HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-01 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting Adjourned Meeting of September 30, 1996 to October 1, 1996 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 (Public Testimony Closed)...............80-224 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:14 p.m............80-269
10/01/96 80-223
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 7:55 p.m.), Wheeler UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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 (Public Testimony Closed) Mayor Wheeler said the purpose of the meeting that evening was to have Council discussion and to give direction to staff on the policy options and potential process description for the interim regulations related to the demolition of residential structures
constructed prior to 1940. The Council=s questions would follow the outline provided by staff beginning with Item No. 1, Basic Assumption: If property is determined to have no historic merit, then demolition should be permitted. Council Member Fazzino asked how staff would address homes that had been extensively renovated since 1940. He assumed some of the homes would not have historic merit. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff would evaluate all demolition permits on a case-by-case basis to determined whether the building, both in terms of the original structure and additions, was a pre-1940 or post-1940 structure. Other factors would need to be considered besides the amount of square footage built pre-1940 or post-1940. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified staff did not review properties that had no historic status and 50 percent or less was being removed. Council Member Fazzino clarified staff would develop a standard to determine what was considered an extensively renovated home that did not have historic merit based upon the percentage of renovation since 1940. Mr. Schreiber said there could be a structure which contained a pre-1940 building but there were so many additions that were built later that it constituted a post-1940 structure. There also could be a pre-1940 structure that had so many modifications and additions that it no longer had any historic value.
Council Member Fazzino clarified staff=s plan was to address that situation as part of the interim regulations.
10/01/96 80-224
Mr. Schreiber said no. Unless directed otherwise, there would not be a special regulation for extensive renovations. Staff would administratively work out the situations based on general guide-lines. As experience unfolded, specific situations would be addressed. Mr. Calonne said the process would allow commentary from the Historic Resources Board (HRB). Council Member Kniss clarified there would be a definition for historic merit by that evening; and therefore, if a structure had no merit, it could be demolished. Mr. Calonne said Chapter 16.49.40(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) identified the current standards. The United States
Secretary of Interior=s Standards for Rehabilitation and the definitions were pieces of what might be used as a better defini-tion of categorization. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the primary deficiency
that the state had identified in the City=s current definition was that the City did not give import in the Category 1 through 4
system to structures with cultural merit. The City=s system seemed to give great difference to structures with architectural merit and left out cultural merit. The state suggested language be added to give equal import to the cultural historic issues. Mr. Schreiber referred to a memorandum from staff to the Council dated September 30, 1996, that transmitted material from Cherilyn Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer. The state recommended that material as the basis for strengthening the standards. Council Member Kniss asked how the Council could address Item No. 1 without addressing Item No. 3, Standards for Historic Evaluation. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the criteria in the PAMC spoke to historic structures, but Categories 1 through 4 did not include houses of cultural merit. If the interim regulations were incorporated into the language in the PAMC, the language would be in place irrespective of how homes had been currently designated. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Andersen referred to the 50 percent concept in Item No. 2, Definition of Demolition. He asked whether the current 50 percent perimeter wall definition included retention of the exterior facade or just the frame of the walls. Ms. Lytle said the retention meant the frame of the home could not be removed, and 50 percent of the exterior form would be either reconstituted in its current configuration or would remain without demolition.
10/01/96 80-225
Council Member Andersen clarified if the Council wanted more retained for nonhistoric structures, that could be a part of the definition of demolition, e.g., Definition Option 2 for Historic Structures. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. The Council could modify the definition of demolition to include more exterior walls or less exterior walls. Mayor Wheeler asked whether the Council could specify that the street-facing facade had to be among the 50 percent standard. Ms. Lytle said yes. Council Member Schneider asked whether it was possible to indicate that if the facade were part of the 50 percent that elements from the original facade would be retained if the setback were not maintained, i.e., if 50 percent or less of the front of the house were being demolished. There was nothing in the language regarding the setback, and she assumed that the setback was not being dealt with. The language stated that if the 50 percent being used were the front wall, then it could be moved forward. Ms. Lytle said yes. Under Definition Option 1, it could be any 50 percent perimeter. If the option included the street-facing facade, then an applicant would not be allowed to move forward with more house. Mr. Schreiber explained that the wall and the basic foundation needed to stay in place and could not be moved toward the street. Mr. Calonne said the discussion of design review and/or compatibil-ity regulations assumed more than 50 percent, so there was no effort to put a compatibility regulation on a post-1940 or pre-1940 structure with less than 50 percent unless it was already desig-nated under the historic categories. Council Member Schneider said if an applicant were remodeling a Category 2 house and the 50 percent would be the front wall for demolition, the wall could not be moved so the size could not be increased. Mr. Calonne said moving the wall meant that the application went beyond 50 percent in the example. He clarified if the back of the house were demolished and 50 percent of the front were left but the applicant tried to move it, it would be more than 50 percent. Therefore, the application would require historic evaluation and potential compatibility review. Council Member Schneider clarified a front and side wall could be moved and more than 50 percent of the house could still remain standing.
10/01/96 80-226
Mr. Schreiber said there was no identification of what walls needed to be kept, e.g., the back of the house and one side wall and the front of house could be moved forward if it were set back on the lot which was within the 50 percent rule. Council Member Schneider asked whether the Council could ask that elements of the front wall be retained in the new design so there was something consistent with the old design to keep the character of the house intact. Mr. Schreiber said it could be done, but it would be similar to the
compatibility design review process. The word Αelements≅ did not mean the same physical materials. Elements would be a design feature. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the definitions in the classifications in the staff report (CMR:417:96) and the existing ordinance. The staff report listed two categories: landmark and contributing. The existing ordinance had Category 1 through 4 and significant structures were Category 1 and 2 and any house located in a historic district. He asked how the houses in a historic district fit into the categories of the staff report. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not suggested any change to the existing historic ordinance. The rules for the houses in Professorville that were individually not on the inventory but were part of the historic district and were treated as a Category 1 or 2 structure would remain under the category of landmark. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified under landmark houses, the Barbee House or the house that existed where the southern planation
mansion was currently were in a higher category than the Αbig blue≅ house in College Terrace that was recently demolished. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether that was a wise classifica-tion. Mr. Schreiber said the integrity of the historic district was more than the sum of the Category 1 and 2 structures. If the intent were to maintain the integrity of the district, then placing emphasis on all of the other structures was a valid approach. The
Αbig blue≅ structure in College Terrace was not different than any other Category 3 or 4 structure where the rules had been that the building could be demolished without a waiting period. The issue was whether there should be a waiting period for Category 3 and 4 structures, and the Council could put into the interim regulations that there be a consideration of a delay in demolition that currently applied to Category 1 and 2 or denial of demolition.
10/01/96 80-227
Council Member Rosenbaum said when the Council began making decisions about houses in the landmark classification, the Council might well consider strengthening the rules for those structures, but it should keep in mind as currently defined that it included some houses that might not be as important as others. Council Member McCown asked about the alternative definition of demolition. She asked what was the underlying purpose of using the existing 50 percent standard as a standard for demolition. Ms. Lytle said the definition was developed in order to implement the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) ordinance which allowed the City to give variances for design compatibility for additions and remodels. The City was faced with a need to define what was an addition and remodel versus what was a new home. Staff had struggled with a variety of plans where the structure was so significantly altered that nobody could call it a remodel and the 50 percent perimeter wall standard seemed to apply in the majority of instances. Staff began applying the standard in the late 1980s, and it had been a workable definition for that process and had also worked with historical problems, e.g., staff had used that definition when a builder exceeded the demolition plans and removed the entire structure. Staff had made the builder revise his/her plans to observe the current setbacks rather than rebuilding a noncomplying situation with a new house attached to it. Council Member McCown clarified when the City went through the R-1 zoning revisions and created the HIE which was intended to allow room for people who wanted to do small-scale remodeling, the City had to distinguish between small-scale remodeling and a total change which should be treated as a demolition. If a structure were treated as a demolition, the City would not give those properties the benefit of the HIE. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked whether there was a previous definition of demolition. Ms. Lytle said there was no previous definition of demolition. Mr. Schreiber said except what might be found in the Uniform Building Code. Council Member McCown said the new option proposed that anything that removed a significant piece of a building would be considered
demolition of a landmark structure, i.e., Αan act or process that destroys or razes in whole or in part a building, structure, or
site.≅
10/01/96 80-228
Mr. Calonne clarified by definition, it would only apply to existing identified landmarks. Nothing would be found in the interim process that would become a landmark for that purpose. Council Member McCown clarified the staff recommendation was that the 50 percent rule for contributing structures would be continued, but a new definition would be imposed for landmark structures that any piece of the structure would be considered demolition. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mr. Calonne said the jurisdictional trigger for the definition of demolition was when more than 50 percent of the walls were being removed, so the definition would not have an impact on a property that was not already a designated landmark. For example, if the proposal were for more than 50 percent, staff might find through historic evaluation that it was a landmark, but the definition would not make a difference because it was already over 50 percent. Vice Mayor Huber asked how a landmark that had not been recognized could be saved if someone wanted to demolish it. Ms. Lytle said under the recommendation, if 50 percent of the exterior walls of the landmark remained, staff would not review the application. Through the HIE, although not required but could be required, the 50 percent preserved was generally the street-facing facade. Most additions were upward or to the rear. Most of the time half of the landmark would be preserved through the definition which would encourage retention and not complete demolition of the
buildings. Staff=s rationale for not expanding the definition was its concern about reviewing remodels to every pre-1940 home. The HIE process allowed additions and remodels not to be subject to that type of evaluation. Mr. Calonne said the existing process addressed the situation described. The City had a process where property could be designated without consent of the owner, but the City did not have a moratorium at the time a request to designate was made. If the Council wanted to allow the normal process to move forward during the interim for the undiscovered gem but to protect the undiscov-ered gem, a placeholder could be added to the legislation in the designation process so that a property could be put on the list and then take advantage of the landmark demolition rules. Council Member Kniss asked whether Definition Option 2 which stated
Α...more in keeping with typical historic preservation ordi-
nances...≅ related to the material from Ms. Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer.
Ms. Lytle said Ms. Widell=s material was about evaluating a structure for its merit rather than the definition of demolition.
10/01/96 80-229
Staff reviewed approximately 15 ordinances prior to preparing the staff report (CMR:417:96); and generally for structures of
significance, demolition referred to Αan act or process that destroys or razes in whole or in part a building, structure, or
site.≅ Most communities dealt with alteration as well as demoli-tion, which did not mean a building could not be altered but that National Standards for Historic Preservation needed to be used in evaluating that alteration. Many historic buildings were remodeled throughout the country according to National Standards for Historic Preservation. Mr. Calonne said the definition was the admission ticket that allowed people into the City process. For the existing landmarks, any alteration would require City review which was more in keeping with typical ordinances. Mayor Wheeler asked if a person owned a currently designated Category 1 or 2 landmark structure and he/she wanted to either remodel or demolish that structure, whether the person would be
directed to the City=s review process. Ms. Lytle said the owner of a Category 1 or 2 landmark structure would file the HRB application and the HRB would evaluate the project and the plan would be reviewed for consistency with standards of historic preservation. If the plan were found to be
consistent with those standards, then the HRB=s recommendation of approval of the alteration or demolition would be sent to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval and that decision could be appealed to the Council. If the plan were found inconsistent with historic standards, the HRB would recommend denial, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment would probably follow that recommendation which could also be appealed to the Council. Mayor Wheeler clarified if a person wanted to demolish less than 50 percent, he/she went through the permit streamlining process and received a permit. She said if a person had a currently desig-nated Category 3 or 4 building and wanted to demolish more than 50 percent of the building, then Demolition Option 3 would apply. Ms. Lytle said that scenario assumed Demolition Option 3. If staff knew a project were a Category 3 or 4 and the plan was to demolish the structure, either the HRB or staff would review the replacement plans for their compatibility with whatever criteria were devel-oped. If the project were compatible, then staff or the HRB, which was the decision-making body, would recommend approval, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment would sign off on the recommendation. If it were not a ministerial process, it could be appealed to the Council. However, if the plans were found not to be compatible with either National Standards or design criteria, then HRB or staff, which ever decision-making body were selected,
10/01/96 80-230
would recommend denial and the Director of Planning and Community Environment would follow that recommendation. If it were discre-tionary approval, it would have possible appeal to the Council. Mayor Wheeler said a concern had been expressed by her colleagues that if a person had a currently designated Category 3 or 4 building, there was no review process for determining whether that was an appropriate categorization for that piece of property. Some buildings had been put into Category 3 or 4 on the historic inventory; and during the intervening years since the inventory had been conceived, the buildings might be more valuable and possibly deserving of recategorization to a Category 2 or even Category 1. Mr. Schreiber said if the owner of a Category 3 or 4 structure applied for less than 50 percent removal, it would not be reviewed with the process. If the definition of demolition were 50 percent or more, a structure would be reviewed with the process. If the building were reviewed by the HRB and it concluded that the structure was a very important building, the next steps would depend upon the interim regulations. The Council could strengthen the ability of the City to delay demolition. The City did not currently have the ability to delay demolition of a Category 3 or 4 structure unless it was located in Professorville. Mr. Calonne clarified if that were not done, a plan for 49 percent would go through without any review. Mr. Schreiber said the Council could put in place regulations that denied demolitions in Category 3 and 4. He wanted to highlight that the Council could also put in place design review of replace-ment structures which was not a staff recommendation but one of the choices the Council could make. The Council could delay or deny an application, and the HRB at that point would look at that application and determine that it was an important structure which would either trigger delay or deny the demolition. On a separate track was the existing historic ordinance that had a process for categorizing a particular property. The HRB would be within its prerogative to trigger that process and review the property and make a recommendation to the Council to redesignate that site from a Category 4 to a Category 2. If the Council approved that recommendation, then any further change to the property had to conform to the rules for a Category 1 or 2 structure. With either the delay or deny option, the HRB would have time to trigger that process. Mayor Wheeler asked about buildings constructed prior to 1940 but
were not on the City=s current inventory. Ms. Lytle said the applicant would apply for a HRB evaluation of the structure and the HRB might be able to determine immediately that the building was not of merit. In some instances, a profes-sional survey might be needed to assist the HRB in reaching a conclusion about whether or not the structure had merit and that
10/01/96 80-231
option had been allowed for in the staff report. If the structure were found to be of merit, either by the HRB or its review of a professional evaluation, the next question would be whether it was a landmark or contributing structure. If the building were determined to be a landmark structure, then the HRB would utilize standards for historic preservation in evaluating even alterations to that structure. If the building were found to have no merit, then the HRB would recommend approval of the demolition permit and the Director of Planning and Community Environment would issue the demolition permit but an appeal to the Council would be possible. Mayor Wheeler clarified the houses located within the boundaries of the Professorville historic district would be treated as landmark structures. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Mayor Wheeler asked whether the index of houses in the historic inventory included their categorization level.
Ms. Lytle said yes, it was in the back of the HRB=s customer handout. Council Member Kniss asked how a professional historic survey was obtained and the inherent cost. Mr. Schreiber said there were architects and others in the professional community that could conduct that type of survey. An applicant could contract with someone to perform the survey or the City could have a person on retainer who could perform the survey with the assumption that there was a full cost recovery which would be easier from a customer service standpoint than applicants trying to find someone. The cost would be dependent upon the amount of research required and could range from $1,000 to $8,000. Council Member Kniss asked whether such a person was used for the first survey. Mr. Schreiber said a consultant was used in 1974-75 who was familiar with historic architecture and inventory work. He emphasized that level of research was not done property by property. Members of the initial HRB did most of the research. Council Member Kniss asked whether the pamphlet, Gone Tomorrow, was still available. She recalled that a great deal of research had been done and it might be helpful to review the pamphlet. Mr. Schreiber said much of the effort related to saving the Squire House in the early 1970s. Council Member Fazzino referred to the process for pre-1940 structures of unknown merit. He saw a very strong role for the HRB
10/01/96 80-232
in the entire process, but at the same time, he wanted to move structures of obvious nonhistoric merit off the list as quickly as possible for a variety of reasons. He believed there would be more willingness to support efforts to preserve truly historic homes if there were a streamlined process in place. He asked why an initial staff review had not been proposed for applications rather than sending every application to the HRB. He asked whether there was a quick process that could be used to deal with properties that were not obviously historic. Mr. Schreiber said if Council desired, an initial staff screening process could be put in place with an appeal process. He cautioned against that type of process because it might overstate the ability of a staff member to notice something that the seven members of the HRB might be better able to notice. Mr. Calonne said criteria would be needed to determine the situation and those situations would be definitionally arbitrary. Staff wanted to take advantage of the inventory that had been done in 1975, which would have reviewed 50 years. Staff was uncertain whether the list was accurate and believed the post-1925 properties had not been reviewed. Staff was concerned that when the initial list was done it was early in terms of the National Historic Preservation movement on residential homes. There was a sense that some properties were excluded for unexplained reasons. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. He said it was also important to note that the effort undertaken in the mid-1970s was within the context of City Council direction that there would not be a mandatory process. The City had a low-key approach to the entire process at that time. The level of sensitivity during the year might be significantly higher because the stakes would be higher. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the staff would make the decision on an extensively renovated home that had been altered dramatically since 1940 or would it be viewed as a structure of unknown merit and have to move through the process. Ms. Lytle said it would be difficult to make an administrative decision and the board would have the ability to research the issue further, particularly if the original building were of cultural merit. The building might not be of architectural merit, but it would take some record research review to determine cultural merit. She explained the HRB would approve demolition if the building were not of structural merit and the applicant would move through the building permit process. She did not believe it would be a cumbersome evaluation. Council Member Fazzino asked about the time line. Ms. Lytle replied if it were a noticed process, it would take a minimum of one month. Appeal time would be additional.
10/01/96 80-233
Mr. Calonne said the notice might not have to happen at the beginning but would happen some time before the HRB formally recommended approval of the demolition. The initial triage could happen quickly provided there was a hearing opportunity before that action became final. He said the relevant public was the immedi-ately affected neighbors or a 300-foot notice. Vice Mayor Huber clarified any Category 3 or 4 or pre-1940 building that someone wanted to do 49 percent or less would not be reviewed and would go through the process. Mr. Schreiber said that option was recommended by staff. Vice Mayor Huber asked how many 50 percent projects had been done during the prior years. Ms. Lytle replied 46 applicants who wanted to save 50 percent of their home had applied for an HIE, which was less than the demolition permits received. The current year was higher than normal activity at the mid-year point. Mr. Schreiber explained that not all of the people who were substantially modifying a structure more than 50 percent applied for a HIE. The actual number might be notably higher. Mr. Calonne said the behavior modification effect of the regula-
tions was complicated. A regulation always modified people=s behavior. He questioned how many projects would become 47 or 48 percent if the alterative were regulations that were costly or time consuming. It was an obvious possible consequence of a 50 percent line drawing. Mr. Schreiber was cautious about creating one definition of demolition for the HIE process and another definition of demolition for another City process that made sense for the public.
Vice Mayor Huber clarified the Council=s comments and guidance would be on an interim ordinance which might need to be tougher until the outcome could be analyzed. He asked whether the Council could amend the interim ordinance if something drastic happened that had not been contemplated. Mr. Calonne said yes, and the Council could delegate a fair amount of it to administrative regulations that could be amended without amendment of the ordinance. Some of the compatibility definitions might be a good subject for administrative regulations rather than an ordinance, particularly if they were influx. Council Member Schneider clarified staff indicated it was its recommendation that staff not take the first pass at a house of questionable historic merit. There were some pre-1940 homes in College Terrace that were derelict and had no viability, and she asked why the HRB would be asked to review those homes.
10/01/96 80-234
Mr. Schreiber said there might be a cultural aspect that one person
might not be sensitive to and one person=s derelict structure might
be another person=s potential renovation. He referred to the recent issue about the house in College Terrace that was leaning toward the neighbor, windows were boarded up, and the Council concurred with the HRB to impose a one-year moratorium on demoli-tion for that house. Mr. Calonne said staff had conceptually framed the characterization
of whether a house was worth saving in conjunction with someone=s effort to develop or redevelop the property. Another way separate from a process associated with someone trying to remodel or develop would be to allow an exemption process where a person independent of any building plans could determine whether his/her property had merit. His reaction regarding that method was that the City had one year and that would be layering on many different processes for the City. He preferred to separate that kind of exemption process so people would not have to invest in building plans that they were not ready to use. The difficulty with that process was that many times the decision to allow renovation or remodeling was dependent upon what would be built, but an off-ramp process could be created separate from the development process. Council Member Schneider clarified compatibility would be dealt with separately. Mr. Calonne said the two would need to be considered together if
the Council=s decision regarding demolition of a property were dependent upon what would be built there. Council Member Simitian had previously asked whether 1940 had some special significance; and in the interest of striking a balance between property rights and historic preservation, he asked whether there was another date that might be less onerous. He asked whether the period from 1925 to 1940 was of great historic merit for structures or whether that period could be safely rolled back to 1925. Mr. Calonne said the City had a list of how many parcels existed for each 10-year bracket. Mayor Wheeler understood that the homes built between 1925 and 1940 had not been evaluated. Council Member Simitian said that also applied for the homes from 1925 to 1950 or 1960. Mayor Wheeler clarified that the homes built in 1950 were not eligible.
10/01/96 80-235
Council Member Simitian said he had previously asked why 1940 was the date chosen, and Council Member Fazzino had replied that it was because not many structures were built during the 1930s. The Council then heard from an owner of a 1938 house which was the exception that belied the rule. He asked whether 1940 was the right date. Mr. Calonne said the wrong date would be anything after 1946, i.e., 50 years was the accepted threshold. Mr. Schreiber said the question was whether it should be 1940 to 1946. He could not recall the date for the first post-World War II subdivisions. Council Member Fazzino replied 1947. Mr. Schreiber said staff was comfortable with 1940 because it was a period of low building activity and before any of the post-World War II subdivisions. The date could be 1945 or 1946 if Council desired. Council Member Simitian asked whether the structures that were built in the community between 1925 and 1940 were historic in character or architecture. Council Member Fazzino said it was a very fruitful period for Birge Clark during that time. During the period of 1928-1929, the President Apartments, the post office, and the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation=s original building were built. Council Member Simitian said if there were a possibility of litigation, there should be some evidence that supported the date of 1940. He wanted findings that spoke about the historic or architectural significance of structures built prior to that date to justify the selection of that date so there was no suggestion that the date was arbitrary. He asked about the time for HRB review of obvious candidates. He shared the sensitivity of staff
that one person=s obvious candidate was another person=s obvious treasure. He had heard one month without the appeal time, and he asked how long the appeal process would take. Mr. Schreiber said if it were based on the time frame of the ARB ordinance, it would be a 10-day period after the decision was made for the appeal to be filed. If the appeal came directly to the
Council, it would be placed on the Council=s agenda sometime within the next month after that date. It was a public hearing which required noticing. Mr. Calonne said it might be a good candidate, after consultation with staff, for a discretionary appeal process where it would give the Council an opportunity to reject an appeal without conducting a hearing.
10/01/96 80-236
Council Member Simitian clarified the time frame was a minimum of one month, plus another ten days, and another minimum of one month, so the time frame was approximately three months. He asked what would be the price of a lot that had been scraped. Ms. Lytle said an average price was $400,000, and the highest price lot was $1.3 million on Fulton Street. Council Member Simitian said if a person tried to build a new home on the site and if everyone believed the site were an obvious candidate for demolition, the person would have to carry the cost of the $400,000 for three months until a unanimous decision was received from the Council, a decision that could have been determined at the beginning of the process. Someone would pay approximately $12,000 for the privilege of moving through the
City=s process. He was not suggesting the process should be made easier, but he queried whether staff had some concern that it would minimize the enthusiasm for the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the economics of the issue had to be considered carefully. He presumed the $12,000 cost would be reflected in the purchase price of the property, and it was not an unforeseen hardship that would be borne by an unwitting purchaser. The effect of that kind of land use regulation was a down zone, so it would depress the value of the property that was affected. Mayor Wheeler suggested the Council return to the questions regarding the definition of demolition. Council Member Kniss said the greatest concern in many instances was the facade so that the character of the neighborhood would not be changed. If projects dramatically changed the facade so that the house was not recognizable, then the 50 percent rule would not make any sense. Ms. Lytle said it was possible to completely change the appearance of the house under the 50 percent rule and that could happen more frequently as people worked around that rule. Under the HIE applications that staff had reviewed, upon completion of the remodel, the original character of the house was recognizable. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Council could address that issue under compatibility. Ms. Lytle said the point of the compatibility criteria would be to preserve the original structure or replace it with something of equal contribution. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff concurred that the facade of the house affected the neighborhood the most.
10/01/96 80-237
Ms. Lyle believed it was the street scape impact that was important to many people, although there were other issues at side and rear property lines. Mr. Schreiber said based on his personal observation over many years, he had absolute confidence in the ability of applicants to find every possible way around a regulation. People would be put through a very complicated, extensive, and costly process if regulations were designed to prevent almost everything. The issue for the Council was how far it wanted to go and how much pain it wanted to inflict upon people who went through the process. Mr. Calonne said the preference would be reasonable regulations for people. A consideration might be a staff-initiated moratorium on particular properties to give a creditable deterrent to people who wanted to do something apparitional. If the balance came down to the problem of certainty versus flexibility, he concurred with Mr. Schreiber that for a one-year period the desirable option would be certainty for interim regulations. Council Member McCown asked how many previous structures on the historic inventory had been demolished under the current 50 percent definition rule. Mr. Schreiber said only 2 of the 52 demolition permits issued for the current year involved structures that were on the historic inventory; one Category 4 structure and one contributing structure within Professorville. There were 24 pre-1940 out of the 52 demolition permits through the middle of September 1996. Mr. Calonne said there were 10 demolition permits in the previous 10 years, and half of the demolition permits were during the prior 2 years, i.e., 5 demolition permits from 1986 to 1994 and 5 in 1995-1996. Ms. Lytle clarified those were complete demolitions. There was no accounting of the 50 percent rule. Council Member McCown clarified over 10 years, a total of 10 houses that had been designated in historic categories had been more than 50 percent demolished. Mr. Calonne said the numbers were compiled to explain to a judge that the City had had five demolitions in a nine-year span and then there were five in two years. There had been a dramatic increase in the applications to the HRB in the prior two years. Council Member McCown said it conformed to her empirical observa-tion that it was predominantly contributing structures that were not caught up in the inventory because the structures were not old enough in 1978 to be eligible or because of the way the 1978
10/01/96 80-238
process worked. It was clear that those were the structures that were being affected by the current activity. Council Member Andersen asked whether staff had considered making a recommendation to the HRB on the items and the items being placed
on the HRB=s consent calendar. Mr. Schreiber said staff assumed there would be a staff recommendation to the HRB based on the initial research. However, staff had not considered the items being placed on the consent calendar. He believed the HRB understood the urgency and would not delay the items. Council Member Kniss referred to the recommendations for updating the standards for designation provided by Ms. Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer. She asked whether the criteria used in the past would include some of the standards that had not been used previously. Ms. Lytle said staff would review the information received from the State Historic Preservation Officer and make minor adjustments to
the City=s standards to reflect the most recent state mandates. Council Member Kniss asked how that would change the current criteria for contributing structures. Mr. Schreiber said in the existing ordinance, there was the criteria for designation. The criteria could be supplemented by the information that was received from the state. In addition, there were the categories, and part of the problem in the ordinance was that the categories were very clearly oriented toward architecture. It would be a combination of changing the criteria and the categorical definitions so that the ordinance would move away from only reviewing a site based on architectural consider-ations. Council Member Kniss said Professorville was very easy to isolate, but there might be many other houses that had significance. Mr. Calonne emphasized that the staff report (CMR:417:96) stated the current standards could be used and that it would be okay for a one-year interim to use architectural standards. Mr. Schreiber said if the existing standards were amended to include cultural standards, it would complicate the evaluation process in determining whether a building was significant or not and would probably add some time to the review process. Council Member Schneider said a letter from a member of the public mentioned that the City had a number of commercial buildings that also had significant value that were not in the Downtown area. She
10/01/96 80-239
asked whether commercial buildings would be considered in the interim regulations. Mr. Schreiber said no. In the future, modification of the ordinance and the historic inventory would consider those struc-tures. Council Member Schneider asked whether some very valuable commer-cial buildings could be demolished during the year. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Vice Mayor Huber asked how economic viability would be phrased. Mr. Calonne believed it would be very hard to find a single-family residence that did not have an economically viable use. The residence would have to be unlawful to inhabit for the Council to find it not to have an economically viable use. The possible exception might be a very large dwelling that could not support any realistic rental use, but there would have to be a process for people to make that case. It was not an economic hardship plea that a person could not afford the residence. Vice Mayor Huber clarified it related to the property and its usage as opposed to who owned the property and their financial situation. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino was uncertain what the difference was between Demolition Recommendations 1 and 2. Mr. Calonne said there had been many instances of very unsafe buildings being fruitfully rented. Council Member Kniss referred to the landmark structure at 1531 College Avenue as an example and she asked whether under permitted demolition circumstances that particular building could be demolished. Mr. Calonne said if a person had a property that could not be used, the next hurdle would be whether renovation was economically feasible. People would have to prove the cost of renovation made the project infeasible. Council Member Kniss clarified the economical viability of a project had to be proven by the applicant. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He believed that verifiable construction estimates would be needed and a pro forma that analyzed what the property would be able to produce.
10/01/96 80-240
Council Member Kniss said if an owner presented that kind of information, would the Council have to judge whether or not it was viable information under the economically viable purpose. Mr. Calonne said if it were clear that the property could not be used in its present condition, the owner would have to make a case that the cost of renovation rendered the project infeasible, i.e., the property was worth $600,000 but it would cost $800,000 to renovate it. Council Member Kniss asked the outcome if an owner came to the
Council under the demolition recommendation Α...cannot be used for
any economically viable purpose...≅ Mr. Calonne said the outcome as described would be that the property could be demolished. Mr. Schreiber said staff would probably encounter a variation of that scenario. For example, a person might indicate that he/she had just purchased a property with a dilapidated house on it for $800,000 and it would cost $600,000 to renovate the house but the house could only be sold for $900,000 which was not economically viable. Mr. Calonne said the courts had dealt with that issue by indicating that a person had to have reasonable investment-back expectations, and a person, in light of the regulatory climate, could not put themselves in a position of hardship and then use that situation to demolish themselves out of a bind. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was conceivable that owners of houses who anticipated selling their homes would want to get an indication from the City as to whether or not demolition would be allowed upon the sale of their property. He asked whether that provision had been considered by staff. Mr. Schreiber said the owner could apply for demolition permit and
wait for the City=s decision, assuming there was no compatibility problem. Mr. Calonne said as long as the City blended the replacement housing question, an owner would have to show the City what they wanted to do before the City could indicate the structure could be demolished. The Council might want to create a separate evaluation as an off-ramp, but he was uncertain how that would fit with the replacement compatibility problem. Ms. Lytle said people would have the ability to off-ramp. If there were no historic merit, a person would be able to have the evaluation completed in one phrase. If there were historic merit in a contributing manner, then the compatibility criteria would be needed.
10/01/96 80-241
Mr. Calonne said hopefully a seller obtaining that information would not add any more value to the property than it would take away not having it. It should be a neutral proposition. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the demolition permit would be transferrable from seller to buyer. Mr. Schreiber said yes, it went with the property. Mayor Wheeler said one concept brought forward in the public hearings was that the City was in a predicament because it had issued demolition permits before it had seen and approved a
replacement structure. She asked whether the staff=s recommendations would address joining those issues together. M. Schreiber said the only way would be to tie the compatibility findings design review with the issuance of a demolition permit. Mayor Wheeler asked whether that would be a natural outfall if the Council on the policy level indicated that it wanted a review of replacement structures for compatibility or would staff need Council direction in order for that to happen. Mr. Schreiber said clear direction from Council would be needed for the ordinance. Mr. Calonne reminded the Council that staff had identified another possible policy consequence in the way demolition and vacancy interrelated with housing mitigation policies in the Comprehensive Plan, i.e., some instances were identified where it was conceivable that housing could be demolished and property could change owners and the City would find itself in the position where the Compre-hensive Plan mitigation policies would not apply. Council Member Schneider said there were only three options for design review and none of them looked at the possibility of appointing another group of people. She clarified staff or the HRB would be the reviewing bodies. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Schneider asked whether any thought had been given to appointing another group that would be composed of one member of the HRB, the ARB, the Planning Commission, and a staff member with full voting rights as opposed to one or the other, staff or HRB. Mr. Schreiber said staff would not recommend that composition due to the time lines and getting past the moratorium. Imposing another selection process for a new board to be formulated and constituted would add unnecessary delay to the process. The HRB
10/01/96 80-242
was the body that had the background and the charge to address those types of issues. Council Member Schneider asked whether the HRB was preferred over of the ARB. Mr. Schreiber said yes. The ARB already had a very heavy case load, and the members of the ARB had volunteered their services for nonresidential design review; and when the members had been faced with residential design review, the members had tended not to like that task. The members of the ARB would have significant problems with being involved in both historic and single-family residence design issues.
Council Member Schneider said the HRB=s time during the current year would be limited due to the revision of the ordinance, and she asked whether putting another layer of work on the members of the HRB would overtax them and also slow down the process. Mr. Schreiber said the alternative to the HRB would be to have a staff decision maker such as a another Zoning Administrator who would hold meetings and make decisions, with the assumption that the decisions would be appealable to the Council. The HRB would probably average weekly meetings in the future between working on the ordinance, the historic inventory, and the process proposed. Council Member Schneider asked whether there would be an appeal process. Mr. Schreiber said if the Council chose design review, there would be an appeal process. Mr. Calonne clarified if the Council chose staff review, it would take most of the discretion out of that process. Mr. Schreiber said there would be the ministerial option, and the distinction between discretionary and ministerial option was that in a ministerial process if an applicant met the rules, the City had an obligation to issue the permit, e.g., the building permit process. Staff believed a design compatibility process could be set up using design criteria and if an applicant met those criteria, he/she would have the right to the permit. That type of process needed a sole decision maker such as a staff person and could not be set up with a review board. Staff could also be a discretionary decision maker and there would be appeal to the Council. Staff would not recommend an appeal process with a ministerial function. Mr. Calonne said the underlying rationale, aside from the decision making being where it should be, was that the Council should feel some discomfort when one individual was vested with a tremendous
10/01/96 80-243
range of discretion. The power would be diffused with boards and commissions to balance the decision making. Council Member McCown referred to the staff approval approach using ministerial standards and said the staff report (CMR:417:96) stated
ΑDevelop easily enforced (e.g., clear and concise) Design Crite-
ria...≅ and then gave examples where the compatibility of the replacement structure would be evaluated in terms of how it conformed to front yard setbacks in block face, garage placement to match the pattern in the neighborhood, and circumstances when pedestrian-scaled porches or entry features would be required. She could visualize certain physical features of new structures being made similar to the way those same features existed in the neighborhood, but she was uncertain about the other two examples: the acceptable quality materials authentic to the style of the house and specifications requiring architectural style integrity, while not dictating choice of style. She asked whether staff knew of examples where those criteria could be clear and concise and easily enforced and would not edge over into some softer more discretionary kinds of issues. Ms. Lytle said those examples had been clearly laid out, but staff had not found the more complex examples as described ministerially administered. There were ordinances that were very specific. The City of Los Gatos had an ordinance by district that stated the style of home that could be built and the appropriate materials that could be used. The City could list a range of items that was acceptable and not acceptable within certain types of homes. Staff believed something could be formulated that was ministerially administered so that the objective would not be considered discretionary. There were examples of the simple criteria administered in other jurisdictions, and the city planners in those jurisdictions believed the regulations were too slight and wished there were more items on the list that could be administered ministerially. The idea of being flexible throughout the interim process was valid because staff might find that the regulations went too far or did not go far enough. Council Member McCown said the ARB and other processes would not have been created in the community if there had been the ability to have clear and concise design issues. The Council wanted flexibil-ity which meant that a discretionary process would have to be used that involved a blend of perspectives that was more the tradition than crisp definable rules that would meet all circumstances. Mr. Schreiber said staff had reviewed recently built houses in the community and saw examples of construction that mixed styles. Staff believed there were a series of unacceptable things being done that could be controlled with that type of a process, e.g., mixing three or four styles of windows on the same facade. If Council desired, staff would contact Dan Soloman, a prominent San
10/01/96 80-244
Francisco architect, who had done design guidelines for a variety of jurisdictions, and use those guidelines on an interim basis. Council Member McCown asked whether the process of an applicant getting their proposed new home evaluated would be quicker with a ministerial staff approval process than with the discretionary processes. Mr. Schreiber said the ministerial staff approval process would be quicker. Council Member McCown clarified staff did not recommend the Council approve a compatibility review, but staff preferred to handle that process with the appropriate resources on an interim basis in contrast to the earlier recommendation regarding whether a structure had historic merit or not. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Staff would contract with an individual with the expertise who would conduct that type of process; and with full cost recovery, the costs would be recovered through the application process. Mr. Calonne said the Council needed to push one level deeper when reviewing the compatibility standards and consider the problem that was being dealt with. With garage placement, setback, or a porch or lack of a porch, a number of things could be identified that the regulations had no bearing on such as exterior finish, colors, window treatment, etc. A broad framework would balance the ease of administration and certainty with the regulations versus the satisfaction gained through flexibility on a case-by-case basis. The process might be faster and less expensive to do, but the end result might be a product that was unsatisfactory. A design review approach was very costly, but the Council would get a customer-crafted product that more people would be happier with. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the HRB currently reviewed windows, doors, etc., for something less than a full demolition of a building that might, for example, be in Professorville. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Vice Mayor Huber said compatibility was more about the addition than removal of a structure. Mr. Schreiber said it was about replacement housing. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the HRB did that type of review on a voluntary basis. Mr. Schreiber said it was on a voluntary basis and was done for structures on the historic inventory and all structures in Professorville.
10/01/96 80-245
Vice Mayor Huber clarified the City selected someone to do a similar job but added to it, i.e., adding a porch or a garage being in the rear. He asked whether there were industry standards for deciding which materials could be used. Ms. Lytle said staff would probably not define classes of things, but a determination could be made that aluminum sliding windows
were on the Αnot to use≅ list, whereas true divided light wooden
windows were on the Αokay to use≅ list, that tinted glass was not okay, but clear glass was okay, or real wood siding as opposed to
prefabricated siding. Staff=s intent was for the Council to select from a draft list of options items that it was willing or not willing to impose. Mr. Calonne said another strategy was rather than considering what the Council was trying to achieve, to look at what it was trying to prevent. If the Council wanted to prevent serial reuse of the same floor plan and elevation throughout the City, simple compatibility regulations would render that plan not very useful. He believed that was the direction on the garage placement issue which might be appropriate on an interim basis. Council Member Kniss said quality made the difference. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Kniss asked how that differed from electrical and plumbing requirements and whether an analogy could be drawn. Mr. Schreiber said the Uniform Building Code (UBC) was designed to set a minimum standard. For electrical and plumbing systems, the standards were reasonably thought out and highly developed. There were no standards for the appearance of the exterior of buildings that was comparable to those standards. Interior and exterior materials could vary tremendously if there were not life safety related. Council Member Kniss clarified many communities had considered those regulations and the Council needed to decide whether it would work for the community. Mr. Schreiber said it was quite feasible to arrive at the basic design parameters. Staff had not found a jurisdiction that had applied those parameters in a ministerial sense. Ms. Lytle said a city in Florida had applied the parameters ministerially. Council Member Andersen asked if the City went into a ministerial approach with a specific kind of criteria, would it result in some developers simply presenting speculative plans that fit that criteria which might create more problems. He asked whether the
10/01/96 80-246
Council could establish quality standards that exceeded the minimum UBC standards. Mr. Schreiber said the UBC was quite rigid in how the amendment process was handled. Findings of local exceptional circumstances and unusual geotechnical environment would be necessary, and it would be difficult to make those findings if the City wanted to change the UBC to require higher standards. Council Member Andersen clarified the minimum tended to be a maximum. Mr. Schreiber said the UBC worked on the basis of a minimum for life safety. For some builders, it was the maximum, but other builders went beyond the standards. There was quite a variety in terms of the quality of construction. Council Member Andersen was concerned that one staff person having the responsibility of oversight for some of the new structures would have the flexibility to see to it that the standard was higher than construction elsewhere. Mr. Schreiber said building code issues needed to be separated from exterior appearance. It was a ministerial process with a set of rules for the exterior appearance, and a permit would be issued if an applicant met those rules. The process should be clearly defined so that a person would have a clear sense of what was or was not possible. In that case, the process became ministerial with no appeal. A discretionary process would give more flexibil-ity to require nuances of exterior design. Council Member Andersen asked how far the regulations could go and still be fair to the developers, e.g., could the person responsible for implementing the standards indicate that plastic on the exterior instead of wood was not acceptable. Mr. Schreiber said in a ministerial process, it would need to be on the list of items that had to be conformed with. In a discretion-ary process whether it was staff or a board, there was greater flexibility. Council Member Andersen needed to be persuaded that the City would
not get Αcookie cutter≅ plans from builders with a ministerial process. Ms. Lytle said the process would not eliminate speculative builders
and the City would probably not be able to eliminate Αcookie
cutter≅ plans through a ministerial process. Builders would still use a successful pattern unless the Council prohibited the same design in different locations.
10/01/96 80-247
Council Member Andersen asked whether there could be restrictions on similar houses nearby. Ms. Lytle said there could be a distance criteria or a rule imposed on how often the same plan could be reapplied. The City could not completely prohibit that formula-type house, but staff believed the City would get a better style of home that fit into the neighbor-hood with those criteria. With discretionary approval, the Council had the ability to not be so constrained on the type of materials people could use. The ministerial process would eliminate innovation in the interim. Staff believed the purpose of the
Council=s memorandum to be more about architecturing context than encouraging innovation architecture. Council Member Andersen said the issue being considered was a pre-1940 issue, but another issue he was concerned about was that demolitions would be relocated from one part of town to another part. If Council asked staff to return with a demolition review that included all demolitions in the community, not only the pre-1940 structures, could it be applied uniformly throughout the community. Mr. Calonne said yes. He believed the Council would have to decide which pieces of the weighty planning issues needed a more thorough review by perhaps the Planning Commission. He suggested on the replacement housing compatibility, that the Council look forward in terms of avoiding radical changes in direction. People were caused anguish by shifts in course that were unpredictable. If the Council believed design review on a discretionary basis were feasible in the future, staff should move in that direction. If the Council believed compatibility regulations such as the single-story overlay were preferable, staff should move in that direction. He believed less grief and legal problems for the City would be caused if the Council planned ahead for the period after the interim regulations. Ms. Lytle said the criteria that staff would prepare for the pre-1940 neighborhoods would not be the type of standards that would be prepared for other neighborhoods in the community. The traditional neighborhoods in the City had a whole different pattern to their development. Different kinds of compatibility standards would be applied for other parts of the City rather than the list that was being discussed that evening. Mr. Schreiber explained that would be a significant undertaking and would not be feasible within the two-week time frame when returned to the Council. The advantage of the pre-1940 structures was that those parts of the community had some stylistic similarities and were the minority of the housing stock. Council Member Andersen said the Council could choose to suggest that some elements of the discussion that evening be referred to
10/01/96 80-248
the Planning Commission for its consideration. A major area in the community that needed review was the replacement houses that were being built in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zone. Some of the houses were almost three stories. He hoped some referrals could be made to the Planning Commission for direction within a short period of time. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission recently gave Chairper-son Cassel the authority to come to the Council and make a point that the Comprehensive Plan was the number one priority and to ask the Council not to divert the Planning Commission from the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Schneider asked what the difference was between design review, architectural content, and design quality. The terms had been used interchangeably. Mr. Schreiber said architectural content was the subject of design review. Design review involved both the appearance of a structure in terms of its architectural design and the type of materials that were used in the structure. The basic issue was design review. Design quality was another subset of design review and was part of the design review process. The discussion that the staff and Council had had that evening had returned to a point that there could be different processes and those different processes would give different levels of emphasis on the nuances of design quality. Council Member Schneider clarified that design quality in any of the subsets did not mean that every house in a neighborhood had to be a certain style.
Mr. Schreiber said no. Staff=s assumption was that regulating
quality would not dictate style. Staff=s operating assumption which had also been the operating assumption of the ARB for a long time was that Palo Alto had had a variety of architectural styles over the years and the City did not want to discourage that but wanted to encourage good quality in the execution of different styles. The quality was both design and materials. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it would be more cost-effective for the City to hire a staff person to handle the process. Mr. Schreiber said no, for the near term. If the Council wanted to get past the moratorium and move more quickly into design review, the priority would be to have someone on board immediately and the hiring process was normally slow. In the long term, the City could end up with a mix of a regular staff position and/or a contract position. One of the issues that needed to be dealt with was a varying workload. Staff did not know how many applications would be received in the near future.
10/01/96 80-249
Ms. Lytle said two types of staffing that were necessary to support any aspect of the process was technical and administrative support staff. Additional administrative and technical support staff would be needed to handle the process generated by the interim regula-tions. City Manager June Fleming had grave concerns about the prolifera-
tion of contract staff and the staff=s ability to adequately supervise and monitor a number of contract people to make sure the people were integrated into the overall philosophy versus their interests and concerns being split. She had heard the same concerns voiced by various members of the Council. Depending on
the Council=s choices, it could end up being a very expensive and staff-intensive process. There were varying levels; one to get everything in place, another for start up, and then a leveling out in terms of what staff would be faced with on a day-to-day basis. Mayor Wheeler said the Council had heard discussion from the public about the City providing financial incentives to entice people to do the right thing. She asked whether there was a legal concern about using the fee structure to help accomplish that goal and whether the City could charge less for people who wished to remodel than for people who wished to demolish if remodeling were the goal that the City wanted to encourage. Mr. Calonne said yes, but the City could not increase the cost for someone else to balance it out. Mr. Schreiber said the General Fund could subsidize some processes,
and in some cases it was currently being done. It was not staff=s recommendation but it was an option. Mr. Calonne said many iterations would end up in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of promoting the kind of housing the Council wanted. It would strain the concept of a technique for housing incentives. RECESS: 9:30 P.M. - 9:50 P.M. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Definition of Demolition Option 1: Retain 50 percent perimeter wall definition in the Urgency Moratorium for all
contributing structures, and Option 2 for landmark structures, that
demolition be defined to read: Αan act or process that destroys or
razes in whole or in part a building, structure, or site.≅ AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to amend the motion to require that one wall shall be the front facade under the 50 percent perimeter wall definition.
10/01/96 80-250
Council Member McCown was concerned because she did not know what the unintended consequences of the regulation would be if the Council decided that the two walls that had to remain was the front wall. She clarified that if 50 percent of the perimeter walls were retained, one of the walls had to be the front facade. Council Member Andersen said the advantage was that it was an interim regulation, and if some unintended consequences occurred, the regulation could be reconsidered in one year. He believed the advantages outweighed the problems that had been seen over the previous years with the current process and he wanted to take some risk and put the process in place. Council Member Schneider would not support the amendment for the interim regulation and would be more interested in the regulation being considered in the final ordinance due to untended conse-quences. The amendment would slow down the process for the people who needed to move forward quickly. She believed it was too strict to insist that during the interim program that the facade needed to remain for houses that were going to be remodeled with less than 50 percent of walls being removed. Council Member Simitian could understand why the staff wanted the Council to lay out as much possible the direction it was headed, but he did not believe it was a good use of interim regulations. The interim period was designed to get a handle on the problem and to give the Council one year to sort through not only the issues it had been faced with very directly during the prior few weeks but the wider range of issues that kept arising. It was one subset of issues, but there were many others that had been discussed. He wanted the Council to stay focused on the direct and clear issues that had arose recently and not try and figure out what the
Council=s conclusion would be in one year on some of the issues. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-5, Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler Αyes.≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve
the Standards for Historic Evaluation Option 2: Strengthen the evaluation criteria by updating the standards for designation as recommended by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Council Member Rosenbaum preferred that the current standards be retained on the grounds of simplicity and to relieve the staff of any additional work which he did not feel was necessary for the interim period and would not solve the problems that brought the moratorium forward initially. Council Member Kniss said the Council was moving in a different direction, and she wanted to consider the expanded definition
10/01/96 80-251
provided by the State Office of Historic Preservation. She felt the interim period was the appropriate time to expand the criteria. Council Member Simitian clarified the time period would be in two weeks and asked whether Council was comfortable that staff would provide a thoughtful revision in two weeks. Council Member Kniss said given the previous Council discussion on
the issue and staff=s indication of support, she did not believe it was broad reaching and would add one element from the state to the
criteria. The additional criteria would bring the City=s existing standards up to current state standards. The Hewlett-Packard garage was an example of the kinds of structures that were not currently protected.
Vice Mayor Huber said the state=s standards were clear and could
easily be incorporated into the City=s existing criteria. Council Member McCown said one impact in the interim period would be that the merit of unknown structures would also go through a cultural analysis. She asked whether staff had familiarity with a process that expected a property owner to do cultural analysis of a building. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not done that type of process previously, and it would add to the cost of research on a particu-lar property. However, reviewing both the architectural and cultural factors regarding a particular property was not outside the realm of what had been done in other jurisdictions. Council Member McCown clarified the current criteria in the ordinance was worded in a way that would include the Hewlett-Packard garage, but the Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 designations had been predominantly focused on architectural. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mr. Calonne said the categories were inconsistent with the criteria in the ordinance. Council Member McCown would oppose the motion for the interim period because she felt it was inappropriate to place a new set of rules on people in the interim period who would already be required to go through an additional element that might significantly change the type of evaluation. She did not disagree with the direction for the long term because the entire ordinance needed to be revised and that criteria for designation could appropriately be included in the concepts that came from the state. Mayor Wheeler was familiar with the current inventory and with the process that was followed to identify the houses. The type of
10/01/96 80-252
research that had been done on the houses that were on the inventory already included not only the architectural merit of the house but also a history of the house that was compiled from documents that existed in the local library and spoke to who owned or lived in the house during various periods and what significant events might have taken place in that house. Even though the information had not been used to determine whether a house went on the inventory or not, it had already been done as part of the research. Council Member McCown said staff indicated those kinds of evalua-tions would be picked up if the current standards were used, so she questioned why the current standards could not be used. Mayor Wheeler explained that the categories spoke to the architectural merit and not the cultural merit, so the research would have to be done anyway. The structure did not always receive recognition. Council Member McCown said the staff report (CMR:417:96) indicated the current standards for designation as the evaluation criteria would continue to be used, and she asked whether the reference was to Item Nos. 1-6 in the current ordinance. Mr. Schreiber said the reference was to Item Nos. 1-6 in the context of Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the definitions of the categories were oriented toward architecture and style. Council Member McCown was unclear whether the City would be asking people to respond to Item Nos. 1-6 regardless of the fact that the current categories were 1 through 4. The buildings were not presently in the inventory and would need to be evaluated to determine their status, and she asked why the ordinance provision criteria for designation could not be used. Ms. Lytle said that process could be used if the classification system were ignored and the designation criteria and the definition for contributing and landmark structures that had been recommended by staff were followed. Council Member McCown understood for the new process that the standards for designation that were set out in the ordinance and the two categories of landmark and contributing structures would be used.
Ms. Lytle said the landmark definition stated Α...or are identified
with historic people or with important events and activities≅ worked as opposed to the current classification system. Contributing structures did not have the cultural reference. The most out-of-date aspect of the ordinance was Categories 1 through 4; and if that were removed, it would be close to the state and national standards.
10/01/96 80-253
Council Member Kniss said the HRB had often been frustrated that the ordinance did not have more strength. Council Member Schneider asked if a person wanted a demolition permit on a pre-1940 house that was not on the historic inventory but was determined to have cultural merit that would preclude it from being demolished, how long would it take to determine whether or not that house had cultural validity. Ms. Lytle said the determination was expected to be made within the same discretionary process, which was within one month for the hearing and with an appeal process after the determination was made. If it were found that further information were necessary and a quick decision could not be mad, it might result in a delay and a request for a professional evaluation. Council Member Schneider would oppose the motion at the present time but would support it in the final ordinance. The process needed to be simpler for the people who had complained about the delay. MOTION PASSED 5-4, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian Αno.≅ Council Member Fazzino wanted a role for staff at the outset of the process, particularly with respect to structures without signifi-cant historic merit. If the Council wanted to gain the community-wide support needed to sustain a very important program, it was important to simplify the process and move any structures without historic merit off the moratorium list as quickly as possible. Staff was in a better position to make the decision with respect to those properties that did not qualify for historic consideration, and the HRB could review the historical and cultural issues on landmark and contributing status structures. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, that the staff be designated as the first level of review for pre-1940 structures not on the inventory without significant historic merit, which would be appealable through the Historic Resources Board or City Council. Mayor Wheeler asked whether the public would be notified that an application was being reviewed by staff and that the public had an opportunity to appeal the decision. Council Member Fazzino said the notification process could be incorporated into the motion, but he wanted the staff to be the initial point of review. Mr. Calonne said there was the initial evaluation and demolition and replacement housing questions; and if staff made the initial decision, it would foreclose the opportunity for HRB commentary on the historic issue. He was uncertain whether an appeal from staff
10/01/96 80-254
to the HRB would make sense in that context. He would suggest another way for the HRB to participate other than as an appeal review of a staff decision. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the first step was a staff review of any structures that were not Category 1, 2, 3, or 4 which would be publicly noticed; and if staff denied the application, it could be appealed. He asked the next step if staff indicated the building were a historic structure. Council Member Fazzino said the application would go to the HRB for review.
Vice Mayor Huber would support the motion, but if the staff=s decision were not historical, the appeal should return to the Council. Council Member Fazzino asked why the appeal should go directly to the City Council. Vice Mayor Huber said the process would be lengthy otherwise and would add another major layer to the busy HRB.
Council Member Kniss said the HRB=s schedule was already very full and it was an advisory body. Staff would need to take a very strong role in the process, and the HRB needed time to get caught up. She supported the motion. MOTION RESTATED that the staff be designated as the first level of review authority for pre-1940 structures not on the inventory for determining those without significant historic merit. Such decision shall be a publicly noticed procedure and appealable to the City Council. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mr. Calonne said unless Council indicated otherwise, he would write the ordinance so that neither staff, Council, nor HRB had standing to appeal, i.e., a member of the public would have to bring forward the appeal. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve that if the historic evaluation determines that the
structure is worthy of categorizing or is on the City=s historic inventory, then it would be referred to the Historic Resources
Board (HRB), and the HRB=s decision would be to staff using the same approach as used for the Architectural Review Board, and
staff=s decision could be appealed to the City Council.
10/01/96 80-255
Council Member McCown asked whether landmark status meant either structures on the historic inventory or potential structures that could be Categories 1 and 2. Mr. Schreiber said at the initial staff review, staff could conclude that a particular structure not on the historic inventory was not worthy of further consideration for the historic inventory and then grant the demolition permit that had been noticed which would be appealable to the Council. If the structure were on the historic inventory or staff concluded that the structure was a
likely candidate for the inventory, then staff=s decision would be to refer the demolition application to the HRB. The next decision
would be to either have the HRB=s action come directly to the Council or to use the ARB model where the HRB was advisory to
staff, the staff could not overturn the board, and it was staff=s decision that was appealable to the Council. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Council direction was needed for the demolition options. Mr. Calonne said Council direction was a legal requirement. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to
approve Demolition Recommendation 1: The property Αas is≅ cannot be
used for any economically viable purpose, and renovation is not economically feasible, and Demolition Recommendation 2: The property is determined to represent an imminent safety hazard under PAMC 16.40, and that demolition of the building is the only economically feasible means to secure public safety, for inclusion in the Interim Ordinance. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Demolition Option 1 for Permitted Demolition Circumstances: Delay for Both Landmark and Contributing. Continue the current
ordinance provisions which allow demolition of pre-1940 structures except in the Downtown, but strengthen the interim regulations by requiring an automatic demolition delay of up to one year for all landmark and contributing structures. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted to take the simplest approach to the problem and follow up on the suggestion of former Council Member Woolley who recommended a delay for both landmark and contributing structures. He believed it would resolve the problem that the Council found itself in when it became necessary to consider a moratorium. The problem with the existing ordinance was that Categories 3 and 4 were not included in the list of houses
where demolition could be delayed such as the problem with the Αbig
10/01/96 80-256
blue house≅ in College Terrace. Another primary house was the one that Mrs. Woodlams was upset about. If a similar house had gone through historic evaluation, the Council would know whether the house had historic significance which would also be included under Demolition Option 1. The Council would have one year with current landmark houses to convince people that something should be done other than demolition. The Council should be mindful that it was interim regulations, and the final solution was not needed that evening. Mr. Calonne said it was important that Council be clear whether it intended to apply new regulations to the properties that were
delayed which might make a difference in the City=s legal standing.
He recalled that former Council Member Woolley=s comments were predicated on the ability to impose new regulations on the properties that were delayed. Council Member McCown said the Demolition Option 1 stated
Α...automatic demolition delay of up to one year...≅ She asked whether the intent was to impose the delay of up to one year or until final permanent regulations were developed that would then be applicable to the properties that had been delayed for that period. Council Member Rosenbaum said yes. Council Member Andersen wanted to be certain the properties that had been in the delay position would be subject to permanent ordinance requirements so that denial of demolition might be possible. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether a property that was subject to the one-year delay could also be subject to the final regula-tions of the ordinance which might not allow the applicant to demolish. Mr. Calonne said yes. He preferred to state that intent through some express language in the ordinance if Council desired. Given
the Council=s history of concern, both present and previously, for people in the process, the intent should be clarified before the year of delay for applicants. He was uncertain whether Council
Member Fazzino=s procedural motions were predicated on some assumption about design review, but it would put a tremendous amount of weight on the initial staff decision if the result were a one-year moratorium on the property. Mayor Wheeler clarified that passage of the motion precluded the design review. Mr. Schreiber said the proposed option did not include design review. He said Demolition Option 3, Deny for Landmark, Permit for Contributing with Compatible Replacement, did not include design
10/01/96 80-257
review but that did not preclude the Council from considering the issue of design compatibility in the motion. The intent of the paragraph under the option was not to have an automatic demolition delay but to allow the HRB to recommend a delay up to a certain length of time. The Council had had previous situations where the HRB had not recommended a full one-year delay. The effort would be to keep the same process in place by the HRB. Mr. Calonne said that was inconsistent with preserving the status quo until permanent regulations were in place. Mr. Schreiber said Council clarification would be needed on whether it wanted an automatic delay until new regulations were in place or did it want to give the HRB the option of recommending a delay up to a certain length of time with the maximum to be when the new regulations were in place. Council Member Andersen clarified Demolition Option 3a on page 8 of the staff report (CMR:417:96) contained the language described. The option would prevent the demolition and the demolition would have to demonstrate some compatibility by staff approval. Demolition Option 3b would have the design review options. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Demolition Option 3a for Permitted Demolition Circumstances: Deny for Landmark, Permit for Contributing with Compatible Replacement. Strengthen the current ordinance to not allow complete demolition of landmark structures, except under
Demolition Recommendation 1 or 2. Allow alteration of landmarks only when National Standards for Historic Preservation are met. Permit demolition of contributing structures only with a compatible replacement structure. Compatibility Option 1: The design quality of the replacement structure meets the standards established in the
Design Criteria (to be prepared), including criteria which require that the structure is compatible with the pattern of the existing neighborhood and that the replacement is at least equal in design quality to the existing structure. Vice Mayor Huber would support the substitute motion. If the Council wanted to move toward support of landmark structures, then it needed to send a message at the present time to the community that it wanted to preserve those priceless treasures and that the list would be revised when the historic inventory was done. Council Member Kniss said Demolition Option 3a would allow the compatibility which was really important and would work well for the interim regulations. Council Member McCown said there were merits to the original motion and the substitute motion, and it depended on how the issue was
10/01/96 80-258
being defined. The substitute motion would allow the opportunity for structures that were identified as contributing structures to be demolished. Even though a property had been identified as historically contributing, an applicant who went through the compatibility process for the replacement structure would be in a position to demolish the building. It had the benefit of allowing people who were faced with a carefully throughout choice for their situation to move forward with a new structure if it met the criteria. The advantage of the original motion was that the landmark and contributing structures would not be lost in the interim period because it would prevent demolition under the new regulations were in place. She had enormous reservations about design review processes; but for the interim period, she favored allowing property owners to have the opportunity to move forward with new buildings even though the Council would require something that had never been previously required of a R-1 house in the community. It was a fair balance for the interim period. Mayor Wheeler would support the substitute motion. Demolition Option 1 was simple, but people would be left with uncertainty for one year without any possibility of any resolution of their situation. It would also give the Council permission as policy makers to fail to deal with some of the tough questions that were associated with the subject area. The Council owed it to the community to put some regulations in place that would allow people the option of moving forward while the Council developed the permanent regulations without risking losing significant structures or having structures put in their place structures that were determents rather than contributors to the neighborhoods. Council Member Rosenbaum said he would be unhappy with Demolition Option 3a because it was pregnant with policy which had not been carefully considered. The Council had debated in its meetings with the HRB whether the Council wanted to absolutely prohibit demoli-tion of certain structures, and he reminded the Council that a landmark was every house that was located in Professorville. The HRB did not ask for a delay on demolition of the house that was replaced by the southern plantation. He did not believe on the basis of the amount of discussion that the Council had been able to give, that the Council should take that step. Further, there was a lot of interest in the people who had been inadvertently caught in the process. He believed it would take longer for their situations to be considered if the process went into compatibility requirement or design review than if a simpler process were used that would prevent the demolition of homes which led to the moratorium and the Council could spend more time on deciding what should be the permanent regulations. Council Member Simitian was sympathetic with Council Member
Rosenbaum=s point of view but he understood Council Member McCown=s analysis to be that the Council would get more flexibility rather
10/01/96 80-259
than zero flexibility for those people. He asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum saw that differently. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was a question of time. There were a number of houses that would not be historic structures, but it would take longer to go through the compatibility requirement. Council Member Simitian clarified that structures that were not historic would have a time delay and that was the price that would be paid for the people who were historic to have some greater flexibility. He associated with the comments of Council Member McCown and agreed that people should be provided some flexibility and fairness in the process. Council Member McCown also stated that that did not mean that there was some conclusion about issues of compatibility or design review in connection with the final ordinance, and he shared some of her reservations that she had articulated. He would support the substitute motion. Mr. Calonne reminded the Council that the 49 percent class would be significant. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum Αno.≅ Mayor Wheeler asked whether the condition hardship needed to be a separate motion. Mr. Calonne said no. It was not significantly different than the other economic hardship provision. Council Member Andersen asked whether other communities used less than 50 percent on the criteria for nonhistoric structures. Mayor Wheeler asked whether staff needed direction from the Council on the question of cost recovery. She said Council needed to decide whether the staff approval would be ministerial or discre-tionary. Mr. Calonne cautioned the Council that the distinctions were functional and not related to the label ministerial or discretion-ary. Council Member McCown was on point that there would be some components where there was judgment involved and it could be called ministerial but the message needed to convey that clear and concise criteria was being used and that it was an exempt project from other laws. He asked whether the Council wanted an open design review administered by staff or limited compatibility regulations, not ministerial versus discretionary. Mr. Schreiber said the question was also whether the Council wanted a process with public notice, hearings, and appeal to the Council or a process that if a person met the rules, the permit would be issued and there was no public notice, hearings, or appeal to the Council.
10/01/96 80-260
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve that design review be subject to approval by staff based on a set of defined design criteria and through a process that does not include public notification or appeal to the City Council. Council Member Andersen would support the motion. He was hopeful that when it returned, the criteria would be extensive. Council Member McCown asked about the issue of appeal and what would happen if an applicant brought his/her house design to the staff, who was authorized to determine whether it passed the criteria, and the design did not pass the criteria and the applicant felt aggrieved because he/she did not get a building permit. She asked whether there was some due process available. Mr. Calonne said there was a writ of mandate if a person did not like the decision not to issue a permit. Implicit with ministerial was that the staff did not have the ability to indicate approval
with conditions. The answer would be Αyes≅ or Αno.≅ Presumedly, applicants would have an opportunity to reapply, but staff would have to discuss a reapplication process without prejudice so that people could change their plans. Council Member McCown clarified that the language could be designed so that if someone brought in their home design and went through the process and staff indicated the plans did not meet the criteria and the application was rejected, there would be some way to resubmit the plan without additional charge, etc., to satisfy the guidelines set forth. Mr. Schreiber said that was done on a regular basis where applications were submitted that did not meet the building or zoning codes and the applicant was told to make those corrections. Council Member McCown asked if the Council were inundated by complaints that that was not working well and reasonable designs were being rejected for completely unreasonable application of criteria, then as a legislative matter the Council could work with staff to change the criteria. Mr. Schreiber said yes. He believed the Council would most likely get complaints that something was permitted rather than denied. Mr. Calonne said on October 15, 1996, the Council would receive the specific design criteria recommended by staff. Council Member Andersen said in the staff report (CMR:417:96), there were several suggestions that he supported, e.g., predeter-mined setbacks, porch, rear garages. He suggested those sugges-tions were appropriate and he encouraged staff to look further for some unique aspects that could be included that were consistent with neighborhood design. He wanted to give staff as much
10/01/96 80-261
flexibility in the way in which the houses were constructed so
there would not be a Αcookie cutter≅ problem. Mayor Wheeler said a list of some of the criteria was on pages 12 and 13 of the staff report (CMR:417:96). Council Member Rosenbaum clarified if a house were determined to have no historic merit and demolition were allowed, the replacement house would not be subject to the compatibility requirements. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mr. Calonne said the moratorium was founded on historic preserva-tion, and once the Council moved outside of historic preservation the distinction between pre-1940 and post-1940 would disappear. The problem was how to justify that distinction. Council Member Kniss strongly supported the Council experimenting with the compatibility issue. In many neighborhoods it was difficult to find compatibility, and she was uncertain what would be done in those situations other than to stay with quality materials. Council Member Simitian said the Council had had previous Comprehensive Plan discussions about the difference between consistency and compatibility. There would be neighborhoods where the style was extraordinary eclectic and something might not be easily defined as consistent given the lack of consistency within the neighborhood. It might be compatible no matter how unique or
individual the design. Sometimes the words Αcompatibility≅ and
Αconsistency≅ were used interchangeably and for some discussions, including the present, they were very different.
Mr. Calonne said the design criteria Αtrumped≅ the zoning ordinance development standards so that the floor area ratio (FAR) or other standards might end up dramatically affected by the design criteria. If that were true, then the next level of analysis was whether there would be a variance or HIE applications that indicated an applicant had not been given his/her R-1 property right because he/she had to comply with the design criteria. He advised staff to try and limit the opportunities for variance if not foreclose and consider how the HIE would work for that situation. Council Member McCown was most comfortable with the categories of potential criteria for design review where it was clear, for example, that the garage was in the rear if that were the design pattern in the neighborhood. She referred to Item No. e on page 13
of the staff report (CMR:417:96) that spoke about Α...traditional
homes that had certain elements in the front facade...≅ which were the kinds of areas that were more difficult. She believed it was
10/01/96 80-262
worth pursuing in defining criteria but it tended to come back circularly and people might say many buildings were unfriendly because the garages were in the front. Some things might be solved by techniques that contained clearer rules and for the language to
stay away from things that tried to evaluate a person=s house in terms of whether it had a sense of welcome for the visitor. She encouraged a clear check list system. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the design criteria would affect the allowable FAR for replacement structure. Mr. Calonne said it was theoretically conceivable. Ms. Lytle said the only place that might need a recommendation that the FAR might be affected would be in not counting porches and
entry features toward the FAR. Staff=s objective would be to avoid
that issue entirely and not Αtrump≅ the zoning in the area. With garage placement, there might be a need to trump the zoning ordinance in certain situations. With prevailing setback, there would definitely be a need to trump the zoning ordinance. Staff would try to avoid the FAR issue except as it related to the long range look at the Palo Alto Municipal Code and what incentives the Council might want to put into preservation. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen wanted the Council to take the next step and look at some of the issues beyond the pre-1940 housing. He appreciated the counsel received regarding the Planning Commis-
sion=s workload and some of the challenges the Planning Department had as well, but the Council needed to consider very seriously what should be done beyond that period. Other parts of the community could be affected adversely. He asked whether the Council could ask the Planning Commission to explore some of those issues and return with some recommendations in two or three months. Mr. Schreiber said no. The work schedule would not be clear until after the Council finished with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, staff resources were not available due to the wrap up of the Comprehensive Plan, major development applications including the Sand Hill Road Corridor, and the present assignment which would take substantial staff resources. It was not feasible for staff to tackle the present assignment with the historic material and a broader single-family assignment at the same point in time. He had not included the likelihood of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area Plan development agreement being triggered in late 1996 or early 1997. Council Member Andersen said if other parts of the City were affected, the Council would be dealing with very serious concerns. When young families came into the City with plans from a local
10/01/96 80-263
architect, the design was usually appropriate to the neighborhood, but when people came to the City with a standard model, the people needed to recognize that it would only result in a rather strict reaction. He hoped the developers would be more thoughtful about what was being done in the neighborhood. The Council needed to consider how it could influence the people who were building houses as a profession. Mayor Wheeler asked whether additional Council direction was needed that evening. Mr. Schreiber referred to Item No. 8, Application Fees and Staffing, or the extent of General Fund subsidy of the process which was not the staff recommendation, and said staff needed to know whether the Council believed it should be a full cost recovery process. Mayor Wheeler was not certain that judgment could be made before the cost of what the Council had selected that evening as options had been prepared by staff.
Mr. Schreiber said the Council=s decision had steered toward a simpler process both in terms of the initial staff decision on a demolition application rather than everything going to the HRB and in terms of the design compatibility process. Council had worked to reduce the financial impact on applicants. Until after staff had some experience, it would be extremely hard to indicate any precise figures. Mayor Wheeler asked whether staff could bring back some information which would allow the Council to make some decisions. Mr. Schreiber said staff would build a full cost recovery option into the ordinance, and it would also be a Municipal Fee Schedule amendment. Mr. Calonne said the joint session with the HRB was a limited opportunity to get a confirmation of what would be done. He could provide the framework of an ordinance if Council desired. Mayor Wheeler believed it was a concept that the HRB would be anxious to discuss with the Council at the joint meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:14 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
10/01/96 80-264
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.
10/01/96 80-265