HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-24 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 23, 1998, to February 24, 1998 4. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (continued from 2/23/98)........................86-66 7. Council Members Eakins, Mossar and Wheeler re the Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto (continued from 2/23/98).......................................................86-88 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.............86-89
02/24/98 86-65
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Schneider UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (continued from 2/23/98) Council Member Ojakian asked how many structures would be affected by any actions Council might take that evening and how many of those had been determined to be Landmarks or Significant Resources. He asked for that information to be compared to the number of structures that were affected by the Interim Historic Regulations Ordinance. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the staff recommendation included the items listed under Landmarks and totaled 260 properties, 200 of which were in Professorville. The remainder under the Significant Resources category totaled 560 on the existing inventory. Between 500 and 600 properties appeared to be eligible for the Historic Register solely based on the visual evidence with little research done. There were 2,700 more properties which might be eligible either because of historic or cultural reasons and based on research or because they might be elements of districts. Those were the properties which had been identified as first and second priority for the research effort currently underway. Council Member Ojakian clarified some of those properties might be Significant Resources and a few might be Landmarks, which totaled 260 Landmarks, more than 900 Significant Resources, and the bulk of those included in the 2,700 were priority two or contextual properties. Ms. Warheit said that was accurate and represented the contextual properties. Council Member Ojakian clarified the contextual properties represented 10 to 12 percent of the housing stock. Ms. Warheit said they were not only houses but also all historic structures and included over 20,000 parcels in the City. Council Member Ojakian asked how many pieces of property were affected under the Interim Historic Regulations.
02/24/98 86-66
Ms. Warheit said there were less than 6,000 involved in the survey effort, both residential and non-residential, 50 years old or older. The Interim Historic Regulations dealt only with residential structures built before 1940. Deputy City Manager/Special Projects Ken Schreiber said approximately 5,000 pieces of property were affected under the Interim Historic Regulations. Council Member Kniss asked how provisions would be put into the regulations so Landmarks and other structures would not be demolished if they were not maintained. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said one of the most difficult enforcement issues for a Historic Preservation Ordinance was so-called demolition by neglect and how that affected historic resources. It was not uncommon for preservation ordinances to have a provision obligating property owners of a resource to have some basic level of maintenance. Council Member Kniss clarified a provision to require some level of maintenance was included. Ms. Cauble said that was correct and was included for some resources under the current ordinance. Council Member Kniss said when she was the liaison to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) six or seven years prior, the College Avenue property was discussed. A number of ways from how to contact the property owner to how the property could be maintained were discussed, and no answer was found. She asked what would be done to enforce the provision. Ms. Cauble said the maintenance obligation under the existing ordinance might only apply to Downtown properties. A current provision like the one being recommended by staff did not exist for the example property. If Council directed staff to include such a provision, staff would continue to look at every example with the most explicit way to describe the obligation that was both understandable and fair. Further, like any other matter of enforcement, the issue would be staffing. Council Member Kniss asked whether incentives could be taken away if they were weaved into the ordinance. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said yes. Generally, enforcement was complaint based. However, something other than complaint-based enforcement would need to be used to make it work. Ms. Cauble said the staff menu of potential incentives included some items that could not be taken away, such as allowing a subdivision not otherwise allowed. Others, such as Mills Act
02/24/98 86-67
contracts or a negotiated financial benefit, could be structured in such a way to be contingent on maintenance of the property. Council Member Kniss was concerned about the issue and urged everyone to think about it during the proceedings. Council Member Wheeler asked how the staff recommendations before
the Council compared with other cities= historic ordinances in the areas of how a property was included in the inventory; the number of properties likely to fall under the regulations; demolition, prohibition, or permission; and mandatory and voluntary review. Marilyn Bauriedel, Member of the Historic Preservation Advisory Group, said there seemed to be a mainstream method in which many cities decided how a property was put on the inventory including the property owner's request; an individual or group's recommendation to the body in charge of reviewing such matters, i.e., the HRB; the HRB's recommendation; and the City Council's recommendation. Many cities held a public hearing before approval to put a property on the inventory. Not a lot of information was available on how cities moved forward after adopting their initial inventories. In the surveyed cities with regard to demolition and alteration regulations and whether they were mandatory or voluntary, if something were on the inventory as a designated resource, then demolition and alteration regulations applied on a mandatory basis to those properties. Bruce Anderson, Urban Design Planner, said most relevant was the fact that contained in the contract for Certified Local Government (CLG) status with the State Office of Historic Preservation (SOHP), the City had a duty to maintain a current and up-to-date inventory. Some jurisdictions were more assertive than others in how they went about that. The number of resources on various inventories could be found on a survey of surveys available at the SOHP. City size and type of urban settlement were variables to keep in mind in terms of the number of resources listed. He had looked to the SOHP for ordinances that were recent and good examples of progressive ordinances from CLG cities. In those ordinances, there was not a distinction but simply a certificate of appropriateness required and compliance with that requirement for alterations. The cities of Riverside and West Hollywood prohibited demolition of designated
historic resources, i.e., any building listed on the city=s inventory. Council Member Kniss asked for clarification on what was meant by a designated resource in each of the jurisdictions, numbers, etc. Mr. Anderson said he did not have the figures for each of the jurisdictions. Council Member Kniss clarified the way to view it was more general than site specific.
02/24/98 86-68
Mr. Anderson said yes. Each jurisdiction was different. Riverside was a university town. Pasadena and Santa Monica prohibited demolition of Landmarks and delayed demolition for up to one year for properties of historical merit. Sunnyvale prohibited demolition for Landmarks. Alameda delayed, but its City Council could prohibit. Long Beach delayed for up to one year. West Hollywood, Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Sunnyvale provided specific language and required findings allowing for hardship cases. Demolition did occur in those communities when there was demonstrated hardship per the ordinance. Council Member Wheeler requested the information in writing. She said several people had indicated the previous evening that a better, more effective ordinance would result if inclusion on an inventory was on a voluntary basis. In the comparison with other cities, she asked whether it was more prevalent for an individual or some body to nominate properties to go on the inventory or whether the process was voluntary. Mr. Anderson was not aware of any jurisdiction in all the ordinances he reviewed where the process was purely voluntary. Ms. Bauriedel concurred with Mr. Anderson. A set of procedures was usually set forth in the ordinance for study of the property, etc. Council Member Wheeler asked whether there was a common thread to what the participation of the owner was in the process and whether there were standards for notification, etc. Ms. Cauble said staff viewed the decision as a significant one which affected property owners, and notification and a public
hearing should take place. Staff=s intent, when a draft ordinance returned to the Council, was to notify every property owner who might conceivably be affected, and a public hearing would be held. Staff would look at what the current ordinance said and whether there was a need to change it. Staff also would look at land use processes.
Mr. Calonne said once something was designated, HRB=s discussion regarding a 100 foot notification as opposed to a broader notice on alteration applications would be beneficial. Council Member Fazzino said on page 24 of 31 of the staff report (CMR:138:98), staff was proposing several criteria for consideration of future Mills Act contracts. Item 7F(b) stated,
ΑThe project should provide a benefit that will be enjoyed by the general public, and should serve an educational purpose for the
students of the Palo Alto schools.≅ Given the current state fiscal structure with respect to property tax allocation to schools, he asked whether there was a provision in the Mills Act which related
02/24/98 86-69
specifically to educational purpose or whether staff=s provision was included because of the property tax relationship. Ms. Warheit said the suggestion was made at the Council Meeting for the public hearing on 420 Maple Street. Council Member Fazzino clarified that the Mills Act did not have any direct relationship to educational purpose. Ms. Warheit said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino clarified the proposed provision was made because of the concern for the possible loss of property tax to the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). He encouraged staff to provide the Council with a clear understanding of the current
relationship between PAUSD=s receipt of property tax and the
state=s role in that area. His view was that all bets would be off at the local level because of the provisions of Proposition 98. If the proposed provision were included, he wanted assurance that the potential for loss of property tax was real. There were a number of efforts at the state level to address the current dysfunctionality of the state and local fiscal structure, and reforms might be forthcoming. Whatever criteria the City established should have a direct relationship to the reforms that might be enacted in Sacramento. He believed the Mills Act to be a very important piece of state legislation to encourage rehabilitation of historic structures. If the City were committed to rehabilitation, then the Mills Act should be applied. At the same time, he wanted to be sure the City was not in the position of forcing the PAUSD to do without additional property tax. Historic Resources Board Member Caroline Willis said the PAUSD was a Basic Aid district which was why there was a different relationship to the Mills Act from that of most of the surrounding cities which had been able to use the Mills Act effectively. Council Member Fazzino said even with the Basic Aid provision, his understanding was there was still a certain level of state funding that would go to PAUSD. There were a number of excellent proposals with respect to streamlining. He asked whether staff had developed a generic timetable for handling applications. If an application were received for a minor proposal which would be handled by staff as opposed to a significant resource, he asked whether staff could provide that information. Mr. Schreiber said yes and the answer related in part to what combination of options the Council wished to see pursued in the ordinance. Different combinations of exterior review yielded different workloads which would have ramifications on how items were agendized and moved through the system. Council Member Fazzino clarified once the Council chose a set of options, staff could come back with a generic timetable and a sense
02/24/98 86-70
of how quickly an application would be handled by staff and the HRB. Mr. Schreiber said a general estimate of time could be given; however, as often had been the case under the Interim Historic Regulations, staff was often working with property owners who were not using an architect and had limited resources. Things did not move as quickly because it was in part an educational process for the applicant and the request for information could not be turned around as quickly as with a commercial project. Council Member Fazzino said the community would like to have a set of expectations with respect to handling its applications, and a timetable would be helpful. The other aspect was financial, and he confirmed that staff would provide a matrix indicating what the cost was to propose any type of application. He referred to
page 17 of 31 of the staff report (CMR:138:98), 6D, ΑVoluntary vs.
Required Compliance...≅ and asked what staff believed the results would be if the Council moved in the direction staff was suggesting with respect to both major and minor projects and community support. Ms. Warheit said there were differing opinions even among people
who had experience, e.g., members of the HRB, regarding people=s willingness to follow directions from the HRB even if they did not have to. Owners of property who lived in the community and intended to stay for a long time, when they went to the HRB and received some appreciation and guidance about what they could do to meet their needs and still preserve their homes, generally followed the advice, which was most of the applicants. The downside was cases existed in which some applicants would not follow the guidelines. Mr. Schreiber said with required compliance, a far more active and
intrusive role of the City=s regulatory process with single-family
homeowners resulted. A requirement and a Αthou shalt≅ provision
would be added, which could create a conflict between people=s desire to use their property for what they believed was a good design versus what they were told was a bad design. One of the most difficult situations staff handled was when a single-family property owner came with a design in hand and had to be told the design did not meet zoning requirements, etc. The issue was one of policy and the extent to which the Council wanted the City involved in dealing with the regulation of the appearance of single-family properties. Ms. Willis believed when compliance had been voluntary, the HRB had been hesitant to come down as strongly as it might have. The HRB was on a steep learning curve and knew more about how to preserve a historic home currently than when she first joined the HRB. The best part of the new ordinance was that expectations would be clear.
02/24/98 86-71
Council Member Mossar was unclear with what happened to the structures that were currently designated as Contributing. Ms. Warheit said the structures were being evaluated by the architectural historian like every other building that was more than 50 years old and not currently on the inventory. Council Member Mossar clarified the structures would fall into the categories of Landmark or Significant Resource. Ms. Warheit said first, the structures would fall into Study Priority 1, Study Priority 2 or neither category. If some appeared to be eligible for the National Register or otherwise met the
City=s criteria for being on the inventory, they would be recommended for the historic inventory. Council Member Mossar did not see how the transition worked. Some houses had been designated as Contributing and had gone through a review process for a remodeling project. She was concerned a structure could fall through the cracks. The owner could totally change the structure, and every effort made to date would be lost. Ms. Warheit said many of the homes which had been designated Contributing structures had gone through merit screening because the owner wanted to know the status. If the owner had not acted on it, the designation would expire. Council Member Mossar asked about those properties that had work in progress. Ms. Warheit said if an application had been filed for compatibility review, staff would stay with that application until finished. Council Member Mossar asked the consultant what his experience had been in other communities with the mandatory versus voluntary compliance issue. Mr. Anderson said mandatory compliance had been the preferred route. Council Member Mossar asked how Palo Alto compared to other communities in which he worked in terms of their success and ability to preserve their historic resources. Mr. Anderson said the question was difficult to answer. Council Member Mossar asked whether it was reasonable to say the City needed to do more work in that area in order to match the efforts of those communities which had been most successful in the state.
02/24/98 86-72
Mr. Anderson said the answer depended upon which community was
being compared. In San Francisco=s downtown area, there were 230 A-rated buildings which could not be demolished. He was not aware of any other major downtown in the United States with the exception of Washington, D.C., where that type of prohibition existed, affecting that many properties of that aggregate value. Council Member Mossar asked whether there was any evidence that historic homes stayed on the market longer than non-historic homes or whether there was a price differential in the sale of those homes. Debbie Nichols, Real Estate, Cornish and Carey, said there was a tremendous demand for older homes in Palo Alto. Not many came on the market, but when and if one did, there was incredible demand for it. Newer homes were less desirable and stayed on the market longer. Council Member Mossar said several people had mentioned to her that in spite of the rhetoric about how difficult it was to deal with
Palo Alto=s planning process, developing in the City of Palo Alto was easy. Since there had not been many developers complaining that the proposed ordinance would be a hardship, she asked whether it was really that tough. Mr. Schreiber said historic preservation was much easier than the overall single-family issue. The folks doing the types of large houses were not focusing on the sites being looked at as part of the inventory. Council Member Mossar said there was an ongoing discussion regarding whether historic homes should be able to follow a different set of building standards for upgrades from that of non-historic homes. She asked whether that was a good idea. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said it was mandatory to utilize the Historic Building Code for any building or residence that was on a local, state, or federal inventory. The code was in the process of being rewritten and clarified to make it more useful and easier to interpret and enforce. The process was scheduled to be completed in the summer. Mr. Schreiber said there was an inaccurate perception that the Historic Building Code was intended to make things less expensive for the applicant. The intent was to provide alternatives to the requirements to the basic building code which might be less or more expensive, e.g., sprinklering versus alternative fire protection measures. Staff encountered people who wished to use the Historic Building Code as a way of end-running the basic building code. Council Member Eakins clarified that there was only voluntary participation in being listed in the National Register which seemed
02/24/98 86-73
a discrepancy from local historic ordinances not being voluntary only. She asked for the history and rationale. Ms. Cauble said despite the fact that being listed on the National Register required the consent of an owner, being eligible for the National Register listing had consequences. When a property was eligible for listing and there were discretionary approvals involved, e.g., ARB review required, whether the City put it on a list or not, it was considered a historic resource for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes, and the project needed to be analyzed in that light. The voluntary aspect to the National Register did not address the whole issue because a property formally determined to be eligible for the National Register, even if the owner did not consent to listing, had consequences in the local land use process. Her perception was that local government played a different role with regard to land use matters and could do it to a lesser or greater extent depending on the policy decisions of the local elected body. Gradually, state and federal government encroached into that which was thought of as a local area of exercise of the police power. She believed the National Register was developed for other purposes. The literature she read widely recognized that local government might choose to have a different role in terms of historic preservation and was a matter of local choice. Recognition, grants, and loans were one thing, but if one chose to go another step to regulate, then local government had the police power to do that. Mr. Calonne said to the extent comments the previous evening had intended to imply the criteria would be different if one did not have the choice to opt out, that was not true. The criteria were meaningful regardless of whether there was the ability to opt out. Council Member Eakins said the HRB had spent a great deal of time on windows, and the community had made many complaints regarding
the City=s handling of windows. Historic architects said windows were among the most character-defining feature in historic buildings. She asked whether there was a historic prohibition against having energy-efficient windows. Ms. Willis said there was no prohibition; however, windows were incredibly character defining. There were more appropriate ways to insulate windows in older homes aside from buying a contemporary, double-paned window which might alter the appearance of the house. It was an education issue. Many window replacements came from contractors who were not particularly educated in the different alternatives available. Mr. Anderson said everyone across the nation faced the same issue. The National Parks Service had excellent technical publications, or preservation briefs, available for free on many subjects.
02/24/98 86-74
Mr. Schreiber said to the extent the City regulated the exterior appearance of a building, the City was in the business of regulating windows. The ARB dealt with it at every meeting in terms of the appearance of structures. Staff would deal with windows with single-family houses. There would be those folks who would be upset with the recommendations regarding proposed windows versus what had been approved. Council Member Eakins asked staff to discuss how to streamline the review process referenced on page 22, Item 7C, of the staff report (CMR:138:98). Ms. Warheit said Item 7C-1 discussed identifying minor projects separate from major projects with the advantage that they could be reviewed at the staff level and save the applicant from submitting an application and appearing before the HRB. Item 7C-2 proposed that for Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) for historic properties, the ARB would conduct the review rather than the Zoning Administrator. HIE and DEE were very minor changes or exceptions to the zoning ordinance which were based entirely on design. The whole purpose was to allow someone to not have to comply with some minor part of the zoning ordinance in order to have a better design. Item 7C-2 recommended less of a requirement for public notice. Instead of noticing everyone within 300 feet, notification would only be to adjacent properties and properties directly across a public right-of-way or private access road. Subsequent to the report, the ARB recommended noticing within 100 feet to ensure proper notification to all properties having full view of the exception. Item 7C-4 recommended review only by the HRB rather than the ARB and HRB, saving the applicant a second review and the possibility of two different opinions from two different boards. The HRB had more architects trained in historic preservation than the ARB and included the type of expertise required for reviewing historic buildings under the CLG agreement. Mayor Rosenbaum said that some people in computing percentages were using 25,000 houses as the denominator. He confirmed there might be 25,000 housing units in the City, but 15,000 were single-family and 10,000 were multi-family. Mr. Schreiber said that was accurate. Mayor Rosenbaum said there were approximately 6,000 pre-1948 houses and asked whether they would be considered single-family. Ms. Warheit clarified that the 6,000 referred to all structures built before 1948 and included commercial, multi-family, public, etc. Mr. Schreiber said the rough estimate was approximately 5,000 of the 6,000 were single-family but was not based on an actual count.
02/24/98 86-75
Mayor Rosenbaum referred to the overhead chart and confirmed that there were 3,860 houses combined in Study Priority 1 and 2. Further, most of the houses in Study Priority 2 that were not determined to be Landmark or Significant Resources tended to fall into what the advisory group and the HRB thought of as contextual. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Mayor Rosenbaum asked, if that were the case and the Council followed the recommendations of the HRB or the advisory group, whether that would be saying some degree of protection, including prevention of demolition, would be given to 3,800 out of 5,000 to 6,000 structures. Mr. Schreiber said that was generally correct but might not include all of the 2,700 because not all were single-family properties. It was a pool of properties subject to some type of regulation. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified about 50 percent of the properties built before 1948 would be protected. If properties built before 1940 were included, the percentage would be higher. He assumed some of the houses built between 1940 and 1948 were tract houses which were probably not included in Study Priority 2. Ms. Warheit said that might not be the case. The criteria for putting a property in Study Priority 2 included that the building retained integrity and appeared to have some reason for eligibility on the Historic Register. There were not many tract houses in that group. Michael Corbett, Architectural Historian, said the National Register criteria for including houses in either Study Priority 1 or 2 were that a building be 50 years old or more and appear to possess integrity, i.e., had not been altered. In Study Priority 2, there were many ordinary buildings 50 years old or more that appeared to possess integrity. When every building was studied, researched, and examined, many would not be National Register properties. Groups of them together might be considered to be of contextual importance. Mayor Rosenbaum referred to page 7 of the staff report
(CMR:138:98), Item 2, ΑCategories of Historic Resources,≅ which listed the criteria being used to establish the categories. No substantial changes were being proposed to the criteria in the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance. He assumed the criteria in the Interim Regulations were different and questioned why staff was returning to the original one. Ms. Warheit said the Historic Interim Regulations list of criteria would not be appropriate for a Historic Preservation Ordinance because the purpose was different. The purpose of the Interim
02/24/98 86-76
Regulations was to identify important historic buildings, i.e., the Landmarks, and to identify contextual buildings. The purpose was way beyond historic buildings. Mayor Rosenbaum referred to page 9 of the staff report
(CMR:138:98), Item 2A, ΑReassign properties currently on the historic inventory to the two new categories, Landmark and
Significant Resource, as shown in Table 1.≅ Included was the only reference he saw to the Professorville Historic District and the mention of non-contributor properties. He asked staff what a non-contributor property was and whether an evaluation would occur, e.g., the Campbell property. Ms. Warheit said a National Register Historic District was the resource and all the structures and spaces within it were considered the resource. Non-contributing properties were things within that geographic area but were not related to the historic importance of the district. For example, in Professorville, there was a church built in the 1950s and a building used as a garage which was built long after the period of significance of Professorville and did not relate to it in any way. Those were non-contributors, and typically there was no control over demolition of them. In some cases, it was considered desirable. Usually, the only control on non-contributors was for design review of what replaced them for general compatibility with the character of the district. Ms. Cauble thought there could be confusion between the use of the term contributor or non-contributor vis-à-vis historic districts which were nationwide terms and used National Register standards and the unique terminology used in the Interim Regulations, i.e., Contributing Structure. That designation under the Interim Regulations was very different, very broad, and addressed different issues. Mayor Rosenbaum said there were some very modern, not particularly impressive structures located within Professorville. There were also some old houses which were not particularly impressive. He asked what the status of those would be under the proposal. Mr. Schreiber said more modern, non-historic period structures would be non-contributing. They could be demolished, and there would be some type of design review process regarding replacement to ensure compatibility. In a majority of older structures, they would either be in a Landmark, Significant Resource, or Contributing category because of the nature of the historic district being an older area. Mayor Rosenbaum said the people who lived in the non-contributing houses might like to know what their status would be as a result of the process.
02/24/98 86-77
Mr. Schreiber said all properties in Professorville, Study Priority 1 and possibility Study Priority 2, would be noticed for the review of the ordinance in April, as well as any subsequent reviews of the ordinance. Ms. Cauble said owners would be notified and advised of where their properties were proposed to be placed. One of the shortcomings of the existing ordinance was that all properties within a historic district were treated similarly. The existing ordinance did not recognize that within a historic district, there might be non-contributor properties which should not be subjected to the same type of restrictions that a contributor property was subjected to. Everyone, by address, would be advised of what was proposed for his/her property. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified there would be individual review of every house within Professorville to determine where a particular property fell. Ms. Warheit said that was incorrect. The present inventory contained a list of all the structures within Professorville. There was no intention of reassessing the ones that currently contributed to the district. However, the consultants were reviewing the boundaries of Professorville, and the boundaries might change. Mayor Rosenbaum was unclear and asked whether modern, inappropriate structures would be looked at in Professorville to determine whether or not they were a Significant Resource. Mr. Schreiber said the existing inventory identified properties in Professorville in Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 and included properties that were not in those categories but were still identified as contributing structures. The intent had not been to reevaluate all of the existing inventory. Professorville was a National Register District; and within that district, other than newer structures and small, older structures, all properties fell under whatever review practices would be adopted for the district. A notable change would be for Landmark properties which would be subjected to whatever rules the Council adopted for Landmarks. Council Member Kniss asked what defined communities as special and whether there were comparisons between homes in Palo Alto and other communities such as Los Gatos, Pasadena, Riverside, and Santa Cruz in terms of price and property values in protected areas versus unprotected areas. Mr. Anderson said in general, the reason for having zoning regulations and historic preservation ordinances was when a decision was made by the community that what the community had was distinctive, had character-defining features, and somehow needed to be recognized and protected. It occurred all across the country in all types of environments, was decided by local jurisdictions, the
02/24/98 86-78
federal government, etc., and pointed to different types of special places. All possessed character-defining features that were recognized as being distinctive and should be protected. There was a long precedent in case study for offering or extending protection so those special places would be retained or enhanced. Council Member Kniss guessed that the real estate value was a good part of that defining characteristic. Mr. Anderson said that would depend upon the piece of property. If the property were a national park or a national monument, it was a different type of real estate from Professorville or Old Pasadena. He had since learned that Old Pasadena had 25,000 visitors each weekend. In terms of real estate and rents, Old Pasadena was a good example in a commercial area. There were examples in the Bay Area, in Palo Alto and residential areas, where protections were offered. Council Member Kniss said the Bay Area was recently defined as the most expensive area in which to live. The reason for her original question was she believed at some point, Palo Alto might lose its forest one tree at a time and was the overriding reason for providing protection to preserve the special character of the community.
Mr. Anderson said in his view, Palo Alto=s most valuable asset was its historic neighborhoods and would be directly related to how far
public intervention should reach in terms of the Council=s policy decisions.
Council Member Kniss said Mr. Anderson=s comments would help keep things in context as the Council made what she believed was one of the more significant decisions of the decade. Council Member Wheeler clarified on page 11 of 31 of the staff
report (CMR:138:98), Item 2C, that part of the consultant=s assignment was to leave a process for continuing the constant refreshing of the inventory. Ms. Warheit said that was correct. The methodology was being designed for the survey in such a way that allowed the volunteers, the HRB, and the community to continue the process. Council Member Wheeler said staff suggested on page 11 of 31 of the
staff report (CMR:138:98), Item 3, to ΑCreate a list for non-designated properties determined to have potential historical merit
but not listed on the historic inventory.≅ She asked whether that was the equivalent of Study Priority 2. Ms. Warheit said Study Priority 2 was probably the group from which the list would occur.
02/24/98 86-79
Council Member Wheeler asked whether any kind of reward or regulation would result from being included on the list. Ms. Warheit said regulations had not been proposed because staff did not know what properties would comprise the list. There were a number of communities which had such a list and, in most cases, involved some minimal kind of regulation. Mr. Schreiber said the Study Priority 1 and 2 groups came about
through a Αwindshield survey≅ by the consultants who went through the community and identified properties which clearly seemed to be a Significant Resource or Landmark. The priority for the volunteers started with the Priority 1 group, the most important ones from the windshield survey. If the volunteers could get into the Study Priority 2 group, they would. All of the Study Priority 2 group would not be evaluated by the end of the summer. Some of the properties would drop out, others might become Significant Resources, and one might become a Landmark. Whatever remained related back to Recommendation 3 in the staff report (CMR:138:98). Council Member Wheeler asked staff to answer a question from the previous evening regarding whether structures that were identified as Landmark and as Significant Resources would be protected from demolition. Ms. Warheit said that was the staff recommendation. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified the question related to whether, under the new ordinance, the Significant Resource category was equivalent to the Contributing category under the Interim Regulations and, consequently, everything would be protected. Ms. Warheit said no because Significant Resource was anticipated to be a much smaller classification than Contributing was. Council Member Kniss asked whether there was a provision regarding a percentage which could be added on rather than demolishing a structure. Ms. Warheit said in theory, there was no limit. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the proposed staff review of minor modifications was comparable to the minor changes that staff currently did vis-à-vis the ARB. Mr. Schreiber said that could be comparable, but a policy question for the Council would be to what extent the Council wanted to emphasize the minor review function. The narrower the minor change category was drawn, the more things would have to go through a public process with the corresponding delays. The minor category could be flexible.
02/24/98 86-80
Council Member Wheeler said part of what the Council had heard in terms of the Interim Regulations was that staff was given a very strict set of rules which left the staff little, if any, discretion. To the extent that the new ordinance left staff in a review role, presumably with the aim to expedite the process, she asked whether there was a way for the Council to leave staff with more discretion. Ms. Warheit said the new review process was completely different from the Interim Regulations. A set of standards was being proposed and was more the model which happened with the ARB but was more limited and easier to manage. The standards were intended to be used uniquely for every property that was looked at. The regulations should be written in such a way that the applicants had the option to have staff review their minor projects or the HRB review them if so desired. Council Member Wheeler said staff was suggesting the review of multi-family and commercial structures that were designated historic structures be moved from the purview of the ARB into the purview of the HRB in an attempt to streamline the process for the owner/applicant. She understood that unless the multi-family or commercial structure was designated as a Landmark, compliance with the HRB findings would be voluntary on the part of the owner. Ms. Warheit said no. Voluntary compliance was only for single-family residences. Mr. Schreiber said the degree of control the City had on multi-family and nonresidential would still exist but would shift from the ARB to the HRB. Council Member Wheeler said there were a significant number of suggestions from the community the previous evening in terms of new
incentives which might be added to staff=s recommendations. One she did not hear but intrigued her was the establishment of a trust fund which might be financed from the proceeds from those who decided they were going to demolish a historic structure. She asked whether it would be feasible to do. Ms. Cauble had looked into the issue, and the analysis which needed to be applied was what the legal basis was for the City to take money from someone in exchange for his/her demolishing the property. Council Member Wheeler clarified the owner had to pay for a demolition permit. Ms. Cauble said the fee for a demolition permit was established to pay for staff costs in processing the permit and was a cost-recovery fee. She understood the suggestion was for the City to
02/24/98 86-81
assess a type of mitigation fee. She had concerns because in modern day thinking in the preservation community, money was not a mitigation for demolishing a historic resource. There might be circumstances in which a historic resource was demolished, but plaques and money did not mitigate it. Council Member Wheeler confirmed the concept of setting up a trust fund was not the issue and would be permissible if the Council thought there were a public purpose and designated General Fund funds. The problem came with the mechanism of using demolition permit fees. Ms. Cauble said yes. Ms. Bauriedel believed the City of Redwood City had a loan fund for historic property renovation. Council Member Wheeler was surprised at the suggestion that the HRB might consider a reduction in membership. Ms. Willis reminded Council Member Wheeler that it was a minority opinion of the HRB. Council Member Wheeler clarified the HRB did disagree with the staff recommendation to delete the designated representation by a person who lived in a Category 1 or 2 house in a Historic District. Ms. Willis said the HRB believed it was worthwhile to have a member with hands-on experience with older homes. Perhaps the existing ordinance should be modified in that the member did not have to have a Landmark, Category 1, or Category 2 property but rather a home on the inventory. That could overlap with having an additional requirement of being a licensed professional or historian. Council Member Wheeler asked whether conservation areas needed to be historic. Ms. Warheit said the suggestion was that they would be from traditional, intact neighborhoods because it seemed to be an easier and more manageable way to step out into the area. The design review standards used in traditional areas could build upon what was learned through the compatibility review standards and historic preservation; whereas, in non-historic areas, it would be more complex to decide what the standards for review were and what was the appropriate body to review them.
Council Member Wheeler said staff=s argument for selecting Option 3 was if Option 2, which built in a time delay for Study Priority 2 properties, were enacted, then there would be a burden on staff to prepare the documentation. She asked whether any methodology
02/24/98 86-82
existed for shifting the burden to the applicant to prove he/she did not belong on the list. Ms. Warheit compared it to merit screenings under the Interim Regulations in which the cost was very minimal and did not cover the cost of doing the research. If the activity were cost recovery, fewer applicants would apply. Council Member Wheeler clarified the issue was more one of staff burden rather than money. Mr. Schreiber was not sure what the environmental review consequences would be if the burden were shifted to the applicant to come up with a historic evaluation of the structure. The concern was the period between adoption of the ordinance at the end of May and the end of the year. If resources were taken away from the inventory work, it would be more difficult to organize the inventory. Ms. Cauble understood the staff recommendation offered options during the transition period that were not concluding the properties were significant historic resources but would preserve the status quo for a few more months until the work was complete. The same CEQA issues that applied to designated resources did not apply. For those who could not wait until August or September, the burden could be put on them by a cost-recovery fee or burden of producing information. Mr. Schreiber said the precise number for Study Priority 1 and 2 structures was not given but was approximately 600 and 2,700 respectively. Staff and the consultants were trying to ensure the Study Priority 1 group really included all the Priority 1's. The effort was to err on the side of putting structures into Study Priority 1 rather than Study Priority 2 because of the demolition prohibition in Study Priority 1. RECESS: 9:30 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. Council Member Ojakian asked: 1) staff to prepare a matrix of those cities which had ordinances that included how many homes were affected, what the demolition rules were, and how alterations were handled; 2) to receive copies of the various ordinances 3) staff for clarification on his future ability to participate because he lived in a pre-1940 home and the possibility existed that he might receive a notice regarding his home; and 4) what people could or could not do under the proposed ordinance related to alterations such as windows, additions, streamlining, etc. Additionally, he asked Mayor Rosenbaum how the Council would proceed to finish the process. Mayor Rosenbaum planned to go through the proposed 10 topics one by one.
02/24/98 86-83
Mr. Schreiber said staff would work with the consultant to put a chart together. He cautioned that different ordinances defined the same terms in different ways. Mr. Calonne clarified that Council Member Ojakian did not have a conflict of interest because although he had an older home, the home was not differently situated from a large percentage of homes
in Palo Alto and his interest was no different from the public=s.
The Political Reform Act said when a person=s interest was the same as the public generally, even though affected, a unique bias did not exist associated with the process. If he were to receive a notice that a home within 300 feet was being designated in one category or another, or his home was being designated, he would not be able to participate in the decision making process unless there was an appraisal which showed there was no impact on his property. Council Member Ojakian clarified that the fact he owned a historic home did not present a conflict of interest. Mr. Calonne believed there was no change in status being proposed
for Council Member Ojakian=s property; therefore, there was no impact from the decision. Mr. Schreiber said staff would provide representative ordinance samples to the Council. Council Member Mossar said there was a recommendation from the advisory group and the HRB to create a third category of contextual properties and asked staff to discuss the recommendation.
Mr. Schreiber said there was a significant change in the City=s approach to single-family structures in terms of exterior review and demolition control. The process would be more complicated with more structures included, properties would be affected more, and the administrative costs would be higher. It was a policy call for the Council in terms of how extensive the City should be involved with single-family property owners. Staff did not recommend a third category. Staff believed the contextual situation, while important, was really one that dealt with neighborhoods much more than the defined historic categories. Council Member Mossar asked the consultant how other communities dealt with contextual properties. Mr. Anderson said certain other communities, but not many, referred to such properties as structures of merit, e.g., Pasadena, and included certain regulations which applied to those properties. Riverside was more inclusive. There were communities which had been very inclusive and depended upon how the category was defined.
02/24/98 86-84
Contextual was not necessarily any less important than Significant or Landmark properties. Council Member Mossar asked how Pasadena defined contextual properties. Mr. Anderson said basically, the ordinance spoke to relationship to important events, architectural styles, periods of construction, and possessed resources which did not have the same type of significance as Landmarks or treasures. Council Member Mossar clarified the definition said the structures were related in some contextual way to the Landmarks which had very distinctive historic merit but that they themselves did not have that distinction. Mr. Anderson said that was correct. The numerical categories were going away. Contextual properties for other communities were on a horizontal continuum. Council Member Mossar said a great deal of housing had been developed in California since World War II. She asked how other communities, in general, dealt with protecting those things which would soon be historic but were not by definition. Mr. Anderson said California communities, up and down the state, based on post-war construction including Palo Alto, were faced with a huge inventory of historic resources that would reach the 50-year threshold which would initiate consideration. Most of the communities did not have an answer because the amount of post-war construction was staggering. Ms. Bauriedel said the Pasadena ordinance referred to contextual structures as structure of merit and defined them as a cultural resource that contributed to a designated or potentially eligible Landmark District; contributed to a thematically related grouping of structures linked by design type, plan, or physical development; or possessed architectural features that were rare or nonexistent on other structures in the city. Mr. Schreiber said another element of the answer was the relationship of the inventory to CEQA and what triggered CEQA involvement. Ms. Cauble said with any regulations or categories that were created in the proposed ordinance, the Council needed to clearly identify what was being protected, e.g., historical and cultural resources or neighborhoods. For example, in the Pasadena ordinance for the structures of merit category, cultural and historical resources were mentioned. If a structure were identified as something being regulated because it was a historic resource, the options would be limited. There might be instances when the
02/24/98 86-85
Council was not concerned about protecting the resource but was concerned about maintaining the shape, form, or design of the neighborhood. A new house that did that might be just as good as the 1950 house. The Council needed to be distinct about the policy goals, and staff would effectuate the goals to provide the most options. Mr. Corbett said in looking at the National Register criteria, the threshold was 50 years. What many communities had done, such as San Francisco, Oakland, and New York, was to designate local landmarks with a 30-year threshold. Council Member Ojakian asked what alterations could be made under
the proposed ordinance. People were concerned with the Αred-tape
process≅ in the Interim Regulations. Ms. Warheit said the standards which would be applied were not proposed to be any different from what they were under the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance. Council adopted the Secretary of
the Interior=s Standards in 1987, reaffirmed them in 1992, and were what the HRB was using for the basis of its review. The only difference under the proposed ordinance was they were voluntary with a proposal that some be mandatory. The standard was not proposed to be different; however, it was very different from the Interim Regulations. Council Member Ojakian clarified the Interim Regulations were ending and the existing ordinance was being updated. He asked what alterations could be made under the standards.
Ms. Warheit said under the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards, additions were allowed. The principle to be followed was to identify the character-defining features including the basic massing and form. Major changes to the entire roof form should be avoided. Windows were also included because in very simple buildings, windows were an important part of the character. The front facade of a bungalow was usually the most important part of the building, so changes to the facade should be avoided. Adding a second story was usually not acceptable because it changed the form of the building. Council Member Ojakian asked whether a skylight could be added. Ms. Warheit said a skylight was not considered inappropriate. Additions could be extensive if they were done more like a wing, leaving the existing mass reasonably intact. Council Member Ojakian said some people correlated windows with energy efficiency; however, there were other energy efficiency methods available such as weather stripping.
02/24/98 86-86
Ms. Warheit said staff was building a technical library, and there were publications available to help on those issues. Putting in expensive, new, weather-tight windows in an old building often gained nothing in energy conservation because the building itself was not tight. Council Member Ojakian confirmed there was a fair amount of latitude in terms of doing things with a home while keeping the basic character of the home intact. Ms. Warheit said that was correct. Mr. Schreiber said part of the problem with single-family structures was many more people came to the City with a design already in mind. Friction resulted when the City denied the preconceived design and asked for something more expensive to be done. Council Member Ojakian said the City needed to do a good job of educating and/or providing people with information about what they could or could not do regarding form design. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. However, there would be a certain segment who would not be happy in dealing with the City on something they considered to be their choice.
Ms. Willis said the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards used by the City were the ones for rehabilitation. The standards were for restoring or rebuilding old buildings which were intended to be flexible and to adapt to the way people lived differently in different eras. Council Member Eakins asked if procedures for putting in new historic districts were included in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Cauble said the staff report (CMR:138:98) contained key policy issues for the Council to provide direction on. Other more standard inclusions of a historic preservation ordinance which were considered procedural in nature would be handled through a provision in the ordinance to allow the Council to consider such issues. Council Member Eakins clarified the reason new historic districts were not mentioned in the staff report was not because the City would not be doing it but because it was not a difficult policy issue. Ms. Cauble said that was correct. Council Member Eakins asked whether education was considered not to be a difficult policy issue and, therefore, not included in the staff report (CMR:138:98).
02/24/98 86-87
Mr. Schreiber said education would not be an ordinance issue but rather a resource issue. Ms. Willis said the staff report mentioned a historic preservation officer who would be a primary education tool.
Mayor Rosenbaum referred to page 14, Item 5A, ΑRequire a building permit for a replacement structure prior to issuance of a
demolition permit for buildings on the historic inventory,≅ and asked whether that was already or had been City law in the past. Mr. Schreiber said the City eliminated that requirement three years prior as part of the permit streamlining effort. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified the suggestion was to reinstate the requirement for historic buildings. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Mayor Rosenbaum asked how properties would be added to the inventory and whether people could protest their property being added. Mr. Schreiber said the Council would hear from people through a public hearing process. The degree of objection related to the degree of regulation and why the forthcoming decisions of the Council on what to include in the ordinance were so critical. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Ojakian, to continue the item to the Monday, March 2, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. 7. Council Members Eakins, Mossar and Wheeler re the Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto (continued from 2/23/98) Mayor Rosenbaum suggested continuing the item to another meeting due to the length of the current meeting. He asked staff for a date in which to continue the item. City Manager June Fleming said the immediate options were to adjust the time for meeting with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) on March 23, 1998, or utilize the fifth Monday, March 30, 1998. Council Member Wheeler asked whether March 23, 1998, would be timely with respect to a direction contained in the staff report to transfer something into the budget document. Ms. Fleming said a number of options were available if the item were moved to March 23, 1998. Review of the budget portion had
02/24/98 86-88
been delayed a week, and she assured the Council the item could be worked into the budget document. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to the Monday, March 23, 1998, City Council Meeting. Council Member Mossar appreciated the item being heard as soon as possible. She believed the item was the logical addition to the
conversation that evening and was a key piece of the community=s concern about the future of Palo Alto. She emphasized the importance and did not want to lose sight of the fact that it was an issue to discuss at length. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 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.
02/24/98 86-89