HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-30 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting September 30, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-206 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for Design of Amarillo Avenue and Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project..................................80-206
2. Ordinance 4374 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≅ ................................................80-206 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................80-207 3. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....80-207 4. Council Discussion and Direction to Staff on Policy Options and Potential Process Description for the Interim Regulations Related to Demolition of Residential Structures Constructed Prior to 1940.........................................80-207 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m............80-222
9/30/96 80-205
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:14 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 8:45 p.m.), Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Stanley Karabats, 907 Amarillo Avenue, spoke regarding a matter concerning the Palo Alto Police Department. Eric Chabaneix, Cristian Gonzales, Palo Alto Teen Center, spoke regarding the Teen Center Street Party. David Levin, Public Art Commission Member, spoke regarding the facade at the Alma Street Substation. David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, spoke regarding representing the Palo Alto Civic League. T. J. Watt, no address, spoke regarding utility improvement - energy. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding tree elimination. Michael Wollenweber, Green Street, spoke regarding the houseless
people=s organization. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for Design of Amarillo Avenue and Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project; change orders not to exceed $30,000.
2. Ordinance 4374 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≅ (1st Reading 9/16/96, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Wheeler announced that the Finance Committee meeting which was scheduled for Tuesday, October 1, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. would be adjourned to a date to be determined by staff, and that the
9/30/96 80-206
September 30, 1996, City Council Meeting might be adjourned to Tuesday, October 1, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 3. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Low, et al. v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. CV760899
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(a) Public Comments None. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION AT 7:35 P.M.- 8:31 P.M. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 3. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 4. Council Discussion and Direction to Staff on Policy Options and Potential Process Description for the Interim Regulations Related to Demolition of Residential Structures Constructed Prior to 1940 Mayor Wheeler explained that the public testimony would be heard
that evening and the Council=s discussion would take place at the Special City Council Meeting on October 1, 1996. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber wanted to highlight an assumption stated in the staff report (CMR:417:96),
Αif property is determined to have no historic merit, then
demolition should be permitted.≅ The issue before the Council was whether preservation of historic structures was consistent with recognized property interests and whether there should be some type of review process for structures that were to be demolished. It was within the context of historic merit, and if properties did not have historic merit as determined by some process, then demolition would move forward. There were several related definitions of demolition. The current definition which was in the moratorium was that if a building retained 50 percent of the perimeter walls, it would not constitute demolition. Staff recommended that that option be continued for structures that were not concluded to be landmark structures. Staff had divided the historic inventory into landmark categories which were Category 1 and 2 and the contributing structures which were Category 3 and 4.
9/30/96 80-207
City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained staff had identified six areas that needed direction from the Council before the conclusion of the October 1, 1996, Council meeting in order for staff to meet the October 15, 1996, deadline. Mr. Schreiber said there was a second stricter definition option in the staff report that some jurisdictions used for landmark
structures or important historic structures that stated Αdemolition was an act or process that destroyed in whole or in part a
building, structure, or site of historic merit.≅ It was not constrained by 50 percent of the exterior walls and any destruction of the building was an act or process of demolition. Staff recommended for Category 1 and 2 landmark structures on the historic inventory or buildings that would be deemed appropriate for Category 1 and 2 that there be a more stringent definition of demolition. Mr. Calonne said it would be a critical jurisdictional trigger for almost everything in the regulations. When demolition was less than 50 percent of a structure, there would be little City review for any of the issues being discussed. The process would virtually be identical to what was being done currently if less than 50 percent were proposed for removal. Mr. Schreiber said the next issue related to standards for historic evaluation or historic designation. Staff had identified two evaluation options in the staff report: 1) continue to use the current standards for designation that had been used to prepare the existing historic inventory and had also been used by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and 2) strengthen those standards. He referred to the correspondence from the State Historic Preservation Officer that identified some ways the existing standards could be strengthened. The fourth area was the process for historic evaluation, and staff assumed it would be greater than 50 percent demolition. The question was who should make the evaluation and decision on the category of the building if it were not in a historic category at the present time. The options were for the HRB to evaluate the structures and provide direction to staff and staff could be the decision maker or the HRB could report directly to the Council and staff could be a decision maker with decisions going to the Council on appeal. The next question was how the process would work. There was a number of categories, and staff
assumed the HRB=s review role for determining the historic
classification of a structure would be based on the Council=s memorandum as well as the role of the HRB. The staff report divided decisions into three different categories: 1) Structures without historic merit. The demolition would go to the HRB, the HRB would conclude there was no historic merit, the Director of Planning and Community Environment would approve issuance of a demolition permit, and that decision would be subject to appeal to the Council; 2) Landmark structures currently Category 1 and 2 in
9/30/96 80-208
the historic inventory. A historic survey of the property would be required and there were several demolition recommendations that could supersede that related to economic hardship, inability to use the structure for economically viable purpose, or the structure was physically unsafe. If the structure were physically safe and had a viable economic use, a historic survey would be done and the designation of the structure would be made by the HRB either directly to the Council or to the staff which could be appealed to the Council; and 3) Contributing status currently Category 3 and 4 in the historic inventory. If a structure were found by the HRB to have potential for contributing status, a historic survey might be required. The HRB would make decisions regarding the particular category of the structure and would make a recommendation to the Director of Planning and his decision would then be appealable to the Council. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle would explain Category 5, the permitted demolition circumstances. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle referred to page 7 of the staff
report (CMR:417:96) and said the Palo Alto Municipal Code=s (PAMC) current demolition policy delayed demolition for landmark structures up to one year, prevented demolition of all Downtown landmarks, and allowed for a delay of Downtown contributing structures for up to one year. Staff recommended two additional circumstances under which demolition would be allowed for either
landmark or contributing structures: 1) The property Αas is≅ could not be used for any economically viable purpose, and renovation was not economically feasible, and 2) The property was determined to represent an imminent safety hazard under PAMC Section 16.40 and that demolition of the building was the only economically feasible means to secure public safety. Staff recommended those two circumstances be included in the interim regulations. Staff had provided a range of circumstances under which demolition would be permitted, but staff acknowledged that it was not the complete range of options but only examples at various spectrums for
Council=s section. Demolition Option 1 recommended delay of demolition for both landmark and contributing structures. The interim regulations would be strengthened from current regulations by requiring demolition delay of up to one year for all landmark or contributing structures. Demolition Option 2 would be that staff would have the ability to deny demolition of all landmark structures, not just structures in the Downtown, and delay demolition for contributing structures. Landmark structures would need to meet standards for historic preservation before any part of the structure could be demolished, and there would be a possibility for delaying the demolition of any contributing structure elsewhere in the City. Demolition Option 3 would deny demolition for contributing structures unless a replacement compatible with the neighborhood and of quality equal to that in existence would occur, i.e., for landmark structures demolition would not be permitted unless the alteration and demolition were found to be consistent with National Standards for Historic Preservation. Demolition of contributing structures, both on the historic inventory and those
9/30/96 80-209
with potential to be on the historic inventory, would be allowed only under certain circumstances, and staff recommended the circumstances could be selected from the following choices: a) Compatibility by Staff Approval. Design criteria would be administered by staff, including criteria which would require that the structure be compatible with the pattern of the existing neighborhood and that the replacement was of equal design quality to the existing structure; b) Compatibility by Design Review. The design quality would be approved by the HRB to be at least equal to that of the existing structure and compatible with the pattern and character of the neighborhood, as determined by discretionary standards which would need to be prepared and provided for the interim ordinance; and c) Condition Hardship. If the existing facility were found to be seriously deteriorated, it would be allowed to be demolished. Mr. Schreiber said only Option 3 involved some type of design review. The staff report (CMR:417:96) provided two major alternatives in terms of who and how. Staff would address design review if the Council were interested in moving in that direction. There was a distinction between a ministerial decision and a discretionary process. The building permit process was ministerial; and if someone met the rules, he/she had the right to a building permit. Staff did not have the discretion to deny a building permit unless it did not meet the Uniform Building Code. One option would be to have a staff approval process for design review which would be ministerial. Staff would develop design criteria; and if a building complied with that criteria, staff would be obligated to issue the permit. The discretionary process was a process that the Council had been currently dealing with, i.e., Planning Commission items, Architectural Review Board (ARB) appeals, and HRB actions, and the Council had the discretion to make a decision and apply conditions or change aspects of a particular application. There could be a discretionary process with the staff as the decision maker and an appeal to the Council of a decision or there could be a discretionary process that used a design review board. The HRB would probably be the logical body to address design review for the interim regulations. A discretionary review process involved public notice and more staff and community time whether it was done by a board or staff. A ministerial process would not involve a public notice and could not be appealed, e.g., there was no appeal for a building permit if the application met the rules. There was a conditional hardship option which could have a decision that a building which met certain criteria was concluded to be a safe structure but economic hardships would not allow the building to be renovated. Staff believed there should be a full cost recovery process which meant the applicant paid the full cost of City staffing or contract personnel because of the expertise needed in the historic area. After the Council had indicated direction on the previous items, staff would be able to assess the types of impacts in terms of application processing and costs.
9/30/96 80-210
Mayor Wheeler explained that the Council=s questions and discussion would be delayed so that the public would have opportunity to comment that evening. She thanked the staff for its cooperation and effort. Stewart Kiaitz, 1181 College Avenue, supported the moratorium on demolition of older houses, but his concerns extended further than saving historic homes. In addition to establishing a strong preservation ordinance, Palo Alto should follow the model of other enlightened cities by instituting some type of architectural or design review process. Development could not be prevented, and economics and demographics dictated change; but the issue was what was being developed and how the development did or did not respond to the needs and wishes of those who lived in the community. If development in Palo Alto could be made more responsive and responsible, it would be a more attractive, harmonious, and appealing development to its neighbors. The homes that caused the most consternation were homes being built by speculative builders, not homes being built or expanded by current neighborhood residents. The City should ask the builders who sought to capitalize on the desirability of the neighborhoods to adopt their projects to the needs and aesthetics of that neighborhood. Including input from the people who lived in the community and instituting some design review would not prevent development but would encourage the kind of development that would enhance the community rather than detract from it. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, representing the College Terrace
Residents= Association (the Association), said the Association had come together to address the destruction of homes in Palo Alto and
their replacement with Αmonster≅ houses. She provided a document
that was the result of the Association=s consensus (on file in the
City Clerk=s Office). The Association wanted renovation and remodeling favored over demolition. A tastefully done process could preserve the look of a house and the neighborhood while addressing the needs of a modern lifestyle. The current system placed strong economic disincentives on renovation and reuse and the Association wanted that issue addressed in the interim regulations. It was imperative that there be a design review process. After the landmark had faded, the replacements would still be there tearing at the fabric of the community. A design review process would allow the concerns of the owners, other residents, and renters to be heard and the interests of the neighborhood to be protected. The Association hoped the City would use the ongoing revision process as an opportunity to rethink the way in which development was managed in the community. The Association looked forward to working with the City on developing the vision of Palo Alto for the 21st Century.
9/30/96 80-211
Greg Van der Veen, 2133 Yale Avenue, commended the Council and staff for expediting the process. He was remodeling a 1925 Spanish bungalow and had found the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) process helpful even though his plans were well thought out and designed. He was grateful for the opportunity to buy a house in Palo Alto, and he had the right to a reasonable expectation that his neighborhood would still reassemble the neighborhood into which he paid a relatively large sum of money to live. He strongly supported not only a stronger review process for demolition but also a design review process for replacement structures. He suggested the Council might consider a broader scope than homes classified as historic because neighborhood fabric was more than historic homes. Laura Ferrell, 1020 California Avenue, spoke regarding the history of the builder who had built her 1931 house which she had remodeled, but it was not on a historic registry. Her 960-square foot house was in scale to the property which had a front yard with a garden and neighbors stopped by to talk to her which was what the community was about. It was not about having a huge garage in the front and a place where no one saw each other. Houses were refuges, and the Council was charged with helping the community
preserve and cultivate a community. Palo Alto=s rich heritage was contained in the buildings, the trees, and the memories of the past. People who scalped lots were misguided, and there was more at stake than profit and tax dollars. There were heritage and community. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett, said she renovated her 100-year old Victorian and had found many artifacts about the history and
the heritage of the house. She had called about the Αblue house≅ on College Avenue, but the realtor never returned her call. Her intent was to spruce up that portion of Palo Alto. The real estate agent was motivated by money, but there was more to life than money and business. She did not live in Palo Alto because of status but because it satisfied her soul. The moratorium needed to understand the motives of people. The City lost a piece of its public value when it lost the house on College Avenue. There were houses in Palo Alto that should be demolished; however, developers should not be rewarded for intentional neglect. Speculators only interested in quick money should not be allowed to demolish portions of Palo
Alto=s soul. Elster Haile, 1736 Oak Creek Drive No. 402, said he was a former City Attorney for Half Moon Bay and Belmont, and the staff report (CMR:417:95) was excellent. As he listened to the comments that evening, he sensed some symbiosis between the excellent report and the charm and feeling that everyone shared with the residents of Palo Alto. Laurie Harden, 446 Ruthren, had recently purchased a home at 981 Lincoln Avenue for land value only with the express purpose of
9/30/96 80-212
demolition. The original structure was built in 1936 and had had numerous remodels. She had met with a member of the ARB who indicated the doorknobs in the house might be worth saving. A local architect was designing the new home, and she believed the
house would be tomorrow=s historic gem. She hoped she would be allowed to demolish her house. Jim Saboric, (no address) Chimalus Drive, referred to Item Nos. a, b, c, and d on page 12 of the staff report (CMR:417:96). He described the dilapidated house he purchased in 1986 that was built
prior to 1940. The only thing that would solve all the house=s problems was to tear it down. His neighbors were delighted when the house was torn down. He described the structure that he built to replace that dilapidated house which met all the codes, including the new Title 24 energy calculations, and blended with neighboring houses. Old did not mean a house was worth saving. He believed the character of a neighborhood was defined by the people who inhabited the neighborhood, not the structures. Peter Vilkin, 637 Maybell Avenue, said as a resident and developer of Palo Alto, he agreed with the Chamber of Commerce that design review was not a viable option for people. Consensus could never be reached about what constituted good taste. Many people would consider any two-story home an invasion of their neighborhood which might consist of small one-story homes. Some people would not be happy with any change whatsoever. Additionally, some of the favorite homes in Palo Alto could never be created because of current zoning regulations. Palo Alto was ranked the number one community in the Bay Area, and it had an opportunity to form a model that could be envied by many cities. Most of the residential builders were residents of the City and, as residents, cared about the community. If the Council would formulate a format where the Council would interface with local developers and residents, a unique united community could be established instead of the confrontational posturing that had plagued the moratorium matter. The builders wanted to actively participate in the democratic process and would prefer that they not be viewed as sinister individuals with no regard for the community. The Council had an opportunity to develop a unique relationship with all the parties concerned. He wanted at least two public meetings where representatives from the neighborhood and developers could exchange ideas with the Council about style and other matters. The wealth of knowledge of all parties would only strengthen the community and truly develop a historic preservation plan that would rival any in the nation. Dennis Backlund, 488 University Avenue No. 503, said the staff report (CMR:417:96) was extraordinary because it considered so many options and alternatives, including consideration of demolition of historic structures and the possible review requirements for replacement structures. The review of new replacement structures was a radically new kind of proposal for Palo Alto and amounted to
9/30/96 80-213
an emphasis on the overall image of the City, how government and citizens saw the present image, and what that image should be in the future. He referred to a book by Kevin Lynch called The Image of the City which detailed the problem. The book pointed out that
Αthe city with a strong image like Venice is a definite environment in which the individual is placed and finds continuing orientation. The city with a weak image such as Jersey City encourages disorientation in its citizens, and a major component of a strong image is continuity, and planners are left with the question what
can the city planner do to make the city=s image more vivid and
memorable to the city dweller.≅ He said one answer was that city planners would review the compatibility of replacement structures
at least in the city=s various early neighborhoods. He saw a problem with Demolition Recommendation No. 1 under Permitted
Demolition Circumstances in the staff report which stated ΑThe
property >as is= cannot be used for any economically viable
purpose, and renovation is not economically feasible.≅ There was a building in the City that was recently nominated for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. The building=s economically viable purpose in the future was not clear, and it was not clear whether the renovation was economically feasible. However, one option not mentioned in the staff report was a private fund-raising drive which occurred when there were problems with Recommendation No. 1. Recommendation No. 2 seemed valid. He pointed out the majority of the members of the HRB were trained and practicing architects with many years of experience in dealing with historic structures and the other members had long experience in historical research methodology. William Hurt, (no address) Louis Road, said some local builders had put together the following list of ideas that needed to be considered seriously for inclusion in the interim regulations: 1) The properties caught in the moratorium that had actually applied for demolition permits and had started that process prior to September 17, 1996, would be included in the exemptions; 2) Local builders would have a representative in the decision-making process and identification of the new list; 3) Design review and compatibility were a nightmare, and there was no compatibility in College Terrace. The builders encouraged the owners and residents of College Terrace to go through the existing process and perhaps declare College Terrace a local historic neighborhood; and 4) A mechanism should be in place for exemptions to the pre-1940 demolition process for properties that had no historic significance. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, commended the staff on a thorough staff report. She hoped
the Council would consider the Chamber=s previous statement on the issue, particularly the item that related to incentives for people to add their homes to the National Register of Historic Places or the historic inventory. The Chamber questioned the kind of message 9/30/96 80-214
that would be sent with the design review process. The Chamber had a thriving relocation business, and she questioned how the Chamber and the City would communicate with future residents of the community that the homes they might buy would be subject to design review and the process they went through would ultimately be paid by them through cost recovery. It might be a case of the people who owned homes in the community telling people who did not own homes in the City what their future homes would look like. Reasonable criteria, process, and government involvement were needed. Lee Brokaw, 2080 Hanover Street, supported the moratorium and a residential review process for the structures being built in College Terrace. He said nothing was more confrontational than a lawsuit, and the residents of College Terrace had not filed a lawsuit against the City. As a concerned resident of College Terrace with some experience in building and plumbing, he had watched the buildings being constructed in College Terrace. He described the plumbing problems with the new house being built where the Drucker House used to be. Developers were only interested in the money. They took advantage of the quality of life in Palo Alto and they owed Palo Alto something. Alan Mela, 567 Kingsley Avenue, felt anyone who bought a house in Palo Alto and decided to do something with their residence would maintain it, if not enhance it for the environment. Demolition, replacement construction, and architectural review should be treated as a seamless procedure, and projects with problems should not be allowed to begin. Aside from discussing what historic criteria might contribute to issuing permits to demolish, the Council should review replacement architecture. He said the staff in the Building Division did a great job monitoring the actual construction process, but the process needed to be addressed from the start to the finish of a project. He suggested residents research the history of their own homes and find out whether the home was qualified for various historic categories. He urged the Council to visit the 600 block of Kingsley Avenue to see what was happening in the neighborhood. The entire process needed to be addressed. Historic Resources Board Vice-Chairperson Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, said there were four licensed architects on the HRB, two members who had devoted their lives to historic research, and one member who had restored a historic home in Palo Alto. The HRB was well qualified to handle whatever charge the Council decided to give it. He pointed out that staff support would be needed to accomplish those tasks. The HRB supported the excellent staff report (CMR:417:96). As an architect, he had no problem with a design review process. He felt good things always came out of a review process when a competent board reviewed the proposed drawings.
9/30/96 80-215
Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa Avenue, believed some of the areas raised that evening were not doable within the period of the interim ordinance, and it would be better to keep the process simple. She referred to Demolition Definition on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:417:96). The staff recommendation was to use the stricter definition only for the landmarks, not for the contributing structures. She urged the stricter definition Option 2 be used for both of the areas. Option 2 was up to 100 percent and would give more latitude. If the structure had been identified as being of historic nature, it would not make much difference in the operation of the interim ordinance which definition was used except that there might be a better result from Option 2. She referred to Permitted Demolition Circumstances on page 7 of the staff report. She urged that Demolition Option 1, Delay for Both Landmark and Contributing, be used. She hoped that when the revised ordinance was done, there would be denial for landmarks, but she did not believe there would be a problem to delay them under the interim ordinance and give the City more time to determine the criteria for the final ordinance. She believed it should be delayed up to the time the final ordinance was in place. She referred to Evaluation Policy Options, Interim Regulations on page 10. The information received from the State Office of Historic Preservation should be considered, and the category of
cultural resources should definitely be added to the City=s historic inventory definition. She said the Compatibility Policy on page 10 was complicated. If the Council decided to delay the demolition of both categories of historic structure, then there would be no need for any kind of design criteria because the demolitions would be delayed and the design criteria would only apply to structures that replaced demolished historic buildings which would not address the concerns of the people in College Terrace. The City would probably not discover that many houses in College Terrace came up for demolition which belonged in either of the historic categories. The people in College Terrace were concerned about the replacement construction. She suggested an overlay zone in parallel with the interim ordinance so that the concerns regarding new construction in College Terrace would also be addressed. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said his pre-1940 house was better designed and more compatible with the neighborhood than many houses built in the City during the previous 10 to 15 years. He had been advocating design review of single-family homes for almost 20 years. Design review would certainly affect property values, and property values and quality of life were superior in areas that had historic preservation. The City needed single-family design review for any new house in the City. Any house built before 1940 should go through the HRB, and any remodeling over 25 percent of the structure or any new house should go through the ARB. The staff report was excellent, and there was a previous staff report that described design guidelines which should be strengthened. Developers should know what was and was not appropriate and should
9/30/96 80-216
go through a design review process. The ARB had done reviews on commercial and multi-family buildings for a long time which had improved the quality of construction and development in the City.
He agreed with Ms. Woolley=s comments regarding the option on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:417:96) but believed Demolition Option 2, Deny for Landmark/Delay for Contributing, on page 7 of the staff report should be selected. It would give the City an opportunity to save the most significant structures. He referred to Compatibility Option 2 on page 14 of the staff report and urged the design review for replacement structures and that no demolition permits would be reissued until the design and appearance of the new structure had been approved. The design review process should also apply to landscaping so there would be no significant adverse impact to the neighborhood. One thing that made the community attractive was that the City did not have a uniformity of housing throughout the City. He believed type of housing had a bearing on the community and the nature of the neighborhood. Historic Resources Board Member Monty Anderson, 941 Emerson Street, reviewed some of his experiences as an architect and HRB member with the issue of demolition during the prior years. He said all of the applications that had been reviewed by the HRB had been brought forward by citizens of Palo Alto, not out of town developers. Unfortunately, the public debate of preservation was continually clouded by the villainization of those people who did not choose to preserve. The issues surrounding preservation were often quite complex, and logical thought should be applied to those complex issues. The choice to preserve was often arrived at after much deliberation, and the reality facing owners of older properties was that it was often cheaper to tear down the house and rebuild rather than to remodel. His concern with the moratorium was that it represented another hurdle for owners of historic properties and ultimately made the properties unattractive for people to buy. The moratorium reinforced the notion by lenders and insurance agents that historic properties were risky and an encumbered type of building which further endangered the property. He hoped the rewritten ordinance would recognize that demolition revolved around money and it was expensive to preserve. Palo Alto deserved an ordinance which would become the model for other communities, and the City needed to show the people the benefits of preservation and let them conclude for themselves whether it made
sense. He believed the Αcarrot≅ approach was the best approach, but it required participation by the entire community. The City could not expect to mandate preservation without participation, and it was unfair to expect private property owners to bear the full cost and villainize them if they did not. He suggested a new ordinance might waive permit fees for those people who preserved in a manner consistent with the National Standards of Rehabilitation or the City could make granting a Mills Act simpler so that the ordinary applicant did not have to spend $20,000 in legal fees as was the case with the Squire House. It could make property tax breaks available to everyone, not only to the affluent members of
9/30/96 80-217
the community. The Home Improvement Exception process could be streamlined for applicants, or portions of the zoning regulations could be waived on a case-by-case basis. Those were the tools the City could use to encourage preservation. Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, representing the University South Neighborhood Group (the Group), said the Council emphasized two weeks prior that the demolition moratorium was an interim measure that would allow time for longer term measures to be adopted. Staff had developed reasonable exemptions to the demolition moratorium and had provided well-thought alternatives for the Council to consider. He was encouraged that much of the focus of the discussion had shifted to the issue of design review. Design review was a key aspect of the process that addressed the central concern that everyone shared, i.e., preservation of the character of the neighborhood of which demolition restrictions were a major aspect. Contrary to the suggestion of some people, design review was not a radical nor an infeasible approach. Many cities in the area had some form of design review, including cities with less historic significance than Palo Alto. Unfortunately, a demolition restriction without design review would not assure the preservation of the character of the home. Additionally, allowing reasonable exemptions to demolitions were appropriate, but certain guidelines for construction on old homes and major remodels should be in place. The Group hoped that the Council would consider a more restrictive level for historic structures and a more broad set of guidelines for nonhistoric structures in overlay areas. Those measures would send a positive message to citizens of Palo Alto and new residents who planned to move into the City that the character of the neighborhoods would be preserved and improved upon and that from an economic standpoint, the attractiveness of the neighborhood would continue to be preserved and their property values would increase. The Group encouraged Council and staff to continue in the process, and it recognized that great strides had been made on a very problematic long-term issue. Kathryn Conley, 2300 Amherst Street, said she had noticed an acceleration in the change of character of the community. She understood there were structures that needed to be torn down, but she was sensitive to how much an environment affected people. There would be no justification economically for keeping her College Terrace house standing, but she felt fortunate to live in the house. The acceleration of replacement of old structures would not give the same opportunity to other people. Most of the structures were compatible with Palo Alto, but there were some exceptional circumstances. One important consideration was that developers not be allowed to build out large parcels of under-built or vacant property and change the character of the property without review. Sometimes people who came in for the short economic gain did not have that sensitivity or concern about what was being passed on to the person purchasing the structure.
9/30/96 80-218
Historic Resources Board Member Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, thanked the Council for approving the moratorium. Staff had prepared an excellent report, but she encouraged the Council to adopt a broader definition of demolition for historic buildings. A speedy process was important so that pre-1940 buildings that were not historically significant could proceed through the process and be demolished. It was valid to deny demolition for the buildings that were historically significant, both contributing and landmark status, until the next phase was in place. Most of the pre-1940 buildings were in older neighborhoods, and the City had an opportunity to experiment with design review for single-family housing during the one-year interim period. The design standards in the staff report (CMR:417:96) were broad and general, and staff had pulled out some things that were compatible with the neighborhood. Rob Koch, 261 Stanford Avenue, said the issue was about style, and it would be tough to satisfy every one. People were caught in a
conflict of property rights, and people=s individual needs had to be taken into consideration. There were other parts of Palo Alto besides College Terrace, and his neighbors thought it was great that he was building a new home. He wanted to design a nice quality home. He urged denial of Demolition Recommendations 1 and 2 on page 7 of the staff report (CMR:417:96). He advocated Demolition Option 3, Deny for Both, Unless Compatible Replacement, on page 8, and on page 13 Compatibility Option 1, Staff Approval,
ΑDevelop easily enforced (e.g., clear and concise) Design Criteria
to achieve compatibility and quality in the replacement structure,≅ which would not be so subjective and allow people to build new homes. He was concerned about cost recovery and believed it was unfair to expect him to pay for more expenses. He asked how he could determine whether his home was historic or not.
Council Member McCown asked if Mr. Koch=s house were considered historic, whether he believed design review for the replacement was appropriate. Mr. Koch said yes. He was confident that his new home would meet the criteria of the design review. Barbara Sawyer, Chair of the Palo Alto District of the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors, 245 Lytton Avenue, said the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors (the Association) requested that the process for the interim regulations be as uncumbersome as possible for homeowners and that the Association be involved in the formal discussions of policies and ordinances that would be considered by staff and the Council. As real estate agents, they interacted daily with buyers, sellers, builders, and
developers and heard the concerns, needs, and wants of the City=s diverse community. The Association urged and encouraged the Council to include its input in the planning process.
9/30/96 80-219
Leslie Cragin, 1020 California Avenue, preferred Definition Option 2 because she had seen houses demolished except for two standing walls. She wanted the intent of the interim guidelines to be preservation. She also preferred Demolition Option 3. Several new houses in her neighborhood had been built which were fine, but she had been affected by the process used by developers, e.g., construction on one home was seven days a week and the attitude toward the neighbors was unbearable. She wanted respect and honest discussion so that there would be agreement on the issues. Dominic Panholizer, 480 Greenwich No. 5, San Francisco, said the processes being discussed would affect whether he would be able to purchase a house on Amherst Street in Palo Alto. He wanted to know whether he could expand or demolish the house. Preservation of the house would not be a realistic option for him. A design review would be good because it represented the community where he would build a new home. The people in College Terrace had a better sense of the neighborhood than he had, and he hoped to have a voice when someone else wanted to build in the neighborhood. Council Member Simitian explained that he had been detained earlier that evening by a previous commitment but had listened to KZSU Radio, 90.1 FM, from the beginning of Item No. 4 and had heard all the staff presentation and the comments that followed and had been present for all the public testimony. He would confer with the City Attorney to be briefed on items discussed in the Closed Session. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adjourn the Special City Council Meeting of September 30, 1996, to a Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 1, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 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
9/30/96 80-220
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
9/30/96 80-221