the Special Meeting which was held at 6:10 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Council Members Andersen, Fazzino, and Kniss re Proposed Direction to Staff to Develop a Comprehensive Approach to Downtown Needs (continued from 8/5/96)
09/24/96 80-183
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent.
7. Ordinance 4371 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 the Telecommunications Program and Increase the Loan from the
Electric Fund≅ (continued from 9/16/96) Council Member Schneider said the Council had received two letters indicating interest in leasing dark fiber from the City of Palo Alto, and she asked what that was worth to Palo Alto on an annual basis. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said the rates or the contracts had not yet been developed and as part of the next phase, staff
would be working with the City Attorney=s Office to do that. Council Member Schneider asked whether cities that would be leasing dark fiber could be looked at for comparison at that time. Mr. Mrizek said yes, staff was already in the process. Council Member Schneider clarified that the additional staff position would it be part of a normal recruitment process and there were qualified people in that technological area that would not require additional training. Mr. Mrizek replied that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to: 1) Approve the addition of one new full-time equivalent staff position in the Electric Utility in Fiscal Year 1996-97 that will assume
general responsibility for the Electric Utility=s commercial telecommunications activities and 2) Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance requesting the transfer of $112,000 from the Electric Rate Stabilization Reserve for the salary, benefits, furniture, computer equipment, and training for the new staff position in Commercial Telecommunications and the reallocation of $30,000 within the Electric Fund to the Telecommunications Program for administrative costs. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent.
8. Ordinance 4372 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 the Fuel Storage Tank Upgrade Capital Improvement Project, 19205" (continued from 9/16/96)
09/24/96 80-184
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $75,000 to fund additional work required for Fuel Site Improvements and Fuel Storage Tank Upgrades, and authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with PETROTEK, increasing the total value of change orders by $75,000 from $9,929 and shall not exceed $84,929. Amendment to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PETROTEK for Fuel Site Improvements and Fuel Storage Tank Upgrade MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. 9. Development and Implementation of a Minor Operational Improvement Project, including securing right-of-way from all affected property owners, on Los Trancos Road (continued from
9/16/96) Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said a letter had been received from the Town of Portola Valley which raised the issue of Blue Oaks located in Portola Valley. When Blue Oaks was approved, there was a condition put on the subdivision indicating that Portola Valley would pay up to 15 percent of any road improvements to that section of Los Trancos Road in Palo Alto up to a maximum of $105,000 which staff felt was a relevant piece of information if the Council decided to move forward with the project. Staff estimated a cost of between $125,000 and $175,000 and 15 percent would be in the range of $20,000 to $25,000 which in theory would
be Portola Valley=s contribution. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said he had not seen the letter from the Town of Portola Valley but had spoken to the Planning Coordinator there and was told that the condition of approval on Blue Oaks was that Portola Valley was required to pay $120,000 to
bring the road up to Portola Valley=s standards. Additionally, he was informed that the $120,000 could be less, depending upon the prorated share for the Los Trancos subdivision on the Arrillaga property. The Town Attorney for Portola Valley argued that Palo
Alto=s responsibility for the road was dependent upon Palo Alto maintaining it. If Palo Alto went ahead and expended the funds described in the staff report, it would make a stronger case for
Portola Valley to claim that it was Palo Alto=s responsibility to maintain the road, regardless of the fact that it was currently privately owned. He believed the road improvements were part of a larger project which was the subject of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Arrillaga project, and Palo Alto should only maintain the minimal improvements done to date and fold in the particular proposal as part of the review of the eight-lot subdivision targeted to go to Council within the next two or three
09/24/96 80-185
months. The staff report mentioned the budget amounts that were authorized in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) including $140,000 for design. He understood that in November 1993, the Council appropriated $42,000 of the $140,000 for the current phase of the conceptual study, and he wanted to know how much of that had been expended. There was a justification issue for making the improvements, namely providing fire access to Foothills Park. He presented a map of the area on the overhead projector which showed the proposed subdivision and a lotting pattern that would eliminate the current connection between Los Trancos Road and the fire service road in Foothills Park. He also provided the Council with
correspondence (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) that indicated Arrillaga owned the former Quarry parcel and had attempted to get sole ownership and use of the other fire access in the valley and
of the City=s reversion parcel which connected Los Trancos Road to Foothills Park which were the only two fire access roads from Los Trancos Road. He thought it was the wrong time to look only at the Los Trancos Road improvements. He felt the discussions between Palo Alto and Portola Valley, but he felt those should be public. Richard T. Merk, Vice Mayor, Town of Portola Valley, 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, said he had not seen the letter but it appeared to correlate with his understanding of the situation. He pointed out that Los Trancos Road was a public right-of-way over private land and that Palo Alto had in the past maintained that road which was why the Town of Portola Valley felt there was a responsibility to continue that maintenance. On behalf of the Mayor of the Town of Portola Valley, he wanted to make two points: 1) as per the aforementioned letter, the Blue Oaks subdivision was required to contribute to maintenance done on the road, and 2) that there might be some misunderstanding about the community of Los Trancos Woods which was in San Mateo County, not in the Town of Portola Valley. Otherwise, the Town of Portola Valley was in concurrence with the proposal as it was set forward. Council Member McCown said staff had laid out the complexity of the situation very well and previously the Council had expected to pursue a more extensive CIP project but for reasons stated it did not make sense to move forward. She believed the alternative was a very responsible way to go. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to: 1. Pursue the development and implementation of a minor operational improvement project (described as Reasonable Maintenance Project) including the following: a. secure the necessary construction and right-of-way from all affected property owners,
09/24/96 80-186
b. separate funding for the Los Trancos Road minor operational improvement project from the Street Resurfacing project and create a stand-alone project, c. proceed with the design and construction of the project, and d. provide regular ongoing maintenance of the roadway, after the project is implemented; 2. Ascertain the willingness of property owners to provide the additional permanent right-of-way that would be necessary for the major improvement project and report back to Council; 3. Consider imposition of conditions during private property development review and approval, to include an irrevocable offer of dedication of permanent right-of-way necessary for the major improvement project (City would not accept, but would retain the option for possible future consideration); and 4. Continue to provide minimal maintenance for emergency equipment access until such time that the minor operational improvement project is implemented. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of Expenditure of AB 3229 Funds (Supplemental Funding for Citizens Option for Public Safety) Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak. She declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to conceptually approve the use of funds allocated to the City and Police Department as the result of AB 3229 distribution for the Positive Alternatives for Youth Program, the City Crime Alert Program, and the G.R.E.A.T. Program. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. ORDINANCES
11. Ordinance 4373 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4369, to Establish Exceptions to a Moratorium on Certain Development and Demolition of Older Houses, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof,
to Take Effect Immediately≅
09/24/96 80-187
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said as per Council direction, staff was returning with an Urgency Ordinance amending the original Ordinance which proposed five exemptions from the moratorium. Four exemptions allowed for projects received by the City for approval prior to the September 17, 1996, moratorium effective date. The fifth exemption was for buildings determined to be dangerous under the Uniform Building Code. He was asked that the sunset date of the Ordinance be extended to November 30, 1996, so on October 15, 1996, when the Council acted on interim regulations to replace the moratorium, the Council would have the option of acting by regular ordinance rather than strictly by urgency.
Mayor Wheeler said Item No. 11 was staff=s response to the
Council=s request for possible exceptions to the moratorium adopted
by the Council at the prior week=s meeting regarding demolishing houses built prior to 1940. Staff had recommended that exceptions be granted for seven projects that had submitted a completed building plan check application prior to September 17, 1996, two projects that received a discretionary planning approval before September 17, 1996, and one project that had received several discretionary approvals but needed Council action on a pending subdivision map. There was a fourth exception category that addressed future situations where buildings were declared unsafe under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. It was important to note what Item No. 11 was not about the interim regulations that the Council anticipated would replace the moratorium. The Council discussion of policy options for the interim regulations would take place at the Council meeting on September 30, 1996. The item that evening was not about future historic preservation policies and regulations. It was also not about the visual and neighborhood character impacts of new houses. All of those issues were
important and would be considered in the future, but that evening=s agenda item was for possible exceptions to the demolition moratorium. The Council had to adhere to the noticed agenda item.
The public=s comments as well as the Council=s should focus on the
agenda item which would facilitate the Council=s decision-making process. Council Member Fazzino said staff had evaluated the issue of homes that were currently in escrow, and he would appreciate some comments about why that recommendation was not made to the Council. He asked whether staff had any information regarding the number of homes that were currently in escrow. Mr. Calonne said staff had no control over how a purchase contract was set up, and he felt it would be extremely difficult to try and verify those kinds of transactions. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff did not know how many homes were in process. Part of the issue was the small differentiation between homes in escrow and
09/24/96 80-188
homes that had recently been purchased. Staff had received calls from people expressing concern about homes that had been purchased within the last week. One person had purchased a home one-year prior but had not yet gotten their plans in for the substantial renovation of the home. The time line was not clear in terms of
what would be appropriate in that situation. From staff=s standpoint, the verification process other than simply relying on whatever information people offered would be quite difficult. Council Member Fazzino asked with regard to homes that had been renovated extensively, whether staff had looked at that issue as part of the exceptions or whether did staff felt the issue more properly belonged as a subject of discussion of the interim regulations. Mr. Schreiber said the issue would be addressed in the staff report that the Council would receive in its packets for the next Council meeting. Staff felt it was the appropriate place since it was looking at building permits or other applications that had already been in process which generally fit the definition of demolition. Council Member Fazzino clarified that the emphasis was on projects that were currently in the planning or building process and would be exempted immediately from the Ordinance. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Staff had not gone beyond the categories of projects with applications for plan check review, building permit applications in process, or projects that had already received some type of approval from the City. Council Member McCown clarified that the cut off date was September 17, 1996, for plans that had already been submitted for discretionary approval but the staff report (CMR:407:96) showed September 13, 1996. Mr. Calonne said it was a miscommunication, the Ordinance specified September 17, 1996, as the effective date of the moratorium. Council Member McCown clarified that with some of the other areas of potential action with respect to what would or would not be included in the interim regulations, she understood it was probable that the policy issues to be brought to the Council for discussion at the next meeting would indicate additional situations that staff would propose not be regulated in the interim regulations, e.g., actions taken that evening would not be the only place where certain types of situations and/or structures might get deleted from the process and not affected by the interim rules. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Jeff Vaillant, President, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) Board of Directors was
09/24/96 80-189
polled after its meeting on September 19, 1996, which was attended by Council Member McCown who was informative, educational, and helped the Board focus on the moratorium. The Chamber was concerned with the moratorium because it seemed to be somewhat overreactive and might set an adversarial tone in the community. The Chamber requested that the Council act quickly so people would not be wondering what would happen with their property and that the process be smooth and efficient with the homeowner in mind without a huge administrative burden attached. The Chamber would be concerned if the City went toward design review processes for single-family residences which would not be an appropriate action for City government to take. He quoted one of the Board members
who said, ΑAlthough many Palo Alto neighborhoods were charming and have character, Palo Alto is not Paris nor is it a risk of becoming a bland uniform tract Kaufman Broad development. Redevelopment of neighborhoods on a house by house basis is positive with respect to maintaining an increasing value as well as making Palo Alto a
desirable place to live.≅ Michael Tubbs, 3370 Louis Road, felt the issue of a moratorium had
been handled in a positive manner at the prior week=s Council meeting and had informed the community of its effect on property owners wishing to build, but he was sorry to see the moratorium enacted. He had been involved in an emotional issue in College Terrace where the College Terrace community had done its best to restrict a developer in the footprint design of his own home. The
citizens of College Terrace had no concern for the property owner=s needs but reacted to emotional statements made by persons who
wished to suppress the developer=s property rights. Property rights seemed to be the issue again. He was informed that four demolition permits had been issued since the Urgency Moratorium went into effect. He believed the Council reacted to issues of high emotion without thorough thought as to what were the property rights of homeowners wishing to build on their own property. He saw no emergency and the exceptions were arbitrary. He asked that his rights not be abused. Council Member Andersen asked if four demolition permits had been issued since the moratorium. Mr. Schreiber said no, there had not been any demolition permits issued since the moratorium. The speaker might be referring to were four demolition permits he had directed staff to issue on
September 13, 1996, for Classic Community=s property on Byron Street which was prior to the Council meeting. The permits had been extensively reviewed by the Council, historical issues had been reviewed, and the redevelopment of the property had been authorized by the Council. Peter Vilkin, 673 Maybell Avenue, thanked the Council for considering exceptions for the moratorium. He said all property
09/24/96 80-190
owners rights should be the same because people made substantial investments in property while counting on certain things to happen.
It was only fair that one person=s house not be singled out as
better or different than someone else=s. Rob Koch, 261 Stanford Avenue, read from a letter he sent to the
Council (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) with regard to his housing situation and how the proposed demolition moratorium adversely affected it. Because of the astronomical prices, he decided to purchase a small home in need of improvement that could be remodeled to accommodate a family of four. Because of the present proposed moratorium, he found himself in a predicament that was extremely inconvenient, frustrating, and very expensive. If he had known that the Council would enact such a rash proposal, he would not have purchased the property. He strongly urged the Council to exempt 261 Stanford Avenue from the moratorium in order for him to do what was considered a covenant at the time of purchase merely four months prior and build a quality,
neighborhood-compatible home that suited his family=s needs and met the existing R-1 zoning requirements. John Low, 1021 College Avenue, took exception to the moratorium exceptions. The City was breaking its own law and the date spoke for itself. Four demolition permits were issued on September 13, 1996, and now the staff wanted to make more exceptions for private property owners. He had gone to the City on September 13, 1996, inquiring about a demolition permit and was informed that no demolition permits would be issued after 4:45 p.m. on September 12, 1996. He referred to a recent interview with the Palo Alto Daily
News where James Witt stated, ΑIt was 100 percent hypocracy that
the City was engaging in.≅ He felt the citizens of Palo Alto needed to know what the City was doing, and he felt there was no excuse for breaking the law. William Hurt, Louis Road, told Council Member Andersen that the four demolition permits had been issued after the fact. If he had tried to get a demolition permit on September 13, 1996, neither an exemption nor a demolition permit would have been issued. There was nothing in place. That was what the Council was discussing that evening in order to get started on what would or would not be exempted. There were no rules or framework for exempting anything in place on September 13, 1996, and yet four projects were covertly and arbitrarily exempted. He wanted to speak to the arbitrariness of the whole issue. He wondered what happened in 1939 that made 1940 so significant. He had heard reasons such as the war was over and soldiers were returning home which was totally arbitrary. Nothing happened, which was stated clearly in the pending lawsuit. He wanted to know where the City was going with the issue. He said a design review would be done so the Historic Resources Board (HRB), none of which were qualified, could rubber stamp delays and denials on everything because that was what the HRB had done so
09/24/96 80-191
far. There was no reason an insignificant house should not be torn down with respect to the exemption. There was nothing that referred to the historic insignificance of houses in the proposed exemptions. There was no reason for someone to be unable to change a house that was pre-1940. People did not want cookie cutter houses, yet the same people wanted to declare the Eichler neighborhood a historic neighborhood on its 50th anniversary. There had never been more cheaply built, inadequate, cookie cutter houses than the Eichler tracts in the name of profit and raping the environment. He did not know where the City was going, who was running the show, and where the voice of sanity and reason was.
The City was violating the out-of-town developer=s rights and also his rights. Nothing the City had done so far on the issue made any sense at all. It was not fair for the City to arbitrarily inform the counter person in the Building Inspection Division to issue four specific demolition permits and while no other permits could be issued. Those houses were all pre-1940 houses and would not have qualified under the proposed exemptions. The reason given was that those houses were already in the pipeline but that did not have anything to do with an emergency. Emergency was clearly
defined in the City=s Charter and did not fit the situation, it only created a hostile environment. A person should not have to go to the City and beg for something they were entitled to. No one was looking hard enough at what the City was doing, the exceptions were totally inadequate. The City already had in place the facility and the mechanics to handle those historic properties. The house at 1021 College Avenue had already been identified as not being of historical significance and now people were upset because it was torn down. John Hanlin, Attorney at Law, 100 Bush Street, Suite 925, San Francisco, said it needed to be determined whether the Ordinance passed on September 16, 1996, qualified as an Urgency Ordinance so that any amendments thereto would be proper. It was important that the Council recognize that under the Brown Act it was declared that it was the intent of the law that Council Members actions be taken openly and deliberations be conducted openly. The Ordinance passed on September 16, 1996, violated the Brown Act in various means: 1) by first declaring in an open memorandum by four of the Council Members that an Urgency Ordinance should be passed, and 2) before the Council held public hearings on the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance, a majority of the Council declared its support and intent to vote for the Ordinance. Under the Brown Act, what constituted an emergency was either a work stoppage or other activity which severely impaired public health or safety or a crippling disaster. There was no emergency under the Brown Act that would justify the enactment of the Ordinance. If the Ordinance failed or was declared null and void, any amendments the Council intended to vote on for approval would also be void. Under the Brown Act, demand must be made upon the Council that it retract its actions and correct them. Demand was thereby made that the City Council realize there was a violation of the Brown Act with
09/24/96 80-192
respect to not having public discussion prior to voicing its approval of the Ordinance, and there was no emergency. If the Council elected not to retract its actions and adoption of the Ordinance, the amendments to the Ordinance did not justify the kind of actions that would be taken thereunder. What was being suggested as amendments under the Ordinance was to provide for people that had vested rights and that was not acceptable. He had
sent a letter to the Council (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) that afternoon requesting that people under contract be given the right to move forward with their plans. That evening, people testified that they purchased property with reliance on a certain ability to remodel, grow a family, and make changes but were now in a 60-day moratorium. The amendments to the Urgency Ordinance did not address any of those types of hardship cases and based on that, the Council should address the situation. It was important to note that there seemed to be a conflict between the staff recommendations that applications prior to September 13, 1996, be accepted, while the proposed Ordinance to be amended stated September 17, 1996. There had been testimony that demolition permits were issued on September 13, 1996, and there was public press supporting the position that on the evening of September 12, 1996, there had been a directive to the Building Division not to issue any more permits. The permits were issued by the Building Division on September 13, 1996, and people were questioning whether there had been favoritism granted. Under the recommendations of September 13, 1996, it appeared that building permits, for some people, would not be issued and for others would be issued even though there was no ordinance in effect allowing for such stoppage of building permits. Kevin Stillwell, 550 Chimalus Avenue, was concerned about the four permits that were issued. He hoped some detailed discussion would follow as to the reason those permits were issued. He said it would be impossible to include in those exempted homes those properties where some kind of process had previously been started with the City, e.g., a power or water disconnect at the very beginning stages of demolition or the building process. He suggested that the Council could declare that any property where action had been taken that was reflected on City letterhead would be exempted as were the aforementioned properties. That would be a clear and easy way to delineate those properties from other properties. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper Street, wanted to see an expansion to the exemptions sited that evening in favor of people who were further back in the pipeline and who had made reliance in good faith upon the Palo Alto Municipal Code that was in place at the time. As a Realtor, he was speaking on behalf of three of his clients, two of whom had purchased homes in the past 90 days and one who had recently entered into a contract. All the people had planned to build family homes, had spent considerable resources, and were now faced with a great hardship, financially and personally. For all
09/24/96 80-193
three of his clients, documentation could be provided as to when their properties were purchased. He asked the Council to further consider those projects that were further back in the pipeline. Margo Deane, 540 Seale Avenue, had written two letters to the
Council (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) discussing the moratorium. She had entered into escrow to purchase a home at 1036 Harker on September 9, 1996, which was only days prior to the announcement of the moratorium. She was disappointed such a blanket moratorium was passed. She supported the idea of exemptions for people with purchase contracts made before the moratorium, especially for families who intended to rebuild homes for themselves. She hoped the Council would realize what financial burdens and hardships the uncertain future requirements posed for citizens whose progress was halted in midstream. She also supported exemptions for people who already had permits and plans approved. She asked the Council for a speedy resolution to the problem. David Coldoff, 61 Monte Vista Avenue, Atherton, was the project manager for the property located at 1055 Forest Avenue and had
written a letter to the Council (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) describing the activities he had gone through over the past six weeks. With regard to the exemption suggested for properties under contract, when a contract had been entered into for the aforementioned property on July 31, 1996, he suggested to his client that it would be advisable to evaluate the historic Category 4 house on the property as to its value, how it related to similar houses, what actions had been taken by the Council in the past on those and other houses, the structural stability of the house, look at possibilities of various kinds of renovation, and obtain the measured drawings that had been done to complete a structural analysis. All those things were done because he believed as a professional that it was important to provide the City with the amount of information required to evaluate what was being proposed. Obviously, he was in error. Having his client agree to spend six weeks and thousands of dollars along with a large amount of meeting time spent with City staff in looking at alternatives, etc., left his client in a position of not making an application nor having it accepted by the City; therefore, not qualifying under the exemption relating to having an application currently in progress. He was being penalized for trying to do it correctly. He believed it was necessary when there was a historic house on a property to provide the City with an evaluation as to what the value of the house was. Instead of starting the process at the point of application, it would be in hand. Clearly, Palo Alto had suffered in the past as other cities had with people providing applications and expecting the staff to do the evaluation or requiring an evaluation be done. Six weeks had been spent attempting to do that, and currently he and his client found themselves in a position of failing to meet requirements of which no previous knowledge existed. He asked the
09/24/96 80-194
Council to reconsider the category of properties under contract in light of that type of a situation. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Coldoff whether the intent was to save the house. Mr. Coldoff replied that it had been concluded that the cost of structurally renovating a house of that size (over 5,200 square feet) would be considerably greater than the cost of building a house several thousand square feet smaller than what would fit the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). A subdivision map could have been filed because in 1989 a subdivision map had been approved for that property but it had run out. It would have been a simple matter to file a subdivision map during the first six weeks and been exempt, but it had been decided not to do so because it was felt that an evaluation of the house was important. The application for the process did not necessarily have to state whether or not the house would be demolished and a final decision as yet had not been made. Eric Morley, Public Affairs Director of the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors, 321 Second Street, Los Altos, requested that the Council include an exemption for those homes that had closed escrow and/or entered into contract within the last 90 days which could be verified either with a call to the Santa Clara County Recorders Office and/or a title company. It was a reasonable request, doable from an administrative standpoint, and would provide relief to those homeowners who relied reasonably on the ordinances that were already in place. The Association would be interested in working with the Council and staff to make that exemption workable. Council Member Schneider asked Mr. Morley whether he had information as to how many houses in the past 90 days had closed escrow or contracts had been entered into. Mr. Morley replied that because of the tight time frame with regard to the Ordinance, the Association had tried to identify a number of properties and had come up with 15 to 20 in a month over the last three months of which approximately 6 to 8 were in a category that would be a case for demolition. Many of the properties were condominiums or were not in a category that would be determined as a demolition. Council Member Schneider asked how many were on the historic registry or were classified as a Category 1 through 4.
Mr. Morley replied he did not have time prior to that evening=s Council meeting to identify those structures, but he felt they could be identified for the Council. There had been some discussion about the sensitivity to those historic structures and the Realtor community was as concerned as the Council in retaining those types of homes where they could reasonably be kept.
09/24/96 80-195
Janice Cowen, 27365 Red Rock Road, Los Altos Hills, said she had applied for a demolition permit for property located at 760 Lytton Avenue on August 17, 1996. She was 65 years old and had decided to purchase the property in Palo Alto for a time when she might became less mobile and she was hoping the property would fulfill that purpose. She felt if the Council would look at 760 Lytton Avenue which was currently 600 square feet, it would see that a drastic renovation would not be unacceptable to the City. She prevailed upon the Council to look at her property. Jan Aarts, Palo Alto District Governmental Relations Committee Chairman of the Peninsula West Valley Board of Realtors, 245 Lytton Avenue, reiterated what Mr. Morley had previously said with regard to the Council accepting those properties that had closed escrow or had entered into a contract within the last 90 days. As Mr. Pierce had indicated, the properties that were currently considered to be
accepted were those in the Αpipeline.≅ Those people who entered into contracts two to three months prior, as did the properties on Forest and Stanford Avenues, were essentially in the pipeline even though they had not yet made an application. It would be unfair to exclude them as it would to exclude the people who had already made an application. There were not many properties involved, and it would be very simple to clarify what the contract or close of escrow dates were. Brian Livingston, Member of the College Terrace Residents Association, 2078 Oberlin Street, supported the continuance of the Urgency Ordinance. The temporary moratorium would help preserve the charm of the community which made people want to settle in Palo Alto, and the problem with further exemptions was separating the motives of the people involved. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt, as an urgency measure, the Ordinance that amends the September 16, 1996, Urgency Ordinance to establish the following exceptions to the prohibition of issuance of demolition permits: 1. Projects that have submitted a complete building plan check prior to September 17,1996; 2. Projects that received a discretionary planning approval (e.g., variance) prior to September 17, 1996, for which no additional City discretionary approval is necessary; 3. Projects that received a discretionary planning approval (e.g., variance) prior to September 17, 1996, and which subsequently receive a City Council planning approval; and 4. Buildings that have been declared unsafe under Section 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
09/24/96 80-196
Council Member Fazzino believed the exceptions were very
reasonable. The Council>s previous actions with respect to an ordinance were important given what had occurred in the community during the past few months. At the same time, it was important that the Council treat people who were already in the planning and building pipeline fairly. He believed the first three recommendations were appropriate; and if the Building Division declared a building unsafe, it needed to be included as an exception. He supported the four recommendations. There were several other categories of buildings he wanted included as quickly as possible in the interim regulations: the renovated facilities, a financial hardship provision, and several others he had mentioned previously. He was convinced the Council should move forward that evening and take action with respect to the close of escrow and signed contract issue. He viewed it as a pipeline issue; and therefore, all people who were in the pipeline needed to be treated fairly. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to amend the motion to allow those projects and/or properties which were pending in escrow or have closed escrow within the last 90-day period to be exempt from the Urgency Ordinance. Council Member McCown believed it would be difficult to accomplish whether there was some fair distinction to be made with properties that might be further released from the moratorium in the form of the motion that had been made using an arbitrary cutoff date of 90 days. She would rather have input from staff regarding the conversation planned for the following week on whether there was a fair way to deal with the issue that Council Member Fazzino had spoken about and then add it to the list that evening just as it was done the week prior at the 1:00 a.m. Council meeting when the Council decided not to move forward with the exceptions the City Attorney had proposed because the Council wanted to take more care and make sure everything was included. Adding the amendment language that evening would not be appropriate. She could not see the distinction between someone who purchased their house 90 days prior versus someone who purchased their house 180 days prior with plans or ready to submit plans for remodeling or demolition, etc. She believed it was a gray area and did not lend itself to a quick simple solution. Council Member Kniss asked whether addition and remodel were listed and whether staff had tried to assess what percentage of the house was addition and remodel. She asked whether addition and remodel meant the entire house would be demolished. Mr. Schreiber said it meant that the extent of remodeling and addition was such that more than 50 percent of the exterior walls was proposed to be eliminated. It met the definition of demolition in the Urgency Ordinance, but it was not a complete removal of the structure.
09/24/96 80-197
Council Member Kniss was sympathetic to the motion but would not support it that evening. She wanted the item to return to the Council on September 30, 1996, to give the Council time to review it carefully. She felt the Council had just started to brush the surface on the issue. Vice Mayor Huber clarified that if the Council considered the other possible exception on September 30, that it could be added to the Urgency Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the Council needed to direct staff to bring back language on September 30, 1996. The Council could make urgency findings and staff would have to identify some financial hardship as a minimum to support the urgency findings. He was concerned because there was a major task before the Council at the September 30, 1996, Council meeting in terms of setting up interim regulations and another major task for the staff to get those into a workable ordinance form for action on October 15, 1996. His preference would be to get direction at the September 30, 1996, meeting and have time to prepare a drafting as one package. It would also give the Council the opportunity to receive more information from the public. Staff was not in a position to give the Council any information for the September 30, 1996, meeting. It would be more preferable for the Council to address all the amendments together for direction. If the Council felt a sense of urgency, staff could pull it together sooner than October 15, 1996, but it could not be done for interim regulations. He might be able to do it for another exception if it were along the lines of what was in the amendment. Vice Mayor Huber would not support the motion that evening as he agreed that the Council needed time to look at the amendment. He
was dubious about the Council=s ability to do an exception based on close of escrow or under contract because it would open up
Pandora=s box. As an attorney, he knew it would not be an easy task to sort out. He was also concerned with regard to what people put into the City pipeline which evidenced an interest in doing something with their property, but someone who had simply purchased the house short of a provision conditioned upon the issuance of a demolition permit, the Council was making an assumption as to what might have been intended. He suspected that anyone who said they might have considered it would leave it open for them to proceed for such a permit. He was willing to look at it, but he felt it was a dubious proposition at best. Council Member Schneider supported the amendment because she was convinced that close of escrow and contracts of sale that were in progress were verifiable. She did not think the 90-day limit was arbitrary. The previous week many people spoke to the issue that were under contract or in the escrow process with specific plans in the pipeline or well on the way to fruition. She wanted to include
09/24/96 80-198
in the amendment that 760 Lytton Avenue, 260 Stanford Avenue, and 1055 Forest Avenue be exempted. Mr. Calonne said with regard to 1055 Forest Avenue, the owners/ developers were involved in litigation against the City. He asked the Council to refrain from including that property in any exemption until staff had the opportunity to review some legal advice on the matter. Council Member Rosenbaum was dubious about the proposed amendment for the same reason that Council Member McCown had cited. He was also concerned about the suggestions the Council was giving staff. He felt the Council would be best served if staff concentrated on the interim regulations without worrying about the proposed amendment. The sooner it was done, the sooner everyone with a problem would have resolution. Mayor Wheeler expressed a mild interest in exploring the issue, but she had great concern. The City had been accused of not operating in a thoughtful way, and the Council needed to be thoughtful about the issue. She had sympathy for the young people who had struggled to live in Palo Alto in the last few years and purchased properties with the hopes of someday being able to build their dream homes. Their interest in being exempt was just as legitimate as the people who could change their plans without a great deal of hardship. She wanted to concentrate on the interim regulations which had a long- lasting impact. It had been the intent of the Council that during the interim regulation period there would be a process by which people could be exempted, and she wanted the Council to concentrate its efforts on that rather than broad brushing new categories of people into it. Council Member Kniss was troubled as she did not see any support for the amendment returning on September 30, 1996. She said if there were support for that to happen, she wanted to look at it as an exemption. It was difficult when the Council was trying to craft something about which it knew very little. In the absence of
anything solid and the City Attorney=s support, she could not support the amendment.
Council Member Andersen supported Council Member Rosenbaum=s position on the amendment. Council Member McCown said the concept of the interim regulations as she understood it was that a set of rules would be created from which some number of properties in Palo Alto would be able to move forward with demolitions and with significant remodelings. The point of the interim regulations was to permit things to move forward on an equitable basis, and she felt that was the best way to deal with those questions.
09/24/96 80-199
Mr. Calonne pointed out that the delay was not all negative, it was at least conceivable that incentives such as the Mills Act
contracts might be part of the Council=s consideration, and there might be some financial benefit to those who were caught in the process and needed to wait until October 15, 1996. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum,
Wheeler Αno,≅ Simitian absent. Council Member Andersen said the Council was dealing with exceptions and he agreed with Council Member McCown as to what those exceptions were. The big issue was what would be done with the interim regulations. He believed it would be something that would not be near as devastating as a lot of people feared. He
took exception to the concern expressed regarding the Council=s possible violation of the Brown Act provided. Speaking for himself, he knew that the Council had not violated the Brown Act and did not know of any Council that more rigorously followed the intent of the Brown Act. There were nine Council Members, and four Council Members did not constitute a quorum. Council Member Schneider supported the staff recommendations on the exemptions. She felt the issue developed a lot of dialog within the community. It was a very important issue to the community and a lot of people were affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to
accommodate everyone=s best interest and not to be accusatory. Council Member Kniss said the topic being discussed that evening and whether or not there should be exceptions was quite narrowly framed and not difficult to support. Along those same lines, it was imperative that the Council move as quickly in order to reframe exactly what it was that one could or could not do. She did not
believe there was an intent on anyone=s part to save all the houses in Palo Alto that were built pre-1940. A number of those houses had been remodeled and modified and no longer recognizable as pre-1940. By bringing everything to a complete halt, the Council had
managed to get everyone=s attention which was important, and while it might look as if it happened too quickly, people had been asking the Council to do so for at least two years or longer and as mentioned previously, the Council had not the issue soon enough. She supported the motion and was aware that the Council had started on a very fast track with the issue. It was extremely important for the community that the Council provide answers and guidelines on the framework as soon as possible. Council Member Rosenbaum said there were a number of speakers that spoke regarding the four demolition permits, and he asked staff to respond to those concerns.
09/24/96 80-200
Mr. Calonne said there were a lot of factual inaccuracies. As he read the Ordinance, those properties would have qualified under what the Council had before it that evening. Mr. Schreiber said the reason for issuing the demolition permits was that the removal of those houses had been reviewed by the Council, and the subdivision map, tentative map, and final map had been approved by the Council. There had also been extensive Planning Commission discussion. The four houses were the only houses in any part of the process that had received approval. Given the level of review, staff felt comfortable issuing the demolition permits. Mr. Calonne said there was no evidence that anyone who had spoken that evening or anyone else other than Mr. Wu, sought any kind of permits on Thursday or Friday, September 12 and 13, 1996. The City was in a position where a number of speakers had filed litigation against the City, were getting legal advice, and the factual accuracy of what they were saying needed to be resolved in another forum. Council Member McCown supported the exceptions. She differed with one speaker on a legal point where a suggestion was made that the Council was not doing anything more than allowing people to go forward who already had vested rights. That was a legal term and was clearly not the case. The Council was doing more than that which had been the tradition in Palo Alto on other moratoriums. More leeway had been given for projects in the process that did not yet have permits, whereas the law would not require the City to do it that way if it chose not to. The point of the interim regulations was to permit projects to move forward on an equitable basis, and she felt that was the best way to deal with those questions . The Council received a letter (on file in the City
Clerk=s Office) from Mr. Vaillant, President, Chamber of Commerce, displaying a thoughtful way to try and get the Council back to focusing on what the policy goals were which she greatly appreciated. She hoped that others could also participate in that way. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Mayor Wheeler re Scheduling of a Special City Council Meeting on Monday, September 30, 1996. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to schedule a Special City Council Meeting on Monday, September 30, 1996. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent.
09/24/96 80-201
14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Mayor Wheeler announced that Palo Alto=s Sister City, Linköping, Sweden, had lost its city library due to a fire. Council Member Andersen asked whether AB 218 would be placed on the agenda for Council Action. Mayor Wheeler said the issue would be placed on an upcoming agenda. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.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.
09/24/96 80-202