HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-07 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 7, 1997
1. Appointments to the Planning Commission and the Human Relations Commission..................................82-452 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................82-457 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................82-457 2. Community Development Block Grant Funding Recommendations and Draft Action Annual Plan - Refer to Finance Committee.82-458 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Emergency Housing Consortium, Inc. for Provision of 1994-95 Community Development Block Grant Funds for Rehabilitation of Homeless Shelter in San Jose...................................82-458 4. Amendment No. One to Contract No. C7089938 between the City of Palo Alto and Financial Staff Resources for Temporary Auditing Services..............................................82-458 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and CTI Telephone Systems, Inc. to Replace Multi-Line Telephone Systems.82-458 6. Property Management Agreement #1 between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Exchange of Management Responsibilities Pertaining to District Owned 39.10-Acre Parcel of Unimproved Land Adjacent to Foothills Park..................................................82-458 7. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C6075675 between the City of Palo Alto and Lewis & Tibbitts for Electric Utility Trench and Substructure Installation.............................82-458 9. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of 1) the resolution establishing Compressed Natural Gas Rate Schedule G-10 applicable to the use of CNG to fuel CNG vehicles to become effective April 10, 1997, and 2) approve the Fueling Permit (Exhibit "A" to staff report CMR:150:97)82-459 10. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval
04/07/97 82-449
of 1) the continued operation of the attendant parking lot at Lot S for the remainder of the fiscal year and 2) the amendment to the agreement with National Parking Corporation that retroactively increased the compensation for the first year of the agreement by $3,532, providing for compensation for the second year in the amount of $65,000, and clarifying some operational issues contained in the agreement....82-459 11. License Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and ABC Corporation for the Use of Dark Fiber.................82-459 12. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the 1996-97 Revised Audit Plan.....................82-459 13. Ordinance 4408 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 37"..................82-459 14. Confirmation of Council Action of March 24, 1997, Regarding Amendment of Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-5 for Q Cafe Located at 529 Alma Street....................................82-459 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................82-459 14A. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....82-461 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application to rezone property from PC (Planned Community) District to CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown Pedestrian Shopping Combining) District in order to allow the existing 2,594 square-foot third floor of the building to be converted from residential use to financial service use for property located at 400 Emerson Street (continued from 3/17/97)........82-461 16. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to establish a new fee to process applications for the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) between properties within the Commercial Downtown (CD) District..............................................82-467 16A. (Old Item No.8) Resolution 7659 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting Changes in the City of Palo Alto's Restricted Parking Zones"......................................................82-467 17. Minor Modifications to the Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation, Demolition, and Alteration of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 and Status Report on Interim Historic Program..............................82-474 18. Audit of Building Inspection Practices................82-492
04/07/97 82-450
20. Mayor Huber re Cancellation of the April 14 and 21, 1997, City Council Meetings and Scheduling of a Special City Council Meeting for April 22, 1997............................82-493 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........82-493 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to an AdjournedCity Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 7:00 p.m..............................................82-493
04/07/97 82-451
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to the Planning Commission and the Human Relations Commission Council Member McCown strongly endorsed and supported the appointment of Annette Bialson. Ms. Bialson had applied before and had demonstrated her skills, abilities, and thoughtfulness at the interviews and in her prior service on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Ms. Bialson would be an excellent addition to the Planning Commission. She urged her colleagues to support Ms. Bialson. Council Member Eakins also supported Ms. Bialson, whom she worked with closely on CPAC and subcommittees. Ms. Bialson was extremely reliable and resourceful. Ms. Bialson also represented the Business and Economics subcommittee at Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding CPAC's draft policies and programs. Ms. Bialson could be counted on to do a fine job. Council Member Kniss said Ms. Bialson was the right person for the right job at the right time. It was a pleasure to have a good pool of candidates to select from. She urged Gail Schubert to apply again. Council Member Fazzino supported Ms. Bialson and was very impressed with her work on CPAC. Ms. Bialson had brought a unique effort to CPAC. The Planning Commission needed another attorney for some additional legal help. Ms. Bialson brought a very analytical approach to issues, which was needed on the Planning Commission. There was a good group of candidates. He encouraged Ms. Schubert and the other candidates to apply again. It was rare that a candidate was appointed on the first try. Vice Mayor Andersen supported Ms. Bialson and looked forward to working with her. He also encouraged Ms. Schubert to apply again because she would make an excellent candidate. He knew Ms. Schubert was extraordinarily analytical and very thorough because she was his campaign treasurer. Council Member Schneider said Ms. Schubert had served as the President of Neighbors Abroad. She encouraged Ms. Schubert to reapply. She also encouraged Michael Midolo to reapply. She supported Ms. Bialson and said that she and Ms. Bialson had worked together on CPAC.
04/07/97 82-452
Mayor Huber expressed his gratitude to all who applied and encouraged them to reapply. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING FOR ABERG: VOTING FOR BIALSON: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR LEHMANN: VOTING FOR MIDOLO: VOTING FOR SCHUBERT: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Annette Bialson was unanimously appointed as Planning Commissioner on the first ballot. Council Member Schneider supported Adele Khabbaz, who was a young woman who had worked tirelessly in Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's office for the past several years. The Human Relations Commission (HRC) would be very well honored by having Ms. Khabbaz. Ms. Khabbaz was young, worked hard, and had the knowledge to get to the bottom of the problem. She recommended Ms. Khabbaz to her colleagues. Council Member Rosenbaum was impressed by the number and strength of the candidates for the HRC. He supported candidates with experience in pertinent areas. He would reappoint Henrietta Burroughs who would provide a sense of continuity for the HRC. Gretchen Emmons had several decades of work in areas closely related to HRC's activities, and Eve Agiewich worked with the Palo Alto Mediation Task Force. Council Member Eakins was also impressed with the number of candidates who had demonstrated quality, enthusiasm, sincerity, and understanding of issues. She supported Eve Agiewich whom she had known and worked with for many years. Ms. Agiewich's background in landlord/tenant relations was strong. She also was impressed with Ms. Khabbaz and Alison Pratt Shelling, and those were the three she would vote for. However, it was difficult not to vote on the first ballot for Gretchen Emmons, whom she had known and admired for many years. Vice Mayor Andersen said there were many well qualified candidates. He would support Ms. Khabbaz for reasons that had been stated. He was also impressed by and would vote for Andrew Pierce who offered insights and background that would be useful on the HRC. He would also vote for Shelley Taylor. He was very impressed with Ms. Taylor's background and energy. Ms. Taylor was a tenant who had experience in the Downtown area, and she could add a great deal to
04/07/97 82-453
the HRC. He appreciated and was impressed by much of what Ms. Burroughs had accomplished on the HRC. Ms. Burroughs had worked on the HRC to bring the City into a regional perspective. However, he believed with all the wonderful candidates, it would be appropriate to bring new people onto the HRC. Council Member Fazzino said there were several outstanding candidates. He was impressed with Ms. Agiewich, Ms. Burroughs, Ms. Emmons, Ms. Khabbaz, and Ms. Taylor. On the first ballot, he would vote for Ms. Burroughs, Ms. Khabbaz, and Ms. Taylor. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION VOTING FOR AGIEWICH: Eakins, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR ASH: VOTING FOR BACHMAN: VOTING FOR BURROUGHS: Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR COOK: VOTING FOR EMMONS: Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR FROST: VOTING FOR KHABBAZ: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR KIERNAN: VOTING FOR LOOP: VOTING FOR OZER: VOTING FOR PIERCE: Andersen, McCown, Wheeler VOTING FOR PRATT SHELLING: Eakins VOTING FOR TAYLOR: Andersen, Fazzino VOTING FOR ULLMAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Eve Agiewich received six votes and Adele Khabbaz received eight votes and were appointed as Human Relations Commissioners on the first ballot. Council Member Schneider said perhaps it was time to put term limits on the boards and commissions. She would support Ms. Emmons on the second ballot.
04/07/97 82-454
Council Member Fazzino said if an incumbent had done an outstanding job, still had a lot of energy, and could continue to make a contribution, then it would be appropriate to reappointment that individual. Ms. Burroughs had made a real contribution in the area of human relations and was helpful on issues such as East Palo Alto relations and the Downtown. He agreed with Council Member Schneider about Ms. Emmons, who would be another great member of the HRC. However, it came down to the issue of having an incumbent who had done a fine job, and he would vote for Ms. Burroughs. Council Member McCown said she would again vote for Mr. Pierce. It was the second time Mr. Pierce had expressed interest in the HRC. Mr. Pierce was a lawyer who had specific background and experience in discrimination and other legal issues that related highly and importantly to the areas that were the focus of the HRC. Mr. Pierce would bring a perspective that would be valuable on the HRC. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING FOR HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION VOTING FOR AGIEWICH: VOTING FOR ASH: VOTING FOR BACHMAN: VOTING FOR BURROUGHS: Fazzino VOTING FOR COOK: VOTING FOR EMMONS: Huber, Schneider VOTING FOR FROST: VOTING FOR KHABBAZ: VOTING FOR KIERNAN: VOTING FOR LOOP: VOTING FOR OZER: VOTING FOR PIERCE: McCown, Kniss, Andersen, Wheeler VOTING FOR PRATT SHELLING: VOTING FOR TAYLOR: Eakins VOTING FOR ULLMAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that none of the candidates for
04/07/97 82-455
the Human Relations Commission had received five votes and another round of votes was in order. Council Member Fazzino said he would vote for Ms. Emmons on the third ballot. RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING FOR HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION VOTING FOR AGIEWICH: VOTING FOR ASH: VOTING FOR BACHMAN: VOTING FOR BURROUGHS: VOTING FOR COOK: VOTING FOR EMMONS: Huber, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Fazzino VOTING FOR FROST: VOTING FOR KHABBAZ: VOTING FOR KIERNAN: VOTING FOR LOOP: VOTING FOR OZER: VOTING FOR PIERCE: Eakins, McCown, Kniss, Andersen, Wheeler VOTING FOR PRATT SHELLING: VOTING FOR TAYLOR: VOTING FOR ULLMAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Andrew Pierce received five votes and was appointed as a Human Relations Commissioner on the third ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding real estate. Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding bicycle safety on Churchill, Alma to Emerson. Mark Stillman, P. O. Box 1527, Campbell, spoke regarding pedestrian mall downtown.
04/07/97 82-456
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of March 17, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of March 18, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of March 26, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins "not participating." CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 through 14, with Item No. 8 removed at the request of a member of the public. 2. Community Development Block Grant Funding Recommendations and Draft Action Annual Plan - Refer to Finance Committee 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Emergency Housing Consortium, Inc. for Provision of 1994-95 Community Development Block Grant Funds for Rehabilitation of Homeless Shelter in San Jose 4. Amendment No. One to Contract No. C7089938 between the City of Palo Alto and Financial Staff Resources for Temporary Auditing Services 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and CTI Telephone Systems, Inc. to Replace Multi-Line Telephone Systems 6. Property Management Agreement #1 between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Exchange of Management Responsibilities Pertaining to District Owned 39.10-Acre Parcel of Unimproved Land Adjacent to Foothills Park Property Management Agreement #2 between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Exchange of Management Responsibilities Pertaining to City Owned 85.37-Acre Parcel of Unimproved Land East of Page Mill Road at
04/07/97 82-457
Montebello Road 7. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C6075675 between the City of Palo Alto and Lewis & Tibbitts for Electric Utility Trench and Substructure Installation 9. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of 1) the resolution establishing Compressed Natural Gas Rate Schedule G-10 applicable to the use of CNG to fuel CNG vehicles to become effective April 10, 1997, and 2) approve the Fueling Permit (Exhibit "A" to staff report CMR:150:97). Resolution 7658 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Utility Rate Schedule G-10 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Compressed Natural Gas Service" 10. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of 1) the continued operation of the attendant parking lot at Lot S for the remainder of the fiscal year and 2) the amendment to the agreement with National Parking Corporation that retroactively increased the compensation for the first year of the agreement by $3,532, providing for compensation for the second year in the amount of $65,000, and clarifying some operational issues contained in the agreement. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C6078086 between the City of Palo Alto and National Parking Corporation for the Operation of Lot S 11. License Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and ABC Corporation for the Use of Dark Fiber 12. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the 1996-97 Revised Audit Plan. 13. Ordinance 4408 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 37" 14. Confirmation of Council Action of March 24, 1997, Regarding Amendment of Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-5 for Q Cafe Located at 529 Alma Street MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2-5, 7, and 9-13. MOTION PASSED 8-1 for Item No. 6, Andersen "no." MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 14, Huber, Kniss "not participating."
04/07/97 82-458
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming said Item No. 8 would become Item No. 16A. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to bring Item No. 19, Traffic Conditions of Ross Road, forward for the purpose of referral to the Policy and Services Committee. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to refer the item to the Policy and Services Committee. Vice Mayor Andersen encouraged the people who wanted to speak on the item to refrain from speaking until the item was before the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee. One of the advantages of referral to the P&S Committee was that speakers could have more than five minutes to speak. There was an interactive experience, and the meeting was more informal. D. E. Jones III, 2500 Ross Road, said there were 21 residents and 11 homes represented that evening. He read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) regarding traffic on Ross Road. All the Council Members, except one, had returned his call. He appreciated the support from Council Members Fazzino, Schneider, and Eakins. Cathleen M. Plutchok, 2697 Marshall Drive, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) regarding placing speed bumps on Ross Road. Gretchen Wehrle, 2684 Marshall Drive, said Mr. Jones talked to his neighbors from Oregon Expressway to Moreno Avenue, and she lived between Moreno to Colorado Avenues. She wanted to make sure that the speed bumps would be from Oregon Expressway to Colorado Avenue. She talked to neighbors, and 100 percent of them were in support of speed bumps. Mayor Huber asked the City Manager to contact the individuals whose names appeared in the packet of materials when the item was set to be heard at the P&S Committee. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 9-0. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said it would be helpful for staff to receive a copy of the packet of material. The public should understand when something was delivered to the City Council, it became public record. CLOSED SESSION 14A. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation
04/07/97 82-459
Subject: John Scott and Pat Dyer v. City of Palo Alto, SMC No. 302290 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a). Public Comments None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application to rezone property from PC (Planned Community) District to CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown Pedestrian Shopping Combining) District in order to allow the existing 2,594 square-foot third floor of the building to be converted from residential use to financial service use for property located at 400 Emerson Street (continued from 3/17/97) Contract Planner Bob Schubert said in 1994, the property at 400 Emerson Street was rezoned to a PC district in order to allow the construction of an 8,100-square-foot, three-story mixed use building. The PC ordinance required that the third floor be used for a residential unit because it was considered a public benefit. Then in 1996, the applicant applied for a zone change from PC back to the original CD-C zoning to allow the conversion of the third floor to financial service use. Although staff was recommending that the Council deny the zone change because the proposal was inconsistent with several policies in the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. The Planning Commission indicated that the conversion of the third floor from residential to financial service use would not be a major loss because it was not designed to be an affordable housing unit. Also, the zoning regulations allowed that the conversion of the housing mitigation fee was paid and the parking requirements were met. When only one unit was lost, no housing mitigation payment was required. However, due to the higher parking demand for office space compared to residential, the applicant would be required to pay an additional in-lieu parking fee for nine more parking spaces. Finally, since the staff report (CMR:174:97) was distributed, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved the applicant's design for the public drinking fountain and art niche. The two items had also been approved by the Public Art Commission (PAC). The ARB added conditions that addressed staff's concerns which required the property owner to install the approved art work and drinking fountain and to enter into an agreement with the City to service and maintain the drinking fountain. Planning Commissioner Jon Schink said the staff report (CMR:174:97) adequately covered the Planning Commission's position. The Planning Commission had a good detailed discussion of the application.
04/07/97 82-460
Council Member McCown recalled there was no reason for the applicant to have a PC other than the fact that the in-lieu parking was not there. She asked if there would be any issue if the application had come to the Council after the in-lieu parking ordinance was in place and had proceeded under the existing zoning. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said no. That was the only reason the applicant was applying for a PC zone. Council Member McCown clarified if the applicant had waited three months and the in-lieu parking ordinance was in place, Council would not be hearing the item that evening. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler said in the September 19, 1994, Council minutes, there seemed to be a very confusing discussion and exchange between then Vice Mayor Simitian and staff on the subject of square footage. She was not sure whether there was more square footage that was allowed in the building because of the provision of housing which somehow did not count toward the floor area ratio (FAR) and, if there was, whether that made any difference. It might also be true that the applicant was still within the allowable FAR. She wanted clarification. Ms. Lytle understood that the applicant would meet the FAR with or without the mixed use provision. With commercial square footage, the applicant was still within the FAR. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Jim Baer, 532 Channing Street, said Ed Storm was the owner and developer of the project. Since the Planning Commission recommendation, the issue of whether the public art and drinking fountain could be preserved was resolved. The ARB had made a condition of its approval supplemental to the PAC approval that the art and the niche be dedicated to the public. Precisely the same agreements for preservation and maintenance that would have been applicable under the PC zone were carried through under the ARB conditions so that the art work was protected. When the project was brought forward, it was a one-to-one FAR in that its only purpose for going through a PC zone was that it was in advance of the in-lieu parking ordinance. To find the application in violation of the Comprehensive Plan seemed overly punitive given that in 1994 the project would have been approved had it sought only the square footage for commercial services. In early 1995 a similar PC ordinance and the last commercial PC came through, which was Roxy Rapp's application for 499 University Avenue. Mr. Rapp's specific provision in the PC ordinance was that if the use was commercial, the parking requirement was a certain number, and if the use was residential, the parking requirements were less. By
04/07/97 82-461
then staff had grappled with what the allowed uses were relative to the expensive cost of providing in-lieu parking spaces and then came up with a method that said it was a cost of parking issue, not a Comprehensive Plan issue. Therefore, the alternative was set forth in Mr. Rapp's application. In hindsight, he and Mr. Storm wished that had been done for 400 Emerson Street. He hoped Council would adopt the Planning Commission recommendation. Vice Mayor Andersen said Council had been enthusiastic about mixed use in the Downtown, which would be lost if the item were approved. He asked Mr. Baer what Council needed to do to encourage development of mixed use. Mr. Baer said the bigger parcels had the opportunity to make the greatest impact on how housing problems for the City were solved. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that Mr. Baer was suggesting the only time mixed use could be developed was with larger projects in the Downtown. Mr. Baer said in-lieu parking could not be done for housing components under the in-lieu parking ordinance. Some of the parcels being evaluated for development currently were small such that it was not economically or physically feasible for some of them to provide on-site parking necessary for residential units above commercial space. The limited size of the parcels and the high commercial demand made it difficult to create an incentive. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that parking and high commercial demand drove it. Mr. Baer said it was high commercial demand and the requirement to provide on-site parking for housing, as opposed to in-lieu parking. Council Member Fazzino said there was a statement made in the January 29, 1997, Planning Commission minutes that there was a need for a corporate office on the third floor. He clarified it was the corporate office for Cupertino National Bank and asked why the corporate office was not in Cupertino. Mr. Baer said that the name on the building would be changed to Greater Bay Bank and Trust within the next few weeks. Council Member Fazzino asked why there was a current need for the corporate office at 400 Emerson Street. Mr. Baer said the merger of Mid-Peninsula Bank and Cupertino National Bank was announced in Summer 1996 and would become effective by the end of 1997. The combined corporate offices were planned for the third floor at 400 Emerson Street. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said it was disappointing that
04/07/97 82-462
the housing did not occur. She believed it would happen more often because the prices were much higher for commercial real estate. The in-lieu parking for the commercial building at 400 Emerson Street would charge $17,800 per parking space, but the document before Council said it would cost $24,000 to $34,000 to build that parking space. The people who had already paid in for parking would pay extra for the parking to be developed. There was a deficit of $7,000 on Lot S and another deficit on the second parking lot. The Council was not dealing with the problem of the in-lieu parking fee, which was that it cost $24,000 to $34,000 at best to build or develop a new parking space. Yet $17,800 was being charged to the developer or the person who benefited from the parking space. All the other Downtown properties would have to make up that difference through the assessment district. It did not really seem that the in-lieu parking fee had been adjusted to reflect the current building prices for a new parking space. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to introduce the Ordinance approving the requested zone change. Council Member Fazzino recognized there were changing circumstances of the merger, and the need for office space was clearly there. It was the second time in the last year that someone had come before Council and committed a residential unit/mixed use project in the Downtown area, and it was the second time that same individual had returned and said it could not be done for a variety of reasons. He felt mixed use was a notable goal, and it would have been a very attractive and important addition in the Downtown area. He was disappointed and disillusioned that it could not be made a reality. He believed that in the future Council needed to hold the line and say no to such a change. However, for 400 Emerson Street, he would support the Planning Commission recommendation. Council Member Schneider said when she read the staff report (CMR:174:97), her initial response was that Council had been misled. The housing was over built for the Downtown area, was one unit, and would be as big as her house. She did not buy into the public art benefit either, which was an art niche and a water fountain. In a PC there had to be a balance between what the public benefit was and what the developer was receiving in return. However, after speaking with a number of people over the past couple of days, she realized that the Council misled itself. The Council agreed to put housing in the Downtown without really looking at what type of housing. She did not think that in the future, Council should approve housing that would not work. If Council were to approve housing, Council should approve the type of housing that made sense. A luxurious single unit of 2,500 square feet did not make sense in the Downtown area. Furthermore, Council should look closer at the public benefit in any PC. She would
04/07/97 82-463
support converting it to office space. Council Member Eakins said the case was very small and close to a change in the parking rules. There was not quite as much demand on housing, so it was easy to go along with the project. She was a member of PAC when the project came up. She followed it through the Planning Commission, but she could not recall that the Planning Commission said the housing was a public benefit. It was the case of something that evolved. In preparing to adopt a new Comprehensive Plan and following up with revised zoning rules, Council should designate in the land use where it wanted housing and stick to it. It would have been nice to have the housing in the Downtown, but it was not a significant loss. The in-lieu parking fees, if not perfect, were still moving in the right direction. She would support the project. Vice Mayor Andersen recalled the Planning Commission wished the housing could have been broken into two or three additional units. It was the developer who wanted the single unit. The alternatives in the staff recommendation made more sense to him. It was one less house, but he knew the community did not need more office, even though those who were looking at it from an economic perspective saw it as something they wanted badly. From a community perspective, he would rather have a house, even a large house, which was needed in the community. He would vote against the Planning Commission recommendation and support the staff recommendation. Council Member McCown understood the project was totally conforming to the underlying zoning. The project came in as a PC in 1994 for the sole reason that Council did not yet have in place the in-lieu parking mechanism, which was something Council had been discussing at that point for some time. It was not a new idea that Council would create the mechanism for developing in the CD-C zone using in-lieu parking fees. If there were any questions about the project, it was whether Council was correct back then in doing a PC zone and whether Council was straining the PC process and encouraging the applicant to propose things that would meet the PC ordinance so the applicant could move ahead with something that Council was on the verge of being prepared to permit anyway. There were many reasons to reevaluate the convoluted path of where Council currently was. However, the point that influenced her the most was that the way in which the property would be used had no more development rights for the CD-C zone than any other property for the CD-C zone. She did not see the reason not to permit that to happen, even though the history was bizarre. Council Member Wheeler said by the time it had reached the Council level in 1994, the housing became a big deal. It was a big deal that evening in the presentation to Council by the Planning Commission representative, and it was a big deal in the presentation by the ARB representative. Even in Council's
04/07/97 82-464
discussion, it was not the number of units but what Council hoped it would see as precedent setting in terms of mixed usage in the Downtown. She felt badly that housing would not come to fruition. On the other hand, since there was no extra FAR or anything out of the ordinary CD-C zone permitted for the applicant, she felt constrained to vote in favor of the request. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of the Property Known as 400 Emerson Street from PC (4238) to CD-C(P)" MOTION PASSED 8-1, Andersen "no." PUBLIC HEARINGS 16. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to establish a new fee to process applications for the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) between properties within the Commercial Downtown (CD) District Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $13,000 and approve the proposed change to the fee schedule for contract planning services to process Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) applications for the remainder of the 1996-97 fiscal year and to prepare a brochure explaining the City's TDR program. Ordinance 4409 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Costs Associated with the Revised Processing of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Applications" MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 16A. (Old Item No.8) Resolution 7659 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting Changes in the City of Palo Alto's Restricted Parking Zones" Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, President of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Color zone parking was a complete success when measured by the objectives of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce's 13-point parking plan. By neighborhood standards, it was a
04/07/97 82-465
complete fiasco. Downtown North was jammed with cars, and the City lots were freed up for customers. Downtown North did not have a serious problem with sleeper cars before, except for the cars of the homeless. Through implementation of the color zones, Downtown North was handed the commercial district's problem. The parking problem, which was an economic cost of development, should be imposed upon those who gained, i.e., those who created the parking deficit. Until employers were required to provide parking for all of their employees, no solution to the parking problems of the commercial district would do anything other than make Downtown North's problems worse. Parking structures and color zone parking without mandatory parking for employees allowed more intense use of the commercial district. The employees would park in the surrounding neighborhoods. The solutions were not complicated and were obvious: 1) Employee parking should be addressed by requiring the employers to provide parking for all employees. There had to be a place outside of the neighborhoods where employees put their cars everyday. Having capacity in the lots was not sufficient. 2) More parking from high intensity uses should be required than from low intensity uses as was already required outside of the parking assessment district. The amount of parking required for a building could not continue to be calculated with a simple per-square-foot formula that disregarded the use of the space. Use changes should not be permitted that resulted in more parking load if additional parking were not provided. 3) Better ways to spend in-lieu parking fees should be found. The fees went only to providing more spaces for the convenience of customers and highly paid workers. Restaurant workers and others with low paying jobs were using up the neighborhood parking, and nothing whatsoever was being done about the traffic. The fees should be transportation assessments, rather than just parking assessments, that could be allocated to any legitimate solutions to automobile problems created by development. Until the assessment district provided parking for employees and the level of customer parking that would be required outside the assessment district, no new developments which increased parking loads should be allowed. Color zone parking currently was a way of proceeding in a usual business manner while looking the other way. If employee parking were not concurrently provided elsewhere, it was extremely unfair to the residents of Downtown North. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber of Commerce Parking Committee had hoped that the item would move forward and color zones would continue. The Parking Committee had been meeting monthly or more for five years to continue to make changes and improvements to the Downtown parking situation. It was a complex process, and the Parking Committee was met with challenges each time it met. The Parking Committee took into consideration the comments from Council, City committees, and the public. Council Member Fazzino's comments were concerns that had been heard many times, and the Parking Committee continued to be diligent in trying to address them. If color zones
04/07/97 82-466
were the only cause of neighborhood intrusion, then the reason for why parking was just as bad in evenings as it was in the daytime would not be explained. There were continuing studies done, and the Parking Committee knew the neighborhood issues were a problem. A representative from the University South Neighborhood Group was added to the Parking Committee, and constructive participation from other neighborhood groups was welcomed. Color zones were just one part of the picture. The Parking Committee hoped Council would allow it to continue its work. The Parking Committee hoped to return with more improvements and suggestions. Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, representing the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG), said USNG wanted to support the concerns voiced by Council Member Fazzino that the color zone be continued only in parallel with progress on reducing the Downtown parking and traffic problems through other means. USNG encouraged proceeding with Council Member Rosenbaum's resolution for staff to develop a proposal on residential permit parking. USNG also encouraged an evaluation of what changes needed to be made to allow some of the in-lieu parking funds to be directed toward prospectively more effective measures, such as a Downtown trip coordinator or the shuttle system, that would have favorable impacts not only on parking reduction but also on traffic reduction in the Downtown. The USNG saw the two issues as continuously intertwined. A cure that only addressed parking without addressing traffic was not a good solution. Finally, Council Member Fazzino mentioned valet parking. The valet parking program should be reconsidered in light of several problems. There was double parking in the street. Valet parking signs were on the driving portion of the streets, and people had to drive around the signs. In the City Hall parking lot, a valet parker zoomed around the corner at 30 miles per hour. It was a valet parker's economic interest to turn cars over and receive tips, so there was temptation for speeding. Also, valet parking very often increased the number of car trips Downtown. The valet parker drove the car five or six blocks to park and then returned to pick up the car. He questioned whether valet parking had been brought about to serve Palo Altans because he did not know any Palo Altans who used it. He encouraged Council to look at the broader issues involved with the color zone parking and to continue to work with the neighborhood groups. Sally-Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper Street, said she had a bold proposal for the Council to have no parking controls in Downtown Palo Alto. It seemed in the staff report (CMR:193:97) that many of the aims of the original plan had been achieved. The garages requiring permits were full. The revenue from parking citations was quoted at $58,000 per year. She felt that taking away all the parking controls would give Downtown employers a real incentive to deal with the problem of employee parking. That would be a benefit, and the visitors would easily find parking in the Downtown area. Currently, visitors were confused by the color zones. Item 4 of
04/07/97 82-467
the staff report (CMR:193:97) stated that "100-120 vehicles believed to be associated with sleepers still park in the neighborhoods." The number could not possibly be correct. Even if it were, it did not reveal the complexity of the problem. There were 10 to 14 cars parked around her house but for only about a 5-hour period in the middle of the day. On the weekend there was only 1 or 2 cars around her house. Since she had an older house with only one off-street parking space, it was a problem for her, but she lived with it. If she had children, elderly parents, or dogs, it would be a major hazard. She called on the Police to enforce the proper parking regulations in the Downtown area. She noticed that people parked closely to corners, intersections, and driveways, which created an unsafe situation. There had to be some type of regulation about a minimum distance. She welcomed progress in the Council's 13-point plan. Downtown North had a neighborhood association, and Mark Nanevicz was the chair. She hoped that Mr. Nanevicz could work with the Parking Committee. Many remarks made sounded very negative about the development, the restaurants, etc., in the Downtown area. However, she lived at 204 Cowper Street because of that development. There had to be some kind of balance between residents' rights to parking and safety and visitors' rights to enjoying Downtown Palo Alto. She wanted to be able to park her car in front of her house in the middle of the day. With Council's action on the previous agenda item, the Council increased the number of sleeper vehicles by nine, which was about a 7 percent increase. Ms. Frank was right that it was not just the color zones that caused the problem. Mark Nanevicz, 228 Waverley Street, representing the Downtown North Neighborhood Association, said Downtown North was perplexed with the color zone situation because it was easier for neighbors to find parking in a Downtown color zone area than to find parking in front of their own houses. In the evening, there was much restaurant activity when hundreds of employees and hundreds of patrons arrived at restaurants. There had to be more than 100 or 150 sleeper cars. He was also very concerned about Lulu's, the new restaurant that would soon open on Waverley Street without any additional parking. Currently, during the day he could not get near his house. With that new restaurant, he would not be able to get to his house 24-hours per day. There were several streets in the Downtown North neighborhood where there was 24-hour solid parking. The only time those neighbors could park in front of their houses was on Sunday morning. The color zone parking was a success for the Downtown merchants and a success for residents who wanted to drive to Downtown. However, it was a disaster for those who lived in the Downtown North and South areas. The neighbors wanted to find a way to resolve the situation that was positive for everybody. Currently, the decisions being made seemed to dump the cars on the neighborhoods. He did not know how long it would take to get the cars off the street, aside from finding a field somewhere out of Downtown and shuttling people into the Downtown area. Building parking garages would not come close to resolving
04/07/97 82-468
the issue. In the evening, unless there were 24-hour residential parking permits, residents would not be able to park in front of their houses. If there were to be any additional restaurants or businesses in Downtown, there had to be enough parking spaces provided for each of those buildings. Vice Mayor Andersen said Ms. Frank had indicated that there was residential representation on the Parking Committee. He was not sure whether Downtown North was represented, but he knew that the Chamber of Commerce would be interested in making certain the Downtown North was involved. He encouraged the Downtown North Neighborhood Association to contact Ms. Frank. Unless everyone worked together to resolve it, the issue would not be resolved. He appreciated the input given. He also appreciated Mr. Burt's comments about valet parking, which was an issue that needed reconsideration. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Resolution which 1) continues the use of four parking zones in the downtown area and prohibits reparking after the time limit expires in each zone in excess of two hours on weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., or the time allowed by the parking signs, and 2) excludes the 30-minute zones from the reparking restrictions of the specific parking zones. Council Member Fazzino asked staff why the City had not funded the Downtown transit coordinator, which was a concept that had a long history. City Manager June Fleming said that position was established years before when she was the Assistant City Manager. She understood the plan was to extend the position, after it had accomplished certain goals within the City, to serve the Downtown business area. The position was staffed. She needed to check to see where the City was in terms of reaching those goals, and she would be glad to return to Council. If Council wanted to, it could revisit the plan. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. On balance, color zone parking was a success, and he acknowledged the fine work that Ms. Frank and the Parking Committee had done in dealing with a nearly impossible situation which became seemingly more impossible every week when a successful new restaurant opened up in the Downtown area. He felt that his approval of the motion was contingent upon the need to act in several other areas as Mr. Burt indicated along several parallel paths. It was very important to have an effective residential permit parking system in the Downtown area. He disagreed with Ms. Frank and believed that the parking problem was much greater during the day. A Downtown transit coordinator was needed to work with City Hall employees and all Downtown employers. A Downtown employee transportation management plan similar to Stanford Shopping Center's management plan during
04/07/97 82-469
the holiday season needed to be in place. He hoped in time a shuttle system could be established which allowed Downtown employees to park in areas outside of Downtown and be shuttled to their jobs. Finally, he was concerned about valet parking. There were no clear criteria. When the latest successful restaurant suddenly had valet parking, he had no reason to know why valet parking was granted to that particular restaurant. As the parking situation continued to worsen, more and more restaurants and other successful Downtown establishments would want to be treated the same way and ask for valet parking. That would continue to create a parking problem for the Downtown area and for the residents. He asked the City Manager to provide the Council with clear criteria with respect to establishment of valet parking in front of restaurants and other Downtown establishments. Ms. Fleming said there were criteria, and staff would be glad to bring them to Council. Council Member Fazzino said he saw the criteria, but they were not convincing. He felt that valet parking had exacerbated the Downtown parking problem. Finally, the Council had taken action with respect to parking structure. He felt that could help to some degree, but it was very important to focus on solving the current problem, not on creating additional problems through building new parking structures. Council Member Eakins supported the motion. The speakers from Downtown North reinforced Council's awareness of residential permit parking. She wanted to express her support for Council Member Rosenbaum's resolution of free parking for residents and fees for a limited number of employee parking permits in the neighborhoods. She believed that the residents and the Parking Committee would work out the best details. She asked about the 100-120 sleeper cars because there was such skepticism about them. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the 100-120 estimate was an based upon the parking surveys done on the neighborhoods from time to time since implementation of the color zones. Ms. Fleming said the issues being raised by some Council Members that evening needed attention. She proposed that the issue before Council was simply the color zones which raised all of the related issues. If the related issues were subjects Council wanted staff to pursue, she suggested that she work with those Council Members and agendize them at a different time when those issues could be discussed and given the attention they deserved. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. She spoke with a member of the public who brought up the possibility of higher Downtown parking assessments for businesses that generated a greater volume of traffic. She thought that was an interesting proposal.
04/07/97 82-470
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said that was raised when the Downtown parking structures were discussed. It was something that staff planned to follow up on with bond counsel. Council Member Kniss was concerned about the valet parking. She was puzzled about where the valets were parking. There would be a change between Stars and Spago's, and there was the addition of Lulu's. She referred to Mr. Burt's comments of duplications in number of trips. The valets drove with a fair amount of speed. She asked staff what would be an appropriate way or time for Council to find out what the valet was doing to the Downtown area. She also asked what other cities, such as San Francisco, did. Ms. Fleming said the issues she raised about valet parking could be answered in a number of ways. Staff could either prepare a staff report and respond to those concerns or address it as a separate agenda item at another time which would allow Council to discuss concerns. Council could also package all the concerns that had been expressed that evening and direct her to return with the issues at a future date. Council had several choices. She believed the concerns were interrelated. She suggested giving the Council a brief staff report on where valet parking was. Council could think about that and incorporate any response when staff returned with a more comprehensive report. Council Member Kniss supported a package return with integrated answers, particularly with concentration on the valet issue. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:10 - 9:35 P.M. The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 14A. Mayor Huber announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 14A. ORDINANCES 17. Minor Modifications to the Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation, Demolition, and Alteration of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 and Status Report on Interim Historic Program Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Historic Preservation Regulations Including Compatibility Review Standards, Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences, and Standards for Historic Designation Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
04/07/97 82-471
Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 by Adding a New Section 16.50.065 and Amending Sections 16.50.020, 16.50.080, and 16.50.120
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said staff provided a status report on the Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and proposed minor modifications to the regulations which arose after four months of application. The status of the program was summarized in the staff report (CMR:194:97). The regulation modifications were consistent with previous Council policy direction. There were four modifications proposed to the Interim Regulations, two to the Compatibility Review Standards, and one to the definition of a landmark residence in the Standards for Historic Designation: 1) Staff recommended eliminating the public hearing requirement for merit screening. In reviewing the record, staff believed that it was Council's original intent, and staff recommended removing the requirement for structures that staff found through field survey had no merit. A 300-foot notification and posted public notification would be done after the decision of no merit had been made in order to allow for appeal. 2) Staff recommended a clarification of the definition of a residential structure. Staff had several instances in which questions had arisen about whether a structure originally built for nonresidential purposes and converted to residential or vice versa should be included in the program. Staff recommended that the only structures to be included were those both built originally and used for residential purposes. 3) Staff felt that it was consistent with Council's intent to allow simple in-kind or compatible building material replacement building permits to proceed without merit screening or evaluation. Staff reviewed the record and found that staff was already doing that. Administratively, it seemed to be where Council wanted to go, but the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) did not specifically give staff that authority. 4) Staff recommended exempting minor projects. There were small remodeling projects which staff felt were the most inconvenienced by the merit screening and evaluation process. Those projects had only a minor effect on the historic structure, and even if it were to be determined that they were undiscovered landmarks, staff felt that not much benefit would be gained or damage done with the minor modifications proposed under the definition that staff was recommending. There were two revisions to the Compatibility Review Standards: 1) Staff recommended a relaxation of the front daylight plane requirement. In working with the Compatibility Review Standards, staff found that in order to construct a structure at the prevailing setback and to conform with traditional architecture, it was necessary to relieve the design of the front daylight plane requirement. That was consistent with massing patterns in homes throughout historic districts that utilized traditional architecture. The front daylight plane requirement was
04/07/97 82-472
designed for the majority of housing stock built after World War II. 2) Staff recommended adding a definition of "front facade." It became clear that the architectural community wanted a clear statement of what elements at the front of a residence constituted a front facade. Many questions had arisen as to whether a roof element was included and how much of the roof should be included. The final modification being recommended came from the Historic Resources Board (HRB), which was a modification to the landmark residence definition. HRB Chairperson Caroline Willis would explain the HRB recommendation. It was worth noting that there were three primary applications associated with the Interim Regulations. The first was the historic merit screening and evaluation process. The second was the compatibility review process, and the third was the landmark evaluation process. Staff had received over 90 applications for merit screening and evaluation, approximately 4 to 5 applications for compatibility review, and no applications for landmark evaluation. The information in the staff report (CMR:194:97) was much more informative for the historic merit screening and evaluation process. It was difficult for staff to come to conclusions about the other two processes because there was insufficient track record. Nevertheless, staff posted plans that evening that were in progress and reported on every application that was currently in the pipeline. There were slides of homes that met the Compatibility Review Standards, although they were not required to go through the process, that would be shown as examples of what built homes complying with the Compatibility Review Standards would look like. Finally, she learned earlier in the afternoon that the Interim Historic Inventory was sorted according to the original staff recommendation rather than according to the final action by the HRB. It was worth noting that staff mailed Council agendas to all applicants in order to notify them of the meeting and to provide them a chance to speak about the Interim Regulations. Preservation Architect Barbara Judy gave a brief slide show that introduced all of the new landmarks identified in the program, some of the contributing buildings that had been designated in the program, structures of no historic merit, and a couple of new buildings currently under construction that would comply with the Compatibility Review Standards. Landmarks identified included 510 Lincoln Avenue, 619 Guinda Street, and 1055 Forest Avenue. Contributing structures included 261 Stanford Avenue, 1187 Lincoln Avenue, 760 Lytton Avenue, 440 Santa Rita Avenue, 1102 Guinda Street, 590 East Crescent Drive, and 1489 Hamilton Avenue. About 20 to 25 percent of structures had no historic merit and included those that had many alterations done or the architectural ambition was too modest. New buildings that would comply with the Compatibility Review Standards included 950 Guinda Street, 960 Guinda Street, and 127 Primrose Way. Historic Resources Board Chairperson Caroline Willis said the HRB felt the Interim Regulations functioned well. The one point that
04/07/97 82-473
needed clarification was in regard to landmark structures and their context. HRB wanted to see, in addition to the definition of landmark properties that existed, a section that said, "A property may be designated a landmark when it is one of a distinctive contiguous assembly of historically significant structures with a unified architectural theme or setting that creates a significant and distinguishable entity." The most obvious example was Professorville. What HRB wanted to see defined was where a building might gain significance by being in a larger context. Forest Avenue in the 1000 block where 1055 Forest Avenue was designated a landmark was an example of where there was a significant number of buildings built before 1900 and formed a recognizable grouping. There were a couple of buildings on Cowper Street, where Lucie Stern had a house built for herself and one for her daughter. The daughter's might not be considered a landmark, but in a larger context of coexisting with its neighbor house, it certainly would be. The HRB felt the language was necessary to clarify the intent of landmarks. Ms. Lytle said another important component of the staff report (CMR:194:97) was the Draft Scope of Services for the Request for Proposals (RFP) to complete the permanent Ordinance update and the Inventory update. Architectural Review Board Member Jim McFall said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Compatibility Review Standards at its meeting of April 2, 1997. Due to the short time frame, the ARB was not able to provide formal action or comments to Council. However, there were a few consistent themes in the ARB discussion. No one on the ARB questioned the need and importance of historic preservation in Palo Alto. There was concern expressed about the appearance in architecture common in a number of recently built houses, and the question came up as to whether or not the Compatibility Review Standards would address those concerns in future construction. There was also concern about limitations on the acceptable architectural styles that were noted in the Standards and whether or not it was feasible to define the styles due to their hybrid nature. There were many commonalities among the styles. There was concern that it was difficult to quantify the different styles properly. Also, the length of time to go through the merit screening process was discussed. There was concern about the possible negative impacts and effects on creative, diverse residential architecture in Palo Alto due to the requirement that new structures and modifications conform with predetermined architectural styles. Greg Van Der Veen, 2133 Yale Street, spoke for Pria Graves and the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA). Homeowners chose Palo Alto and their specific neighborhoods because of the feel and character. They had a reasonable right to expect that character to remain. If one person replaced an older home with one which did not fit with the neighborhood, that person continued to enjoy the
04/07/97 82-474
view which attracted him/her to the neighborhood in the first place. However, the view and value from the neighbor's perspective was compromised. If that continued, then the whole fabric of the neighborhood would disappear and replacement would be impossible. The current guidelines did not prevent remodeling or replacement of older homes. The guidelines did not require people to live with 1940s kitchens, without family rooms, or one-bedroom houses. The regulations required the external face presented by home contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood instead of detracting from it. Many of the specified guidelines simply reflected what current City planning indicated was good for communities. Palo Alto was not Rancho Santa Fe and did not want to be. There were plenty of places where innovative architectural designs were appropriate, including Palo Alto. Architects were accustomed to operating under many constraints, such as client desires, money, zoning, building codes, and laws of physics. The regulations did not eliminate creativity. Current review process was serving a major public education service. The public learned of unlisted treasures, and homeowners learned the value of what they owned. Most were committed to preserving that value. The current requirements did not need to be diluted. Despite what the current manufacturers of synthetic roofing materials said, there was a significant visual difference if fake roofing types were used. There were sufficient options within the compatibility guidelines without adding synthetic materials. In his discussion with other members of the audience, there were some obvious problems for the people who were in the process. The CTRA discussed in subcommittee and would support a comprehensive workshop to address problems and concerns in working toward final regulations. As for himself, he supported the staff recommendation of minor modifications and clarifications to the Interim Regulations. Michael Campbell, 364 Kingsley Avenue, said from a homeowner's perspective, there were many things wrong with the Ordinance. He focused on its three fundamental failings. First and foremost, the most grievous oppression resulting from Ordinance 4381 was the building moratorium imposed by the blanket landmark designation of homes in the Professorville district. The landmark designation violated the property rights of the 90 percent of Professorville residents whose properties were not of landmark quality. In response to that fact and in hopes of steering the dialogue around the Ordinance toward the concerns of the Palo Altans who suffered the most from it, he submitted a petition signed by residents of Professorville (on file in the Clerk's Office). Ordinance 4381 was unfair to Professorville homeowners, and the residents petitioned the Council to enact building permit legislation that provided equal treatment for all Palo Altans. Residents requested Council immediately revoke all aspects of Ordinance 4381 which singled out Professorville, particularly the blanket designation of all Professorville residences as landmark residences. The second fundamental problem was that the implementation had run amok due to its vague criteria for historic status and overzealous
04/07/97 82-475
interpretation of those criteria by the Planning Division staff and the HRB. Any process that considered a random sampling of pre-1940 houses in Palo Alto and found close to 80 percent were historic was obviously out of control. The merit evaluation process turned into a virtual witch hunt, and the HRB sought to wrest as much control over the property as it could from the homeowner. It was not surprising to note that in the second proposed Ordinance, the HRB was attempting to broaden its ability to make landmark designations. The contiguous assembly verbiage proposed for addition in Exhibit B of the second Ordinance would allow the HRB to ignore the structure itself and declare a landmark because it could be construed to be a part of a contiguous group. The criterion could be used to elevate just about any nonmeritorious structure to landmark status, and he urged Council to strike that verbiage from the proposed Ordinance. The third fundamental problem with Ordinance 4381 was that it was host to tremendous confusion between the idea of preservation and the fear of change in the community. Under the pretext of conservation, the real goal of Ordinance 4381 was to limit as much as possible the scope of change in residential neighborhoods. That was a dangerous trend toward government control in which individual property rights and freedom of expression for the many were subjugated to the whims of the few who acted as the aesthetic arbiters for the entire community. The true heart of the issue was the reality that Palo Alto was facing a huge influx of young affluent families for whom the inventory of Palo Alto's houses was inadequate. The law discriminated against the owners of small, older houses that needed to be amended or rebuilt to meet the needs of those new families. Change had to and would come to Palo Alto neighborhoods, but the change should be a positive experience for both the community and the homeowner. It should be the role of the HRB to aid homeowners in an advisory manner to help the change, not to prevent it or make the process of change the stressful situation that it had been for himself and his wife. It was incumbent on the Council to begin a community wide dialogue on the issue of change, to recraft the Interim Regulations which was a disservice to all of Palo Alto, and to create a forward looking, not a backward looking, building policy for Palo Alto. Robert Jenks, 355 Kingsley Avenue, said he lived in Professorville and practiced architecture in Palo Alto since 1963. For the record, he was the architect for the Campbells. His deep concern over the repercussions of Interim Regulations of placing the Professorville area in landmark status was compatible with the feelings and comments of homeowners who lived within and beyond the Professorville district. In his many years of working with City staff, he did not witness anything more confusing than the establishment of the Interim Regulations. He was also concerned for residents who constituted almost 50 percent of the Professorville homes in regard to non-historic category, which was their category prior to the Interim Regulations. The Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation manual was obviously
04/07/97 82-476
not written with a structure like the Campbells' in mind. The manual was "written for federal agencies on historic buildings for listing in the National Registry." A recommended item in the manual also stated approval of removing a nonsignificant building which detracted from the character of the neighborhood. He suspected there were few residences that would fall under that category. The Campbells had no intent to remove their home. The original interior portions would remain. However, under landmark status, the 900-square-foot home could not be substantially increased in size. The residence started as a summer cottage, was added onto, and bore a different exterior, different styles of windows, and a changed front facade. The landmark status presented a serious obstacle for many residences purchased prior to the Interim Regulations. He was an advocate of warranted preservation and was a member of the National Historical Association for Preservation. He urged revision to the Interim Regulations which was more fair and equitable to residents who were faced with the change. Scott Stotler, 16275 Monterey Road, Suite E, Morgan Hill, said architecture was very important to display creativity in a tasteful way. He commended the City for being able to come up with responsible development and guidelines. He understood, however, the atmosphere under which the Interim Regulations were created and what had happened at the time. The Compatibility Review Standards was a "tight shoe." Typically, in creating a design, a person liked to have a more broad-brushed scenario where there was flexibility in regard to creating a design. Many times, painting with a narrow brush, which is what the Interim Regulations had done, tied the hands with respect to creativity. On January 16, 1996, a fire damaged Richard De Stefano's house to the extent that the insurance company deemed the house uninhabitable due to major structural damage to the slab and the roof. On September 1, 1996, Mr. De Stefano finally received an insurance settlement with the stipulation that Mr. De Stefano had two years in which to move into his house, which would be in December 1997. The construction had to begin around January or February 1997. Mr. De Stefano could have pulled a demolition permit previous to that, but he chose not to do so. If he had done so, he would have avoided going through the historic process. Unfortunately, the bad and bulky designs of houses in some of the neighborhoods actually hurt what were good designs in other areas. Mr. De Stefano wished to maintain the swimming pool, a circular driveway, and dense vegetation. The house was single story. In September 1996, the moratorium was in place. Mr. De Stefano went to the public hearing to request an exemption. He was told that he would be contacted by phone by the Council, which had not been done. He and Mr. De Stefano moved forward with the project because time was passing by. The guidelines had been conceptually promised around October 14, 1996, and he received the guidelines on October 27, 1996. Plans were ready for the engineer on November 2, 1996. He explained to Mr. De Stefano that he felt the guidelines, which would not actually be
04/07/97 82-477
adopted as policy until December 2, 1996, should not be so constrictive so as to avoid building the design they had come up with for the residence. The plans were ready to be submitted on December 7, 1996, which was five days after the actual final policy had been adopted. It was his contention from the beginning that Mr. De Stefano should have been granted a hardship. Dick De Stefano, 1035 Los Robles, said he and the insurance company were expending $5,500 per month. He had a 2-year time frame from the insurance company. After that, the burden was his. The house he and Mr. Stotler designed would take six months to build, so the time frame was collapsing. He said when the battalion chief wrestled him off his property 15 months before, the battalion chief told him he dodged a bullet. Ms. Lytle called him in September or October 1996 and asked him if he had to remove 50 percent of the perimeter walls. He said it was more like 10 or 15 percent, but he had to remove 100 percent of the roof and 100 percent of the floors. It was a Spanish style home, so street drills would be needed to remove the floor and the roof. She called again a month later and asked the same question. He still did not understand the 50 percent rule. He thought it would be 50 percent of a house. He did not know how the 50 percent of perimeter walls had anything to do with his situation in which his house was uninhabitable. All the skylights were blown out and doves and raccoons were nesting in it. To date he and the insurance company had put out about $83,000. He saw no end to it, and he was becoming desperate. He was begging the City to reconsider his situation. He should have been exempted from the beginning. Up until a month before, his situation was the only fire demolition residence request in the City. Council Member Rosenbaum asked Mr. De Stefano if his design required any variances from the other zoning ordinances aside from the compatibility requirements. Mr. De Stefano said the design required a redesign with respect to the garage setback. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the proposed design, if there were no compatibility requirements, met the existing zoning without the requirement of any variance. Mr. De Stefano said yes. Oliver Ryder, 1065 Los Robles, said he was a retired businessman. He knew little about the nuances of what was discussed that evening, but he did know Mr. De Stefano who was his neighbor since 1969. Mr. De Stefano was a gentleman of quality, had excellent work ethics, and was a superb family man. He saw Mr. De Stefano in the fire. He and other neighbors offered their homes to Mr. De Stefano. It seemed that human compassion and desire to help another human being should be the guiding light in the
04/07/97 82-478
circumstance. Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, representing the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG), said the Board of USNG supported Interim Regulations in concept and continued to do so. At the time the Council took on the difficult issue, all parties understood the regulations were interim, and over the course of the year, there would be discoveries on how to best modify them and how to identify the problems that existed. The current process was appropriate and anticipated. Overall, the course of action that Council took was very responsive to the concerns of the community. To some extent, there was confusion between the aims and the authorities of the zoning and the planning concerns, the compatibility issues, and the HRB concerns. Those needed to be addressed and sorted, and there needed to be greater clarity and authority established in the system so the entire process could become more streamlined in the future. The way the Council had to face the issues and concerns brought by different waves of interest groups and citizens was difficult. The USNG recommended over the course of the upcoming months before facing the final regulations that there be a more deliberative process to sort things through. All parties could meet at a full day workshop to see if common understandings and agreements could be reached. There were anecdotal situations in which people in Class 3 or 4 structures thought it would be easier to do a demolition and build a compatible structure than to go through remodeling concerns. If that were true, then that was another issue to sort through together. Finally, there were the concerns of Professorville structures. A number of years prior, Professorville residents asked the Council to designate Professorville as a historic district and later asked Council to expand the size of that district. There was a new set of requirements and limitations that did not exist when the residents asked for that category. The requirements were not a big part when the design review and the Interim Regulations were being discussed. The USNG encouraged that the requirements be part of the public debate and that the community, in particular Professorville, decide what it wanted for the future. USNG encouraged the Council to continue to reexamine and respond to citizen concerns and look at whether a broader, more contemplative process to come up with the final regulations was needed. Debbie Nichols, 2070 Bryant Street, said she was a member of the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, and she supported the Interim Regulations. She was a lifelong resident of Palo Alto and was dismayed by the proliferation of uninspiring, speculative homes being built in the neighborhoods. Palo Alto was rapidly losing its neighborhood character and charm house by house as homes were being demolished. The developers did not care about the impact they were making on the future of Palo Alto. Many of the homes being built were of poor quality, poor workmanship, and poor design. Most of the new homes were not harmonious with the existing architectural styles of the neighborhood. She resented that a handful of
04/07/97 82-479
speculators were dictating to the Palo Alto residents what the neighborhoods would become. It was time for Palo Altans to take charge of what Palo Alto would look like in 20 years. The community needed to preserve its heritage and uniqueness. She appreciated people who wanted to build and/or live in a new home, but those people should go live in a town where new homes or raw land was readily available. She did not want her neighborhood torn down. Many people who wanted to derail the proposed new Ordinance had hidden agendas which had to do with their short-term economic gains. It was human nature and understandable, but it was not in the best interest of Palo Alto. They tried to scare people with dire predictions of decreasing property values, but towns with the strictest preservation ordinances were often the most desirable and expensive towns to live in. Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, were good examples. Even with the uncertainty of the scope of the proposed tightening of restrictions, Palo Alto's property values were skyrocketing. The oldest neighborhoods were sought after, and homes for sale often had multiple offers. People flocked to Palo Alto because of its uniquely charming homes. She urged the Council to protect Palo Alto's heritage and continue to support the Interim Regulations. Nancy Sederquist, 801 Garland Drive, strongly supported the Interim Regulations and applauded the Council for its actions. She complimented the HRB, staff, and Ms. Judy. There were concerned citizens who really cared about Palo Alto. There were always problems that came up, and she thought that the minor modifications would help the process. Sam Webster, 335 Lowell Avenue, said he purchased a home at the Hamilton Project that he intended to live in. Then he sold his house to cover the transaction and put it into escrow. Three days later a blockbuster hit. To date, it had been seven months, and no definitive statement had come out yet on his contract to sell. He understood what was going on and was very much in favor of the good things that were happening, but the problem was time. It was going to be nine months before he would have his house sold. He was committed to one contract purchase, and the other contract to sell the house was out there contingent upon the cottage, which was a garage made into a photo studio and had nothing to do with history. Aside from all the problems of regulations and ordinances, there was a time problem that affected everyone. There was an excellent example of a man whose house burned down and who was waiting on the ordinances to be put through and reviewed. Council needed to do something about the time problem. Council Member Rosenbaum did not understand Mr. Webster's problem. Mr. Webster said his house was in escrow. The main house was in Barbara Judy's slide show as one that had no historical value, but the cottage in the back which was a converted garage was designated as a conforming project. That tied up things and would not be
04/07/97 82-480
resolved easily. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that Mr. Webster was saying the auxiliary house had been designated as a contributing structure. Mr. Webster said that was correct. It would be nine months before it was figured out, and by that time he wanted to be in his new home at the Hamilton. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, wanted to see the punishment fitting the crime of the two horrible houses that were built. The massive community indignation over that started the entire situation, yet it had caught innocent people like Mr. Webster and some of her clients. She thought it was temporary and would pass in a few months. However, it was being perpetrated permanently. Council needed to take a more humane look at housing. Ms. Lytle said she was surprised that there were so many applications for historic review, but people were told by real estate agents that their houses had to be reviewed to find out what category they were in. Ms. Lytle also said there was no great objection or requests for review. She told Ms. Lytle that people were afraid. The average citizen was not bold enough to go to City Hall and complain. People felt that if they complained, they would get a landmark designation. Council had to look at what the unintended consequences were. She was involved because young clients of hers who innocently bought a house that was willed a Castilleja. It was the first to have historic review, and it turned out to be a landmark. She could not believe it because the house was a dump. Ms. Lytle told her to ask for a postponement. It was then redesignated as Category 3. Categories were loosely, strangely worded and something Council should consider. A Category 3 could be torn down, but then there was conforming with the compatibility standards. One of the young architects, John Barton, made the point that conforming with the compatibility standards made more cookie cutter houses. Ms. Judy looked at one house and said it was Spanish eclectic, but it was about a 1,200-square-foot house that looked more like a Los Angeles gas station. To her, eclectic meant a neighborhood, not a house. She asked Council not to continue to think it was all wonderful. John Barton, 360 W. Charleston Road, said while he understood the motives and the forces behind the Interim Regulations, he remained concerned about a number of areas which fell into three broad categories: the rationale, the process, and the consequences. Under rationale, he felt there remained some confusion in the community discussion about whether the Interim Regulations were about historic preservations or whether they were about preventing bad architecture. The current regulations seemed to intertwine those two separate items, and he felt they needed to be separated because keeping them intertwined neither helped with historic preservation nor discussion of bad architecture. Under process, he was concerned with two historic categories out of the three
04/07/97 82-481
categories. It made placing the houses difficult, and there needed to be broader, more well-defined categories. It was unwise to entrust the initial merit process to a single person no matter how well trained that person was. It seemed there could be the ability to need to justify his/her position as well as the lack of discussion that could temper first thoughts on an idea. While he understood there was an appeals process, there should be a more inclusive process up front to prevent an appeals process as necessary. The process took too long and appeared to be onerous. Two of his potential clients had foregone work on their homes because the process appeared to them to be too onerous. That was work that he lost as a businessperson. It was also work on historic homes that did not occur, which made those homes continue not to be improved. Under consequences or unintended consequences, his concern was that any set of regulations created its own personalized response. Once people found out what the response was that met the requirements of the people who reviewed it, it would continue to appear in other places around town. So there would be a quick cookie cutter faux 1920s architecture or cookie cutter faux 1930s architecture. If people were not going to tear down houses north of Oregon Expressway because of historic regulations, they would move south, and Eichlers and other homes would be lost in that area. It discouraged small projects. He was happy to hear some of the proposed changes, but the small projects were what kept houses maintained. Under current regulations, they were difficult to do. He was concerned that during a down real estate period that the regulations would have serious real estate impacts which could further devalue the ability to keep a historic home well maintained. Finally, he questioned whether 75 percent of pre-1940 houses in the community could be looked at as historically meritorius. He was concerned that it made it difficult to look at the ones that were really important and to put emphasis on them. With just 90 days or so of life, it was not clear what was or was not working. There were some kinks that needed to be worked out. He concurred with others that a contemplative process was needed. He supported having a workshop process or a committee that could ask the base questions and then go from there to look at what changes might or might not be valuable in the Interim Regulations. Phil Hyland, 585 Quarry Road, Belmont, said his client was Linda Lovely, and he wanted to address the contradiction between the current zoning ordinance and the new Compatibility Review Standards, particularly the front daylight plane. The daylight plane was established in 1986/1987, so there was a conflict when conforming to the pre-1940 standards. That was a reason that was stopping his client's particular design process. Another reason was that the nomenclature for the daylight plane, especially when it dealt with the front. He felt it did not have significance because in his client's case there was a 24-foot front setback, and a 50-foot street right-of-way. It was not interfering with anybody's front daylight plane. Because of the those limitations and because of the current zoning ordinance's setbacks, floor
04/07/97 82-482
areas, and daylight planes, he and his client were really restricted. Therefore, he and his client were in favor of the relaxation of the front daylight plane and asked that the Compatibility Review Standards be modified. Linda Lovely, 1187 Lincoln Avenue, said she took many pictures of Tudor homes to use as examples of architectural features found in pre-1940 homes that she wanted to incorporate into her own design. The whole process had not been easy and had great financial and physical impact. Three months before, she took out a loan and was ready to leave her home and start construction. She had to pay on that loan as well as additional architect fees for redesign. With guidance from the Planning Department, she and Mr. Hyland had worked on the original for nine months. When the emergency moratorium went into effect, she was told that as long as she was not removing more than 50 percent of the external existing walls, the initial design would be fine. Nothing was said about changing the front facade. It was not until December 1996 when she found out about the lengthy procedures she would be subject to because she was changing the front facade. The procedures included the merit screening that took about four weeks and the Compatibility Review Standards that took another eight weeks. She was ready to move on. It had been a learning process for all involved, including the Planning Department. She and Mr. Hyland had come up with a design that she and the Planning Department were pleased with. There was just one issue left to solve, which was the front daylight plane. She felt that staff recommendation was self-explanatory. Typically, pre-1940 Tudor style homes had steeply pitched roofs. It would be fair to assume that when the homes were built in the 1920s and 1930s, the zoning ordinance in place at that time were not as rigid as the ones currently required to comply with. If the compatibility standards for replacement homes required design according to specific pre-1940 architecture stated in the Compatibility Review Standards, then there needed to be more flexibility in the new historic Ordinance to allow for an acceptable design. If there were no flexibility, in many cases designing a particular pre-1940 home was not feasible. The only effect of the front daylight plane would be toward pedestrians at a particular time of day, and she doubted that in the two seconds it would take to walk past, someone would ask why the home was blocking his/her sun. She worked hard with the Planning Department and complied in every way to come up with an acceptable design. She asked Council to accept the staff recommendation on the daylight plane issue.
Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue, Chairperson of the Palo Alto District of the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors (PWVAR), said she had attended six or seven of the HRB hearings over the past several months and witnessed presentations by staff as well as input from architects, neighbors, friends, homeowners, and other realtors. She was particularly concerned with the
04/07/97 82-483
placement of a very high percentage of the homes into the contributing category because they had a couple of architectural features which might have been typical of the time. The HRB had found those homes which had almost no renovations or remodeling were easier to place in a contributing category. Thus the HRB was in a position via the use of the Interim Regulations to dictate the design of any new building if a property were to be torn down. On February 26, 1997, the home located at 1171 Fife was reviewed. At that time, the present owner stated that the previous owner had been cited 13 times by the Fire Department. The real estate agent who advertised it as a "tear-down" property stated that the value was in the land. The owner was dismayed that the home was placed in the contributing category and that staff referenced a garage on the property when in fact there was no garage. The owner had planned to do a major remodel if not a tear-down. By placement in the category, the owner's plans were substantially changed. The owner appealed the decision of the HRB. Ms. Judy had the time to become acquainted with the community. She applauded Ms. Judy's energy, enthusiasm, and excellent background. She took issue with some of the poetic language used to describe some of the homes. Ms. Judy spent much time doing research, but the PWVAR was very concerned that the HRB was not addressing the issues of the content and condition of the home. The HRB was viewing only the exterior front facade. The Chairperson of the HRB referred to new homes as "jarring." Obviously, the Chairperson had a bias toward older homes. Many people in Palo Alto appreciated older homes, but to use the term "jarring" was prejudicial. On February 26, the Chairperson also stated in reference to the home at 364 Kingsley Avenue that the home "inspired a romance" in her and that the very romantic image of the home obviously guided her in recommending that it be placed in landmark category. It was an 800-square-foot home on a nearly 8,000-square-foot property. The home was dramatically altered over the years, and the owner tried to illustrate that it was not the same original craftsman cottage. She felt that the Chairperson of the HRB should facilitate the meeting and should be careful about inserting strong personal opinions in a public procedure. Mr. Barton's article in the previous week's Palo Alto Weekly reflected on the process. Mr. Barton's intellectual discussion in that article referenced a home built by Ann Barbee, which was an excellent example of the kind of new construction that could fit in a Professorville neighborhood. The PWVAR was concerned that with the overlay of landmark status for all of Professorville, there could not be any demolitions whatsover. When there was one individual making decisions, the same individual also looked at design under the new regulations. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said there were two separate issues that Council was trying to address in one way. The first was preservation of historically important structures, with the moratorium, the design review, and the desire not to lose buildings of importance and value to the community. The second was that overall, there were too many big, ugly, inappropriate houses built
04/07/97 82-484
in Palo Alto. The Interim Regulations did not stop it because the vast majority of houses were built after 1940. There were two houses on Los Robles that were inappropriate and not Palo Alto. As Barron Park said, design review of single-family homes and guidelines such as the ones staff adopted in 1989 were needed. They were voluntary guidelines, and with some fine-tuning, they would be good for the entire community. Something was needed to tell the developer, builder, and architect what was appropriate for the community and for the particular neighborhood and what to adhere to such as existing setbacks and existing basic architectural style. Design reviews were needed so the same structure would not be built two or three times on the block. It was clear from a survey in Barron Park as to what the people wanted. He heard the same thing from other people in the community. What Council was doing was only the beginning. The staff recommendations were fine, but they were not going far enough. Council should make the design guidelines mandatory. Council should have review of single-family home development. It was not anything unusual or unprecedented and had been done in California for more than 60 years. Even cities like Oakland which were not known for aesthetics had it. It was time Palo Alto had it and that Council did the job right. It seemed to work well for the business community. There was improved design and development as long as the ARB was in business. The review of new developments needed to extend to all new homes. Mr. De Stefano was a neighbor. He could not understand why an existing house could not be rebuilt within the existing zoning ordinance. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, said she fully supported the continuance of the Interim Regulations with the staff and HRB recommended amendments with the addition that there should be a category in addition to landmark and contributing. Of 96 structures that had come before Ms. Judy and the HRB, 4 were given landmark status, and 51 were given contributing status. The status really meant nothing in terms of structure or neighborhood protection. A third significant status would better be able to carry out the spirit of the original moratorium on Interim Regulations. In her opinion, much of what was built prior to 1940 was good design. It was a time when craftsmanship and pride in one's work was commonplace and neighborhood was synonymous with community. It was not only about property rights but also about the responsibility of citizenry to be informed. Every citizen had a responsibility to get the facts. To do otherwise was a great injustice to the process. It led to inflammatory statements, misinformation, ill-advised opinions, hard feelings, and much wasted time and effort. There might be great solutions to historic preservation if a person listened rather than reacted, asked rather than assumed, not believe everything heard, and thought bigger than himself or herself. In regard to Professorville, the ordinances that applied to homes in that district prior to the Interim Regulations were identical to the current regulations with the one exception that prior to the Interim Regulations, anything in
04/07/97 82-485
Professorville could be torn down after a one-year moratorium and anything could go up in its place. There were no design guidelines and nothing to prevent a home from being torn down. For those who were concerned about what could or could not be done to residences that were granted landmark status, she strongly urged them to read the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Ronald Hall, 1152 Channing Avenue, said he was amazed that the Council did something about historic preservation. He heard the Council off and on for the last 25 years talk about historic preservation through the Squire House and other things. He saw the building booms, busts, and demolitions of the 1960s through 1990s. He was glad that Palo Alto was doing something for historic preservation. The Interim Regulations were a step in the right direction. He was somewhat appalled at the difficulty that the average person had in going through the Interim Regulations. It seemed that in an attempt to start a historic preservation movement in Palo Alto, something did not work right. It was not only the application process and the review process but also the appeal process. Many people did not want to appeal with the possibility that their entire project might be held up or get worse. When homeowners and architects came in for small remodeling projects or renovations and the home had a contributing status, in-kind materials had to be used. Replacing windows and doors that were antiquated might not meet the Secretary of the Interior's criteria. He felt that there were broader concepts besides landmark status, contributing status, or the average house. If 50 percent of the 90 applications in the last 90 days were of contributing status and 4 percent were landmark status, to use the criteria of the Secretary of the Interior for both categories of construction was inappropriate. There needed to be a different level used that everybody could agree on for the different styles of houses. He wanted to see the staff develop a citywide suggestion about the how the entire process would work and have public input. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, said she lived in a historic house. Valuable comments were made, and she was impressed with the thoroughness of them. The idea of having a broader process was really important. She had an uneasy feeling about what was going on because she felt the City was telling people how to live. There were established patterns that were physical, but it was not always recognized that they might not work very well. She drove on Guinda Street which had a lovely neighborhood pattern. She guessed that about 75 percent of the houses had a screen, drapes, or louver shutters across the living room windows. It was a deep, complicated issue. Patterns and lifestyles changed. She felt it was individualistic. A speaker was glad about starting historic preservation, but historic preservation had been in the community for a very long time. It was appropriate for the HRB to do the review, but it was not appropriate for the HRB to do design review. The reason was that the HRB was the only board that had an agenda, which was preservation. It was an emotional issue that was
04/07/97 82-486
problematic. It was important that people had choices about how to live and that the dynamics of innovations were not discouraged. The community was on the forefront of some of the greatest innovation and creativity in the world, yet there was a very reactionary view of how people should live. She wanted to see more excellent contemporary homes being built. She was a member of the ARB for six years, and the ARB wanted to see something new. The implications of regulations were traditional design. The modern homes were newly built but were not modern. That option should exist in society. There needed to be a distinction between historic and old. Many of the older homes were poorly built. It was important to allow not only the retrofit of a difficult old building but also a substantial and well-built building. Her house was a wonderful house but had many flaws. With a small older home on a valuable piece of property, that small older home was being held hostage to a very expensive piece of land. There was a "reality check" aspect to the whole issue. Geoffrey Etnire, 619 Guinda Street, said as the owner of a landmark residence, he supported the program. He did not find the process slow at all. It was burdensome, but staff was usually waiting on him to produce the next documents. Also, he supported a more expansive definition of the contributing residence category because it gave the neighborhoods the ability to have input on the design of the new homes. Council Member Wheeler said the hour was late and Council could not get to everything that evening. She wanted to get questions out on the floor because if the item were to be continued, staff could have time to think about the questions and could have additional material for Council for the meeting of April 28, 1997. Council Member Rosenbaum said he had many questions and a couple of proposed actions which might be controversial, but he wanted to put those off. He said that Council Members might agree immediately with the staff's proposals for minor modifications, which began on page 10 of the staff report (CMR:194:97). If there were consensus and no opposition, it might be worthwhile to do those. He excluded the modification that had to do with a change in the definition of a landmark, which might not have immediate consensus. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to adjourn the April 7, 1997, Regular Meeting to Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of continuing the discussion of Item No. 17. The Adjourned Meeting of March 26, 1997, will follow. Council Member Rosenbaum objected to the motion. April 8, 1997, was the last time Council would be able to deal with Stanford until the month of May, and people were expecting Council to do so. Council Member Fazzino felt there were more property rights and
04/07/97 82-487
more dollars at risk with the Interim Regulations issue. There was a number of property owners who needed and wanted to move quickly, and he felt the Council needed to respond to them on a real-time basis. Rather than putting it off for three more weeks, it was better to deal with the issue on April 8 and to deal with Stanford in May. Since there was the possibility of a November ballot for the Stanford proposals, there was plenty of time to resolve the Stanford issues. He encouraged his colleagues to continue the Interim Regulations issue to the April 8 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED 5-3, Andersen, Huber, Rosenbaum "no," McCown absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 18. Audit of Building Inspection Practices Item removed by staff. COUNCIL MATTERS 20. Mayor Huber re Cancellation of the April 14 and 21, 1997, City Council Meetings and Scheduling of a Special City Council Meeting for April 22, 1997 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to cancel the April 14 and 21, 1997, City Council Meetings and schedule a Special City Council Meeting for April 22, 1997. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber announced that the State of the City Address was scheduled for Monday, April 14, 1997, at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 7:00 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
04/07/97 82-488
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
04/07/97 82-489