HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-28 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 28, 1996 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................80-350 1. Interviews for Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors.............................................80-351 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Tony Carrasco for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning Commission............................................80-352 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-353 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1996..................80-353 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Athens Administrators for Administration of Workers Compensation Plan......................................................80-353 3. Extension of Contracts for Temporary Agencies.........80-353 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................80-354 5. PUBLIC HEARING: 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..80-354
9. Mayor Wheeler=s Response to Letter from City of Menlo Park re Sand Hill Road Projects...............................80-373
10/28/96 80-348
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of an application to rezone the property located at 901-909 Alma Street (Southeast Corner of Alma Street and Channing Avenue) from CD-S(P), [Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Shopping Combining District] to a PC [Planned Community] District to construct a four-story, 15,683 square-foot mixed-use project with 23 parking spaces on the first level, 4 apartments on the second and third levels, and office use on the fourth level80-374 6A. PUBLIC HEARING: Permit Streamlining Project--Adoption of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Fee Table 1-A to Offset the Increased Cost of Providing Building Inspection Services80-378
7. Ordinance 4382 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Planning Department to Hire Technical and Support Contract Personnel to Implement the Interim Regulations for Demolition of Residential Structures Constructed Prior to 1940 and Amending
the Municipal Fee Schedule≅ ...........................80-379 8. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Editing and Desktop Publishing Services for the Comprehensive Plan........80-383 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m............80-383
10/28/96 80-349
10/28/96 80-350
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva, Janet Freeland, Judy Jewell) Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
10/28/96 80-351
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:40 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Schneider, Simitian SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
10/28/96 80-352
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:14 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Tony Carrasco for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning Commission MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7630 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Tony Carrasco for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning
Commission≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. Tony Carrasco said it was a pleasure serving on a well-managed commission. Contributions were easy in Palo Alto.
Council Member Schneider appreciated the quality of Tony Carrasco=s work both for the City and professionally. She thanked him for his contribution. Council Member Fazzino said Tony Carrasco had contributed to the City in many ways over the previous years as a staff member, resident, Architectural Review Board member, and Planning Commissioner. He was certain he would identify other ways to contribute significantly to the community in the future. It was important to note that a significant amount of his work was in Palo Alto; and yet, he always took himself out of potential conflict of interest situations and acted on the basis of what was good for the entire community. Tony never did anything on the basis of self interest. He thanked him for his tremendous contributions and his willingness to look at the larger view and to separate his larger vision for the community from his personal career. Council Member Kniss acknowledged the quality and substance of what Tony Carrasco had done in the community. She thanked him for doing an exemplary job.
Council Member Andersen acknowledged Tony Carrasco=s many contributions. He said Midtown was a major area that had been influenced by his earlier ideas and those ideas had influenced much of the discussion to date and would probably be seen in the future.
10/28/96 80-353
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, 36866 Gum Court/Peach Tree Avenue, Newark, spoke regarding bicycle access/security in relation to City operations--libraries, Senior Center, and Dumbarton Express. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding artifacts and the San Francisquito Creek. Shelley Hebert, 3714 Redwood Circle, spoke regarding the new Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Middle School project. Bill Witt, 3809 Carlson Circle, spoke regarding the new JLS Middle School project and the Mitchell Park dog run. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding accountability. T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding parking lots--need for survey. Michael Hermann Wollenweber, Green Street, spoke regarding corporate loss condition. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of September 16, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Athens Administrators for Administration of Workers Compensation Plan 3. Extension of Contracts for Temporary Agencies Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C3037888 between the City of Palo Alto and Kelly Temporary Services, Inc. for Temporary Employment Services Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C3037944 between the City of Palo Alto and Roberta Enterprises for Temporary Employment Services Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C3037893 between the City of Palo Alto and Wollberg-Michelson Personnel Services, Inc. for Temporary Employment Services
10/28/96 80-354
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 3. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 4, Request to Increase Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Calzada, Cates & Patterson Investigative Services for Police Background Investigations, had been removed by staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 (1st Reading 10/15/96, PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent) City Manager June Fleming said her office had received several telephone calls that related to a certain issue as well as Raymond
Elliott=s letter (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) which questioned whether or not the discussions and the ordinance related only to single-family or whether it also related to duplexes or multiple-residential units. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the proposed Ordinance would establish interim regulations governing historic designation and demolition of residential structures constructed prior to 1940. She said staff had prepared photographic illustrations that supplemented the Compatibility Review Standards. The Resolution forwarded the Compatibility Review Standards for replacement houses, standards for historic designation, and standards for alteration of historic landmark residences. The policy framework was directed by Council on September 30, 1996, and was presented to the Council and the public on October 15, 1996. The standards were prepared by staff with consultation by Daniel Soloman, a Bay Area architect well known for his extensive work in historic, traditional, and contextual residential design. The Compatibility
Review Standards was an extension of the City=s Single-Family Design Guidelines which was first published in 1991 and the Historical and Architectual Resources of Palo Alto which was published in 1979 as a companion document to the historic inventory. Staff had identified five defining characteristics of pre-1940 neighborhoods in Palo Alto as discussed in the Compatibility Review Standards: 1) that houses be located in a garden setting with open space plantings and views between buildings; 2) that the primary focus be a dignified front facade of the house and its connection to the front garden and street; 3) that the architecture show careful attention to scale, balance, proportion, detail, materials, and craftsmanship; 4) that garages be detached from the house and located at the rear of the site; and 5) that regularly spaced street trees and planted parking strips
10/28/96 80-355
define the street edge and the pedestrian area. The patterns were the same in both single- and multiple-family development. She reviewed the photographic presentation. She said an alternative garage location was offered in the Compatibility Review Standards in that an attached garage was allowed. An attached garage in the rear provided a similar benefit to the traditional rear yard garage, but it also allowed the garage to be connected to the interior of the home. She said garages on corner lots required special treatment and had been accommodated in the Compatibility Review Standards. Many existing houses on corner lots had detached garages located in the rear yard area which was an attractive alternative to an attached garage. She reviewed overhead photographs of houses in surrounding areas that were not compatible with the Compatibility Review Standards and the traditional types of architecture that were prevalent in old Palo Alto. She also presented overheads of some compatible new houses and second-story additions that encouraged the proper patterns and practices. Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said a proposed language change to one of the sections in the Ordinance had been presented to the Council that evening. The Ordinance inadvertently referred to the wrong segue exemption category. Historic Resources Board Member Mildred Mario referred to a statement under Policy Implications on page 2 of the staff report
(CMR:451:96), ΑIf Council intends for staff to use other than our
traditional demolition definition,≅ which allow removal of nearly all building elements except the studs in the walls, they should so
direct. It was not staff=s intent to require all portions of the facade to be protected, including windows, exterior materials, etc. Staff can administer either interpretation, but prefers to continue the traditional interpretation. It allows greater
flexibility to the home remodeler.≅ She asked whether the traditional demolition definition referred to in the statement was the historic demolition definition or the demolition definition that was citywide. Ms. Lytle said the reference was to the definition that would capture homes to be considered under the Interim Regulations. Ms. Mario referred to the Definition of Demolition on page 3 of the
staff report and the statement, ΑThe Historic Resources Board
expressed concern...≅ She wanted the record to reflect that the HRB preferred Section 16.50.020 Definition(d) of the Ordinance, with the highlighted portions, that was provided by staff. Council Member McCown said staff had made a number of changes in the staff report (CMR:451:96) to the text of the Compatibility Standards, and she asked whether staff received input from architects, designers, etc., who helped think through some of the proposals.
10/28/96 80-356
Ms. Lytle said several local designers and homeowners provided further input that caused staff to liberalize some of the dimensions provided previously. Council Member Schneider referred to Section 16.50.020 Definitions (d) on page 2 of the Ordinance and said materials were not included in that section. She asked whether the removal of the facade referred to the materials.
Ms. Lytle said staff=s interpretation of demolition meant removal of more than 50 percent of the perimeter walls or removal of any portion of the street-facing facade which would allow for the removal of materials but would require that the framing for the walls remain. The HRB wanted a stricter definition for the front facade and that the materials also be required to remain. Staff believed if that much of the house remained, then it was a remodel, not a demolition, and home remodelers should be able to replace windows without being subject to a set of requirements. Staff would be reviewing all pre-1940 residences and could use a stricter interpretation that had been traditionally used of demolition, but it preferred the traditional interpretation. Staff agreed that if a homeowner replaced the studs in the walls because of deterioration from termites but the intent was to restore and rehabilitate the structure to its original condition, that should not be captured as a demolition definition which was the reason for the additional highlighted language. If a homeowner went further than what was allowed with the traditional definition and had to remove everything and replace it in kind, that would be permitted. Council Member Schneider asked what was meant by intent. Ms. Lytle said the intent of the definition was to capture structures that were being demolished, not those that were being added onto. Council Member Schneider clarified the design for the new structures would be reviewed by staff during the design review portion so any radical change in the facade would be discovered at that time. Ms. Lytle referred to the highlighted portion of the Ordinance and said staff would need photographic evidence in addition to building permit evidence in order to document replacement in kind. Council Member Kniss asked about compatibility review versus single-family design review. Ms. Lytle said the standards were ministerially administered so design review would not be as prescriptive a definition. The standards were similar to zoning standards, e.g., the idea that the driveway needed to be narrow was not stated that narrow driveways
10/28/96 80-357
were preferred but that the driveways should not exceed certain dimensions. It was a very prescriptive set of requirements. In design review, more flexibility could be allowed and the use of discretion if an applicant met a standard that was less prescriptive. Council Member Kniss clarified the movement was toward that direction although getting to the point of design review was different. She asked which surrounding communities did design review. Ms. Lytle said Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, Foster City, Belmont, East Palo Alto, and other Peninsula communities had design review requirements. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the front facade could end up being stud walls and looking totally different from the original facade. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. An applicant could replace all but the location of the walls and the exterior form without demolishing the wall, but the entire placement of the stud walls for the front facade would have to be saved. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the facade could end up differently but it would still comport. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Schneider clarified even though the facade might look different, the facade would still have to pass the Compatibility Review Standards and be compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Lytle said that was correct, if the facade were part of a demolition. The first decision point was whether the home was being demolished or remodeled, and that decision would find whether 50 percent or more of the walls had been removed, including any portion of the front facade walls. If that determination were made, the Compatibility Review Standards would apply, but staff had
not thought to interpret the front facade=s being untouchable without triggering demolition and compatibility review. Council Member Schneider clarified there was no compatibility review if a property were remodeled. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the standards applied to multiple-family homes. Ms. Lytle understood that both the moratorium and the Interim Regulations included all residential structures. All the
10/28/96 80-358
properties shown on the map were both multiple-family and single-family structures. Staff assumed there would be the same historic merit screening for both courtyard-type housing or multiple-family residential housing as a single-family home. The Compatibility Review Standards also worked for multiple-family and single-family homes. There were two aspects of the standards that staff believed would probably be exceptions for multiple-family housing: 1) the garage placement became more complex for multiple-family structures and 2) the entry and primary window requirements could be more complicated. The standards addressed 95 percent of the magenta colored parcels on the map; however, there was an exception provision in the standards which would probably apply in multiple-family housing, particularly the driveway/garage/front entryway relationship where additional exception findings would be needed. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether staff had considered multiple-family housing when the discussions originally began. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the wording in the current moratorium addressed residential structures. Staff had assumed from the beginning that residential structures would include multiple family. Most of the discussions had focused on single-family residences since that was where most of the changes had occurred in the community and where the greatest concern had been raised by the community. There were several areas that had an intermixing of single-family and multiple-family structures. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Item No. 3 on page 24 of the Compatibility Review Standards which was a requirement for roofs,
Α...use asphalt shingles, wood shingles, wood shakes, genuine clay
tile, genuine slate, or tar and gravel.≅ He said there was a number of relatively new premium products that cost more than wood shakes which were designed to look like wood, e.g, concrete tile,
fiber cement, and metal shakes. He asked whether it was staff=s intent to explicitly not allow those products. Ms. Lytle said yes. Council Member Rosenbaum said some very fine houses were being built with those Class A fire safe products. Ms. Lytle said the products created to date had not been synthesized to effectively imitate natural roofing materials. The regularity of the tile was noticeable and was easy to detect as a synthetic product.
Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the staff=s charge was to look at the existing character and to maintain that character when a new home was built. The materials listed in the standards were the materials found in the neighborhoods. There were many new homes
10/28/96 80-359
being built with new materials that were formed to look like natural materials but were easy to detect as a synthetic. There were asphalt and treated wood shingles that were most satisfactory for fire prevention, so staff recommended traditional materials in the standards. Council Member Andersen said staff indicated part of the challenge of incompatible structures was the concern with building massing. He asked whether the photographs of structures outside of Palo Alto
were comparable to the City=s massing issues or whether the structures were larger in mass than anticipated in the community. Ms. Lytle said the structures were very similar to houses seen in Palo Alto, but staff was very sensitive to the use of Palo Alto homes. Council Member Andersen was concerned that if the Council moved forward with the existing floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, there would still be a massing problem with demolition and rebuilding of structures. Ms. Lytle said one primary problem was the attached two-car garage being massed together with the rest of the building and placed at the front of the property. That pattern worked well in contemporary neighborhoods but appeared disruptive in a traditional neighborhood. Building massing was not placed in that location in pre-1940 neighborhoods. That provision should prevent one of the most apparent incompatible qualities.
Mr. Schreiber said in 1989 when the City=s current regulations were adopted, there was great discussion of the massing issue. The Council adopted at that time substantially reduced FARs for single-family residential. In the mid-1980s, it was clearly felt that building out to what the Zoning Ordinance allowed would involve overwhelming mass. With the 1989 regulations, it was possible to build out to the maximum FAR and not create an impression from the street in terms of the mass. The problem was that that type of structure sold well in certain parts of the market so people wanted that mass. The issue was design rather than FAR because even if the FAR were reduced slightly more, people would still want to have that type of large street-facing mass because of the statement it made. Council Member Andersen asked if the Council decided not to approve the staff recommendation and a demolition occurred on a pre-1940 multiple-family unit, whether the regulations would preclude a property owner from building a massive R-1 single-family unit. He believed the regulations would allow the building of a single-family dwelling on a multiple-family site. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. A property owner could replace a multiple-family project with a single-family dwelling. There was
10/28/96 80-360
no minimum density requirement that required an owner to retain those units. There was only encouraging policy. Council Member Andersen clarified there were many multiple-family houses that were at one time single-family units. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Some of the older, larger homes were divided into multiple units and were legally noncomplying. Council Member Andersen asked whether more modern products could be used if a roof were not visible and whether that would create a complication for the design review. Ms. Lytle said if the roof were not visible, it would not matter. Council Member Andersen clarified if the tar and gravel roof were visible, it would matter. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino said at the onset of the discussion, he specifically recalled rejecting commercial properties. There was no specific discussion about multiple-family homes, and his initial intent was to focus on residential properties. The issue of multiple-family homes might need to be addressed that evening or in the future, and the intent was to address both single-family and multiple-family homes. He clarified that if any significant changes were made to the President Apartments or any other wonderful multiple-family structures, those changes would have to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Ms. Lytle said that was correct. The changes would be subject to ARB and also to Historic Resources Board (HRB) approvals since some of the properties were already landmark structures in the Downtown. Council Member Fazzino clarified changes to the President Apartments would have to be reviewed by the HRB and ARB, but there
was no Αteeth≅ in the HRB Ordinance at the present time. Ms. Lytle said that was correct for the HRB Ordinance, but the Interim Regulations stated that National Standards for Rehabilitation would need to be applied to landmark structures. Council Member Fazzino asked how many pre-1940 multiple-family structures were in the City and how many were smaller and larger multiple-family structures. Ms. Lytle said there was no accurate data available at the present time, but staff believed it was less than 10 percent of the inventory of magenta colored parcels on the map. She understood the most threatened were not the larger projects but the smaller quadruplet or triplet houses that were sprinkled, for example, into the College Terrace neighborhood. Some of the structures were even
10/28/96 80-361
single parcels, so the structures would be treated as single family even though the structures looked like a complex of multiple-family units. Council Member Schneider clarified single-car detached garages at the rear of a property counted towards the FAR. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. All garages currently counted towards the FAR. Council Member Schneider clarified carports that looked like garages but had two open sides did not count towards the FAR. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Schneider asked whether there could be an incentive that single-car detached garages not be counted towards the FAR so people would build the garages at the rear of the property. Ms. Lytle said that incentive was considered in the R-1 regulations and was rejected because staff felt it was a bonus that applied only to the magenta colored portion of the map, and the regulations covered both aspects. An incentive for one housing type or traditional neighborhood design was rejected. The Council would need to decide whether it wanted to add that bonus to the magenta colored portions of the map. Council Member Schneider said her reference was to pre-1940 houses that would be subject to the Ordinance and to allow that as an incentive. Ms. Lytle said the previous Council discussions did not give policy direction to staff to work on incentives, so incentives were not included in the guidelines. Council Member Kniss referred to the 50 percent rule which stated if a property owner decided to retain at least 50 percent of the walls of the house, including the front facade, he/she would not have to comply with the Compatibility Review Standards. She asked staff to clarify the 50 percent regulation. Ms. Lytle said the 50 percent rule meant that the stud walls had to remain and could not be removed and rebuilt unless the applicant demonstrated the work was being done to repair, restore, and rehabilitate the structure exactly back to its original historic character. The regulations would then allow the replacement of everything beyond the traditional definition of demolition. Other than the highlighted area, an applicant had the right to remove 50 percent of the perimeter walls and not be subject to the regulations unless it was a landmark structure. The definition for landmark structures was different from the definition for other structures. The exception was that the stud walls of the entire front facade had to remain.
10/28/96 80-362
Council Member Kniss said the definition was vague, and she asked whether two sides of the house could be removed. Ms. Lytle said it was a quantitative measurement, and staff reviewed the demolition plan on an existing house. The perimeter of the house was measurable, and 50 percent had to be shown as not being demolished on the demolition plan. In addition, 50 percent of the nondemolished portion of the house had to be the front facade. The demolition plan was very clear, and it was easy to administer the demolition when people applied for additions. The traditional enforcement in the field had been not to allow removal of the stud walls. Council Member Kniss clarified the 50 percent rule was easy to administer even though the Council had discussed previously that it was not clear. Ms. Lytle said staff had been handling demolition plans and defining an addition through the Home Improvement Exception process for several years, and it could be done from the regular building submittal materials. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, said the College Terrace Residents Association was pleased with the work done by staff. She wanted to
reinforce Ms. Mario=s comments about the front facade, and she hoped the Council would direct staff to interpret the 50 percent demolition rule regarding the front facade to include the surface treatment of the house and that it should remain constant or be subject to the replacement structure review process. In addition, she wanted to stress that the residents of College Terrace did not believe the regulations would negatively impact property values. People came to Palo Alto because of the character of the City. It was unfair to live in a house that did not contribute to that character while taking advantage and enjoying the character that the rest of the community provided. She hoped the Council would continue to support the proposed Ordinance and adopt the Compatibility Review Standards. Lee Brokaw, 2080 Hanover Street, said the ARB and the HRB had made
statements concerning Palo Alto=s rich and fine buildings at both ends of the economic scale, but he felt the major issue was the quality of life and what was good for Palo Alto. The developers were taking advantage of that quality of life. He felt at a developer-built building, there was no one there who represented
the future owner. The developer=s interest was economic. He provided photographs of the plumbing being done at the 1021 College Avenue site. He said the Building Inspection Division looked for minimum code compliance and did not inspect the buildings for quality of life and construction.
10/28/96 80-363
Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, said many of the homeowners were older people whose biggest investment was in their houses. If the Council took away the opportunity to sell that house, it would be a deprivation of their economic security. However, she did not like some of the newer houses, particularly houses with two-car garages. The two-car garages took up living space, and the idea of a long driveway and a garage at the rear was not a good idea either. People should be allowed to park on the street more often. She was concerned about the people who would be caught in the Interim Regulations and that the costs could be in thousands of dollars. It was an unfair burden to put on the homeowner, and the City should pay the cost since the City imposed a transfer tax that netted almost $2 million per year. She hoped the Council would temper intrusion of the homeowners with some mercy and find some common ground in the new developments. Lucinda Abbott, 646 Lincoln Avenue, congratulated the Council for having the foresight and courage to pass the demolition moratorium. She urged the Council to further protect the historic neighborhoods by approving the Compatibility Review Standards that ensured new construction was appropriate to and enhanced the character of the neighborhoods. She and her husband had restored their bungalow home, and its tangible connection to the history of Palo Alto made it even more valuable to them. The variety of architectural styles in her neighborhood was refreshing to the eye and to the spirit. There was a sense of continuity that emanated from the integrity of the neighborhood. The question was how to maintain the intrinsic value of the historic neighborhoods while allowing construction that met the needs of the people who lived there. She urged adoption of the Compatibility Review Standards but felt the standards for historic designation were critical to the cause of preservation since they determined what new construction had to comply with the Compatibility Review Standards, particularly contributing properties. She was uncertain whether historic neighborhoods would be protected and whether small houses and cottages, perhaps individually insignificant yet collectively important to neighborhood character, would merit the designation of contributing properties. Furthermore, the houses built in the 1970s and 1980s might be replaced with speculative houses that were even worse. The site-by-site approach to determine which property had to adhere to the Compatibility Review Standards might not be the best way to protect the historic districts. She suggested a block-by-block method. If certain percentages of the houses on the block were pre-1940 and of a historic character, then new construction had to comply with the Compatibility Review Standards whether or not the demolished structures were of historical significance. It would close a loophole in the regulations and would protect the integrity of the historic districts. Jean Thompson, 1020 Fife Avenue, lived in a transitional block with old and new beautiful homes and homes like hers that had been built
10/28/96 80-364
on by everyone who had lived there. She was unclear what made a home historically significant even though only a portion of the house might be pre-1940. She asked how much of a complicated process she would have to go through if a portion of her home were pre-1940. Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, said the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST) and the San Jose Preservation Action Council Board supported the Interim Ordinance and the Compatibility Review Standards. She urged the Council to adopt the Ordinance. She
applauded the Council=s leadership in tackling the task of halting the recent rash of demolitions. There had to be a balance between the rights of property owners and the long-term needs of a community such as Palo Alto that was unique because of its beautiful historic homes which added greatly to the cultural fabric of the City. Larry Chickering, 205 Seale Avenue, had been planning to remodel his home for 11 years. He felt that some of the Compatibility Review Standards made sense, but he was concerned about the impact
and what he would be able to do to improve his family=s lifestyle and livability in their current home. He asked what the new guidelines would do to the lead time of getting plans through the City. David Mitchell, 526 Center Drive, was sympathetic with the purpose of the proposed ordinance and the Compatibility Review Standards. He had tried to apply those standards to the recent remodel of his game room and what a future owner might want do to the house, and he was bothered by some aspects of the Compatibility Review Standards. The game room had originally been a garage which had been added in 1947 and had aluminum windows but the rest of the house had steel-casement windows. One item in the Compatibility Review Standards stated that all window treatments had to be compatible. He had put in very expensive wood windows that looked like the steel-casement windows because the steel-casement windows did not work well and were difficult to maintain. Another example was that he replaced his 10-foot driveway last year with the same size driveway which appeared not to be allowed by the Compatibility Review Standards. The most important item was that he could not tell whether his house was in the category of a historic structure or a contributing structure. The historic structure definition seemed to be that no exterior walls could be changed which meant that he could not extend a portion of his home because it would be too close to the detached garage. The addition would be much less than a 50 percent change to the perimeter walls, but it seemed to be prohibited by the regulations if the house were a historic structure. Dick DeStefano, 1035 Los Robles, wanted to protest the suspension of his demolition permit until the end of November 1996 for his residence which was ravaged by fire on January 16, 1996, with
10/28/96 80-365
damage estimated to be $500,000. He had lived in Palo Alto 30 years and wanted to replace the home and remain in the City. He had had enough challenges with his home. He was not a mega-builder and only wanted to replace his home. He requested the demolition permit be approved. Tom DeStefano, (no street address) San Jose, had grown up in his
father=s house at 1035 Los Robles. His father lost most of his home and 90 percent of the contents on January 16, 1996. His father had recently received the money to rebuild his home, and he
asked the Council to understand his father=s hardship. In May 1997, his window of opportunity for the payment of temporary housing would close and a 30-day delay would slow the other processes. Council Member Kniss asked staff to address that situation. Elad Beranaldt, (no street address) Colorado Avenue, presented
overhead view graphs that told a children=s story entitled, ΑThe
Big Orange Spot.≅ He was impressed with the amount of work that had been done by staff, but he wanted the Council to think slowly
about the issue which was about people=s constitutional and property rights. The freedom of each person ended with the
property line and beyond that point was another person=s life who could do what they wanted. Everyone had rights that should be respected and should not have the burden of the preservation. Eric Morley, 321 Second Street, Los Altos, Public Affairs Director for the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors, said a group of realtors who lived and worked in Palo Alto reviewed the criteria and standards as well as fee structures recently and recommended the Council adopt the staff recommended language and definition of demolition. The group also recommended that because the Council had identified historic preservation as a community value and benefit, the City assume a portion of the cost that was borne through the process, specifically with regard to the initial historic surveys and merit screenings. The realtors felt it would encourage property owners to both comply with the Ordinance and also seek preservation of their homes as opposed to discouraging them which would be the case under the previous proposed high fee structures. In addition, the realtors recommended the other fee structures be reduced if possible and to have some type of City assistance as homeowners went through the process. The realtors also felt that it would be more beneficial to have an administrative staff review at the outset with direct appeal to the Council which would give the Council a clear understanding of how the process was working and would save both time and money for the homeowner without compromising the regulations. It was clear that the issue was of great importance to the community and the realtors recognized the importance of historic preservation in the community and that it added a great deal to the character of Palo Alto. The realtors also recognized the importance of that balance between
10/28/96 80-366
private property rights and community interest. The realtors recommended that as the Council moved forward beyond the Interim Regulations and decided what the ultimate Historic Preservation Ordinance would be over the following year and what the historic inventory would look like, the Council develop an inclusive and collaborative process, specifically a citizens committee on historic preservation issues that would bring together homeowners, historic preservation experts, realtors, members of the community, lenders, and City staff in order to assist the Council with a good solution to the issue. The realtors felt it was incumbent upon the Council to have a formalized structure to assist the City during the following year. Leannah Hunt, 2321 Middlefield Road, member of the Local Government Relations Committee of the Palo Alto District of the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors, said the Committee had thoroughly discussed the proposed Interim Regulations and had convened a meeting with a number of representatives from the professional community of architects and builders. The Committee wanted the Council to seriously consider the concept of a citizen committee on historic preservation. The issue of historic preservation was critical to the future of Palo Alto. Realtors recognized the importance of historic structures to the fabric of Palo Alto and appreciated the balance between community interests and private property rights. The major issues shaping historic preservation, replacement structures, and demolitions would occur during the following year as the City updated the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the historic inventory. The process to date had largely been inclusionary with very limited public review and comment on regulations affecting a significant constituency in the City. It would be critical for the Council to form a citizens committee on historic preservation issues to bring experts from all affected areas of Palo Alto such as homeowners, historic preservation experts, City staff, architects, general contractors, lenders, realtors, and other interested members who had specific expertise to contribute to assist the City in updating the Ordinance and inventory. A collaborative model was successfully used in the development of the issues concerning Midtown, seismic retrofit ordinance, and other issues. The Committee felt that type of effort should be used as well and that there needed to be a broad-based public input. The people skilled in the current building styles understood the cost involved as well as the necessity to incorporate the old and the new but with an understanding of what it would take. The Committee appreciated the
staff=s efforts and that additional staff would be necessary to incorporate the proposed plans, but a volunteer effort by such a committee could assist the staff to a great extent and help the Council to interpret the Interim Regulations and the permanent regulations. An example was the suggestion that roofing materials should be the same as what had been used previously rather than looking forward to the new technology as Council Members Andersen and Rosenbaum pointed out. Another point was the recommendation
10/28/96 80-367
that garages should be encouraged at the rear of the property was against what current citizens desired. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, thanked the Council for moving quickly once the moratorium was in place. Since cost issues were intertwined with Interim Regulations, the Chamber was still concerned about cost issues, especially fees that were prohibitive to homeowners wishing
to designate their homes as historic. In the Chamber=s September 24, 1996, statement, it encouraged an incentive-based system and the Chamber hoped the Council would still consider that proposal. She said there was precedent in the south where communities that wanted an investment in historic preservation created a fund that existed for homeowners to utilize to help them preserve their homes. She felt it was something the Council needed to consider since the community was supportive of the preservation and it might be possible that the community would be willing to provide funds. Some people that evening had indicated that the regulations were still difficult to understand, and in the interest of and the
Council=s commitment to permit streamlining, any simplications that could be made should be made. A major gap in the process was not having people involved in the process who were familiar with the economics of the decisions made. The Council had had the benefit
of its own experience and the staff=s expertise and only limited benefit from architects, contractors, lenders, and others in the community who would provide real time expertise. The Chamber encouraged the formation of some type of blue ribbon committee in the long term after the Interim Regulations were in place to work with staff and Council to interpret and test the regulations and to suggest necessary changes. Some of the regulations were very subjective, and the Council needed people in place to help the Council test some of the regulations. The Chamber hoped the Council would consider some of its suggestions as it moved forward. Council Member Fazzino said in his professional job, he was involved with approximately 30 chambers of commerce throughout the country and he was not aware of any of the chambers being involved in those kinds of issues. He asked why the Chamber viewed it as a business/client issue. Ms. Frank said a previous speaker indicated people did not move to Palo Alto because of the school district but because of the character of the community. The Chamber was in the business of providing relocation information to hundreds of people every month,
and the Chamber=s charter and mission were to take into consideration the larger community. The Board of Directors felt
strongly that while the Chamber did not oppose any of the Council=s
actions, it wanted to provide the Chamber=s perspective as an agency of what attracted people to move to the community. The
Chamber believed the interests of homeowners= rights and property
10/28/96 80-368
rights were intertwined with some of the things the Chamber dealt with on a regular basis. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Chamber believed some of the regulations that the Council might approve that evening would diminish the economic vitality of the community.
Ms. Frank said the Chamber=s interest was to continue the appearance that the community welcomed all residents and not seem
prohibitive. She did not believe the Council=s action would preclude anyone, and the Council had been very conscious, observant, and responsive to the issues that had been brought forward. Robert A Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, said people believed previously that property should be used to provide the greatest economic return, but there were plenty of ruins and slums that showed how that worked. By 1996, it was clear that there were other matters to consider rather than income. A higher standard of living meant standards that included aesthetic considerations, concerns for the neighbors, the quality of life for the community, and preservation of cultural values. There was some validity to the argument that a
person=s property rights were being abrogated if a person could not tear down what was there and build what he/she wanted. His property rights would be abrogated if his sunshine, sky, stars, and air were taken away. People might argue that the buildings increased his property value but that advantage would only accrue when he sold his house. He would rather Palo Alto be a good place to live than a good place to leave. If the character of the City were spoiled to cater to the rights of a few people, the nature of Palo Alto would be changed and everyone would be the losers. He reminded the Council that Palo Alto was a small but influential city, and people cared about what happened in Palo Alto. The Council was directing the future course of the country and it should steer it on a future based on values of humanity, not money. Jon Schink, 2141 Byron Street, said as a merchant/builder, he strongly supported the Ordinance and the Compatibility Review Standards. He felt the behavior of some of the builders in the community demanded that the Council enact the Ordinance. He referred to Requirement No. 3 on page 14 of the Compatibility Review Standards and said staff recommended 1.5 feet of landscaping on each side of the driveway. He encouraged the Council when enacting that standard to reduce that amount to one foot on each side of the driveway or a total of two feet. One and one-half feet on both sides would cause a builder too much trouble putting the driveway down the side, and landscaping could be done in one feet. He said on page 22, Recommended Practice No. 2 asked the designer
or the builder to Αconsider neighbors needs for sunlight, privacy
and views.≅ He was concerned about the language creating a false sense of process. Everyone should be considerate, but it was
10/28/96 80-369
overly broad to be in the standards. He was afraid that neighbors would expect more than was possible from the standards because of the language. He encouraged the Council to add an incentive to the Ordinance that would include 180 square feet of garage space placed at the rear of the property which would do more to improve the architecture than anything except for the adoption of the Ordinance and the standards. He felt it was important because the market forces were toward attaching the garage to a house, and the simplest way to improve the architecture of any replacement structure or remodel was to place the garage at the rear of the property. Ray Elliott, 846 Woodland Court, was concerned about the moratorium, including pre-1940 multi-family structures, and that the Council might not realize the Ordinance covered multi-family housing. Council had failed to ask staff for any studies of the impact on multi-family housing. He noted the justification for the moratorium in the staff report (CMR:417:96) referred only to demolition of single-family houses and there was no mention of multi-family structures. He asked whether the Council was comfortable with imposing a moratorium on multi-family housing without any of the usual protocols of studies, reports, discussions, proposed guidelines, etc. He did not believe Council and staff intended to include multi-family structures. None of the
City Manager=s reports to Council used the words multi-family, duplex, apartment, or any other terms that might indicate multi-family properties would be included. He strongly disagreed with the claim that the Compatibility Review Standards could be applied to multi-family structures. The standards applied strictly to single-family properties. Attempts to apply those standards to multi-family properties would lead to confusion and conflict. He
had spoken to the City Attorney=s Office regarding Section 3 of the proposed Ordinance which stated the Ordinance was exempt from
environmental review Αbecause the construction and reconstruction of single family homes on lots of record is itself an exempt
activity.≅ The Ordinance regulated both single-family and multi-family structures but the justification for exemption was based on single-family homes. The oversight revealed that no thought had
been given to multi-family structures, and the Council=s questions that evening suggested the Council had not thought about the impact on multi-family housing. He asked the Council to study the matter with the same thoroughness that had been given to single-family housing. Council Member Andersen asked whether Mr. Elliott owned a multi-family unit and what the downside would be for owners of multi-family properties. Mr. Elliott said he owned a duplex, and the guidelines did not apply to multi-family properties. Multi-family housing was important not only to the owner but also to the residents.
10/28/96 80-370
Council Member Andersen agreed. He did not understand how the regulations would negatively impact multi-family housing any differently from single-family housing. Mr. Elliott said the difference was that the Council had not addressed multi-family housing. Christopher Rafferty, 165 Colorado Avenue, said he lived on a substandard lot and would either be forced to demolish the house and build within the building envelope that the zoning standards allowed or build an addition on a very small lot with a restricted floor area ratio. If a property owner wanted to do a decent job with a substandard lot, a variance would be needed which would incur fees, and his house was built before 1940 so another layer of fees might be added. He commended the staff for the standards. Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, said the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG) commended the Council and staff for rapidly creating Interim Regulations and for continuing to be responsive to recommendations made by the public. He hoped the following year would be used effectively to promote thoughtful and thorough public discussion of what should be included in the permanent regulations. The USNG appreciated that several related issues remained to be addressed such as whether there were differences in what was compatible within one neighborhood to another, whether historical or cultural elements should be included in determination of historic stature rather than solely aesthetics, and whether there should be a process for allowing innovative architectural styles which might not be identical to the existing styles. In the spirit of encouraging an informed public dialogue on the issue, USNG would be sponsoring a panel discussion and workshop that would address design compatibility in Palo Alto on November 13, 1996.
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, continued to support the Council=s actions toward the preservation efforts set forth as well as design guidelines to protect the neighborhoods. She strongly urged Council to adopt the definition of demolition put forth by the HRB as previously discussed. In addition, she asked whether the Interim Regulations could include language that addressed sites and places of merit. She noted the design guidelines did not mention the pitch of roofs, and some of the roofs of new construction in
the City looked like a Αtoo small toupee≅ and did not conform to the rest of the neighborhood. She said carports were not considered part of the FAR but garage doors on the front had the appearance of a garage from street so she suggested a carport with two enclosed sides and a garage door, should be included in the FAR and be considered as a garage in the design guidelines. Rob Koch, 261 Stanford Avenue, said the staff report (CMR:451:96) indicated that when a person applied for an approval of an
10/28/96 80-371
extensive remodel or demolition, an aerial photograph would be necessary. He asked whether the City would provide the photograph or whether the applicant would have to hire someone to take a picture from an airplane. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. City Manager June Fleming said the City Manager of Menlo Park was awaiting a telephone call when the Council was near Item No. 9. She was uncertain whether the Menlo Park City Council would find it difficult to attend the meeting at that hour of the evening, but she was certain officials from the City of Menlo Park would attend if Council desired. The item could be continued to the next available City Council meeting agreeable with the City of Menlo Park. The item would be heard as the first order of business under Unfinished Business. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to bring Item No. 9 forward for the purpose of a continuance to the next available City Council meeting agreeable with the City of Menlo Park.
9. Mayor Wheeler=s Response to Letter from City of Menlo Park re Sand Hill Road Projects MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to bring Item No. 6 forward for the purpose of a continuance to the Regular City Council Meeting of November 4, 1996. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of an application to rezone the property located at 901-909 Alma Street (Southeast Corner of Alma Street and Channing Avenue) from CD-S(P), [Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Shopping Combining District] to a PC [Planned Community] District to construct a four-story, 15,683 square-foot mixed-use project with 23 parking spaces on the first level, 4 apartments on the second and third levels, and office use on the fourth level. Council Member Andersen preferred that the item be heard that evening so the applicant could move forward if Council approved the project. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Andersen, Huber Αno.≅ RECESS: 10:05 P.M. TO 10:20 P.M. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 5
10/28/96 80-372
Mr. Schreiber said a previous speaker asked about aerial photographs. The City had aerial photographs, and an applicant would not have to hire someone to provide the photographs. He had spoken with Mr. DeStefano recently regarding his situation. Mr. DeStefano had a partially damaged residential structure from a fire in January 1996 which he had vacated. The demolition application was filed the prior week, so it was subject to the moratorium and initial screening in the subsequent process if approved by Council. The Chief Building Official had made a casual assessment previously that the home would not be an unsafe building which would be the only exception from the moratorium. He said the
question with the Thompson=s house was which portion was pre-1940 to require the house to be evaluated through the interim process. The Ordinance stated that if any portion of the house was pre-1940, it was subject to the initial screening. If a house were predominantly post-1940 and not historic, the initial screening would be the only step, and then the applicant would be out of the process. Ms. Lytle said Mr. Chickering asked whether the new guidelines
would affect the City=s lead times in terms of new home construction. Staff said the processes were similar to any other discretionary review process and would add to the existing single-family review of approximately a three-month maximum time line unless there was some extensive appeal. Mr. Mitchell asked about modifications he had done to his home that he felt would not fit into the standards. Neither of the modifications that Mr. Mitchell described would cause him to be subject to the Interim Regulations because he did not exceed the demolition definition. If the modifications had been done in conjunction with a modification to his primary building that exceeded the 50 percent rule, there might have been a difference of opinion. For example, the replacement of a 10-foot wide driveway would not have to be contained back to 9 feet, but a new driveway would have to be built to the 9-foot standard. Ms. Holman asked whether carports would be allowed on the front of a house under the regulations. She referred to page
13 of the Compatibility Review Standards which stated Αcarports are not permitted, unless they are located where the open sides cannot
be seen from a public street.≅ Mr. Elliott raised many concerns about whether or not staff, Council, or previous staff reports had addressed multiple-family structures. She clarified for the record
that staff had been very careful to use the term Αresidential
structures≅ from the beginning without qualifying what type of residential structures. Staff had always assumed that both the moratorium and Interim Regulations would be applied to all residential structures. She referred to page 3 of the staff report
(CMR:417:97) which stated ΑThe bodies of policy which establish the interests of the private property owner are contained in the Zoning Regulations; Single Family R-1 and Multiple Family R-M Regulations;
and in the ARB Ordinance for Multiple-family structures.≅ Staff understood from the outset the regulations would be an overlay on
10/28/96 80-373
top of the existing multiple-family regulations. Staff also considered as it did the field work, wrote the Compatibility Review Standards, and reviewed the National Standards as it applied to landmarks in all of the evaluation processes that the new standards would apply to both single-family and multiple-family structures. In general, the same principles applied to multiple-family structures in traditional design as single-family residential
design. However, she believed Mr. Elliott=s comment was valid that in some instances the specifics of the Compatibility Review Standards would not work as well for multiple-family structures. There was an exception provision, and there would be instances when multiple-family design would need to utilize that exception provision. In addition, the Compatibility Review Standards would be implemented through the ARB process so there was additional room for flexibility in that discretionary review. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Ordinance and Resolution.
Ordinance 4381 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≅
Resolution 7631 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Historic Preservation Regulations Including Compatibility Review Standards, Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences, and Standards for
Historic Designation≅ Council Member McCown said the comments that evening were excellent and there were many good suggestions that involved potential changes that could be made to different specific elements such as encouraging the Council to consider incentives, etc. Staff had already done some adjustments based on the previous version. She did not know how to evaluate whether the changes that some members of the public suggested would be better than the proposed draft, and she did not believe the Council would know where further refinements would be needed until the staff had begun working with the processes. She personally found it very difficult in some instances to visualize what the regulations meant which was unavoidable when ideas were being formulated in a short time frame and in that type of area. She said it was very important in the adoption and moving forward with the processes for staff to continue to bring to the Council for consideration any good ideas that made sense. The point of the resolution process was to have the flexibility to act promptly and to change it so that it worked toward the ultimate purpose. She strongly encouraged the staff to use the exception process as well as return to the Council with
10/28/96 80-374
further adjustments to the process. It was an excellent package, and she believed the Council should move forward that evening.
Council Member Kniss acknowledged the staff=s efforts. It had been an incredible learning process for the Council and the community and a challenge for the staff. Palo Alto was a very successful City, and part of its success had been some of the alterations in the characteristics of the City. The City had been given a terrific opportunity to look at itself in a way that had not been done previously. Vice Mayor Huber supported the Ordinance. He was concerned about the facades, garages in the rear, etc., in the Interim Regulations but he believed the process should move forward. He was certain staff would return to the Council with thorough reports on how the regulations actually worked. He emphasized that the regulations were interim, and the Council wanted to preserve the fabric of the community and would be working toward final regulations. Council Member Andersen was concerned about the facades but would support the Ordinance. He said the quality of the staff reports
had been outstanding, and he commended the staff=s efforts. He endorsed the comments of Council Member McCown regarding the use of the exception process to help make it work. He hoped staff would
be mindful of the impact of the Council=s action on other parts of the community, e.g., South Palo Alto. Separate from the historic preservation issue was the demolition issue and what the demolition of homes would do to neighborhoods that might not have any historic significance. Council Member Schneider echoed the comments of her colleagues. She was impressed by the work done by the HRB and staff. It was the first step toward what could be design review of single-family dwellings in the future. Council Member Fazzino was happy with the progress made and that the Council had unleashed the issue, and he believed it would have a positive impact on the community. He thanked staff for developing in a short period of time an excellent set of interim regulations. He was pleased that the Council had addressed both sides of the equation--demolitions and new homes. It was important the City moved forward in the process to consider relying heavily on the community to assist the Council in improving the regulations and the process of developing permanent regulations. He encouraged the public to continue to participate. In order for the process to be successful, he believed it was extremely important for the
Council to enlist the community=s support and to put a process in place that was flexible and nonbureaucratic that recognized the value of historic preservation and the importance of property rights. He agreed that a citizens committee needed to formed be to work with the Council in developing permanent regulations. He
10/28/96 80-375
asked the appropriate time frame to address that issue of a public process for development of the Ordinance and permanent regulations. Mr. Schreiber said staff anticipated presenting a scope of work for the study of the preparation of a new historic preservation ordinance to the Council in November 1996. At that time, the citizen participation component would be a very important discussion. Council Member Fazzino believed it was extremely important that the Council develop a fee structure which was fair and did not represent a burdensome cost on individuals so people would not be discouraged from participating in the process. He believed the issue was a broad public benefit; therefore, the entire public
through the City=s General Fund should bear the cost to some degree of the effort rather than the costs falling on individual homeowners. Mayor Wheeler was extremely pleased by the caliber of the discussion that the Council had within the community represented that evening. Regardless of how people felt about the issues of neighborhood character, historic preservation, and private property rights, everyone who spoke that evening came to the Council with the acknowledgment that part of the value created in Palo Alto was that it had neighborhoods with character and that the City had worked hard over the years to protect and preserve that character in the neighborhoods, especially historic neighborhoods. She believed the illustrations that staff brought to the Council that evening of examples of how both alterations to existing structures and even replacement of existing structures could be done in a manner that allowed the owners of those structures to enjoy a home that had modern amenities but still retained compatibility with its neighborhood. She agreed that many fine ideas were presented to the Council that evening and that the time to pursue those ideas was when the Council went through the formulation of the permanent regulations. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6A. PUBLIC HEARING: Permit Streamlining Project--Adoption of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Fee Table 1-A to Offset the Increased Cost of Providing Building Inspection Services. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the item to the November 12, 1996, Regular City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. ORDINANCES
10/28/96 80-376
7. Ordinance 4382 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Planning Department to Hire Technical and Support Contract Personnel to Implement the Interim Regulations for Demolition of Residential Structures Constructed Prior to 1940 and Amending
the Municipal Fee Schedule≅ Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said Council directed staff to provide three alternative fee options for the Interim Regulations. Staff recommended Option A which suggested the fees that related to retaining and preserving a structure or any assessment of a pre-1940 structure would be subsidized at the amount of 50 percent subsidy by the City. However, the fees related to replacement of structures or for more extensive historic evaluation, i.e., an initial assessment challenged by an applicant, would be 100 percent cost recovery. Option B was a fixed fee of $300 which was approximately the amount that was equivalent to other minor home improvement exceptions for single-family or minor Architectural Review Board applications which could be used for the same applications that related to retaining the structure. The charge would also be 100 percent cost recovery for the processes related to demolition. Option C would set all costs at 50 percent cost recovery. She said 50 percent was a suggested percentage by staff, but the Council could indicate any percentage it desired for subsidy. Council Member Schneider asked what the cost would be for a house that fell under the historic landmark alteration review and survey and also required compatibility at the 50 percent reduction and 100 percent cost recovery. Ms. Lytle said the merit screening would require an initial deposit of $250 at 50 percent. The merit evaluation would cost approximately $500 at 50 percent for a typical application. Both costs would be cumulative, and the compatibility review would cost approximately $300. Council Member Fazzino referred to the historic property survey deposit proposal of $3,000, and he clarified that that would only apply if a person were resistant to a landmark designation or other ways to renovate the home in order to maintain its historic designation. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. That situation would arise when staff discovered a landmark through the process. More extensive research would need to be done by an outside professional if an
applicant disagreed with the Historic Resources Board=s initial determination or felt there was not enough information to make that determination with confidence. For example, a report was prepared that researched the kind of materials used and other relevant works
10/28/96 80-377
in the Bay Area to obtain an evidence report for the gardens at the Williams Property. Council Member Fazzino clarified the cost to the property owner would depend upon the cost of the survey, e.g., if the survey cost $1,200, then $1,800 would be refunded to the property owner. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the fixed fee route was better direction as opposed to Option A. He was not interested in cost recovery and viewed the issue as a broad public benefit. He asked if that issue were set aside, whether an argument could be made for Option B, i.e., fixed fee in terms of simplicity and fairness. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
it was Council=s decision as to how far it wanted to move from the policy of full cost recovery. Council Member Fazzino asked how staff would differentiate a cost structure if there were a fixed fee. He wanted the process to be as low cost as possible for people who were entering the process and for people to feel comfortable and open to participating in the process. He was considering the possibility of a $150 or $200 fee for the screening.
Mr. Schreiber said the number was Council=s decision. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Option B and said the historic merit screening would be $300, plus Environmental Impact Assessment. He asked what the amount might be.
Ms. Lytle said that was a standard boilerplate from the City=s entitlements and covered public notice mailing label fees and additional costs. If it were a landmark structure or if the National Register status determined the demolition or alteration was of significant impact, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and mitigated declaration or an Environmental Impact Report might be necessary. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether that would apply to a property going through historic merit screening. Ms. Lytle said theoretically it could. Council Member Rosenbaum said staff had given the impression that the historic property survey might be related to demolition which the Historic Resources Board (HRB) might ask for because of its uncertainty. He asked whether it was something that was imposed on the homeowner by the City processes and asked whether the fee was appropriate.
10/28/96 80-378
Ms. Lytle believed the HRB would utilize that process when it felt
less confident based on the homeowner=s resistance. If the HRB could make the evaluation, it would not put a homeowner through that type of additional professional assessment. The HRB would only seek additional information when its initial assessment was challenged and when the HRB wanted professional backup. That portion of the process would be the most costly fee, and it could be subsidized at whatever percent the Council desired. Staff tried to address that concept in Option C by making that also 50 percent reduced. Martin Bernstein, P.O. Box 1739, Palo Alto, felt the City should encourage people to move forward with that kind of costly endeavor, and the City should absorb all the costs to show its support for the public good. The best use of public and private moneys was to make it no cost. His concern was for the homeowner who was trying to do the right thing in terms of historic preservation. Carol Murden, 1331 Martin Avenue, said Option A with lower fees for the people who were preserving and maintaining as opposed to the people who would be demolishing their homes was best. The fees for the historic merit screening and historic merit evaluation were punitive, and she wanted the fees lowered. Council Member McCown asked whether a person who was remodeling his/her kitchen in a historic house would have to go through the historic merit screen. Ms. Lytle said no. A person could apply and receive a screening, and the only way a person would be compelled to go through a screening was if he/she were demolishing 50 percent or more of the residence. Council Member McCown clarified if a pre-1940 contributing structure did not meet the demolition definition, the homeowner could choose to ask for the historic screening but it would not be required. The process would be same for a person remodeling the pre-1940 house as it was for anyone else currently remodeling a house. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Andersen believed that Option A provided the most incentive for retaining structures. The figures were not that significant in the context of the cost of the total project. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the Ordinance and approve the fee schedule Option A. Historic Resources Board Member Mildred Mario said the HRB was concerned about the historic merit screening and that it would include everyone who had a house that was pre-1940. The HRB did
10/28/96 80-379
not believe it was fair to charge everyone $250 because there were some obvious houses that were not historic or did not have historic character. The houses could be dealt with very quickly. It would put a large burden on the property owners because the house was pre-1940. The initial process should have a very low fee. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council had not considered having one fee for both the screening and the evaluation. He believed it was one process and that the staff would decide whether a homeowner would have to go to the second step. It was a burden on the homeowner that was done for a community benefit. He suspected a great majority of the pre-1940 homes would not be considered for historic merit assuming the designation standards were applied. He suggested a $100 fee for the combination of screening and evaluation and Option A for the remainder. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to have one fee of $100 for both the historic merit screening and evaluation. Vice Mayor Huber supported the $100 fee for the interim regulations. He was concerned about impacting the people who were caught in the process. However, he was not that concerned about the new buyers because that was part of the process of buying a historic home or buying in a historic district. The homes were in the million-dollar range and it was a quarter percent of the cost. The value created by the district should generate full recovery in a few years. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, that the fee for historic landmark alteration review be a flat fee of $300. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said the proposed amendment would make a difference in the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO), but she was uncertain that evening what that difference would be because the amount appropriated would be the same which was the amount anticipated for additional technical and contract staff. She was unclear how much the City had anticipated as cost recovery, and staff might have to return with another BAO at a future date. Council Member Fazzino believed that all the fees should be reduced and he was more comfortable with the flat fee approach under Option B. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Fazzino, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider Αyes,≅ Simitian absent. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent.
10/28/96 80-380
8. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Editing and Desktop Publishing Services for the Comprehensive Plan MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Ordinance and approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C5072062 between the City of Palo Alto and Barry J. Miller for Editing and Desktop Publishing Services for the Comprehensive Plan
Ordinance 4383 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Editing and Desktop
Publishing Services for the Comprehensive Plan≅ Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C5072062 between the City of Palo Alto and Barry J. Miller for Editing and Desktop Publishing Services for the Comprehensive Plan MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:23 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.
10/28/96 80-381