HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-23 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting February 23, 1998 1. Interviews for Planning Commission.....................86-41 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m..............86-41 1. Proclamation Congratulating the Santa Clara Valley Water District for 30 Years of Service as an Integrated Water Resource Agency........................................86-42 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................86-42 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc. for Inspection, Testing, Preservative Treatment, and Reinforcing of Wood Power Poles.........86-42
3. Ordinance 4483 entitled ΑOrdinance 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. 38"...................86-42 3A. Approval and Submission of a Notice of Interest in Applying for Federal Disaster Assistance and Project Application for Federal Assistance.....................................86-43 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................86-43 3B. (Old Item No. 5) Authority of City Manager to Execute Consent to a Temporary License Agreement between the Santa Clara County Transit District AKA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, Inc. Permitting Provision of Specified Services to Homeless and Very Low Income Individuals on a Portion of the Depot Parking Lot at the North End of Mitchell Lane; and the Provision of Funding to Assist Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, Inc. with Emergency Expenses.....................................86-43 3C. (Old Item No. 6) Negative Declaration - Regional Water Quality Control Plant Incinerators.....................86-44
02/23/98 86-39
4. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (continued from 11/24/97).......................86-47 7. Council Members Eakins, Mossar and Wheeler re the Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto....................86-64 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........86-64 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. to an adjourned meeting on February 24, 1998, at 7:00 p.m..............86-64
02/23/98 86-40
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:18 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Planning Commission No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
02/23/98 86-41
Regular Meeting February 23, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:26 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamation Congratulating the Santa Clara Valley Water District for 30 Years of Service as an Integrated Water Resource Agency Mayor Rosenbaum read the proclamation. He took the opportunity to announce a Town Hall Meeting to be held on Saturday, February 28, 1998, at 9 a.m. at the Mitchell Park Community Center to provide the public with an opportunity to talk and relate their experience and the recent 1998 Winter Storms. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Peter Kacander, 360 Cowper Street, spoke regarding the Cable Co-op proposal. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding municipal competence. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding 1) Los Trancos Road, 2) Arastradero Preserve, and 3) Stanford Archaeologist. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 3A. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc. for Inspection, Testing, Preservative Treatment, and Reinforcing of Wood Power Poles
3. Ordinance 4483 entitled ΑOrdinance 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. 38" (1st Reading 1/26/98, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent)
02/23/98 86-42
3A. Approval and Submission of a Notice of Interest in Applying for Federal Disaster Assistance and Project Application for Federal Assistance
Designation of Applicant=s Agent Resolution MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to move Item Nos. 5 and 6 forward to precede Item No. 4. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. CLOSED SESSION 3B. (Old Item No. 5) Authority of City Manager to Execute Consent to a Temporary License Agreement between the Santa Clara County Transit District AKA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, Inc. Permitting Provision of Specified Services to Homeless and Very Low Income Individuals on a Portion of the Depot Parking Lot at the North End of Mitchell Lane; and the Provision of Funding to Assist Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, Inc. with Emergency Expenses
Ordinance 4484 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Permitting Provision of Specified Services to Homeless and Very Low Income Persons at a Temporary Location, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to
Take Effect Immediately≅ Community Development Block Grant Coordinator Suzanne Bayley said the item before the Council was for the provision of emergency assistance to Urban Ministry of Palo Alto. The action was requested as a result of the recent storms and subsequent flooding. Urban Ministry dispensed assistance and services to very low income and homeless individuals from a portion of the Red Cross site at 400 Mitchell Lane. The building flooded when San Francisquito Creek overflowed its banks in early February. The flooding created a sewage backup with a possibility of bacterial contamination to the site, and the Red Cross was forced to close and evacuate the site until it could be cleaned up and repaired. The Red Cross moved its personnel to San Jose for approximately two months. The Urgency Ordinance would permit Urban Ministry to temporarily serve its clients from a mobile trailer parked on a portion of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) parking lot
for a maximum 120-day period. The Council=s approval was requested to consent to a temporary license agreement between VTA and Urban Ministry. The permission of Stanford University was also required.
02/23/98 86-43
The Council was asked to assist Urban Ministry financially in the amount of $3,722, which was the cost of renting the trailer and other storm-related emergencies. The need to provide assistance, information, referral and basic needs services for the Urban Ministry clients increased as a result of the emergency conditions. The conditions under which the use would be allowed were specified in the ordinance and agreement. City Manager June Fleming thanked Stanford and VTA for their cooperation with the City to bring the item to the Council. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the trailer would be able to operate beyond noon. Ms. Fleming said she and Ms. Bayley had met with Daryl Ogden, Director of the Urban Ministry, to explore options. Mr. Ogden pursued the options and decided the one presented was the best option at the present time. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Approve the Urgency Ordinance allowing Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, Inc., to dispense services for homeless and very low income individuals from a mobile trailer in the Santa Clara County Transit District, aka Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) parking lot for a period not to exceed 120 days. 2. Authorize the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute a temporary license agreement with the VTA and Stanford University allowing Urban Ministry of Palo
Alto=s temporary mobile trailer to occupy a portion of the depot parking lot at the northwest end of Mitchell Lane from 7:00 a.m. to noon weekday mornings for a maximum of 120 days. 3. Authorize funding in the amount of $3,722.00 to Urban Ministry for emergency expenses incurred in the leasing of a mobile trailer for the 120-day emergency period. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 3C. (Old Item No. 6) Negative Declaration - Regional Water Quality Control Plant Incinerators Public Works Director Glenn Roberts said that normally the Council would see an environmental review at the same time as the approval of a project. In the present case, the environmental clearance needed to be addressed first because the partner agencies needed to rely on the environmental clearance at the time they approved the cost sharing agreement with the City. The project proposed to
02/23/98 86-44
rehabilitate the incinerators which were 25 years old and in danger of structural or operational failure. In the course of studying the item, staff looked at different alternatives, considered different methods of solids management at the plant, and concluded that incineration and rehabilitation of the incinerators were the best and most viable alternative for the near term future. It minimized impacts on the surrounding wetlands, in terms of acreage and site impact, and it reduced the emission levels below what they were from the current incinerators. There were concerns expressed during the process about continued emissions from the incinerators. Staff tried to thoroughly look at and analyze the concerns. Staff found that the project not only reduced emission levels from the current standards but also provided the greatest net benefit to the environment. The League of Women Voters (LWV) made it clear that staff should have been more responsive to its concern about monitoring emissions following the rehabilitation process. Staff would periodically monitor the emissions to ensure that the discharge was as predicted. It had been suggested by a number of concerned groups and individuals that alternatives that dealt with the total emissions loading and working on the inflow to the plant as well as the outflow of the process should be pursued. That would be done, along with the initiation of a number of additional pollution prevention programs to target certain concerns. The Council may have seen the focused program on mercury. People would be paid to turn in old mercury thermometers at local drugstores. A long-term planning process would be established to look at what the future of the plant should be. The plant was 25 years old and would not last forever. It was important to look at the overall technology, methodology, and the way sewage treatment and disposal were handled. It was appropriate to initiate such a process to look at the matter in long-range terms. Greg Karvas, CBE, 500 Howard Street, #506, San Francisco, asked the Council to replace the incinerators with a dryer or digester technology and avoid being locked into bad technology for another 20 years. It seemed clear that the lifetime of the project was about 20 years. There was a better environmental alternative. The incinerator created dioxin; the options of drying and digestion did not. It emitted more pollutants including mercury and dioxin into the local food chain in the Bay. The alternative was to replace it with a dryer or digester to use zero dioxin transportation of the sludge products and to use safe disposal of them until the pollution prevention mentioned by Mr. Roberts could get them to the safe recycle of sludge. There were about 35 other sewage treatment plants in the Bay Area that would not propose the recommended solutions; 90 percent were using other technologies. That was an
area where Palo Alto=s environmental efforts were behind most of the Bay Area. It was a very serious public health threat. The zero dioxin lines came together with people from the health care community and others because of the public health threat. Dioxin was the most toxic synthetic pollutant known and caused toxic effects in the laboratory with animals. One in ten children
02/23/98 86-45
suffered from developmental neurotoxicity, slow learning, because of the general population level of the compound. It biocumulated; built up in food chains, fat, breast milk; crossed the placenta into the womb during pregnancy; and targeted the roots of life. It hit the specialized protein in cells which then attached to the DNA and turned genes on and off inappropriately. That caused a broad range of health effects. Dioxin was a known carcinogen. There was an environmental justice problem. The main food chain target for emissions from the incinerator was the Bay food chain. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who fished the Bay for food to supplement their diets. Members of the Alliance did surveys and found that people were eating up to a pound a day of Bay fish. They were exposed to dioxin levels that were higher than the general population levels, and their choice was hunger or fish the Bay. There was a threat to Bay aquatic life. Dioxin compounds were known to harm reproduction in starry flounder and other fish. The level in harbor seals was double those that caused a population crash in Europe. Mercury would also be increased and was the subject of health warnings in the Bay. The real barrier was inertia. He asked the Council to consider its request made to staff a year before to pilot test the dryer to find out if it would work and be less smelly than the digester. Sydney Brown, 2090 Columbia Street, said she was alarmed that the environmentally sensitive and progressive City proposed to rebuild the old, decaying incinerators, rather than moving to alternatives such as the sludge dryer or the digester. She was surprised that Palo Alto had not acted at every point for zero dioxin. If the Council and citizens of Palo Alto were fully aware of the deadly effect of dioxin, the Council would not consider rebuilding the incinerators but would turn toward the sludge dryers or other alternatives instead. The new proposed incinerators would produce less dioxin than the old ones, but that was not good enough. Zero dioxin should be the goal. Dioxin in the most minute amounts was deadly to people and creatures. Dioxin was an endocrine disrupting chemical which disrupted reproduction systems and could cause serious health problems. Some of the toxic effects associated with dioxin were cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems, endometriosis, hormonal changes, and developmental and behavior problems. She urged the Council to turn down the incinerator plans and explore the sludge dryer or other safer alternatives. Council Member Mossar said she had the opportunity to participate with staff and many environmental groups in meetings discussing the issues which surrounded the incinerator. The issues raised by the two speakers were serious issues, but the conclusion not to proceed with the incinerator at the present time was not the appropriate conclusion. The community needed to move forward and do what was necessary to reduce the pollution, but also assume the responsibility the City had for processing the waste that had to be processed at the treatment plant. She encouraged staff to continue with active source reduction programs and active planning for the
02/23/98 86-46
replacement of incinerators. That would become necessary as a regulatory environment. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Approve the recommendation of the Solids Facility Plan to rehabilitate the sewage sludge incinerators at the RWQCP immediately, and add a thermal dryer when peak loading capacity is required, or if pilot testing of a sludge dryer is desired. 2. Adopt the negative declaration for the recommended project to rehabilitate the incinerators at the RWQCP immediately, and add a thermal dryer, if needed.
3. Direct staff to forward the amendments to the Partners= Agreements to Partner agencies for approval. 4. Direct staff to develop policies for reducing environmental releases of mercury, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenols. 5. Direct staff to establish a process for developing long-term goals for the RWQCP, and then return to Council for approval of the process. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (continued from 11/24/97) Council Member Huber said he would not be able to participate in the item due to the location of his home which was within the Professorville area. Council Member Fazzino understood that the Council was dealing with an issue that related to the community at large and establishing policy for the community at large. The secondary issue had to do with historic districts. He was concerned about the precedent of the action because of the many issues in which the Council might enact a policy which applied to the entire community but might also have a specific impact on a part of the community. He asked if there was any way to separate the issue so that the Council could deal with the general issue of historic preservation first in order to include Council Member Huber. The Council could at a later time discuss the separate issue of Professorville or other potential districts.
02/23/98 86-47
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council Member Huber had expressed similar concern that he should not be participating. He said the Council might recall when the issue was discussed in the past, it was included that the particular impacts regarding Professorville were not reasonably foreseeable or were not so intertwined that they could not be segregated for Council action. He believed that the Professorville considerations were so intertwined that there was no reasonable way to segregate the issue. The issue would occur when a Council Member lived within a specified district boundary, and that was a function of the Political Reform Act of 1974. As to Council Members, the law said the effect would be no different from the effect on the public generally; therefore, a conflict of interest did not exist. Council Member Huber, with his property in Professorville, would not fall in the same category as the public generally. He did not believe that would recur on issues such as general zoning issues that affected all single-family homes. It was a function of the unique, historic district and the manner in which the proposed regulations affected the district in a special way. Council Member Fazzino asked if there was any way to separate the issues. Looking at the recommendations before the Council, he noted a number of proposed general policies with respect to historic preservation. A secondary set of considerations had to do with whether or not the policies were applied to specific categories of specific homes and areas. Mr. Calonne believed so much of that was integrated that the consideration of Professorville issues would affect the entire decision. He was conservative on that matter because there was a history of controversy and litigation involving the regulations. It would be imprudent to try to segregate things without clear guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), but it was impossible to get that type of guidance in a hypothetical way and in a manner consistent with the time frames the Council had to act.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the issue before the Council was a new Historic Preservation Ordinance to replace the one adopted in 1979. In the past 19 years, the ordinance gradually became out of date versus newer ordinances, current concepts of historic preservation, and evolving applications of state environmental regulations to local preservation ordinances and practices. The purpose of the agenda item was for the Council to identify the components of a new draft Historic Preservation Ordinance that would be returned to the Council in mid-April. In order to bring a draft ordinance to Council by mid-April, staff needed clear direction by the end of February. The mid-April date was important because failure to have first reading of a new ordinance meant that either the Interim Regulations expired on May 30 and the City would return to the
02/23/98 86-48
existing ordinance, or the Interim Regulations needed to be extended. While the Interim Regulations served a valid purpose, they were not designed to be an adequate or appropriate program for dealing with the issues over the long term, and there was a strong sense in the community, which staff agreed with, that the time had come to replace them with permanent regulations. The staff report (CMR:138:98) identified ten topics for Council consideration. The starting point was a recommendation to separate historic preservation from the more general issue of achieving neighborhood compatibility for new single-family houses. Those issues were intertwined in the Interim Regulations, but the new ordinance should apply only to designated historic resources. Staff recommended structuring the new ordinance so that the properties listed on the Historic Inventory were in two categories: Landmark and Significant Resources. Landmark status would be limited to extraordinary resources, which included a number of individual sites, all of Professorville, and any future National Register listed districts. Significant Resources would include all other properties listed in the Inventory. Two important aspects of a new ordinance would be regulation of demolitions and regulation of exterior alterations to historic sites. One policy issue that was of great importance in 1979 remained an important consideration, which was to what extent the City would impose restrictions and other regulations on single-family property owners. In 1979, the decisions were consistent with the City Council policy of having minimal City restraints on single-family design and structural preservation. An underlying issue in 1998 was still determining the appropriate level of City regulation for single-family structures. It was important to stress that the issue had no clear right answers. It was a policy issue for the Council to wrestle with. With regard to demolition, staff recommended that the City prohibit demolition, except in unusual circumstances, of both Landmarks and Significant Resources. That was an easy recommendation to make for Landmarks but a difficult one for the larger group of Significant Resource sites because those properties were mostly single-family homes. Environmental Quality Act considerations were an important factor in the recommendation. If the City had a flexible process of delaying and either permitting or not allowing demolition, the demolition process would fall under state environmental review requirements. To be approved, a demolition of a structure on the Inventory would have to be the subject of a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the resultant cost and procedural complexity. To allow unrestricted demolition of Significant Resources would be more in keeping with
Palo Alto=s traditional policy for single-family houses but would be inconsistent with generally accepted historic preservation practices. Regarding exterior changes, the staff report identified options with varying degrees of City regulation of exterior structural changes, landscaping and site feature changes, and changes in building paint colors. Staff recommended a more stringent level of review for Landmarks, with a more moderate review level for Significant Resources. One of the messages that
02/23/98 86-49
many members of the public provided was to identify incentives to retain historic sites. The staff report identified 14 incentives that should be considered, ranging from small process and fee changes to major zoning and subdivision rule changes. Some of those could be incorporated into the forthcoming ordinance, and others would require modifications of zoning regulations. The last topic in the staff report addressed how to handle the transition period from the end of May to when the historic inventory update process was completed in late 1998. The inventory update process had about 600 Priority 1 properties and about 2700 Priority 2 properties. Staff recommended prohibiting demolition of the Priority 1 structures until the inventory work was completed the next year. Priority 2 structures could be demolished without City historic review. Historic Resources Board Member Mildred Mario said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) had met that morning and approved the following recommendations: (1) Limit the scope of revisions to treatment of historic properties; (2) Replace the existing four categories of historic resources with two new categories of Landmark and Significant; (2A) Designate all of the structures on the existing inventory either a Landmark or a Significant property; (2B) Reevaluate the properties evaluated under the Interim Regulations for inclusion in the new categories; (2C) Revise the staff recommendation to add a new third category for locally significant Contextual properties and include those properties identified as historic properties among study groups 1 and 2 that did not fit into the previously described Landmark or Significant categories; (3) Create a list of nondesignated properties of potential historic merit following the completion of the 1998 survey; (4) Facilitate property owner requests to add their qualified properties to the historic inventory; (5) Prohibit demolition of designated historic resources on the historic inventory, except in unusual circumstances, with the proviso that unusual circumstances be clearly defined; (5A) Require building permits for new construction before issuing a demolition permit. There should be a stipulation in the ordinance for a process to address situations in which no reconstruction or construction was desired at the time of demolition; (5B) Provide for salvage of historic building materials; (6) Regulate exterior alterations to buildings on the historic inventory; (6B, 6C, 6D, and 6E) Subject Landmark and Significant properties to mandatory compliance with the design review guidance, and allow Significant properties to have a more flexible degree of compliance with the standards than Landmarks would. If an additional third category were created for Contextual properties, include voluntary compliance with any design review directives. Reinstitute fence permits for Landmark and Significant properties; (6F) Review exterior color for Landmark downtown buildings; (7) Provide incentives to support and encourage historic preservation; (7A) Encourage the use of the State Historical Building Code; (7B) Modify land use regulations to provide exceptions for historic properties, based on appropriate
02/23/98 86-50
findings; (7C) Streamline the review process, with the provisos that the definition of minor project be subject to further review, deletion of ARB review be subject to further review, and public noticing requirements be set at a limit of 100 feet of the property undergoing review; (7D, 7E, 7F) Provide incentive based fee schedules, tax credits, Mills Acts, with the stipulation that fees for alterations be based on the project cost for added square footage; (8) Encourage but not require four architects or design professionals. The requirement that at least one Board member own an historic structure on the inventory should be retained; (9) Direct staff to investigate options for a process to create neighborhood conservation areas; (10) Prohibit demolition until Council took action to update the Inventory, revised to include no demolition of study priority properties until the Inventory was acted on by Council. Topics not addressed in the City Manager Report that HRB members recommended for future discussion included: (1) Consideration of a five-member board, which was suggested by Board Members Willis and Anderson, but was not an overall HRB recommendation; (2) Consideration of creating a full-time staff position for a Preservation Officer; (3) Concern about lack of
opportunity to meet with citizens= advisory group. Marilyn Bauriedel, representing the Historic Preservation Advisory Group, said it was a good idea for the HRB to discuss further the addition of a Historic Preservation Officer staff position and obtain guidance from other cities. She was aware that staff had been in contact with Historic Preservation Officers from other cities. The Historic Preservation Advisory Group reviewed ordinances from about 20 California cities. The document conveyed some of its findings. The suggestions for streamlining the process of review of changes to historic properties would take care of some of the problems and objections that had come up with the interim ordinance. The designated historic resources that were protected under the ordinance should be broadened to include an additional third category called Contextual properties. Those were properties identified as possessing some historic merit but not viewed as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Those were the ones that would be in Study Priority 2 as the survey went forward. There was no research planned on those properties prior to September. Other cities made provision for those types of properties. Los Gatos protected and had strict guidelines on reviewing alterations to structures built before 1941. Pasadena had a hierarchy of protected properties which included structures over 50 years old, structures of merit, and unreinforced masonry structures built before 1934. Riverside included structures of merit in the same category with all other historic structures. Santa Cruz made room for things such as delaying demolition of
buildings listed on the City=s historic building survey that were not otherwise designated. South San Francisco offered similar protection. A property listed on Historic Inventory had advantages. If Palo Alto built into its ordinance a package of economic incentives for owners of historic properties, those
02/23/98 86-51
incentives would be available only to properties on an ordinance. It was possible to use the State Historical Building Code when making alterations to historic properties. That could have significant economic savings for homeowners. Property owners could be eligible for state and federal assistance programs. There had been proposals in Congress to give a tax credit to residential owners of historic properties. Other technical assistance could come from the HRB and staff members. If a property were on the Inventory in a category such as a Contextual property and it was determined that, according to the ordinance, it could be demolished, the HRB wanted to see that the property was reviewed when the owner came in for a demolition permit. There should be review of the replacement structures to respect the character defining features of the neighborhood in which it existed. On exterior alterations, Council was urged to adopt an ordinance that would make it mandatory to comply with the recommendations that would relate to flexible standards, as set out by the Secretary of the Interior for rehabilitation of historic properties. The exterior alterations should not be subject to voluntary compliance because there could be significant degradation and loss of integrity of historic properties. New construction in historic districts should be reviewed in order to avoid an adverse effect on
the district=s character. The Group supported the recommendation to investigate an option to apply citywide a neighborhood conservation area zoning change. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, complimented staff on the report which was well presented. The new categories addressed the importance of the buildings that should be preserved. Landmark and
Significant were serious words, as well as Αrare≅ and Αspecial.≅ What stood out in the report was the feeling that the City owned all the property. It was not mentioned that an owner would be consulted or participate in any of the decisions that were made. That basic, underlying philosophical issue needed to be addressed. The community needed to be included as a participant. The Mills Act was the most valuable thing being offered, but Palo Alto seemed reluctant to participate in that. Mandatory compliance could be justified when a property became a landmark voluntarily. If participation were not voluntary, compliance to design review should be voluntary. She agreed with the suggestions about the HRB revision; it should be reduced to a five-member board. The discussion about the nature of the participants on that Board as compared to the ARB was particularly valid since all architects were trained in historic preservation. The HRB would benefit from a more balanced view and less agendized board. She urged the Council to consider the property owners, include them on the team, and engage them in the ordinance in the decision making process. Cyanne McElhinney, 101 Alma Street #807, said she supported the
idea of the Council=s supporting the Historic Preservation Ordinance and encouraged the Council to look at all aspects of it.
02/23/98 86-52
Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, said she was the first realtor to be involved in historic preservation, and she had an unsatisfactory experience with the HRB. It clouded her attitude for a year. She
felt that realtors were the owners= only friends, because there was no mention of the homeowner in the documents. The homeowner was the one who paid financially and, in time, faced the City. Many homeowners were timid about becoming involved with City government because they expected the worst. They expected to pay a lot of money and to be regulated in ways they were not happy with. She suggested a public opinion survey that would test the attitudes of homeowners because they would not come out in force and criticize the City for fear of reprisal. She approved and applauded the new report by the consultant. It was a vast improvement on the original Interim Regulations. The Interim Regulations were two-fold: the assigned historic merit and involved design review. The consultant report said design review was a zoning issue, not a preservation issue. A public opinion survey might give the Council insight into the feelings of the people who paid the bills and lived by the regulations. Stewart Kiritz, 1181 College Avenue, said his understanding of a democracy was that it included the property owner, the owners of property next to the house being changed, people living down the block, and all citizens in the community. In a democracy, decisions were made about how things were going to be that affected
everyone. For the past five months, he served on the citizens= advisory committee. In 1983, he purchased a home that the realtor
considered a Αtear-down.≅ It was a modest, two-bedroom, one-bath Victorian built in 1890, with charm and character. The termite report called for a new foundation. The house had been rented for 30 years to one family. The home was remodeled in 1989 in a style that was consistent with the original Victorian. It was difficult for some people to tell what was old and what was new, despite the fact that the foundation was replaced, new heating, plumbing, electrical systems were added, and an addition doubled the square footage of the house. He was informed by an acquaintance, approximately one year prior, that his house was cited as an example of how to retain historic character in an old house. If he had not been the buyer of the house, and if an ordinance had not been in place to protect the house, it would probably have been scraped. His project was no more expensive than any middle-of-the-road remodel and was less expensive than building a new house. Palo Alto could create incentives for retaining the integrity and disincentives for demolishing and putting in incompatible alterations of historic homes. His house was a Contributing Structure and retained its character and integrity. He urged the Council to consider design review of replacement and a way to protect the character of Palo Alto. Richard Joncas, 452 Carolina Lane, Board Member of the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PASH), said PASH supported the advisory
02/23/98 86-53
committee=s modification to the recommendations made by the Planning staff for the Historic Preservation Ordinance. PASH felt, after the great amount of time and effort that many people put into
working on the new ordinance, that the Planning staff=s recommendations were too conservative and too exclusive. PASH wanted to see stringent protections for recognized historical districts such as Professorville and Ramona Street and some form of protection for future historic districts. The prohibition of demolition was necessary to any kind of effective prohibition ordinance. As a resident of Palo Alto, he urged the Council to
consider all resources that would contribute to Palo Alto=s future legacy. Districts and buildings designed by Joseph Eichler, such as the Greenmeadow and Fairmeadow subdivisions, came to mind. Those buildings had about ten years to go before they would be on the inventory list. Among architectural historians, they were recognized nationally; however, locally, they were not acknowledged
to any great extent. Eichler=s innovations were astounding at the time; he was the first developer to hire architects to design his buildings, and he was concerned with creating communities with character and feel to them. The buildings formed an important part
of Palo Alto=s legacy. Unless steps were taken to include that type of districts and buildings with the ordinance, that future legacy would be lost. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa Avenue, thanked the Council for undertaking and funding the project and staff for coming up with a very easy to work with document. Budget discussions were forthcoming, and the Finance Committee would be looking at whether or not to include additional staffing. She hoped the Finance Committee would agree to do that. Item 2A had to do with categories. She supported the staff recommendation but with one change. On page 10 of the staff report (CMR:138:98), she suggested
adding a bullet between the third and fourth bullets, ΑOther
Category 2 unless determined ineligible,≅ and scratch out ΑCategory 2" in the fifth bullet. She reviewed the buildings listed in Category 2 and believed that most of the buildings qualified as Landmarks. As written by staff, it seemed only a few of Category 2 would qualify as Landmarks. Her revision would send a message to the consultant or staff that probably most buildings in Category 2 would qualify as Landmarks. Item 5 dealt with demolitions. She supported the staff recommendation. It was not different in terms of commercial buildings or residential buildings. Under the new regulations, if a property owner wanted a demolition, an EIR would be required. It was not a flat out prohibition but an opportunity for negotiations and to determine whether the circumstances were compelling. It was an opportunity for mitigations. The City of Claremont used that very well, in that one of the mitigations Claremont included was that it had strong control over the new construction that replaced the demolition. Item 6D had to do with compliance. She supported the staff recommendation. If the
02/23/98 86-54
Council had the fortitude for mandatory compliance, that would be terrific. The ordinance called for changes in terms of category. Council Member Kniss asked whether Ms. Woolley recalled if any of
the ΑGone Tomorrow≅ publications were still in existence for easy access. Ms. Woolley said they were available at Printers Inc. Council Member Ojakian asked whether Ms. Woolley thought anything should be added to the incentive section. Ms. Woolley said 7A regarding the Historic Building Code was adopted many years prior as part of the ordinance. Staff was somewhat hesitant to use it. It would be helpful for the Council to make it clear that it wanted to see staff work hard to accommodate alternative approaches under the Historic Building Code. Regarding parking, concern was expressed by one group. She reminded the Council that the City would not have the Byxbee House if concessions to parking were not made. Nancy Sederquist, 801 Garland Drive, recommended the Council adopt
the Advisory Committee=s recommendations. For those people who were concerned about property rights, she suggested they not buy a historic house. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, said the College Terrace Residents Association came before the Council eighteen months prior and asked
for the Council=s assistance in halting the destruction of the community. The event that triggered the anger was the demolition
of ΑBig Blue,≅ a Category 4 listed building. Many of the College Terrace residents were frustrated years prior as they watched more modest buildings destroyed and replaced with inappropriate structures in their neighborhoods. She urged the Council to support a third category of Contextual, or Structures of Merit, and to send a message to staff about enforcement of the rules against
demolition by neglect. In College Terrace, both ΑBig Blue≅ and 1531 College were allowed to decay to the point where it was fairly unfeasible to salvage them. She felt they could have been salvaged, but once a house began to crumble at the foundation, it was difficult to make an argument that it was an easy restoration job. College Terrace encouraged the Council to send a message to staff that enforcement needed to happen in a proactive fashion. The Neighborhood Conservation Area proposal was another idea that College Terrace strongly supported. Neighborhoods such as College Terrace, with buildings that were not historic on their own merits, deserved some type of protection. The mandatory compliance for significant structures with design review was probably a good thing. Delays of demolition and other voluntary measures did not work. Some type of strong incentive was necessary.
02/23/98 86-55
Herm Harrow, 1930 Bryant Street, said in the past there were three categories: Landmark, Contributing, and No Merit. Two categories were currently proposed: Landmark and Significant Resources. Following the pattern that was included in the Interim Ordinance, about 65 to 70 percent of the properties evaluated were deemed to be Contributing, and 5 percent were deemed to be Landmark. He understood the Council was saying that with respect to both Landmark and Significant Resources, the City would impose a deed restriction of no demolition. He suggested that, prior to designating a property as Landmark, the owner receive more than two
days= notice of the decision being made by the Historic Preservationist, the appeal procedure be clarified, and the property owner be given the opportunity to go back to the HRB rather than to the Council. RECESS: 9:16 P.M. - 9:33 P.M. Daniel Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, said his house was recently deemed Contributing. He favored preserving the quality of the neighborhoods, but when he received the description of his house, it did not sound like the house he bought. The language was tremendous and made it sound like a million dollar home. It was a two-bedroom house on a large lot. Changes and construction in his neighborhood done by homeowners were done tastefully. Houses that were scraped and built by builders were different. He encouraged
the Council to invest in the taxpayers= judgement when feasible to make smart upgrades. It was astounding to be informed by architects that he could not replace single-paned windows with modern, energy-efficient windows because his house was Contributing. That seemed backward and uninformed. The process should be supportive of the homeowner. Harold Justman, 715 Ashby Drive, said he compared the summary of staff recommendations with the Interim Ordinance and found the staff recommendations were much more inclusive of all points of
view than the Interim Ordinance. Under Category 7, ΑProvide
incentives to support and encourage historic preservation,≅ he
suggested 7B-6, ΑAllow second story additions on substandard lots.≅ Second story additions on substandard lots would help dramatically in preserving historic homes. His mother purchased 828 Ramona, a
Αvernacular Victorian,≅ which was a nice way of saying it was cheaply constructed in 1890 and had not been improved since. An architect prepared plans to upgrade the house to a real Victorian. The Victorians around the corner which they were trying to mimic were two story. The Planning Department had a problem with a modest 400- or 500-square foot second story addition because it was a substandard lot. A second story addition of 400 to 500 square feet to a substandard historic structure could do a lot to improve the look of the structure and make it more than a vernacular Victorian. It was not an unprecedented request. In 1985, he bought a duplex at 834 Ramona, single story on a substandard lot.
02/23/98 86-56
He applied for permission to build a second story. Staff was cooperative and enthusiastic in 1985 and gave him permission for a variance to do a second story. It improved the style of the home and added to the neighborhood. A second story addition at 828 Ramona would do the same thing, and a small addition would help the homeowner improve a substandard structure. Many of the historic homes in Downtown Palo Alto were two- and three-story homes on substandard lots. That was a specific recommendation that would help homeowners achieve the goal of preserving the history of Palo Alto. John Hermannssen, 810 Bradford Street, Redwood City, said one problem had come up with the prescriptive standards especially for Contributing Structures and currently Significant Resource, and that was not allowing the thermal pane or double-glazed windows in those structures from an energy standpoint. It made sense to have some flexibility in the standards that allowed for some of the issues that needed to be dealt with in the 90s that were not issues in the 40s. He encouraged flexibility in the standards. Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue, said members of the Palo Alto District of Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors were concerned about retaining the quality of life, character and charm of the community. Their goal continued to be historical preservation rather than hysterical preservation. The staff recommendations were moving in the right direction to provide a good framework to add to the historic inventory and to attempt to address the concerns raised when the Interim Ordinance was passed. She enjoyed participating on the John Northway, Annette Glanckopf-Ashton, and Susan Frank Committee. It was a wonderful effort on a cross section of citizens representing many interests and communities, and it was an attempt to talk about the issues of change, preservation, and obviously many hours of discussion. A wonderful document on the future of residential structures was prepared. They were not looking at solutions but rather the issue and talking about the problems. As stated in that document, it was clear that many people at the session disagreed with some of the problem statements proposed by others. Consensus may be difficult to achieve. Their problem definition process showed that an exchange of divergent viewpoints often led to mutual understanding and respect. Palo Altans valued the goal of continuing to live in neighborhood harmony and would shape a workable plan to reduce casualties in the expanding battle between conservation and change. Palo Alto was an eclectic community. The strength as a progressive community was in its diversity. There needed to be owner participation in the process. Owners had to consent to have their properties listed in the National Register. Older residences with true architectural historic merit should be listed as Landmark residences. Landmark residences listing should only occur with the permission or at the request of the owner. The Committee felt there were some minor details and contradiction in some of the
02/23/98 86-57
document that came from staff. They were trying to look at the big picture. Council Member Mossar clarified that Ms. Hunt spoke on behalf of Penwest representing 400 realtors. Ms. Hunt said she represented 400 realtors and affiliate members. Council Member Mossar asked how Penwest dealt with its membership to know what the 400 members felt on the subject. Ms. Hunt said they had a Local Government Relations Committee which had studied the issue, held numerous meetings, and received input at Friday tour meetings. She and Eric Morley, the Legislative Advocate, received input of the membership during the prior fifteen months. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, expressed concern about the process. Dames & Moore, as part of their contract, were supposed to prepare revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Their recommendations were not included with the staff recommendation. If the Council narrowed options based on the staff report without having input from the consultant, important options or recommendations might be foreclosed. Members of the public were
also deprived of the consultant=s input. She concurred with most of the staff recommended options, but with regard to Option (5), she agreed with Gail Woolley that to prohibit demolition of designated historic resources except in unusual circumstances was vitally important to the effectiveness of historic preservation efforts. There formerly was an ordinance adopted in the early 1970s that prohibited demolition of residential structures until a permit was issued for a new residential structure. She did not believe that was repealed. It should be made clear that (5A) and (5B) only applied when the unusual or exceptional circumstances allowed demolition. Option (6D-2) should require compliance on major projects and allow the compliance on minor ones to be voluntary. Option (6E) might be clearer if the protected features were called out on the State Historic Inventory form. She supported review of landscape and site elements of Significant Resource properties, if they were called out on the State Inventory Form. If there were aspects of a Landmark or Significant structure that were worthy of protection under the Historic Ordinance, they should be called out on the inventory form, and that provided notice to staff and homeowners alike as to what was affected by the ordinance. Some of the protected elements might not be visible from the street, such as an accessory building or gazebo. She supported the incentives in item (7); however, (7B-1) which allowed a second unit should limit the second dwelling to the current cottage height and square footage limits. Option (7B-2), the subdivision, might be a big mistake. Creating a second buildable lot allowed a full-size house to be built that would probably overwhelm the protected historic structure. All the problems with
02/23/98 86-58
flag lots would arise. It should be clear how many exceptions could apply to a single property. If a subdivision were allowed in order to protect the historic structure on the first or second property, she questioned whether that property could then ask for site exceptions. Allowing the strange subdivision was possibly an ill thought-out incentive. Option (7B-3) would have to be done judiciously to avoid overburdening the neighborhood, which had to do with parking. Option (7C-3) applied only to the home improvement exception and design exceptions for historic structures. She disagreed with the proposal in option 8 to increase from three to four the number of design professionals on the HRB. There was nothing that prevented more from being appointed as was the current case. Three design professionals could provide the professional input that was needed from a design point of view. She supported the prohibition of demolition for Priority 1 and also the option 2 which provided a time delay for Priority 2 properties to reevaluate them. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said people talked about property rights, but the community also had property rights and interests, and inappropriate and out-of-scale developments affected the neighborhood as well as the property owner. A neighborhood that lost its charm as a result of inappropriate development negatively impacted the property rights of all the neighbors. A third Contextual designation should be considered during the evaluation of properties for upgrading. Demolition of Landmark Structures, except under exceptional circumstances, should be prohibited. Consideration should be given to prohibiting Significant Structures
under most conditions. Dennis Backlund=s comment about restricting the painting of California Mediterranean structures had a lot of merit. He had seen a lot of garish paint jobs, both commercial and residential properties. At some point, the Council had to say what was inappropriate. On the regulation of alterations, item 6 in the staff report (CMR:138:98), the guidelines were not specific. The property owner and architect would not know what was and was not allowed. He suggested the Council should have copious photographs and sketches of approved and disapproved changes. The more guidance given the property owner and builder, the better off everyone else was. If someone came in with a clean application for a modification to an existing designated structure which met all the requirements, he/she could be given a reduction in his/her building permit fee. The staff report discussed Mills Act incentives. When that was addressed in the past, one of the negatives was that most of the money was taken from the school district. Instead of giving a full Mills designation, there would
be an agreement that a portion of the City=s property tax was rebated. The Council should limit the number of exceptions for any particular development. Eric Morley, 1285 Sierra Avenue, San Jose, said he represented the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors who had provided a variety of educational programs, both internal education for their
02/23/98 86-59
group and a group of builders, design professionals, and architects, to specifically review the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Interim Regulations, the proposed changes, and ordinances in a variety of other communities to try to get a handle on the policy discussion in the community. Based on that discussion, they provided a series of recommendations to the
Council based on the Council=s current discussion. The Interim Regulations and process were costly, time consuming, confusing, and overly burdensome. The recommendations proposed by staff were generally moving in the right direction with a few exceptions. There were two basic and key elements that were missing from the staff report (CMR:138:98). They reconvened the study group of design professionals the prior Friday in order to digest the document. The two areas were homeowner participation and homeowner consent. Inclusion on the National Historic Register required homeowner consent. During the prior months, the National Historic Register had been held as a model and criteria. Palo Alto should remain consistent with that and incorporate homeowner consent in designation and regulations. He did not agree there should be a third category. There should be two categories as outlined by staff. The revised ordinance should retain the existing policies regarding delay or demolition of homes. The current policy was appropriate in that area. The revised ordinance should retain the existing approach with regard to HRB review of exterior modifications to homes and non-Landmark structures. The City should educate the public about the HRB process as a resource, emphasizing the voluntary, not mandatory, aspect of the ordinance. The revised ordinance should not mandate design review for non-Landmark residences beyond what was currently in place. The City should, as soon as possible, notify homeowners in writing of the identification process so they would be aware of the proposals and the ramifications. The City Council should provide the maximum comment period, as much as 30 days, in order for homeowners and the public to have adequate time to review the ordinance and inventory before adoption by the Council. Gloria Brown, 1766 Fulton Street, said during her 39 years in Palo Alto, she had seen a lot of building happen. In the 1960s and 1970s, Eichlers were built and homes were compatible. In the early 1980s, buildings changed. In Midtown, business and a school were torn down and replaced with hundreds of condos. There was not enough parking in the Safeway parking lot because there were too many people. In the late 1980s, monster houses started sprouting like weeds, which were out of scale for the neighborhoods. Eventually, the Planning Commission took into consideration that things were out of hand. During her walks, she noticed at least ten tear-downs on Tennyson and heard Tennyson referred to as the
Αcorridor of horror.≅ Two years before, there were two tear-downs on Fulton Street replaced with very large houses. She urged Council to adopt a strong ordinance to preserve what was left in Palo Alto.
02/23/98 86-60
Lee Brokaw, 2080 Hanover, said architects, had a vested interest in the outcome of the discussion. Realtors had a financial interest in the outcome of the discussion. The issue was money versus community. As a renter, he represented approximately 43 percent of the people living in the City, and they felt that the character of the City was changing due to the chase of the almighty dollar. The residents elected the Council Members to make hard choices for them. He urged the Council to make hard choices in favor of
community over profit. The Council=s job was to put personal and partisan issues and feelings aside and do what was best for the community. He urged the Council to preserve what the residents liked about Palo Alto and implement design review. Carol Lamont, 618 Kingsley Avenue, said it was commonly considered that property values were based on location. The intrinsic qualities of a home related to the qualities, character and integrity of the surrounding area to which the home related. It was important to consider the character of a neighborhood when considering historic preservation. She supported the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee and the addition of a third category to include homes of merit. That would be in keeping with the preservation of the character of the broader community. The City should prohibit demolition of homes in all three categories unless there were very unusual circumstances. Mandatory design review for alterations of Landmark contributing structures and homes in the third category of Merit should be required. More flexibility should be given in design review for homes in the third category, perhaps requiring only mandatory review for major alterations and not for minor alterations. A helpful vehicle for neighborhoods to preserve the character would be the creation of an ordinance establishing a process to designate neighborhood conservation areas. While the listing process of the National Historic Register might be voluntary, that did not mean that at the local level, the community would abstain from controls or protections of locally valued historic properties. A different process seemed appropriate at the national level, and it was appropriate for the Council to establish controls for properties that were deemed important and contributing to the historic value of the community. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, said he was concerned about the quality of life, the quality of his home, and the quality of the neighborhood. That was one of the key criteria in selecting where to live. His house was a modest two-bedroom, one-bath with potential to become more. In terms of the process that was defined, the process lumped together different interests: the conflicts of the interests of developers and homeowners. Homeowners had different motivations and were interested in the long-term quality of life in Palo Alto. He hired an architect to help develop a design that would build on his present and future needs. The process had been discouraging. It pointed to the conflict between what homeowners might be interested in and what
02/23/98 86-61
preservationist might want to see them do. His intent was to keep his house with the flavor of the neighborhood but to extend it in terms of size and functionality. He encountered a bureaucracy and restrictive process that weeded out creative solutions and good architecture that differed from what had existed in the past. He wondered why there were not other homeowners at the meeting but thought there were reasons. People who did not consider their homes historic did not believe they would be impacted. Other homeowners supported the intent until they would find out the difficulties it engendered. The solution was to more clearly define with architectural oversight the specific types of properties that would be controlled by it. Focus should be placed on properties with real historic and architectural merit rather than only the homes that needed remodeling. That was where the interests of preservationists and homeowners were most likely to coincide. Joseph L. Ziegler, 2144 Webster Street, said he was involved in a remodel which had been an expensive process. It was disconcerting to go through the process. His home had been significantly remodeled, windows and doors changed, and the facade painted. He wanted to do a second floor addition but was asked to comply with the architectural merits of the time that the house was built. The windows were replaced with not true divided light windows, and the City was currently asking for true divided light windows on the addition. That would make the home stand out that it had been added on to. The City wanted him to continue a brick facade through the entire distance of the house. The house was built in the 1940s with a brick facade only on the living room portion. Those were all added costs. He asked the Council to address the sensitivity of the homeowners of the costs and fees. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, said one speaker had mentioned the subject of dual glaze windows. That could be accomplished using a plexiglass single pane adhered to the inside of the window with magnetic strips and allowed for thermal and sound insulation. Dual glaze windows could be created that looked similar to single glaze windows. She said that 1022 and 1026 Webster were single-story houses on substandard lots where the owners wanted to add second stories. Because they were on the Historic Inventory, Categories 3 and 4, they went to the HRB, under the old ordinance, and requested, through an HIE exemption process, that the HRB recommend they be allowed to add a second story. It was recommended, and both houses had second stories added. The staff recommendations offered a good package of incentives which seemed to satisfy many
citizens= complaints and concerns while allowing for residents in historic neighborhoods to expect their neighborhoods would be stable or improved, thus appreciating property values. Contextual properties should be included in the preservation ordinance. Contextual historic resources were buildings, structures, objects, or places which, through application of external program criteria, were not listed and did not appear to be potentially eligible for
02/23/98 86-62
listing in the National Register of Historic Places or other external registers. Such historic resources were of local significance in that they possessed sufficient integrity so their presence contributed to the established look and feel of Palo
Alto=s distinctive neighborhoods and districts. Contextual historic resources consisted of groups or collections of properties as well as individual properties. She encouraged the Council to ask questions of the consultants as they had statewide and nationwide experience in what other communities were doing with regard to historic preservation concerns. John Baca, 4171 Verdosa, said in terms of getting a handle on neighborhoods, the City should get metrics on it. The City could take a photograph or use a GIS map of the Palo Alto area, taken from Skyline. Changes to houses could be compared over the years, and it could be measured. He suggested the Council consider establishing something like the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits and use a Capital Flow Analysis to provide information for funding. John Hackmann, 235 Embarcadero Road, supported the preservation ordinance. As a homeowner/applicant, he found the process confusing, bewildering, and difficult to deal with. On the issue of demolition by neglect, it might be possible to consider a process by which, rather than rewarding the homeowner for allowing it to neglect, to not allow a demolition permit without a building inspection; to require before the permit was issued that the building be brought up to code; and to allow the property owner to pay 80 percent of the cost of compliance as a fee to the City which would be used for a housing-related purpose. Removing the economic incentive, repairs might be made earlier which would benefit the City and the tenant. On the issue of 7B, income was a factor. An income element, such as a cottage or a factor in the preservation, was a valuable use. There was a preference for those who chose to afford architects, but on small jobs of $5,000 or $20,000, it was difficult to find anyone interested when they could bid on a $200,000 or $300,000 job. The owner/applicant found the process difficult to understand. Different information was provided to him by the Planning Department on Floor Area Ratio. He was $8,000 into the design of his carport, seven months into the process, and no design approved. The criteria continued to shift. In addition to the design element, the HRB staff wanted to review the lot coverage ratio and the firewall construction which were not HRB issues. He suggested an ombudsman person to assist the applicant without a builder or architect to get through the process. It would benefit the City because the plans would come in better and there would be less conflict. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to an Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider absent, Huber Αnot participating.≅
02/23/98 86-63
PUBLIC HEARINGS REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCES REPORTS OF OFFICIALS COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Members Eakins, Mossar and Wheeler re the Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting, on Tuesday, February 24, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider absent, Huber Αnot participating.≅ 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. to an adjourned meeting on February 24, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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.
02/23/98 86-64