HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-15 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 1. Joint Meeting with Public Art Commission..............80-292 1. Remarks by Stanford University President Gerhard Casper80-293 1A. Acknowledgment of Four Awards to the City of Palo Alto from 3CMA, City-County Communications and Marketing Association80-295 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-295 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996...................80-296 2. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PRA Group for Landfill Environmental Monitoring and Consulting80-296 3. Public Review of Compliance re Development Agreement with Palo Alto Medical Foundation...............................80-296 4. Public Review of Compliance re Development Agreement with Stanford Management Company on 1050 Arastradero Road..80-296 5. Palo Alto Harbor Restoration..........................80-296
6. Ordinance 4377 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Receive Outside Funds for the Capital Improvement Project Art in Public Places, Number 18617....................80-297 7. Final Map re 321 Byron Street, 654-666 Everett Street, and 308 and 318 Middlefield Road..............................80-297 8. Final Map re 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court80-297 9. City Council Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report Entitled,
ΑReview of the Implementation of the New Brown Act by Local
Government Agencies≅ ..................................80-297
10/15/96 80-290
10. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Create the Shasta Rewind Project Reserve in the Electric Fund 80-297 11. Ordinance Adding Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 and Review of the Design Quality and Neighborhood Compatibility of Replacement Structures...............80-298 12. Ordinance Establishing Additional Exceptions to a Moratorium on Certain Development and Demolition of Older Residences, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately80-320 13. Award of Option to Lease between the City of Palo Alto and R & T Restaurant Corporation for the Municipal Golf Course Restaurant located at 1875 Embarcadero Road...........80-324 14. Mayor Wheeler and Council Member Andersen re Council Resolution Opposing Proposition 218 re Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes................................80-325 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m............80-327
10/15/96 80-291
10/15/96 80-292
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:04 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider, Simitian Public Art Commission PRESENT: Brett, Broderick, Carleton, Levin, Meir-Levi (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Wells ABSENT: Wasserman SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Meeting with Public Art Commission A. Draft Guidelines for Developers - Request for Council Approval of Guidelines for use in Planning Division B. Report on California Avenue Project C. Report on Forum D. Activities with Downtown Improvement Design Team E. Proposals for Projects Downtown F. City Hall Plaza ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
10/15/96 80-293
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, Simitian (arrived at 8:26 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Remarks by Stanford University President Gerhard Casper Stanford University President Gerhard Casper commented that in the past week Stanford University (Stanford) had two causes for celebration: a Nobel Prize awarded to a Stanford physicist, and
the Cardinal football team=s first victory in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). He spoke regarding strategic priorities for Stanford, including: 1) new academic programs for sophomores and freshmen and graduate fellowships for science and engineering; 2) global interactions, aimed particularly at Asian graduate students; 3) university industry interactions; 4) information technology in higher education; 5) renewal of the physical infrastructure of Stanford; 6) reorganization of academic health care which included negotiations for a merger between University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center and Stanford Health Services; 7) maintaining a sound financial base; and 8) rethinking all aspects of Stanford to maintain its capacity to innovate and be flexible. He emphasized that Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto needed to continue to work together. Council Member McCown asked whether changes in funding occurring at the federal level would be a substantial impact on Stanford and what the planning was for that. Mr. Casper said the impact would be profound if the democrats/republicans carried out their present plans. The two parties agreed balancing the budget by the year 2002 which would mean a 25 percent reduction in the dollars currently available for research and development. The entitlement programs were safe at present, and the discretionary portion of the federal budget was small, of which research was a portion, and there were no entitlements to research support. The second way Stanford and other medical centers could be badly affected would be with Medicare cuts. Medicare supported a fair amount of academic health care, and if those cuts were approved, it would impact the quality of care, training of residents, etc. With respect to how Stanford would deal with those cuts, his proposal for graduate fellowships was an effort to ease Stanford away from its dependency on federal grants for an important aspect of its research. Stanford was proposing to finance 100 graduate fellowships annually for 3-year periods. If Stanford were to support the program in perpetuity,
10/15/96 80-294
$200 million would have to be raised which would be a considerable challenge. Council Member McCown asked whether Proposition 209 regarding
affirmative action would have an impact on Stanford=s student population and on issues Stanford faced as a private university. Mr. Casper was concerned that if Proposition 209 were adopted, someone would find a way to extend it to private universities, though it was not clear. He was more concerned about adoption of Proposition 209 and then passage of legislation that would extend a similar rule to private universities which had occurred previously in California. Council Member Fazzino said many of his colleagues were concerned specifically about the impact of Proposition 209 on educational outreach programs such as math, engineering, and science achievement which encouraged minorities and females to seek math and science careers. He thought the program was 50 percent public and 50 percent private funding. Literal interpretation of California Civic Rights Initiative (CCRI) could lead to the conclusion that public funding for such programs would be prohibited because those types of programs used ethnic peers and mentors to encourage young people of particular cultures to consider math and science careers. He heard some suggestions for private universities and private companies to step forward and provide funding for those types of programs which were no longer permitted to receive state funding. He understood it was beginning to happen in the State of Texas as a result of an appeals court decision with respect to the affirmative action program at the University of Texas. He asked whether there had been any discussions at Stanford about the research programs and how that might be approached if Proposition 209 passed. Mr. Casper said those discussions had not taken place because Stanford did not know how things would work if Proposition 209 were adopted. There were many aspects of Proposition 209 which remained ambiguous because federal affirmative action requirements in many areas remained in force. The private universities were constricted sufficiently, and there was no way they could take over all the functions that public universities and colleges had performed without being severely limited in the ability to do so. Council Member Andersen thanked Mr. Casper for the work done in introducing Channel 51 to the public of Palo Alto and surrounding areas. He asked how the faculty was responding to Channel 51, whether there were any plans for expansion, what the future of Channel 51 was, and whether Palo Alto would benefit. Mr. Casper said the faculty welcomed the new program. Stanford presently viewed it as an experiment but would continue the program
10/15/96 80-295
long enough to see its real impact. It was hard to determine the impact of any program in a small cable network. Mayor Wheeler said the City of Palo Alto was in the process of using its municipal utility to construct a dark fiber ring around Palo Alto with the intention of serving homes, schools, and
businesses, and Mr. Caspar had mentioned Stanford=s interest in technology and the infrastructure that would support it. She asked whether there were ways in which the City and Stanford could use their mutual areas of expertise to enhance opportunities for both to make maximum use of their physical and intellectual capabilities. Mr. Casper said although he did not understand the details of what the City was doing and how it might affect Stanford, he appreciated that there might be very good opportunities for Stanford to cooperate in that area and that both entities could make effective use of the infrastructure Palo Alto was providing. 1A. Acknowledgment of Four Awards to the City of Palo Alto from 3CMA, City-County Communications and Marketing Association Mayor Wheeler announced that Palo Alto was the recipient of four awards from 3CMA, City-County Communications and Marketing Association. The winning entries were a Silver Circle Award for
the ΑBuddy Up≅ program, a Silver Circle Award for the ΑRight
Lights≅ program, a Certificate of Excellence for the City of Palo Alto Economic Resources brochure, and a Certificate of Excellence
for ΑH2O TV.≅ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding parking lots. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton Avenue, spoke regarding representing Palo Alto Civic League. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding keeping the faith. Henrietta Burroughs, 795 Gailen Avenue, spoke regarding Domestic/Workplace Violence Recommendations to Human Relations Commission (HRC). Michael Wollenweber, Menlo Park, spoke regarding toymakers and what stood alone (solo). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of September 9, 1996, as submitted.
10/15/96 80-296
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Simitian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-9. 2. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PRA Group for Landfill Environmental Monitoring and Consulting; change orders not to exceed $5,990. 3. Public Review of Compliance re Development Agreement with Palo Alto Medical Foundation 4. Public Review of Compliance re Development Agreement with Stanford Management Company on 1050 Arastradero Road 5. Palo Alto Harbor Restoration Cooperative Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and San Francisco International Airport for Creation of Wetland Habitat at Harbor Point
Ordinance 4376 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Allocate Revenue from the Airports Commission of the City and County of San Francisco to be used for Marsh Restoration
at Harbor Point≅
6. Ordinance 4377 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Receive Outside Funds for the Capital Improvement Project Art in Public Places, Number 18617" 7. Final Map re 321 Byron Street, 654-666 Everett Street, and 308 and 318 Middlefield Road 8. Final Map re 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court 9. City Council Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report Entitled,
ΑReview of the Implementation of the New Brown Act by Local
Government Agencies≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 4-9, Schneider, Simitian absent. MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item No. 3, McCown Αnot participating,≅ Schneider, Simitian absent.
10/15/96 80-297
ORDINANCES 10. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Create the Shasta Rewind Project Reserve in the Electric Fund MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the Ordinance.
Ordinance 4378 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Create the Shasta Rewind Project Reserve in the Electric
Fund≅ Council Member Rosenbaum said the item had come about due to the idiosyncrasies of the federal budget in which expenditures such as maintenance counted as government expenditures but electric customers did not seem to count in the budget scoring. Thus, there was a great incentive to cut back on maintenance. Recognizing that, cities, Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), and other customers of Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) had worked
hard to secure an arrangement in which the City=s revenues went toward very useful purposes, and he commended City staff and other
agencies= staffs for working it out. He commented the City might like to follow a precedent seen in other areas where tax money was specifically designated without having to go through Congress. Council Member Andersen asked whether the Shasta Rewind Project Loan (SRPL) Reserve would have an impact on the Calaveras front load as some of the funding for the Calaveras project occurred. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said no. The Calaveras Reserve had already been established and was entirely separate from the Electric Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Simitian absent. 11. Ordinance Adding Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 and Review of the Design Quality and Neighborhood Compatibility of Replacement Structures Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the proposed ordinance reflected previous Council action and discussion with respect to establishing interim regulations concerning demolition of residential structures constructed prior to 1940. There were a few things in the staff report that did not reflect Council discussion and seven items listed on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report (CMR:436:96) which staff raised as additional policy issues that the Council might want to work through as part of its review. In addition, there were Draft Compatibility Review
10/15/96 80-298
Standards and Draft Standards for Historic Designation for Council review, and staff would be returning to Council with any identified changes on October 28, 1996. Staff was proposing the ordinance be approved for first reading that evening with a public hearing on October 28, 1996, for the second reading, which would still allow the effective date to occur before the expiration of the moratorium. Also identified was a variety of impacts on financing and staffing. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the ordinance did not represent changes in the zoning regulations, but a public hearing would be an assurance that sufficient notice was provided to anyone who might be affected. He noted the ordinance sunseted on November 30, 1997, so it was truly a set of interim regulations. Staff was working under severe time constraints, and he had made an effort to redline changes that represented the policy questions identified by staff, in particular, Subdivision B of both 16.50.060 and 16.50.070 which created a mechanism for people to seek an historic evaluation without going through the artificial and uncomfortable step of applying for a demolition permit. He received a question from a member of the public regarding the designation process, and he wanted to make it clear that all of the redlined language on pages 8 and 9, Section 3, of the proposed ordinance was existing language and a part of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), with the exception of the capitalized, italicized moratorium language which was referred to by staff as the designation moratorium on pages 4 and 9 or the staff report (CMR:436:96). The Compatibility Regulations which would be returning to the Council on October 28,
1996, needed to be adopted by resolution. Part of staff=s intent was that the regulations could be amended relatively easily should other concerns be found. Historic Resources Board Member Carol Willis apologized for the lateness of the HRB comments, and she said the HRB was pleased with the staff report (CMR:436:96). The HRB had a couple of concerns:
First, with regard to Page 2, Item 2, ΑUse 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,≅ the HRB wanted a new definition introduced for restoration and reconstruction which would require documentation of the existing structure allowing for that category to be exempt from demolition so that someone well intentioned would not be penalized due to the age and condition of the building. Second, Attachment C, Draft Standards for Historic Designation, should be modified so it would be clear that historic and cultural criteria were present in that category. Even though it was the intent, the HRB felt it should be in written form. In addition,
the language Αcontributing properties≅ might be more appropriately
identified as Αstructures and sites of merit.≅ Those structures and sites of merit would not have to be architectural gems but could be worthy of preservation because of cultural reasons. The
10/15/96 80-299
HRB supported the six staff recommendations on pages 4 through 6 of the staff report and strongly encouraged introducing some incentives to property owners requiring Home Improvement Exemptions (HIE) and zoning variances due to the way a structure had originally been built. Staff should be directed to use the Historic Building Code and allow some leniency toward the preservation of pre-1940 structures deemed to be structures of merit. After a structure was designated historic, an effort should be made to explore relief from inappropriate zoning regulations that were constructed for new properties being developed as R-1. There were often inappropriate parking and setback requirements, and if staff were sympathetic, it would make it easier to preserve the properties. Mayor Wheeler commented that Council and staff were seeing the HRB comments for the first time that evening, and if there were any questions or thoughts about pursuing specific plans or comments made by the HRB, staff would probably not have any quick answers. Comments would be forthcoming at the October 28, 1996, Council meeting. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 3 of the ordinance,
Section 16.50.060(b), ΑAny person may, with the written consent of
the owner, apply for a Historic Merit Screening ...,≅ and asked whether language had been included for a situation in which a property owner, preparatory to sale, might want to do that himself/herself. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mayor Wheeler said Ms. Willis had suggested a change in the
designation from Αcontributing properties≅ to Αstructures and sites
of merit.≅ She said one of the Council=s concerns which had been addressed over the last several years while trying to move forward
in bringing the City=s historic preservation ordinance into the 1990s was that the categories were not standardized with other ordinances the Council had reviewed. One of the things the Council wanted to accomplish was to standardize the terms and categories.
She asked whether the phrase Αstructures and sites of merit≅ had been taken from other ordinances the HRB had reviewed instead of
Αcontributing properties≅ or whether Αcontributing properties≅ or some other term was used as the more common term. Ms. Willis replied both terms appeared in other ordinances, but the
HRB thought Αstructures and sites of merit≅ was a more contemporary term. Vice Mayor Huber said the Council had received a letter from Carol
Lamont (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) which referred to the garage/carport floor area ratio (FAR) issue. He asked whether that
10/15/96 80-300
fit into what was currently being done and if not, whether it would happen. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said yes. The Compatibility Review Standards did not permit carports when a new structure was being rebuilt to replace a contributing pre-1940 structure. It would be addressed for the package of applications before the
Council that evening but would not address Ms. Lamont=s issue which was to fill that gap in the R-1 regulations. The R-1 regulations in general had not been opened up as they applied Citywide. Vice Mayor Huber clarified that the issue would have to be dealt with in another fashion, except as it related to those which fell within the current ordinance. Ms. Lytle said yes. Pat Dixon, 16 Admiralty Place, Redwood City, was impressed with the discussion that evening. She was a native Palo Altan, and her family had a very memorable history in Palo Alto. She agreed that some of the pre-1940 structures had to be demolished, but Palo Alto was what it was because it was that kind of community. When developers were allowed to come into Palo Alto and tear down the smaller places to put up monstrosities, it took away what brought people to Palo Alto in the first place. She hoped the Council would keep an eye on what Palo Alto was and should remain. Historic Resources Board Member Martin Bernstein expanded on the recommendations Ms. Willis had introduced. He said the definition
of demolition was ΑRemoval of any portion of a street facing
facade.≅ To address the problem, he recommended another definition
be added to the interim ordinance entitled ΑRestoration≅ as
ΑRemoval of defective materials and replacement of same with exactly the same design, same height, same location, same finish,
and same window locations,≅ which would make restoration exempt from the demolition definition. With regard to incentives for restoration, he proposed an example of zoning relief when a homeowner decided to restore a historical residence, e.g., when the layout contributed to the FAR but resulted in no increase in the building size and was exempted from the FAR requirement. It was an example of a reward or incentive for historical restoration. On page 7 of 9, the first paragraph under Other Impacts of the staff report (CMR:436:96) referred to lack of office space for contract personnel to help administer the interim regulations, and he asked where the homeowner would go to for basic information to determine the age of his/her house. On page 6 of 9, in the first paragraph, the staff report specified that initial deposits ranging from $300 to $1,500 be collected with review fees estimated to be between $1,000 and $10,000 for a typical applicant. He recommended that the review fee be waived for restoration projects so the funds would be directly put into the restoration.
10/15/96 80-301
Stewart Kiritz, 1181 College Avenue, expressed his appreciation to the Council for its efforts on behalf of preservation and quality of life in Palo Alto. Palo Alto was at a crossroads; it had defined itself neither as a city with a history and character it was willing to preserve nor as a city which fully embraced development. Palo Alto had a lot of character to preserve, and there were a lot of dollars at stake for developers and owners. He wanted Palo Alto to take a stand for preservation and be compared to other enlightened cities throughout the country which had discovered that economics, aesthetics, and scale could coexist harmoniously. That type of coexistence was not possible without effort and commitment. The Council had to look creatively and
diligently for alternative solutions to the Αleast time and effort≅
mentality which governed today=s residential development mentality in the community. He urged the Council to enact the interim regulations and to extend those regulations to nonhistoric structures. What was built to replace a nonhistoric house was just as important as what was built to replace a historic house. Palo Alto needed to look at how other cities had preserved and enhanced their streetscapes and neighborhoods and to use its creativity to help Palo Alto maintain the qualities which drew people to it in the first place. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, representing College Terrace Neighborhood Association, said residents of College Terrace were intensely concerned about the future of their neighborhood. The College Terrace Neighborhood Association (College Terrace) was grateful to both the Council and staff for the work done on the interim regulations which should serve to prevent the destruction of historic buildings and their replacement of inappropriate buildings. Unfortunately, the interim regulations did not address all of the concerns raised by College Terrace which had a historic nature not of individual historic buildings but of the entire eclectic composition of the area. In view of that, many College Terrace residents decided to pursue the possibility of obtaining historic district status which was a long process. The concern was that during that time, more of the neighborhood would be gone with nothing left to protect. College Terrace was asking for two things: 1) to amend the interim regulations to designate College Terrace as an interim historic district which would specify that all buildings, including post-1940, be considered as contributing structures with regard to demolition permit applications, and 2) to
modify to the definition of Αdemolition,≅ changing the language regarding 50 percent of the walls being retained to specify that surface treatment of those walls be required to exist in order to avoid consideration as a demolition. Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, representing University South Neighborhoods Group, commended the Council and staff for rapidly transforming the emergency regulation into a cogent, well- considered interim regulation. Contrary to concerns, the proposed regulations were moderate compared to similar communities such as
10/15/96 80-302
Los Gatos, and they attempted to minimize the impacts on developers. University South encouraged the Council to include in its consideration the HRB recommendations, especially those that included historic and cultural criteria in addition to the present architectural criteria. The impact of the regulations was already having an effect on construction practices in Palo Alto that might even exceed those anticipated by the Council and staff. It was a leveraged impact without having exhorted direct legislation on those post-1940 homes. Eric Morley, 321 Second Street, Los Altos, representing Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors, said it would have a Government Relations Committee of 12 reviewing the guidelines the following Thursday and would be making recommendations on October 28, 1996. There were two recommendations with regard to the
ordinance: 1) to retain the existing definition of Αdemolition≅ or make some modification to remove the additional language on page 2,
Chapter 16.50.020(d) of the ordinance, Αor removal or any portion
of the streetfacing facade≅ which might be problematic to those individuals trying to restore homes to accommodate those restorations that were discussed by the ARB, and 2) that the
additional language on page 8, Chapter 16.49,040(a), ΑUPON FILING OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION, THERE SHALL BE AN
AUTOMATIC SIXTY DAY MORATORIUM ON ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION ...≅ was excessive and unnecessary. The Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors was looking to the next year to define which neighborhoods and homes actually went on the inventory as opposed to identifying neighborhoods in the ordinance that evening or specific homes that would be designated structures through the process. Roger Kohler, 721 Colorado Avenue, said one item in the proposed ordinance that needed to be examined was that the Secretary of the
Interior=s Standards of Rehabilitation (the Standards) be used as part of the guideline for looking at those homes. There were several items in the Standards that could impose severe restrictions and financial hardships on people rehabilitating older homes. What he perceived as the goal of the ordinance was 1) preservation of neighborhoods for maintaining and rehabilitating existing homes and 2) that new homes being built had the same neighborhood compatibility. The Standards required that all materials used match the old which in some instances would not be appropriate with present technology. Even more of a concern was 1) that all new additions that related to construction should not destroy the historic materials on a property, and new additions to a historic structure could not look like the old structure, which was something done in the 1970s. By that requirement, new additions to historic houses would not have the ability to look like the old houses and would require a clear definition between the old and the new. He did not believe that was a good idea. He felt the Standards were strict, and he did not think the City
10/15/96 80-303
needed to go to that extreme to achieve what it wanted with the ordinance. Finally, Mr. Bernstein had mentioned fees in excess of $10,000 to renovate an existing house, which he felt was absurd. He did not think any fees should be charged to property owners preserving a historic house. He believed the ordinance needed more thought. Gladys Woodhams, 601 Melville Avenue, commented about the old Steadman homes in Palo Alto which used tile and amenities that no longer existed. There were also houses which were built after 1940 that had historical value, and there should be some type of review before any home could be demolished to determine what its intrinsic value was. Many professionals lived in the small six-room houses which were becoming fewer and fewer, and prices of homes were becoming so expensive that those types of middle-class professionals would no longer be able to afford to live in Palo Alto, which was something that made Palo Alto the special place it was. RECESS: 9:10 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to 1) introduce the Ordinance as modified to include the six items on pages 4 and 5 of CMR:436:96 and direct the staff to return the Ordinance to Council for a public hearing in conjunction with the second reading of the Ordinance on October 28, 1996; 2) direct the staff to return with a Resolution and Standards on October 28, 1996, with respect to the regulations and outline contained in the Compatibility Review Standards; 3) direct staff to return with a Resolution and Standards on October 28, 1996, with respect to the Standards for Historic Designation; 4) direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Fee Schedule for cost recovery to implement the interim regulations; 5) direct staff to return with an analysis of staff and management impacts associated with new Work Program assignments at the earliest possible date; and 6) direct staff to return on the earliest possible agenda with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to compensate $5,000 to the Comprehensive Plan Publishing Contract, an indirect cost of the urgency moratorium.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 and Review of the Design Quality and
Neighborhood Compatibility of Replacement Structures≅ Vice Mayor Huber said members of the public had commented on various items which were all worthy of consideration at the time of the final ordinance, but he felt fantastic strides had been made to get to that point that evening. He wanted to proceed with the ordinance in order to see how well it would work out and pick up
10/15/96 80-304
the thrust of the remaining ideas when the final ordinance came about. Council Member Kniss thought the issue had been important with regard to community input. The Council had heard both outrage and overjoy from citizens. Some of the most poignant comments were those regarding housing shapes and character which reflected the soul of the community. People were looking at their homes in a different light and what those homes could do for them and for the community. In the 1980s, the Council took similar action with a moratorium which resulted in FAR regulations and a number of zoning changes, but she thought the proposed ordinance would end up having an impact. The Council was looking not only at zoning controls but also at what made the community feel comfortable within its neighborhoods and Palo Alto. Palo Alto had become such a desirable place to live in, and people were spending enormous amounts of money to live in Palo Alto. The proposed ordinance was a good starting point. Council Member Simitian referred to page 8 of the proposed ordinance, Section 3, Chapter 16.49.040(a), Designation of Historic Structures or Sites, and he asked what the shaded language meant. Mr. Calonne said the shaded language indicated changes from policy direction the Council had given previously. The capitalized,
italicized sentence ΑUPON FILING OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR
DESIGNATION, THERE SHALL BE AN AUTOMATIC SIXTY DAY MORATORIUM ON ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE/SITE, OR STRUCTURES/SITES
WITHIN THE DISTRICT AS APPLICABLE,≅ was the only new language to the existing designation process. It would be an automatic 60-day moratorium upon completion of an application. He did not believe staff was recommending that, but the theory behind it was that the HRB or staff might discover significant structures during the process of reviewing a pre-1940 residence. That would make it conceivable for someone to then withdraw his/her application, modify his/her project to be less than 50 percent alteration, and then move forward despite the regulations to alter what staff had discovered to be significant. Council Member Simitian asked whether the all capitalized, italicized language meant that any individual, not HRB or staff, could designate any property site or home in the City and impede someone for 60 days. Mr. Calonne said yes.
Council Member Simitian asked whether that was really staff=s intention. Mr. Calonne said the existing ordinance let anyone propose designation. If that were not changed, then when the moratorium language was placed there, the logic would follow.
10/15/96 80-305
Council Member Simitian clarified the reason it was not yet a problem and since there was a voluntary system, it would not matter if someone proposed designation. Mr. Calonne said yes. He pointed out that a simple contrast would be that what was in the national process eligibility listing could be vetoed by a property owner. There might be consequences on development, but as the ordinance moved from voluntary to mandatory over the next year, staff would need to review who could designate and under what circumstances. Council Member Simitian asked whether the City would be at risk if the language were deleted. He was concerned about a situation in which two neighbors who might have a small dispute and one neighbor proposed designation just for spite. Mr. Calonne said it would be difficult to assess the risk. Staff discussed it and left it as an option for the Council. There was no staff recommendation to do it, but staff wanted mainly for Council to be aware that it was a possibility.
Council Member Simitian asked whether Αany structure/site≅ applied to post-1940 structures. Mr. Calonne said he would check the existing ordinance. Council Member McCown asked, under that language, if someone owned a pre-1940 house and wanted to do a remodeling project, not a demolition, and a neighbor proposed designation, whether that person would be held up for 60 days from moving forward with the remodeling project. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member McCown said that went against what the Council was trying to accomplish. The language suggested that while the interim rules were in place, someone could, over an objection, stop someone else from proceeding with a remodeling project if a house were not being demolished and if it was not a landmark structure. Mr. Calonne agreed. Staff put in several pages of language that constituted a simple point the Council had made orally with staff the previous week, namely that there was the possibility that people midway could withdraw and change the project to not be a demolition. Council Member McCown said she was referring to someone who did not want to demolish but clearly remodel, and with that language, a third party could stop the property owner from doing that remodel for 60 days.
10/15/96 80-306
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. It was a consequence of the existing ordinance permitting any person to propose designation. Council Member McCown clarified the existing ordinance did not include the 60-day stop. Mr. Calonne said yes. The existing ordinance required a process before the HRB and the Council before it went to a moratorium.
Mr. Schreiber said staff=s concern was with someone filing an application for historic evaluation, and as the process moved forward and the person realized the house was likely to be designated as a historic structure, at that point, the person turned in a withdrawal letter revising his/her plans to a 50 percent alteration in order to escape the process. He asked whether there was a way of addressing that concern without amending the existing Title 16.49 and also to trigger the moratorium as part of that. Council Member Simitian asked the maker and seconder whether they would remove that language from the motion and let staff return in the future if there were some other way to deal with the situation. Mr. Calonne said the regulations were supposed to include any administrative directions to City departments necessary to implement the chapter. Staff had no way of knowing whether it would be a problem; staff was just pointing it out. Another way would be for the Council to give staff an administrative direction to keep the Council informed if the situation arose and deal with it at that time. Vice Mayor Huber asked if a person currently wished to make a designation on a house and the person wished to do something with it, whether that person would be compelled to go through the HRB. Mr. Schreiber said if the HRB recommended that the house be designated and the Council added the house to the historic inventory, then there would be a review process. He did not believe that if the house were in the process of being reviewed by the HRB for possible designation and someone submitted an application to do something to that house, there would be no way for staff to stop the application for remodeling, etc. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the 60-day language would stop it. If the language regarding the 60 days were removed, the process that was instituted due to the house being designated would in effect give the 60 days or more because of the review process. In that case, he did not care about the 60 days. Mr. Calonne said the 60 days would be in effect because there was not an existing mechanism to hold properties that were in the process of being designated. The situation had not presented
10/15/96 80-307
itself, and if it had, staff would have returned to the Council. As a practical matter, the Council did not give up any authority if it wanted to deal with that type of situation on a case-by-case basis should the problem arise. Vice Mayor Huber did not mind staff reviewing the language, but he was not sure he wanted the language to go to the situation Mr. Calonne had proposed because someone could get caught in midstream. He thought it should be dealt with in the interim regulations. Council Member Simitian referred to Section 3, Title 16.49.040(a), Procedure for designation of historic structures/sites or
districts, ΑAny individual or group may propose designation of a historic structure/site or district. Upon filing of a complete application for designation, there shall be an automatic sixty day
moratorium on alteration...≅ He asked whether that would prevent one neighbor in a 1990 house from proposing designation on another neighbor in a 1990 house who wanted to remodel. He asked what the connection was and was, whether there a reference in the ordinance to some other criteria, or whether the language meant 60 days for any structure. Mr. Schreiber said in that situation, the owner of one 1990 house could propose designation on another 1990 house. There was nothing to prevent that application from being filed, and if the proposed language were in place, the 60 days would become effective when the application was filed. He asked Mr. Calonne whether the provision could be extracted from Title 16.49 and added as a provision to Title 16.50 that only applied to pre-1940 houses that were going through the process. Mayor Wheeler asked whether there was a basic statement in the ordinance that indicated the structure needed to be 50 years old. Ms. Lytle said there was an understanding nationally that 50 years was the cutoff date, and she did not know whether or not that was specifically written into the PAMC. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member Kniss said the Council did not want to be in a position of allowing one neighbor to act against another. Mr. Calonne said if the Council wished, it should give staff direction, and the ordinance could be revised to address the problem of the 1990 property. He emphasized staff did not really have a sense of how likely it might be for that to happen. Mr. Schreiber recommended that the Council give staff direction to extract the language from the amendment to Title 16.49 and modify Title 16.50 at the time of second reading to accomplish the same ends for the pre-1940 houses.
10/15/96 80-308
MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct staff to redraft Section 3 of the ordinance dealing with the designation moratorium so that it includes only pre-1940 structures which have commenced the process. Council Member Rosenbaum believed the Council was referring to two
separate issues. First was the concern with one a neighbor=s
wanting to propose designation on another neighbor=s property with a 60-day delay, and second was to include Items 1 through 6 in the staff report (CMR:436:96) which included the designation moratorium having to do with an owner applying for designation and withdrawing from the process to do an alteration after getting a sense that the house was going to be designated. Those were two completely different issues and not any the Council was asking staff to look at if the motion were passed. He asked why there should be two different approaches. If someone had a house and were not sure whether it might be designated, it would be to his/her interest to file for alteration. He referred to Item 3 on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:436:96), and he asked why, someone deciding to test the waters instead, should not have the same right as someone who chose not test the waters. Mr. Calonne said Title 16.50 in the new ordinance established a de facto designation process that in many instances would replace Title 16.49 as a practical matter. The historic screening and historic evaluation by the HRB would identify whether the property was a landmark, contributing, or without merit. The existing designation process would really not apply. However, if through the new process a potential landmark were identified, there was nothing to prevent the applicant who sought a permit to demolish or alter the property from withdrawing the application and changing it to a nondemolition alteration in order to move forward. The concern was if the Council did not want to risk losing properties in that way, it would need to put in a means of stopping changes to the property while the designation process under existing law went forward. Under that theory, the HRB during the evaluation would designate it as a landmark and find out if the person wanted to withdraw the application. Then the HRB could move forward and designate the property under the existing ordinance process. A 60-day moratorium would stop that person from going forward with a less than 50 percent alteration as a means of evading discovery of the resource. Council Member Simitian was correct in that the language left open the possibility of abuse as applied to
nonhistoric or modern, recently built structures. Mr. Schreiber=s proposal would address that concern and would limit the 60-day provision to pre-1940 structures. That was how it would fit together. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that someone could apply to remodel a house without becoming involved in the process, and that
10/15/96 80-309
provision would apply only if the applicant chose to apply for a demolition. Mr. Calonne said it became more complicated with the facade rule on demolition. What was really being said was that even if the application were pulled, the facade would have to be left in place. That was why staff debated internally how often that regulation
might have to be evoked. The Council=s concern was legitimate. Council Member Andersen was concerned whether in any way a process was being established that might discourage what the Council was really attempting to do. There seemed to be some real interest in avoiding some problems if the Council simply moved forward through the process and tore down the Category 3 or 4 house. He asked what front facade included, whether it was something similar in appearance to what had been there previously, or whether it referred to two-by-fours in terms of shape. Mr. Schreiber clarified front facade referred to preserving the structural elements that would not include the exterior finish. It would include the two-by-fours, two-by-sixes, etc., and the essential shape of the structure. Council Member Andersen asked whether it would include changing to a more insulated window or a pattern of a window and clarified that it could be a rather dramatic change in the structure even though the structural facade was being maintained. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Andersen recognized that the regulations were interim, but he was concerned about what those regulations might produce. Assuming the motion passed, he asked staff to keep some record of what the City was getting and whether or not the regulations needed to be looked at in a more restrictive manner. He did not want to go to the point San Francisco had, which was requiring a permit for every window, etc., but he was concerned that the City might be allowing something that would really not maintain the appearance at all based on some of the latitude being provided. He was also concerned with regard to whether or not some
positive incentives were needed to allow for the Council=s intent,
such as whether or not a bonus FAR could be given or the HRB=s suggestion that if an applicant were going to retain and restore a building, some break be given on fees. He was not suggesting that no fees be charged, but he understood some of the costs, particularly if the applicant were going through a lengthy process which was not due to any fault of the applicant. He felt the Council really needed to put some thought behind its decision.
Mr. Schreiber said Mr. Andersen=s issues were legitimate in terms of the permanent historic preservation ordinance which staff hoped
10/15/96 80-310
to be working on soon. Staff=s concern with moving forward with incentives was with regard to interim regulations because staff was moving very fast on the interim regulations, and the potential for unintended consequences was high. The Council needed to get beyond the interim regulations so staff resources could be devoted to the bigger assignment. Council Member Andersen was interested in how the issue impacted areas other than pre-1940 homes. He could not help but anticipate that there were going to be areas in the City which might be negative as a result of not allowing certain things in some areas of town and making it easier to achieve in other areas. If that started to happen, he would ask his colleagues to consider something else before it got to the point of putting permanent regulations in. The surface had not even been scratched in terms of how the issue affected the entire community, and he felt the process had just begun. Council Member Fazzino had some of the same concerns as Council Member Andersen, and he agreed with Mr. Schreiber that it would be best to address those issues through the permanent ordinance due to the difficulty in pulling something together in such a brief period of time. He had a more immediate concern with the fee issue and cost recovery. In many cases, it was not a concern given people were applying for demolitions, but he was concerned about the owner of a small home. If the fee were $500 to $1,000 to prepare a historic report, that provided a tremendous incentive for people to move forward and consider alternatives simply to tear a house down
or, because of the City=s regulations, not want to cooperate. It was important that the City work positively and constructively with homeowners to make the program a success and preserve historic homes. He asked whether staff had considered other alternative fee structures. City Manager June Fleming said staff realized the fees would be a surprise to the Council, but staff had to work under the policy that Council had set with regard to cost recovery. Staff did realize how excessive the fees were, but staff was faced with two obligations: to let the Council know the cost of such a program and
to follow the Council=s guidelines. Staff would be amenable to reduce the fees to whatever percent cost recovery the Council wished. Council Member Fazzino asked staff what additional information could be brought to the Council at the October 28, 1996, City Council Meeting in terms of alternative approaches to the fees. Mr. Schreiber said the alternative approach would be to select a figure less than 100 percent. There was no magic as to what that percentage might be as long as it was understood that whatever the difference was, it would be a General Fund subsidy. Staff had indicated it wanted to return to the Council in four months with a
10/15/96 80-311
status report. All of the fee estimates were educated guesses on
staff=s part since it was a new process, and until some applications came through the process, it would be impossible to give clear definitive answers. Ms. Fleming said if the Council looked back on the Fee Schedule, it would see where staff had been able to make some comparisons and
not put the City out of the Αmarket≅ by recommending subsidies with
children=s programs, etc. Staff could not find a trend in a case
such as that. The Council=s trend had been to subsidize those things the Council wanted to encourage and make sure people were not unfairly penalized due to the cost. Council Member Fazzino said there was a significant public benefit to preserving certain homes; otherwise, the Council would not go through all the difficulties of crafting such an ordinance. Ms. Fleming agreed. The percentage was a policy decision. Council Member Fazzino asked what type of direction staff needed. Council Member Simitian had made a suggestion that was consistent
with Council Member Andersen=s comments with regard to incentives which was the possibility of a rebate if a person moved forward and preserved a house. The Council should not necessarily commit itself to a particular approach that evening, but he was interested
in staff=s providing the Council with some alternative fee approaches when the issue was next discussed on October 28, 1996.
He felt staff should have some idea, based on staff=s contacts, as to what a particular level meant in terms of impact on classes of homeowners. Mr. Schreiber said there was no fair way of evaluating the issue. Staff provided in the staff report (CMR:436:96) deposit numbers
which were staff=s best estimate as to what those applications were likely to cost. It was expensive in terms of a major remodeling or new structure but would constitute a very small percentage of the total construction project. Staff had raised the issue two weeks prior in another staff report (CMR:431:96), but there had been no Council direction regarding cost recovery, so staff went with full cost recovery. Staff could return to the Council with alternatives but needed some sense from the Council that it wanted something less than full cost recovery. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct the staff to return to the City Council with alternative fee structure approaches up to and including full cost recovery. Council Member Simitian said Mr. Calonne had commented about redrafting the ordinance to apply only to pre-1940 structures in
order to accommodate Mr. Schreiber=s concern. As he understood it,
10/15/96 80-312
Mr. Schreiber=s concern was limited to people who were already in the process and trying to get out of the process. He wanted to make sure that everyone was in agreement with respect to any redrafting effort being limited to not only pre-1940 structures but also structures that had already commenced the process. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Simitian clarified that the process could be used by people who had no plans for their homes in the immediate future. Mr. Schreiber said yes, in terms of the historic evaluation. Council Member Simitian clarified that fees applied to that category also. Mr. Schreiber said fees would be applied to six different categories of applications. Council Member Simitian said if the goal were to encourage what the Council felt was behavior that produced some public benefit, he was not worried about 40, 60, or 90 percent; he was interested in a fee structure that encouraged rather than discouraged. While $500,000 did not seem like much in the overall context of a remodel, it might seem like a lot to someone who wanted to find out if his/her house were historic and decided to go through the designation process. His underlying philosophy with regard to the fee structure was to rebate the fee or provide a partial rebate for someone who had no interest in doing anything to his/her home but was willing to go through the historic designation process and to provide the community with some greater protection in connection with an individual property. Council Member Rosenbaum viewed the whole process as somewhat of an imposition on the property owner if the process were not something the property owner was to do in the first place. Then to have the added burden of fees that could be up in four figures was too much. He thought the proposed fees were an order of magnitude problem, and he would be looking at nominal fees more on the order of $100 that would not be regarded as a burden by the applicant. Mr. Schreiber had mentioned six categories with regard to fees. The historic property survey was the most expensive, and he asked what that was. Ms. Lytle said it was the evaluation of a property when staff felt a professional assessment of the property was needed to enable the HRB to make a determination as to whether or not the property was a landmark. A professional property assessment would be a piece of information that could be sought in making a determination at the HRB level through outside contract.
10/15/96 80-313
Council Member Rosenbaum asked how it differed from the historic merit evaluation. Ms. Lytle said a historic merit evaluation could take place without the need for professional assessment in some instances. It could be done with record data in the library through a means that staff could provide normally by gathering enough information to make the decision. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there would be no difference to the applicant. The applicant would file, and then staff would determine if an outside professional were required. Ms. Lytle said yes. Once the determination was made, staff would have to call the applicant for the additional deposit in order to get a professional evaluation conducted. For example, it was the same type of evaluation the City did for the Williams property. Council Member Andersen saw historic preservation as a public good and, therefore, had no problem utilizing some General Fund monies to provide for historic designations. He did not want the fee structure to discourage someone from applying for a historic designation determination. It seemed a prohibitive expense, he was afraid it would discourage property owners from moving ahead with the process. He apologized for not raising the issue earlier as it created a time crunch for staff, but he felt the Council got a wake-up call after seeing the fee structure figures. Mayor Wheeler said there was an item conveyed by Ms. Willis in the
HRB=s report which she wanted staff to consider within the next two weeks. Since the Council seemed to be headed in the direction of instructing that the front facade be counted as part of the 50 percent preservation rule, the HRB had a good point and brought some design expertise to the possibility that there needed to be another definition for restoration and reconstruction and the ability for a homeowner to pursue those alternatives if it were not physically possible to retain that front facade. She asked staff to discuss the issue within the next two weeks and return to the Council with some language or reaction. Council Member Rosenbaum asked what the level of public review was with respect to the Compatibility Review Standards (the Standards), who drafted them, who had reviewed them, etc. Mr. Schreiber said the Standards had been drafted by City staff with the assistance of an architect who had considerable expertise. The wording was recently finished the prior Thursday and Friday. One of the reasons staff did not want the Standards adopted that evening was that there had been no public review, and staff wanted to provide an opportunity for that.
10/15/96 80-314
Council Member Rosenbaum said normally, with something of the complexity of the Standards, there would be a 6-month process with much input. Mr. Schreiber said staff was comfortable with the approach because they were interim regulations. The Standards were structured to be adopted by resolution. The City Attorney advised that because it would make modifications of the Standards easier than returning with an ordinance. He would expect that over the course of the next three to six months, staff would return to the Council with some changes as the interim regulations were put into practice. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the Council should attempt to establish some procedure to get input from the affected parties while the interim regulations were in force in the hopes of seeing whether the Standards were suitable. Mr. Calonne said by adopting the Standards by resolution, in theory the Council would have until the end of November to pass on it, and that would give time for public review. The practical problem was that the Standards would have to be formatted, published, and distributed in a way that people could make sense of it. The 2-week time frame was the best that could be done to balance the reality of getting the Standards done with an opportunity for some public review. The Council could specify how staff should do that, but he had been persuaded that October 28, 1996, had to be the date in order for everything to be in place by the end of November. Council Member Rosenbaum appreciated the amount of work done by staff in such a short period of time. He asked whether a formal process should be set up for review in a reasonable fashion and recommendations made over a course of time after adoption. Mayor Wheeler asked whether that would be a likely outgrowth of going into the next phase of the process. She felt the Council was going to take a deliberate look, but because she had some familiarity with planning and architectural terms, the Standards seemed basic to her. She did not think staff had thrown in anything in architectural terms which seemed overly complex. There might be a few items of complexity, but she felt the Council could deal with those by the use of the resolution and within the interim regulations. It had clearly been stated from the Council level that as things progressed into the following year with the development of permanent regulations, the Council would have a very public process with much input. Council Member Rosenbaum said during that period, people would have to live with the interim regulations, and he wondered if provision should be made for that.
10/15/96 80-315
AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Simitian, to direct staff to establish a group of individuals to review the guidelines for Compatibility Review Standards. Council Member Simitian said the fact that Council Member Rosenbaum expressed some uncertainty about how the system might work and the Mayor pointed out that a process was needed, the system would only work if people understood how it worked and followed the rules. He had argued from the outset that the Council would do itself a disservice if it did not do everything it could to create buy-in on the part of the community with the process. He believed the way to get the greatest buy-in in the process would be to create some formal vehicle for people to participate in the discussion about what the guidelines should be. That way, instead of there being a group of people at the Council meeting expressing that the Council was moving forward without involving the community, there might be a group of people satisfied that the guidelines reflected the input provided and happy to be involved. It was not just in the interest of fairness to the people who to be involved in the process but in the interest of everyone who wanted to see the system work, rather than repolarize the community unnecessarily. Council Member McCown said one of the six additional items was a procedure whereby staff would be able to provide relief to specific situations from the standards in which staff determined it was
appropriate, so appropriate Αwiggle room≅ was already being created to adjust and achieve principles. She agreed with Mayor Wheeler and would only support the amendment if the process could be folded into the overall process being pursued for the longer term permanent option of the regulations so as not to load yet another
committee structure and set of meetings and demands on everyone=s time on top of what was already being done. The process and what staff resources would be used, needed to be part of the whole assignment or it would be very difficult for staff and the public. Council Member Kniss said the piece she found most difficult would be putting a group together. It was always difficult to decide what the balance was, how many were from one discipline and how many were from the community, and someone had to make those choices. She was unusually concerned about how the Comprehensive Plan would be completed along with the other assignments currently underway. It was a prodigious amount of work to be taken on. If it could be accomplished in a way that Council Member McCown had described, she would be comfortable with it. However, the Council was struggling with it currently because there were tough decisions to make, and the Council was still in the interim stages. She could not imagine not having that type of group when there were permanent regulations in place, but she thought staff was doing well to have accomplished what it had up to that point.
10/15/96 80-316
Council Member Andersen asked Mr. Calonne whether, based on the way the amendment was worded, it would require a Brown Act meeting structure. Mr. Calonne replied it would not if staff created the group. Council Member Andersen asked what kind of time line Council Member Rosenbaum felt was necessary for the group and also asked Council
Member Rosenbaum for a response to Council Member McCown=s concerns as he had similar ones. Council Member Rosenbaum said based on previous conversations, there would be some compatibility requirements in the future, and the group would be working with the final regulations in mind. Hopefully, it would work on a time schedule so if there were problems with the interim regulations, those would be sensed and would be applicable during the interim period. Council Member Andersen clarified that Council Member Rosenbaum anticipated some of the recommendations that might come from the group would impact the way the recommendations were working during the interim period itself. Council Member Rosenbaum replied that hopefully that would happen. Council Member Andersen would not support the amendment. He wanted to give the interim regulations a chance to work without creating an additional burden on staff. He would be happy to see input from those having vital interest as a means of impacting the permanent regulations, but he was not ready to stir up what was already created.
Vice Mayor Huber echoed Council Member Andersen=s comments. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Rosenbaum, Kniss, McCown, Simitian Αyes,≅ Schneider absent. Council Member Rosenbaum said there were several points he questioned regarding the regulations: 1) garage door widths of 12 feet for 2-car garages because he had always seen 16 feet; 2) wood roof replacement because he thought wood was against fire regulations, plus there was currently a large market of Class A roofs which resembled wood; and 3) divided lights and single-pane windows because he thought double-pane windows were currently the requirement. He asked whether single-pane windows were still allowable. Mr. Schreiber could not give a definitive answer, but he thought single-pane windows were still permissible in many situations. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said there was nothing in the requirements that specified single-pane glass. The requirement
10/15/96 80-317
stated that a window with divided lights, which was not a requirement, needed to be one of two types of windows. Staff had talked to at least six developers, architects, and builders in Palo Alto and also went to construction sites for input in the past two weeks while putting together the interim regulations. One thing staff was apprised of with regard to divided lights windows was there were three categories which were all new insulated, double- pane windows: 1) true divided lights where each pane was separate from the other panes and had mullions around it; 2) two-pane glass and full true mullions on the inside and outside; and 3) two-pane glass with a grid between the two panes which gave a false impression from the outside because there were no mullions on the outside and no shadow line or depth. The regulations required one of the first two types. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether single-pane glass could currently be used or whether double-pane glass was required due to construction energy requirements. Ms. Warheit said it was a Building Code issue that would not be affected in any way by the regulations. She believed it depended on how much glass service there was in the building. Council Member Rosenbaum said if there were a Building Code requirement that new homes required double-pane glass, then he did not think the City should have regulations that addressed to single-pane windows. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 12. Ordinance Establishing Additional Exceptions to a Moratorium on Certain Development and Demolition of Older Residences, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber noted there were two versions, A and B, of the ordinance that addressed either one or two categories of exceptions from the moratorium. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the first paragraph under REQUEST on page 1 of 3 in the staff report (CMR:437:96). The last
sentence stated ΑBoth ordinances also include an administrative direction to staff to prepare the necessary historic preservation regulations immediately, before the interim regulations are
effective,≅ and he asked what the purpose was of the sentence. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the administrative regulations were referred to in the ordinance that had just been given a first reading and would not become effective until November 30, 1996. He felt Council direction was needed immediately in order to do the regulations, and he was also concerned with staff being accused of exceeding its authority on those regulations.
10/15/96 80-318
Council Member Fazzino asked why the Council was being given a choice. Mr. Schreiber said the application that was in the demolition permit process was one that staff would have recommended an exception for earlier on in the process, but it was not clear to staff that the situation had existed. As indicated in the staff report (CMR:437:96), the applications were filed with the Utilities Department, and in the rush to pull together the information, staff had not picked up on that. Version B picked up the three properties that were currently in a moratorium which represented a different problem. There were two structures on the inventory, and one in the Professorville District was treated as if it were on the inventory, and staff did not have a clear recommendation. Staff could see the value of respecting the process and allowing the applicant to proceed, and at the same time, allowing those structures to be demolished was contrary to the overall thrust of what staff, the public, and the Council had been discussing for the past month. Staff was providing Version B to the Council without recommendation and looking for Council direction. Council Member Fazzino clarified that in all three cases, the applicants were owners who operated under the current set of rules and worked with the HRB. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct and was part of the argument for granting the permit. Council Member Fazzino clarified that in two of the three cases the owner supported the moratorium and asked whether that was also the case with 1531 College Avenue. Mr. Schreiber said staff had had great difficulty and had not been able to communicate with the owner of 1531 College Avenue as he did not live in Palo Alto. Council Member Fazzino said in two cases there were owners who worked with the City constructively, and in one case the owners had not been heard from, and he asked whether it was possible to take action on that basis or whether it too arbitrary. Mr. Calonne said he would not call it arbitrary, but his initial reaction was that it was better to have classifications that applied across the board. It might be proper to classify the three owners into different groups, but he needed to give the question some thought. Leslie Murphy-Chutorian, 151 Lowell Avenue, said it was important for the Council to approve the property located at 275 Lowell Avenue as an exemption to the moratorium. Knowing the property was a Category 2 historic structure, she had purchased the property after careful review of the HRB ordinance and relied on that
10/15/96 80-319
ordinance in her decision to spend a small fortune for a barely habitable house to remake into a home for her family. On April 29, 1996, she submitted an application for demolition of the structure. On May 9, 1996, she met and discussed the property at length with the HRB, and on May 22, 1996, she visited the property with the HRB, agreeing that there were features of the house that were worth saving. She was doing what she had promised and had hired an HRB member to assist with the design of the project. On June 24, 1996, the Council unanimously approved the HRB recommendation to place a 6-month moratorium on the demolition of the property in order to further evaluate a major remodeling of the house. At the September 16, 1996, Council meeting she was assured by Council Member Fazzino, that the proposed ordinance did not intend to include her property since she had already gone through the process and was working with the HRB for a good solution. After the September 24, 1996, meeting, Council Member Fazzino informed her that he had forgotten to get her property included in the exceptions because the hour was so late. The summary for the
Council=s action correctly stated that several projects were inadvertently omitted from the exceptions to date. Clearly, her
property would fit the definition of Αin the pipeline≅ which was a standard for the exception. She had followed all of the rules and was at the end of the process, and the Council needed to maintain its integrity and stand by its word. It would be patently unfair for the Council to reverse itself after having voted and approved the status of her property only three and one-half months prior. The proposed new historic landmark property rules would cause her to incur substantial hardship and many damages. She strongly urged the Council to stand behind the specific commitment made to her and allow her property to be an exception to the new ordinance. Roger Kohler, 721 Colorado Avenue, said he was involved with two of the properties located on Melville and Lowell Avenues and echoed the comments of Ms. Murphy-Chutorian. In the past, he had always appreciated working with the City of Palo Alto because the processes were always straightforward and staff was easy to work with. In other cities, it was not always clear. Both owners were making every effort to save the houses as they stood with improvements such that they were going to be livable and became viable parts of the housing stock in Palo Alto. Since both properties had been through the original process and action had been taken to include both properties, he believed they should be included as part of the exemptions being considered. The City would benefit because both houses would remain standing and become credits to the community. It would be an incentive to let the property owners proceed and not have the worry of the current standards and regulations which were not clear. Council Member McCown clarified that if the Council selected Version B of the ordinance, 275 Lowell Avenue had only two weeks to run, 453 Melville Avenue had until January 1997, and 1531 College Avenue had until July 1997, which would not change the moratorium
10/15/96 80-320
dates. Those dates would still be in place, and the property owner would have to complete the process under the old rules and continue to work with the HRB through the end of those dates. She clarified that when those dates had passed, the new regulations would not apply. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. There was nothing in Version B that would change the previous Council actions. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Urgency Ordinance (Version B). Council Member Fazzino thought it was fair to provide exceptions, especially to the first two properties, 275 Lowell Avenue and 453 Melville Avenue. Those individuals worked constructively with the HRB under an existing set of rules to try to preserve the historic nature of the houses, and he felt they should be protected. He was concerned about 1531 College Avenue, and he asked what options were available to the Council with respect to the property. Mr. Calonne said there was none. If the Council wished, he would be happy to bring the issue back on October 28, 1996, in order to deal with 1531 College Avenue if there were a lawful way to do so. Council Member Fazzino assumed the Council would be able to deal with 1531 College Avenue separately, and he asked whether the first two properties could be separated. Mr. Calonne said no, because the ordinance would take effect immediately. The rationale was that the properties were subject to an existing moratorium, and he was not able to distinguish 1531 College Avenue from the others and would be very uncomfortable in doing that. The simplest way to address the issue would be to continue the item to the October 21, 1996, Council Meeting. Council Member Kniss said as liaison to the HRB, she knew that the property owners of 275 Lowell Avenue and 453 Melville Avenue not only cooperated but also worked closely with the HRB, which was not the case with 1531 College Avenue. She felt the first two property owners should not be penalized. They were caught in an awkward situation. The situation with 1531 College Avenue was a very different situation, and she was very troubled by it. Mr. Calonne did not disagree. He needed time to characterize the different situation in a way that was rational. The obvious distinction to make was that 1531 College Avenue war the only one of the three properties that was not in process. Mr. Schreiber said staff was not processing plans for any of the applications. The property at 1531 College Avenue was the only Category 1 structure; the others were Category 2.
10/15/96 80-321
SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue the item to the October 21, 1996, City Council Meeting. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-1, Kniss Αno,≅ Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 13. Award of Option to Lease between the City of Palo Alto and R & T Restaurant Corporation for the Municipal Golf Course Restaurant located at 1875 Embarcadero Road
Council Member Simitian asked whether Αpaying no rent≅ was a
function of Α... the greater of $48,000 or 6 percent of gross
receipts≅ and whether staff felt the City had sufficient safeguards that those gross receipts would be verifiable and that the 6 percent was a number that could not be manipulated by anyone. Assistant Director of Administrative Services Melissa Cavallo replied yes. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to authorize the Mayor to execute the option to lease between the City of Palo Alto and R & T Restaurant Corporation for the Golf Course Restaurant operation and improvement. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Mayor Wheeler and Council Member Andersen re Council Resolution Opposing Proposition 218 re Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes Council Member Andersen stressed the impacts Proposition 218 would have not only on the City of Palo Alto but also on every local government agency. He referred to an editorial from the September 15, 1996, Sacramento Bee which addressed that the measure stacked the process by giving large property owners, including absentee corporations, disproportionate voting power over small homeowners. It imposed costly and cumbersome procedures on routine government actions, and denied the half of Californians who did not own property any voice over assessments they helped pay as renters and
consumers. It had been referred to as the ΑHamiltonian≅ approach to government, and he had serious concerns over a proposal that would allow for those who owned the most property to have the most voting power. and those who had no property to have no say in the governmental process. He also referred to a comment made by the President of the California Library Association who was opposed to Proposition 218 which stated that Proposition 218 would be a huge
10/15/96 80-322
blow to libraries all over California. Libraries were already struggling to keep their doors open, to keep books on their shelves, and provide computer services that patrons needed. Proposition 218 prohibited general assessments funding for libraries. He strongly encouraged the Council to oppose Proposition 218 and encouraged the community to recognize the profound implications it could have on the City of Palo Alto and other cities throughout the state. Mayor Wheeler said the remarks made by herself and Council Member Andersen in the Colleagues memo dated October 10, 1996, were addressed mainly to the members of the public because the Council, as well as other local government councils, were very aware of the negative impacts of Proposition 218. One instructive point that came from the polls that had been done on Proposition 218 was that among those potential voters who had taken the time to study the issue or had had a conversation with someone that was knowledgeable about the issue, was they were convinced relatively easily that the measure was very bad. However, there had been almost no visible campaign on either side of the issue and it would be easy, due to the measures appealing ballot title, for people to go to the polls and, not having done their homework, and voting for the measure. She read from Attachment B of the October 10, 1996, Colleagues
memo, Summary of the Legislative Analyst=s Estimate of Net State
and Local Government Fiscal Impact (on file in the City Clerk=s
Office), and said that Proposition 218 was the City=s equivalent to Proposition 13 and would do to the City much what Proposition 13 did for local school districts. She did not think there was anyone interested in the education of children who believed that Proposition 13 did any favors to local school districts back in the late 1970s. She felt people would come to have regrets if the Proposition 218 passed in terms of people perceiving that local government was the only level of government that was really working. There would be impacts in Palo Alto as well. In the past, the City had used some fees to promote public benefits and behaviors that the City wanted to promote. The City had used some refuse and water fees to promote behaviors, and that fee structure would no longer be permissible if the measure passed. The Council was about to receive a report from staff which addressed some long-term, very expensive infrastructure needs that the City needed to take care of in the foreseeable future and if the measure passed, it would be extremely difficult to raise the revenues necessary to take care of that infrastructure financing. She was not talking about the kinds of revenues that the Council might be capable of enacting by itself, because that was not where the Council was headed, but even in terms of proposing bond measures and landscaping and lighting assessment districts to the voters of Palo Alto, those mechanisms were in jeopardy as well. She hoped the Palo Alto voters would take a long and careful look at Proposition 218 and determine that it was not right for the Palo Alto community or any community in the State of California.
10/15/96 80-323
MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7625 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Opposition to Proposition 218,
Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes≅ Council Member Fazzino had been gratified over the past two weeks to learn that the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, and Hewlett Packard had taken positions against Proposition 218. He was concerned earlier on the fact that the only people opposing the measure were local governments, and he felt the business community was now beginning to appreciate the negative impact the measure would have on critically important local services like transportation and education. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/15/96 80-324