HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-24 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 24, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................85-249 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................85-249 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and InfoLane Corporation for Internet Site Design and Maintenance..85-250 2. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation..Subject: Glenbrook Court, LLC v. Luo, et al.,SCC# CV 758834 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)85-250 3. Conference with City Attorney--Significant Exposure to Litigation on One MatterSubject: Significant Exposure to LitigationAuthority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) 85-250
4. Resolution 7719 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated General Municipal and Special Elections Held on Tuesday, November 4, 1997".....................................85-250 5. The Historic Survey of Pre-1948 Structures and Preliminary Findings Contained in the Survey Background Report....85-250 6. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues ...............................................85-251 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........85-269 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m............85-269
11/24/97 85-247
11/24/97 85-248
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:09 p.m.), Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding usual and necessary service needed to pay claims in insurance industry. Curtis Myers, 1863 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding proposed Woodland Creek Apartment complex. Cathy S. Brandhorst, homeless, San Jose, spoke regarding Cisco Systems, ESL and Burma. Mary C. Erikson, 425 High Street #121, spoke regarding PAMF Environs housing potential loss and SROs. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, spoke regarding Ohlone Indian baskets. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the controlled press. James Corning, 119 Bryant Street, spoke regarding resolution pertaining to Burma. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of September 23, 29, and 30, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and InfoLane Corporation for Internet Site Design and Maintenance MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. CLOSED SESSION
11/24/97 85-249
2. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Glenbrook Court, LLC v. Luo, et al.,SCC# CV 758834 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 3. Conference with City Attorney--Significant Exposure to Litigation on One Matter Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) RESOLUTIONS
4. Resolution 7719 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated General Municipal and Special Elections Held on Tuesday, November 4, 1997" MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7719 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated General Municipal and Special Elections Held on Tuesday, November 4, 1997" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to combine Item Nos. 5 and 6 for the purposes of discussion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 5. The Historic Survey of Pre-1948 Structures and Preliminary Findings Contained in the Survey Background Report 6. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the staff report (CMR:463:97) identified a series of questions, the answers to which would help staff narrow the options for the provisions of the new ordinance. He stressed the importance for
the Council=s answers to be as clear and specific as possible recognizing that it was still the early stage of the process. Staff and consultants, in cooperation with the advisory group and
11/24/97 85-250
volunteers, would take the results of the Council meeting, the property research underway, and return to the Council in February for more specific ordinance direction. The actual ordinance would be before the Council in April, which was consistent with the target of the new Historic Regulations to be effect by the end of May. City Manager June Fleming said the report to the Council was formatted so the Council would get an understanding of the kind of discussion that would be beneficial to the staff. If the Council wanted to direct the staff to do something specific, she asked that the Mayor request a motion so staff would be clear as to the
Council=s direction. Michael Corbett, Architectural Historian, said his role in the project was to direct the historical survey. There were two parts of the project: the historical survey and revisions to the ordinance. The purpose of the survey was to identify significant properties. The ordinance would address ways to protect the properties. Significant properties were identified by using fixed standard criteria of significance, which was the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Under the National Register, properties could be significant in history, associated with important persons or architecture, and must possess integrity. A survey was done in 1979; however, the National Register criteria required something to be fifty years old or more to be significant. Since 1979, there were more buildings over fifty years old which needed to be addressed. The criteria used in 1979 was more personal and subjective than the National Register allowed. The survey steps included a preliminary survey which entailed driving through the City with maps prepared by staff. The preliminary survey would help establish priorities which would be given to the volunteers. The preliminary survey would be followed by a methodology where methods for the volunteer survey would be prepared. The volunteers would then be trained to conduct the intensive survey. Once the intensive survey was completed, the properties would be evaluated for the National Register and would be done in relation to historic contexts, which was a statement that described the historical significance of a property. As the National Register criteria was applied, buildings and objects such as street lights and trees would be located. The history of the City, early settlement, farming and ethnic history were areas that would be looked at to identify buildings that had important associations with the history of Palo Alto. Science, technology, and electronics would be looked at to locate properties associated with important persons. Professional offices, wartime housing, and types of buildings that were not recognized in the past would be considered. Council Member Fazzino referred to the staff report (CMR:474:97)
and asked about ΑCriterion D: Information Potential. Properties that yield, or may be likely to yield, information important on the
11/24/97 85-251
prehistory or history of the area.≅ Mr. Corbett said it referred to archeology. Council Member Fazzino asked if that were established as formal criteria, what kind of parameters would be put around it to establish limits. Mr. Corbett said Criterion D was one of the four criteria of the National Register. Palo Alto was a Certified Local Government (CLG) and had to utilize the criteria of the National Register. The survey would identify significant things that appeared eligible for the National Register. How the significant things were treated was up to the City in the ordinance. The ordinance was a political decision. Council Member Fazzino said the word that disturbed him was
Αinformation,≅ because it seemed very open ended. If there were something tangible that existed on the site, it clearly needed to be preserved. Mr. Corbett said the information had to come from something tangible. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there was a distinction between what was surveyed and what was regulated by an ordinance. There was nothing that would compel regulation of information for the locations. The existing ordinances did not attempt to do that, except in connection with a structure. Council Member Fazzino said that Criterion A, B, and C were more straightforward. He asked if Mr. Schreiber would consider any possible changes to the Historic Resources Board (HRB). When the issue of workload transpired, there were suggestions that the HRB membership might possibly be increased, and the power vested in one staff member was raised. Mr. Schreiber said the issue of the size of the HRB did not transpire, and he did not think it would be pursued. The Board had seven members which would be sufficient to carry out their tasks. Regarding the issues of staff and review and action on modifications to historic structures, that was a regulatory issue that staff looked to the Council to contend with. When the interim regulations were being discussed, the effort was a streamlined process. That may or may not have been a driving consideration when considering the permanent regulations. Council Member Fazzino clarified that staff would be looking at the broader issue of decision making with respect to the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said that was in the context of incentives to make it more economical or palatable for people to retain historic
11/24/97 85-252
resources. Ms. Fleming said staff was not looking at structural changes unless directed to do so by the Council. That was the type of action where staff would request a vote of the Council. Council Member Wheeler said her understanding of the staff report(CMR:474:97) was that staff envisioned the future role of the HRB to be more similar to its role under the old ordinance. The consultant mentioned that the new inventory work, the structures or resources, would be measured against the objective standard of the National Register standards. Palo Alto had an existing inventory, part of which had been developed under the old ordinance, more subjective standards, and part of which had been developed under the interim regulations. She asked how that body of work would fit with what was identified in terms of future structures and/or other resources in the community and would the existing inventory be re-evaluated in light of the national standards or would the Council presume the existing inventory would continue to be as presented to the Council. Mr. Corbett said he had not been asked to re-evaluate. The preliminary survey looked at everything on the existing inventory. Notes were made if structures had been demolished or substantially altered. Council Member Wheeler clarified that any updating or changing would have to be done by staff or HRB resources. Mr. Corbett said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler said one of the things the Council struggled with was the inclusion on the inventory of some of the more modest structures were proposed. Everyone recognized the grand houses and the grand styles. It was difficult for some of the Council Members to understand why something that was not grand might be proposed as part of the inventory. She asked whether Mr. Corbett believed the arguments to be forwarded to the Council would make it clearer as to why a more modest structure might belong on the inventory. Mr. Corbett said one of the differences between the 1979 inventory and the current ones, was that in the current inventory, the evaluation was written in reference to the criteria and a historical context. The Council needed to see that the criteria was broadened. In the earlier survey, the criteria was almost completely architectural; however, that was not the standard of historic preservation currently used. It would be clear to the Council why ordinary looking houses were identified as significant properties. Council Member Wheeler said members of the public, whose properties might be affected by the interim regulations, were not always clear as to what the benefit of having their properties listed on the 11/24/97 85-253
historic inventory was. She asked if the Council would be provided with guidance in order to transmit the information to the community that there were benefits to being listed on the inventory. Bruce Anderson, Urban Design Planner, said the recommended provisions for the ordinance update would make it clear. The underlying reasons as well as incentives would be included. Council Member Wheeler clarified the Council would receive the methodology and the potential tools to stay-up-to date with moving the inventory forward. Mr. Corbett said a part of what was required of a CLG was a program of keeping the survey up-to-date. A program would be established and a group of volunteers would update the survey each year. Vice Mayor Andersen asked about experiences in other communities with regard to setting up historic standards and ordinances put in place and the consequence that might result in areas outside the historic areas. Spec houses were being built in Palo Alto which might be inconsistent with the historic as well as nonhistoric areas. He asked whether there would be additional pressure to put those types of spec homes in areas which would not be affected by regulations that might develop through the proposed procedure. Mr. Anderson said that outside of districts, short of the City Council deciding to conduct individual design review on single- family residential structures, he was not aware of any community where that would be achieved. Vice Mayor Andersen said the result of pressures from communities outside the districts or historic areas would be greater. Mr. Corbett said that was possible. Vice Mayor Andersen asked when the consultant was reviewing the criteria, and whether there were higher priority over some than others. Mr. Corbett said the goal in working with the criteria was to look at the criteria as stated which had been in place since 1966. There was a substantial body of evaluated properties that existed. Applying the criteria to buildings was not subjective. There were references in the criteria and in the body of existing evaluated things which served as reference points. Vice Mayor Andersen asked about the distinction between the
Certified Local Government Agreement and the City=s certification, and the advantage of being Expanded as opposed to Threshold. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the agreement with the state indicated the way the state allocated funds when applying for
11/24/97 85-254
grants was commensurate with a city=s degree of participation in the program. That indicated to her that the people who were at an Expanded level and had a more sophisticated, well-developed program could use that as a claim for priority when making a grant application. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether there were some benefit from a
city=s perspective to seek out and attempt to get the Expanded certification. Ms. Warheit said the City obtained the Expanded certification because Palo Alto was already there. There was an ordinance in place that met most of the requirements. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether the City would remain Expanded if the recommendations in the staff report (CMR:475:97) were followed. Mr. Schreiber said there were in-house discussions regarding the
City=s participation in the CLG program which he did not feel made a difference other than occasional access to funding. If he concluded that staying in the program led staff into doing levels of effort or work which was not productive, he would look at dropping out of the program. Council Member Kniss asked who was taking the lead. Ms. Warheit said Mr. Corbett was taking the lead on the inventory and Mr. Anderson was taking the lead on the ordinance. Mr. Corbett said he was taking the lead on the survey which was the search for significant buildings. The ordinance would place into the inventory the official regulated, protected group of things. Council Member Kniss asked how that protection changed a community and how it was enforced. Mr. Anderson said a Supreme Court case in Euclid, Ohio, questioned enacting zoning regulations and separation of land uses. The answers were for the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community. Historic preservation, in terms of constitutional issues, evolved from that. Philosophically, communities, through their wisdom and legislative bodies, responded to their citizens who asked for various kinds of protections. Council Member Kniss asked how Mr. Anderson would assess the communities that had identified that type of history and struggled to protect that which was valued for a variety of criterion. Mr. Anderson said there were various indications which included property values, school systems, and pollution levels. There were all types of indices that reflected different levels of protections that communities had elected to enact or chosen to regulate.
11/24/97 85-255
Council Member Kniss asked whether there were indices signifying the communities that had a strong historic preservation ordinance in a measurable way that were more desirable to live in than others. Mr. Anderson said that twenty years before, he was asked to prepare design guidelines and an ordinance to coordinate investment and design decisions in Old Pasadena, which presently had 25,000 visitors each weekend. Stability and investor confidence could be traced back to regulation and control of some type, but it must be the type of regulation and control that a community desired to have. In the case of Old Pasadena, the property owners did not want to put $500,000 into an older commercial building if in the future the neighbor would undue it with a $5,000 chartreuse paint job. Council Member Kniss said she heard people say there should be some incentives for historic preservation, and she referenced incentives listed on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:475:97). She asked what incentives had done for communities, and how homeowners would be encouraged to protect what they had. Mr. Anderson said when an investor spent $500,000 on a rehab, knowing that the protection was there, it was critical to the investor that the investment not be undone. Investors would not make decisions when they had lack of confidence that there was some expectation and stability that would be maintained throughout a reasonable life of the investment. There were programs such as the Mills Act which provided economic incentives, but ultimately it would go back to the partnership among City Hall and the investors, the preservation groups, and interest groups that wanted to participate in a partnership undertaking in preservation. It could be an individual homeowner, a neighborhood association, or a nonprofit organization. Council Member Kniss said page 6 of the staff report (CMR:475:97) addressed incentives, which included relaxation of land use regulations and financial benefits. If that were selected, what would be the incentive for a developer, with a house in Professorville that had value but needed upgrading, to do more than might currently be done. Mr. Anderson said whether or not the property was located in Professorville, the City had already determined that there was an appropriate level of regulations, namely to either prohibit or delay for some time demolition of a contributing structure in the historic district. He was unsure how potential investors would respond to incentives. With low interest loan programs in preservation and revitalization, many developers said interest rates were so low, it was not worth the red tape. Council Member McCown said as the Council looked at particular 11/24/97 85-256
situations during the interim period, the Council struggled with the lack of crisp lines in terms of categorization. She asked to what extent Mr. Anderson saw the survey process provide the community with crisper drawing lines for where properties would fall. It was something a lot of people wanted to see out of the process. Ms. Warheit said the standards used in evaluating properties for significance within the permanent inventory were quite different from the situation in the interim regulations where there were only two categories used to save historic buildings and do design review on new ones. Because of the clearer standards that were used nationwide, the significance would be clearer to people and there would be more confidence. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct, but it was important to recognize that the survey process identified a variety of structures and sites. The regulatory process did not assume that everything identified in the survey was going to be subject to regulation, and that everything was subject to the same regulation. Within the collection of identified sites, there would be a range from the obvious to sites that could be debated. Staff would look to the Council for guidance in terms of what level of regulation was appropriate for what type of resource. Council Member McCown asked what would be the interrelationship of the information that came from the survey in terms of identification of structures and the process that the various committees would go through. How would the data from the survey feed into the process of trying to decide what level of regulation would be imposed. Ms. Warheit said that had been considered, and she acknowledged that staff was asked to return with an ordinance before May 30. The inventory was be completed until the end of summer. The inventory would be more mature at the time the Council considered the ordinance. The regulations would be accepted by the Council with some understanding of what the inventory would look like. The categorization of resources were being reevaluated. When the Council saw the final ordinance, it would be clear what the resources were. Council Member McCown questioned the training of volunteers who would be trained to do the survey work, and whether there was prior experience with using a volunteer force. Ms. Warheit said the volunteers were not going to be evaluating the importance of any resources. The volunteers would gather information, and that information would be evaluated by Mr. Corbett, including site visits to everything under consideration. Council Member Rosenbaum said Mr. Corbett mentioned the that inventory would be objective and how the Council chose to regulate 11/24/97 85-257
it was a political question. The reality of regulation depended on how the structures were subdivided. The Council might adopt different levels of regulation for 50 exceptional houses or for 100 houses. He questioned whether the consultants would provide guidance as to how to do the categorization. Mr. Anderson said he there were no numbers yet. When the evaluations were completed, he would have a better idea of categories, such as the treasures of the community and the exceptional resources. He attended a number of meetings of the HRB and Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Group and had become aware of the issues involved with regulation. More information was needed before determining the precise levels. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there would be categories established and an idea of how many homes were in each category in time to include that information in the development of the ordinance. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Corbett would have a rough idea before the meeting in February. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to a paragraph on historic districts on page 7 of the Survey Background Report, attached to
CMR:474:97 which read, ΑProfessorville already exists as a large,
impressive National Register Historic District.≅ He said there might be other residential areas in Palo Alto which appeared at first glance to be potentially eligible. One mentioned Coastland, Marion and the 2500 block of Webster Street (single builder 1947 subdivision). Mr. Corbett said it was a good example of a situation where, when the criteria of the National Register was applied, things would be identified that the Council might or might not want to protect. Ordinarily something had to be fifty years old to be considered significant. Mayor Rosenbaum said there were some homes on Garland Drive that were built by the same builder, including the one he lived in. The
report on the 1979 inventory read, ΑThe lots are large and the
substantial houses indicate ample academic salaries.≅ The Council understood that Professorville had a number of significant homes. The subdivision on Coastland Drive and Marion Avenue was just the opposite, built inexpensively with no distinction. Mr. Corbett suggested each would be eligible to be a historic district. Mr. Corbett said there were not different classes in the sense there were different levels of value under the National Register. Under the National Register, something was either eligible or it was not. As a historian, he would look for things in Palo Alto that had historical interest. Looking at the history of Palo Alto, that particular subdivision would be among the first where one developer built a very large number of houses. Historically, that
11/24/97 85-258
was a significant event. The survey was different from what the Council would adopt into the inventory. There were things, for all kinds of reasons, that the Council might not want to adopt. Council Member Eakins asked if the Survey Background Report was the
result of the Αwindshield≅ survey. Mr. Anderson said the Survey Background Report was prepared to give interested members of the community, as well as the City Council, an idea of how the consultants looked at buildings and the environment of a community. It was not necessarily what was historically significant. It was an observation as to what was in Palo Alto and not intended to suggest direction or policy. Council Member Eakins asked whether the topics in the staff report (CMR:474:97), such as Urban Context and Patterns of Urban Development, were going to be revisited. Mr. Anderson said the topics would be revisited. The report was to give all the participants some sense of how the City appeared in its broader context. It was a type of orientation.
Council Member Wheeler asked at what point in a district=s evolution the fabric of the District was lost when the regulation stated that demolition could be delayed but not prohibited. Mr. Anderson said many people assumed that being listed on the National Register accorded protection. It did not with the exception of certain types of federal programs including the Tax Reform Act wherein a property owner signed a contract with the Treasury Department and received certain benefits. Being on the National Register as an individual property or district did not afford protection. Through the wisdom of the City Council, it was up to the City of Palo Alto, to decide what type of regulations it wanted. As Mr. Schreiber indicated, there could be different levels of regulation depending on the different levels of resource definitions. If the integrity of a district were good throughout, with a high number of contributors, the Council might choose to have a level of regulation that was higher including prohibition on demolition. Over time, properties changed and in districts with different types of regulation which allowed a greater number of changes at a faster pace, both National Register and local conservation districts were lost over time. Council Member Wheeler asked how districts were removed from the National Register. Mr. Corbett believed that a National Register district needed to have approximately 75 percent contributing. Below that figure, it would no longer be eligible. Council Member Wheeler understood that being on the National
11/24/97 85-259
Register did not afford protection to the building, but asked whether being listed on the National Register afforded the owner of the building any extra benefit through that listing such as grants that one would be eligible for if listed on the National Register. Mr. Anderson said a contributing property in a district that was income producing would be eligible for a benefit. That was a type of clear economic benefit. Mayor Huber asked about tract housing. He said there were a number of housing tracts in Palo Alto that were over 50 years old. He heard that with tract housing over 50 years old there was a different sense of what should or should not be preserved or protected. He asked how other cities handled that. Mr. Corbett said that was a new issue because each year there were new structures that were 50 years old. There was not much built in the 30s and 40s. Over the past 20 years, many of the buildings that had not been added each year were 50 years old. At the current time, 50 years was after World War II when there was a huge building boom. New types of structures were being added each year and people in preservation needed to learn how to deal with that as were other communities. When he first began historic architecture, he argued that art deco and modern structures were of some value, which was currently well recognized. The argument was over ranch style or tract type houses, and it would take a while for those to be accepted. Mayor Huber asked how other communities dealt with the issue. Mr. Corbett said 50 years ago there were no large tracts built. A town in New Jersey had been recognized and was on the National Register. He did not know whether or not local communities accepted that. Mayor Huber asked whether Mr. Corbett would make suggestions to the Council about tract housing and how to deal with it. Mr. Corbett said he would be identifying tracts that might be eligible for the National Register but would not recommend how the City should deal with it.
Council Member Kniss clarified there was a difference between Αon
the Register≅ and Αprotected.≅ Mr. Corbett said that was correct. Things on the Register were protected from Federal actions. A residential neighborhood would not be protected. The tracts on the Register were built before the war. Council Member Kniss asked whether there had been any challenges with the tracts on the Register.
11/24/97 85-260
Mr. Corbett said the criteria of the Register was clear. He did not know whether there were challenges to the implications, The majority of owners of a district would need to agree if they wanted to have their district listed on the National Register. The survey would identify things that were significant. It was not appropriate that all were protected under the ordinance. Mr. Anderson said there was an important change in the law in 1983. In earlier times, owner consent was not required to have a property listed on the National Register. Currently, owner consent was required. A majority of residents of a subdivision could have their district on the Register if the district were identified as eligible. When a majority of the owners wanted the designation, it also wanted protections and regulations. Owners would to maintain, preserve, conserve, and rehabilitate what to put on the National Register aside from it being eligible to be listed on the Register. Council Member Kniss asked if owners of 13 of 25 houses wanted to be listed on the Register, could they apply and what happened to the other 12. Mr. Anderson said owner consent of a simple majority was required. Council Member Eakins asked, using Madrid, New Mexico, as an example, what happened to factory or industry built housing. Had any of those become historic districts or received protection from their communities. Mr. Anderson said the community of Clyde, south of the Sacramento-Carquinez Straight, was an industrial town from the World War I period which was listed on the National Register. The town of Pullman, Illinois, was an important National Register district. Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue #300, Chair of the Palo Alto District of the Association of Realtors, said she found the questions and information interesting. She appreciated the opportunity to hear a progress report on the survey that would be conducted. The agenda indicated there would be discussion and preliminary direction on the framework for the revision of the ordinance and related policy issues. That was short-circuiting a process that was set, in effect, where there were to be four community meetings, including a public workshop regarding real estate issues on December 3, 1997, followed by a Saturday workshop to discuss various issues. The local government relations committee, board, and a group of volunteers worked hard over the past months to address the issues in order to present their information on December 3, 1997. They were originally told their meeting would be held in December, which was a change from the meeting originally discussed to be held in October. The Planning Office said that Dames & Moore was preoccupied with the survey and would not be able to meet with the group until December. The differentiation in time distressed her because the Council might 11/24/97 85-261
begin to discuss policy before hearing from the public, in particularly from those individuals who had gone through the process. After the workshops were held in the first week of December, the Council could return to give direction by mid-December to Dames and Moore. There was much information and should be good dialogue when people shared their experiences. The process that was set out several months prior to develop a permanent ordinance should be followed. Mayor Huber asked Ms. Hunt whether the realtors had objections to the interim regulations if the Council were unable to conclude by April. Ms. Hunt hoped the information presented to the Council would help expedite the development. Eric Morley, 1285 Sierra Avenue, San Jose, represented the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors. The realtor community had taken to heart the public process set forth by the Council, conducted and facilitated a series of meetings with design professionals to review the previous regulations and the interim regulations, and took a constructive approach on giving clear recommendations and solutions for the final regulations. The cities of Oakland, Pasadena, and Los Gatos were researched and analyzed on how they approached the issue of historic preservation. The Association was in the process of finalizing a series of recommendations which would be presented on December 3, 1997. The six issues outlined at the current meeting would be addressed. They did not want to see major policy issues decided before the first public workshop was conducted. Harry Hagey, 100 Waverley Oaks, said one of the consultants raised the issue that the Council needed to be concerned about the investor. He thought the Council had to decide who the investor was. Relating his comments to residential property, the investor was the current homeowner and potential future homeowner. Whatever ordinance the Council decided to enact needed to be thoughtful in terms of what made it easiest for people to improve their property. In the long term, all properties in Palo Alto would have to be improved, maintained, and replaced. There needed to be incentives for people to maintain historic property. He spent $500 to go before the Historic Resources Board (HRB), which was not an incentive to maintain historic property. The Council should not make it punitive to ask for changes on historic properties. It appeared that the Council wanted to protect what looked good in Palo Alto while providing for the uniqueness of the homeowners to do as they wished. He was curious about the change in the law with respect to electing to be taken off the National Register because that was an option he would elect if it were decided that he could not make constructive changes to the property. He worried about the use of the Mills Act to try to provide incentives and losing revenue. It was not a good business decision for Palo Alto to provide that as an incentive to homeowners. 11/24/97 85-262
Council Member McCown said Mr. Hagey=s house was on the National Register and asked where he had seen disincentives for being on the Register. Mr. Hagey suggested the Council review the video tape of the recent meeting with the HRB.
Council Member McCown was interested in Mr. Hagey=s comment about getting off the Register because of what he foresaw as future problems. Mr. Hagey said the decision to go off the Register would be an easy one if it became overly restrictive and full of red tape for the homeowner to make constructive changes to the property. Most of the restrictions he dealt with related to external characteristics of the building, such as allowing or not allowing to put in thermal pained windows and deciding the size of window openings. Ted Carlstrom, 245 Lytton Avenue #300, said the present ordinance, if perpetuated in a permanent ordinance, adopted standards for a building code for the structures that some people found unrealistic. California had the Historic Building Code which was designed for the purpose of helping property owners to preserve historic houses. He was advised by architects that the Code provisions were more forgiving and conducive to the preservation of historic structures than the Standards of Rehabilitation adopted by the National Park Service for the Department of Interior. The standards were devoted to replica museum-type quality houses. It was unreasonable for a homeowner in Palo Alto to be required by ordinance to maintain a home in accordance with the replica standards of the National Park Service. That placed a property owner in a position where the property owner was required to observe certain standards of conduct and the neighbor was not. Some people called that unfair treatment or spot zoning. The National Park Service regulations for historic structures were voluntary to private owners. They were not imposed involuntarily on a property owner by either the federal or state government. A contract was needed in connection with a rehabilitation grant, or a certification for purposes of the tax reform act for certain tax credits. One of the implications was that the program of designation as a historical resource required under federal Acts that there be consent by the property owner. Both the federal and state Acts reached the show of clear theory and approach to historic regulations. One was an approach based on incentives, voluntary character, and cooperation between the homeowners and the community. The alternative was a mandatory and involuntary imposition of obligations not consented to by the property owner. The technique that the ordinance pursued should be the technique of seeking the consent of the property owner which would be consistent with the law. The law said that an interest in the historic character of a property was a distinct property right. It was set forth in Section 815 of the Civil Code, the 1977 Act which
11/24/97 85-263
identified that a conservation grant of the historic character of a property could be made by a property owner. The Civil Code said, as if it anticipated Nolan and Dolan, that a local government could not extract from a property owner an historic easement as a condition to use of the property. Imposing those obligations on a property owner, in effect, imposed a voluntary easement, which was a taking of property. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said zoning should be voluntary because otherwise the Council was imposing terrible restrictions on a property owner. The consultants said there were reasons for land use and zoning just as there were reasons for historic ordinances, and those were for the general benefit of the community and the welfare of the entire community. The Council should try to separate out what the current ordinance did with two separate approaches. One was to continue the historic preservation and evaluate and identify what was historic. The other was to have design review at two levels for historic properties conducted by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). When historic property came up for review, two or three members of the HRB would sit in as ex officio members of the ARB, giving historic preservation perspective to redevelopment and modification. The second was ARB review of single-family developments. Council Member Wheeler asked why some well built structures were preserved or considered historic. Council Member Rosenbaum said there were houses that were built cheap, mass produced, and not terribly useful. Going through historic districts throughout the country, he noted that some in Virginia and Louisiana had rows of shacks that were historic. They were historic because they had been the slave quarters, and were important to preserve to give a sense of how a segment of the community at that time was treated and how they lived. The consultant talked about row houses in Baltimore, and had seen excellent examples of row houses in Wilmington, Delaware. It was important to preserve the structures because of the history. His wife had asked him whether Eichler homes would be preserved. He did now know but thought of some areas where those districts and Eichlers were worth preserving. Allen Court might want to be preserved because of the context and history, and not only because of the architecture. A broader view should be taken as to why properties were important in their context and why, if excessive and inappropriate development were allowed, more than the
neighbor=s view would be lost. The history and reality of the community would be lost. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:29 P.M. - 9:55 P.M. The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 2 and 3. Mayor Huber announced that there would be a public report on Agenda Item No. 2 no later than the next regular Council meeting and that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 3.
11/24/97 85-264
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NOS. 5 AND 6 MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue any action on the Historic Preservation Ordinance and related policy issues to a meeting in February 1998 to follow the workshops. Council Member McCown said there were many people interested in the topic and who operated in the understanding that the workshops would be held for the public to give input. Direction on the policy areas before that happened was not appropriate. If the staff report (CMR:475:97) were made available for the General Public Workshop, members of the public would know how staff framed the questions for the Council and could provide their input. Mr. Schreiber said when the consultant contract and scope of work were first discussed, the timeline to achieve adoption of new regulations was very tight. There was a goal to not extend the interim regulations. In order to do that, the item would be merged with the more detailed discussion of ordinance content in February. Council Member Kniss said the workshops would be advertised and the Council would take proactive action on them. It was a critical time for the Council to be involved in the interim regulations, and the action taken by the Council would have a great deal to do with community involvement. Ms. Warheit said staff compiled a mailing list that included everyone who spoke or sent written comments to the Council on the issue, which was over 300 people. Every person who appeared as an applicant or their architect or spoke before the HRB in the prior year increased that amount by another 250 people. Notice cards were sent to all those people regarding both workshops. City Manager June Fleming said she would work with staff to look at other ways to get the message out. She would work with Public Information Officer expertise and look at different ways of
attracting peoples= attention. Vice Mayor Andersen urged staff to share with the workshop participants the public testimony heard from the consultants with regard to potential consequences that some Council Members might have on outside districts. He was interested in seeing some discussion, which was not included in the staff report (CMR:475:97), whether or not some design regulation for nonhistoric tear downs outside the districts could be reviewed. The
consultant=s comments relative to impacts on areas outside the historic districts were very significant. The unintended consequences of any decision that was made had an effect on areas outside the historic areas and that needed to be made clear to the community.
11/24/97 85-265
Council Member Rosenbaum said the burden of the argument made by the public was that the Council would make decisions without having the input from the workshops. He asked whether minutes were going to be taken and distributed to the Council on a timely basis. Mr. Schreiber said the workshops would be taped but extensive meeting notes were not planned. Ms. Warheit said the workshops would be advertised so a quorum of the Council or other boards or commissions might attend. The tapes would be available for those who were unable to attend. Council Member Rosenbaum said he did not know what the Council
Members= schedules were when the meetings were held, but it seemed that if the Council wanted to make its decisions based on more public input, the public input should come to the Council in a more traditional fashion such as minutes. Mr. Schreiber said if that were the desire of the Council, he would arrange to have minutes. Council Member McCown believed that staff would try to summarize what the basic points of view were from the public input at the workshops. Council Member Rosenbaum said it might be easier to present the Council with the minutes rather than having staff summarize. Mayor Huber said in the ideal world, the workshops would lead to some form of consensus so people would not have to listen to 48 speakers twice. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to direct staff to provide sense minutes of the two workshops. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Fazzino, Huber, Wheeler Αno,≅ Schneider absent. Council Member Eakins said she would like tapes of the workshops and asked if information on the historic ordinance could be included on the Web Page. Ms. Fleming said that could be done. Council Member Wheeler said she would like to have tapes of the workshops. She felt the Council Members would get more out of the tapes than reading lengthy minutes. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Eakins, to direct staff to include some preliminary examination of the review of tear down houses, e.g., demolitions, so that the replacement houses have
11/24/97 85-266
an administrative review. Council Member Fazzino said the amendment seemed disconnected from the main motion which was to delay action until the Council received the results of the public hearings. It would be a mistake for the Council to introduce substantive actions into the motion. The purpose of the motion was to hear from the public, make sure the Council received as much public input as possible, and then take action. Vice Mayor Andersen said the staff report did not make any reference to the issue. Council Member McCown said page 4 of the staff report (CMR:475:97)
specifically said, ΑIf the City Council wishes to continue design review for new houses outside historic districts, a new ordinance
or other planning mechanism would need to be provided.≅ The issue was clearly raised in the memo, and her motion intended to encompass the issues to be part of the discussion that came from the workshops. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber announced that he and Council Members Kniss and Wheeler were appointed to the Sand Hill Road Ad Hoc Committee, which would report back to Council no later than the end of 1998. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
11/24/97 85-267
11/24/97 85-268