HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-02 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting March 2, 1998 1. Joint Session with the Historic Resources Board for discussion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.................86-95 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m..............86-95 1. Appointment to Planning Commission.....................86-96 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Human Relations Commission.............................86-97 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................86-97
4. Resolution 7746 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Suspending the Collection of Certain Fees
for Flood-Related Damage≅ ..............................86-97 6. Request to Increase Change Order Authority for Contract with McGuire and Hester for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvement Project, CIP 47712.....................................86-98 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................86-98 6A. (Old Item No. 3) Revised Rules for Public Participation
During ΑOral Communications≅ - Refer to Policy and Services Committee..............................................86-98 6B. (Old Item No. 5) Ratification of Continuing Emergency "El Niño 98" Disaster......................................86-99 6C. (Old Item No. 10) Mayor Rosenbaum re Cancellation of the March 9, 1998, Regular City Council Meeting.................86-102 7. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....86-102 8. Public Employee Performance Evaluation................86-102 9. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (CMR:138:98) (continued from 2/24/98).........86-102
03/02/98 86-93
11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........86-112 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to a Closed Session 86-112 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m......86-112
03/02/98 86-94
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 6:13 p.m.), Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian (arrived at 6:12 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 6:13 p.m.), Wheeler Historic Resources Board PRESENT: Anderson, Backlund, Bernstein, Kohler, Mario, Willis ABSENT: Murden SPECIAL MEETING 1. Joint Session with the Historic Resources Board for discussion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance No action taken. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
03/02/98 86-95
Regular Meeting March 2, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:17 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment to Planning Commission Duf Sundheim, 2111 Barbara Drive, said after careful consideration, he decided to withdraw his name as a candidate to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission. He was asked to make a commitment to fill out the term if appointed which he felt was a fair demand, and although he did not plan to run for City Council in 1999, he did not feel he was in a position to permanently close that option. Council Member Eakins said there were six outstanding candidates for the position who had strong professional and community service along with their talents. She had learned that the quality and quantity of the information a group had available to it helped make the best quality decisions. It was important to have diversity from all over town to contribute making those decisions. The Planning Commission played an important role in Palo Alto, and its Council Member Kniss said that Palo Alto was unusually fortunate in that there were five people willing and well qualified to put in the time and effort. She cast her vote for Ms. Packer because she was persuaded that diversity played a part in it; and although Ms. Packer was an attorney, not currently practicing, she had become a community activist and was involved with the CPAC while putting together the background of the Comprehensive Plan. Patrick Burt was also a favorite candidate. Vice Mayor Schneider said the group of candidates was one of the strongest she had seen. Mike Midolo had been of specific help to her and had worked very hard on her campaign. However, she would cast her vote for Gayle Schubert who had served as her campaign chair and worked tirelessly, was well organized, and would be a welcomed addition to the Planning Commission. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BURT: Fazzino, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, VOTING FOR DANFORTH:
03/02/98 86-96
VOTING FOR MIDOLO: VOTING FOR PACKER: Eakins, Kniss, Wheeler VOTING FOR SCHUBERT: Schneider VOTING FOR SUNDHEIM: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Patrick Burt received five votes and was appointed on the first ballot. Mayor Rosenbaum congratulated Mr. Burt and thanked the other candidates. The candidates were an exceptionally strong group, and the Council looked forward to their applying in the future. 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Human Relations Commission City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Mervin Bachman, Elhine El-Bizri, Victor Frost, Wynn Hausser, Litsie Indergand, Solina Kwan, and Barbara Leighton received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, March 16, 1998. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Rosenbaum announced the appointments of Council Members Kniss and Huber to the Telecommunications Advisory Group in response to a procedure that had been established one month prior to draw up a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Telecommunications System.
Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto=s Fire Department. Page Sanders, 2365 Waverley Street, spoke regarding the historic preservation ordinance. Sue Barkhust and Yemina Rabin, 4000 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding thanks for Adolescent Counseling Services. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding courtesy. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4 and 6, with Item Nos. 3 and 5 removed by Mayor Rosenbaum.
4. Resolution 7746 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Suspending the Collection of Certain Fees
for Flood-Related Damage≅
03/02/98 86-97
6. Request to Increase Change Order Authority for Contract with McGuire and Hester for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvement Project, CIP 47712 MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 4 and 6. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 3 would become 6A and Item No. 5 would become 6B. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to move Item No. 10 ahead of Item No. 7 to become 6C. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6A. (Old Item No. 3) Revised Rules for Public Participation
During ΑOral Communications≅ - Refer to Policy and Services Committee Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, said people who came to Council meetings with agenda items typically had business solely with the Council, but people who came to speak under Oral Communications wanted to speak not only to the Council but also to fellow citizens in Palo Alto. The right of citizens to speak to fellow citizens at Council meetings was one of the most basic and important and human rights. He said Vice Mayor Schneider wanted to take that right away for three weeks out of four by moving Oral Communications to the end of the agenda late at night when there were no citizens remaining to listen. He did not think the Council would take action, but in the event the Council did, there would certainly be confrontation and civil disobedience. He would attempt to exercise his right as he had done in the past. Moving Oral Communications to the end of the agenda would be unwise. Mike Midolo said he understood the frustration that generated the memorandum; however, he disagreed with the memo in principle. He felt it attempted to qualify speech, oral communications, and speakers into distinct categories. It discriminated and abridged free speech unfairly and possibly legally. If the Council wished to consider advising rules, it was the repetitive iterations of the same topic that were the source of frustration to the Council. That should be the determining factor, not the speaker. He could foresee a situation in which he or another member of the public would have two valid issues that should be brought before the Council in the same month and discussed under Oral Communications. However, the two separate items would not, as currently phrased in the memorandum, be allowed. Citizens would have to speak at the end of the meeting, which posed an unfair burden when there were legitimate issues to be brought before the Council and would benefit not only the Council but also perhaps other members of the public. Another issue he wanted to mention was the fact that
03/02/98 86-98
because Oral Communications was placed in the early part of the agenda, sometimes it created a reaction, although it was not what Oral Communications was intended for. He felt there would be a significant drop-off of the type of items or responses that might otherwise be found if Oral Communications were still kept at the beginning of the agenda for those issues. If the Council decided to go down that path, he urged the Council to look at the repeated iterations of the same topic rather than the speaker. MOTION TO REFER: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to refer the item to the Policy and Services Committee. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Wheeler Αno.≅ 6B. (Old Item No. 5) Ratification of Continuing Emergency "El Niño 98" Disaster
City Manager June Fleming requested permission from the Council to
provide an opportunity for an update of the staff=s response to the 1998 Winter Storms and the recovery that would follow. On Saturday, February 27, 1998, the City Council and a number of City staff met with various representatives of the community to hear comments and concerns from the citizens about the recent flood emergency in Palo Alto. As a result of that dialogue, one suggestion given was that it would be beneficial to everyone if the Council would allow the City Manager time to give an update at each meeting in response to some of the concerns. That evening was the first of those reports, and she would continue to report on a weekly basis as one means of keeping the Council and the residents of Palo Alto informed and aware of what actions staff planned to take. Most of the concerns centered around the creek; the storm drainage system; a warning or notification system; improved communications among staff, staff/Council, and staff/Council/
public; the City=s ability to respond to the needs of persons who had experienced the flood; some relief and assistance that might be needed; and what staff would be prepared to do to respond to the predicted heavy rains for March. The issue alluded to quite often was what the City had learned from the experience. She noted that staff had learned from the actual experience of the flood activities, and some things could have been improved. Staff needed to do short-range and long-range evaluation and implementation. Staff would take all of the feedback gathered from residents and do its best to improve the response to flood situations and emergencies generally. On a long-term basis, she would call in
consultants to give recommendations for implementing the City=s emergency response plan. Because that would take time, it was important to put the following interim steps in place, in no order of priority: 1) free dumpsters were restored and would be monitored in the designated locations as long as necessary; 2) debris cleanup would occur on a regular basis; 3) staff would contact neighborhood
03/02/98 86-99
groups and Neighborhood Watch groups to see of what assistance they might be to the City in case of another flood; 4) volunteer groups would be contacted for assistance; and 5) an interim warning system
would be put in place. She stressed the word Αinterim.≅ It would be a system that would be put in place until the opportunity presented itself for staff to step back and look at various automated telephone systems, etc., available. Staff wanted to make that choice carefully and make sure that it would be the right choice for the community. It would be a three-tiered warning system that staff would begin to put in place immediately. The first tier would be to monitor. When the San Francisquito Creek at Chaucer was at 50 percent of its capacity, personnel would begin to monitor seven locations on San Francisquito, Matadero, Adobe, and Barron Creeks. At that time, creek information would be available on Government Access Channel 16, KZSU FM 90.1, and the Palo Alto City Web Page. The second tier was education or alert. When the Creek level reached approximately 80 percent capacity, other factors in the community would be evaluated, including watershed condition, storm drains, and the weather forecast. If those factors combined indicated the possibility of flooding within the next few hours, fire and police staffing levels would be increased, and personnel would travel to potentially affected areas to notify residents of the possibility of flooding. Police and fire personnel would use various devices such as air horns, sirens, and PA systems to notify residents. The third tier was early notification. Residents would be notified to tune radios to KZSU FM 90.1 and KCBS AM 740 for further information. In the event of a power outage, residents should have a battery-operated radio on hand. Since battery-operated radios were something most people did not have on hand, the City was purchasing a supply of battery-operated radios which could be obtained from the Fire Department at City Hall for residents to use. If a resident were unable to get to City Hall, the radio could be delivered. If a resident knew that the City had already monitored and alerted them, once the flood hit, evacuation was imminent. At that time, the City would put an evacuation alert into every area possible. The system would be left in place until an automated response that would send sirens off, etc., was available. The key piece was education, and the City would institute a training program. When the City started an alert monitoring notification system, the 911 lines became overburdened. Staff was beginning to evaluate a system in which 911 calls could be rolled over to another bank of phones from which citizens could receive information. Initially, that line would be staffed for 24 hours. Residents should consider the radio their primary source of information and instruction so that 911 would remain free for life-threatening emergencies. In recognition that some customers might be paying unusually high utility bills due to flood circumstances, staff was preparing for Council approval a resolution adopting a Rate Relief Program for water, gas, and electric utilities. The Rate Relief Program would allow customers with high billings due to flooding to receive a credit on subsequent utility bills so that they would pay only what an average utility bill might be. Because
03/02/98 86-100
both the City Attorney and herself had been impacted by the flood, they could not work on the project. The project had thus been assigned to the Assistant City Manager who would take direction from that point forward and would bring the project back to the Council for action. Also, on the Council agenda that evening would be a resolution suspending permit fees for homes and commercial buildings which suffered losses as a result of flooding. She had
been working with the City Attorney=s Office to determine what other fees such as library fees could appropriately be considered for suspension due to circumstances related to the emergency. She would be reporting information weekly in the Palo Alto Weekly as a display ad on the following Friday to keep the public informed of what the City was doing in terms of improving the response and assisting people in recovery from the flood. Additionally, a wallet size insert card, which residents could carry with them, would list essential telephone numbers and would be distributed through the utility bill. Staff would also develop a way to black out and provide emergency messages at any time on cable channels 2 through 78. The City tried to maintain contact with the press during the flood; and since not all faxing worked, the press would be called with notices. Beginning that day, staff was developing flyers which would be completed as soon as possible and distributed to neighborhoods, City-sponsored community meetings, and to the
Palo Alto Weekly if time permitted. Beginning Tuesday, March 3, 1998, the phone number (650) 329-2420 would be available to provide general flood information, and all non-emergency calls would be responded to. The effort was to keep citizens from playing the telephone game. In an effort to improve communications, a staff committee was working on an information packet which would include telephone numbers, services, GIS flood maps, where to go for additional information, etc., and would be delivered door-to-door. Priority would be given to the impacted areas first. Also included
would be an 82 by 11 inch reproduction of the maps that were illustrated at the February 27, 1998, meeting. Updates would be provided each week to be responsive to the public, and the City would continue to communicate with the community on a regular basis using more than the Internet, the radio, and cable. She asked that
citizens with ideas call the City Manager=s Office, which would be responded to as soon as possible. She thanked the Council for the use of its time as it was important to staff to get the message out to the community. Mayor Rosenbaum thanked the staff on behalf of the Council and the community for the time and effort put into the preparation of the report on such short notice. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation to ratify the continuing need for the proclaimed current local emergency and to direct staff to take the same action approximately every two weeks until emergency conditions no longer exist. 03/02/98 86-101
MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6C. (Old Item No. 10) Mayor Rosenbaum re Cancellation of the March 9, 1998, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to cancel the March 9, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION 7. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Pichulo v. City of Palo Alto, CV No. 743999 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 8. Public Employee Performance Evaluation Subject: City Manager June Fleming Authority: Government Code section 54957 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (CMR:138:98) (continued from 2/24/98) Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the Council had received six ordinances that the staff had reviewed when staff was revising the historic ordinance. Council Member Kniss referred to the overhead projector and asked
what Αevaluate≅ meant.
Ms. Warheit said that it referred to the City of Pasadena=s process in which it reviewed about 25,000 50-year-old buildings in 1993.
ΑEvaluate≅ simply meant when someone applied to demolish a 50-year- old building, there was an evaluation of whether or not it needed to go to the next categorical step which was a structure of merit. If it were found to have merit, then there was further evaluation. Council Member Kniss asked how long a delayed demolition lasted in Pasadena with respect to a historical building. Ms. Warheit said approximately one year.
03/02/98 86-102
Council Member Fazzino referred to the cities shown in the overhead projector and asked what percentage of the respective populations
as shown were covered under the cities= current ordinances. Ms. Warheit said other than the figures shown, the only additional information she had was about the City of Alameda which had 96 cultural and historic monuments. Approximately 2,400 of 10,500
buildings were determined in what was known as the Αoriginal
Alameda.≅ She said the entire city had about 13,000 buildings.
Council Member Fazzino estimated Redwood City=s population at 80,000, Santa Cruz at 60,000 to 70,000, Pasadena at 120,000 to 130,000, Riverside at 250,000, and West Hollywood at 30,000 to 40,000. He asked staff to provide more specific information regarding the population and percentages. Ms. Warheit recalled that the consultants said it was not so much the size of the city as it was the type of resources the city had and the type of city.
Council Member Fazzino asked how staff=s proposal would compare to the other cities in terms of coverage.
Council Member Mossar referred to the City Attorney=s staff report and noted for the record that the Council had not agreed to agendize the discussion of possible regulatory methods to address design and quality of residential neighborhoods. She said that subject had been continued. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council Member Mossar was correct. Council Member Wheeler said as one of the closest observers from the Council of the process that they embarked upon when they adopted the interim regulations, she was more convinced that the issues of historic preservation and general R-1 design issues needed to be separated. She concurred with the staff recommendations. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the staff recommendation (1) to limit the scope of Historic Preservation Ordinance revisions to treatment of historic properties. Council Member Mossar liked the purpose and function statement in
Pasadena=s historic regulation. She felt it was a good summary of the purpose of a regulation and suggested staff consider it when considering the design review. Council Member Fazzino requested that staff consider some of the language in other ordinances when drafting the historic ordinance.
03/02/98 86-103
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ Council Member Ojakian said his intent for asking for the information provided in the overhead projector was to provide the Council with some additional material to review prior to the subsequent review of the draft ordinance. He also wanted an opportunity to state his general intent with respect to the historic ordinance. Vice Mayor Schneider said she was in full support of the revised categories. She was delighted to see that the Contributing Category had been replaced with Significant Resources. She said
the ΑContributing Category≅ was probably more the cause of consternation among the public than any other part of the interim historic ordinance. She believed that the houses that would be listed as Significant Resources would truly be so. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Eakins, to replace existing four categories of historic resources with two new categories: Landmarks and Significant Resources. Council Member Eakins said the motion reflected what most of the people were interested which was not to include a third category. She said the City still needed to look at how to protect neighborhoods from inappropriate, intrusive, unwelcomed, and undesirable additions, remodels, and replacements. There was a number of means that could be used in historic districts to protect blocks of houses. There could be some kind of single family structure regulations. Although she knew that there was a risk of losing some structures, she felt there were other means for that kind of protection. Council Member Mossar referred to Recommendation No. (2B)
ΑReevaluate properties identified under the Interim Regulations,≅ and asked if that meant property designated Landmark under the Interim Regulations could potentially lose that category in the reevaluation. Historic Resources Board Member Caroline Willis said yes. Council Member Mossar asked if it was likely that a landmark structure could lose its Landmark designation. Ms. Warheit said it was very unlikely that would happen because the standards were very high. She said technically it seemed that they should be reevaluated because there was a different definition. Council Member Wheeler concurred with Council Member Eakins regarding the alternatives to a third category.
03/02/98 86-104
Council Member Kniss agreed with the two new categories, but she was not ready to move into the contextual properties category. Council Member Ojakian asked when that discussion would be appropriate. Mayor Rosenbaum said if Council Member Ojakian were interested in a third category, then an amendment was in order. AMENDMENT: Council Member Ojakian moved to add a third category
titled ΑContextual Properties.≅ AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Fazzino concurred with Council Members Eakins and Wheeler. He had wrestled with the issue for several weeks, and he felt that there was a need to address a third category of homes in the community. He might not have been as nervous about the action or non-action that evening if the Council had already acted upon the proposal by Council Members Eakins, Mossar, and Wheeler with respect to broader design review issues. He believed that their proposal was a very tangible and important way to address the third categories which had much to do with the character of the community either through the contextual concept or through design review, and he believed design review was better because it applied throughout the City. He reserved the right to revisit the issue if he did not feel that the City moved as quickly as it should toward design review. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Ojakian Αno,≅ Huber Αnot participating.≅ Council Member Wheeler said she concurred with a former Council Member, Gail Woolley, who was an early participant in the historic preservation movement in the community. Ms. Woolley addressed the Council the previous week and suggested a slight modification to the Landmark category assignment which provided for automatic placement of some historic homes on the National Register rather than have them be the subject of debate and discussion by the Council. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the staff recommendation (2A) regarding reassigning the properties currently on the historic inventory to the two new categories with the proviso that the category 2 structures would be presumed to be a Landmark and listed into the National Register. Mayor Rosenbaum asked how staff would interpret the proposed motion. Ms. Warheit said the proposed motion set a higher standard for the Category 2 structures to meet in order to become landmarks. Staff recommended looking at the Categories, 2, 3, and 4 to see which
03/02/98 86-105
ones might meet the local conceptual definition of landmark. The proposed motion indicated that the Category 2 structures would be considered landmarks if they met the National Register standards. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the staff recommendation (2A) regarding reassigning the properties currently on the historic inventory to the two new categories with the proviso that the category 2 structures would be presumed to be a Landmark and listed into the National Register, unless it can be shown that it is inappropriate. Council Member Wheeler clarified there would be two Category 2s. She said the staff proposed looking at every Category 2 structure and evaluate it, and there would be further discussion and recommendation by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and subsequently discussion by the Council.
Ms. Warheit said staff=s intent was that at some point in the
future, which may or may not be before the consultant=s work was done at the end of August, staff would review the Categories 2, 3, and 4, acknowledging that those numbers did not mean very much and see if some of those buildings met the new definitions of a landmark. She believed that Ms. Woolley wanted the presumption to be in favor of the Category 2s, i.e., the structures were presumed to be landmarks unless after reevaluation they were found not to
be. She said the proposed motion would be a change to staff=s recommendation. Council Member Mossar was concerned that the City not try to make a structure a landmark when it was ridiculous for it to be a landmark. She was concerned that the City not lose ground over what it had already protected. Council Member Kniss asked what the number of structures was under Category 2. Ms. Warheit said there were 72 Category 2 buildings. Council Member Kniss concurred with the substitute motion. Vice Mayor Schneider said she would not support the substitute motion. She believed that the new categories were set aside for extraordinary, exceptional examples of architectural design and listed in the National Register of Historic Places or associated with outstanding persons as compared to the old Category 2 which included major buildings that were only meritorious works of the best architects. She thought the Council was losing sight of what a true landmark was. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-1, Schneider Αno,≅ Huber Αnot
participating.≅
03/02/98 86-106
Mayor Rosenbaum referred to the statement on page 9 of the staff
report (CMR:138:98) ΑAll properties that make up the two National Register Historic Districts (Professorville and Ramona Street) would be Landmarks, except any non-contributor properties located
within the districts.≅ and asked what a Αnon-contributor≅ property was and how it would be treated. Ms. Warheit said the original documents on Professorville noted that there were eight non-contributors within the district which were all built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. She understood that the standard treatment of non-contributors within a historic district was that there was no prohibition of demolition, but there was review of alterations and new construction on those sites for general compatibility with the district. Mayor Rosenbaum asked if the assumption was that in the historic ordinance, there would be some specific mention of that fact. Ms. Warheit said it would be stated in the ordinance. Mayor Rosenbaum said there could be some inappropriate homes more than 50 years old that had been sufficiently modified, and it was not really thought necessary to look carefully at them when the original designation was made because at the time everything was voluntary with the exception of a delay in demolition. Property owners were free to do what they wanted to do with their property. He asked if staff proposed to look at any other structures in Professorville that were not Category 1, 2, 3 or 4 but had some historic significance because of their location. Ms. Warheit said yes. The consultants were asked to look at the buildings in Professorville that did not have their own category assignment. She said one of the eight homes that she mentioned before was built in 1905, but it had been so extremely modified that there was no integrity left. She said it was not a part of the scope of the agreement to relook at every single building within Professorville, but if there were a question raised about the continuing integrity of any one of them, then they would be reviewed. Council Member Kniss said as she walked around Professorville, she noticed there was a dramatic number of homes that should not be included in the Landmark category. Assuming that Category 2 was a landmark structure until proven otherwise, she asked whether the structure would go through the same process as a landmark structure would have gone through previously. Ms. Warheit said yes. Council Member Kniss said she was concerned that it might be onerous.
03/02/98 86-107
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the staff recommendation (2B) to reevaluate properties identified as Landmarks or Contributing Structures under the Interim Regulations. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the staff recommendation (2C) to follow the process for adding properties that are identified in the 1998 survey as historically significant to the history inventory. Council Member Wheeler believed the final ordinance language should leave a requirement that there be some kind of process for continuing the inventory update on a regular basis. She noted in
the other cities= ordinances, there were provisions regarding that. Council Member Mossar concurred with Council Member Wheeler and asked whether a separate motion was necessary. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said no. Council
Member Wheeler=s comments were consistent with the proposed Draft Comprehensive Plan language. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the staff recommendation (3) to establish a list of non-designated properties that are identified in the 1998 historic survey, or in subsequent surveys or research, as having potential historical merit, but which have not been designated historically significant. Council Member Kniss said the list should not be an onerous one. It would provide a holding area so that the City Council could begin to establish where it wanted to move in the long term with respect to the historic ordinance. Council Member Wheeler supported the motion but did not want it to become a purgatory list for people who found themselves on it. Therefore, if the Council endorsed the concept, she hoped Council would also endorse a self-disciplining action as well so that there were ways to move off the list and definite deadlines set for whoever did the evaluating to see whether the homes were determined to be historic inventory material. It needed to do be done within a specified timeframe, not a lengthy timeframe, so that building owners had some assurance and clarity about what was happening to their properties. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
he wanted to tie Council Member Wheeler=s comments to the contextual properties. When people talked about contextual
03/02/98 86-108
properties, there were two things that had become mixed together. The first was structures that should be on the inventory but had not been evaluated yet, which was the staff sense of the proposed category; it was a waiting list. He said that much of the discussion of contextual had really been in terms of neighborhood preservation. The list would not include all of the houses in a particular neighborhood because they were examples of a particular 50-plus-year-old building style, etc. The list was a holding area to provide an opportunity for the structure to be evaluated. Vice Mayor Schneider said the process would provide a focus for HRB activity so that the inventory was kept up-to-date. She saw the process as relieving some of the burden on the HRB.
Council Member Fazzino said the correct term was probably Αlimbo≅
rather than Αpurgatory.≅ He appreciated staff=s clarification. He saw the process as more of an issue of relating to landmark and significant resource as opposed to contextual. Council Member Mossar said she wanted to make sure the Council was
not creating a Αhit≅ list. Mr. Schreiber said that anytime a list was identified of properties which were potential additions to a regulatory process, anxiety was created for some property owners; and some property owners might desire to take some action to make sure the ultimate regulatory process did not affect them. He did not think there was any way of avoiding that. He said that was why staff felt the process should not be a long-term holding area for properties. Properties should be moved through the stage.
Ms. Cauble said it was proposed to be a staff=s list which would be used as a holding area. Mr. Schreiber said there were some decisions that Council had not made including how properties were to be treated in terms of demolition and Landmark and Significant Resources. Council Member Mossar asked if there was any reason to indicate that in the holding area there would be no demolition allowed without a demolition permit. Ms. Warheit referred to the other cities and said it appeared that staff provided some type of a review before a demolition permit was granted. Ms. Cauble said if Council wanted to go in that direction, it would have repercussions. Primarily, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process came into play, which it was recommended to be a list kept by staff.
03/02/98 86-109
Council Member Mossar asked whether a property owner on the list would know he/she was on the list. Ms. Cauble said it would depend on what the Council wanted staff to
do. She felt it was staff=s intent to inform all of the property owners that they were on the list. Council Member Ojakian said based on the proposed process, each year the City would take a look at homes that were pre-1948 but not designated Landmark and Significant Resource, then there would be an ongoing process of review, and at the same time there would be a holding area. Mr. Schreiber said with the existing work that was being done, staff hoped that all of the Study Priority 1 and Priority 2 structures would have been evaluated; but given the 110 volunteers and over 3,000 properties, there was a lot of work to do. The likelihood was that there would be some list of properties that had not yet been formally evaluated and the work not yet completed, which would go into the holding area. He noted the 50-year time frame kept moving, and there would be other properties that would become eligible for the inventory. The expectation he heard from the Council was that staff and the HRB should have an ongoing obligation to keep the inventory up-to-date. He said the first step was to identify the buildings built in 1950 in the year 2000 and figure out which ones should be evaluated. Council Member Ojakian asked whether a property was out of the picture once it had gone through the holding area one. For example, if a structure were a Priority 2 and were in the holding area, staff evaluated the structure and it was not considered to be a Landmark or Significant Resource and deemed not to be in the holding area, the property was done. Mr. Schreiber said that was the general expectation, but there might be some unusual situations that came up which caused staff to look at the property again. Council Member Eakins said at that point the Council had not decided on any kind of protection for holding area structures. She felt that was an important gap. She asked if staff needed policy direction now. She wanted to prevent another land rush of destruction of structures. Mr. Schreiber said the Council would be dealing with the issues of demolition and regulation of exterior changes. He said that applying a demolition prohibition and some level of exterior control would create a third category on the inventory. He said that was one track to take although it was not the recommended one. He said that Pasadena did a quick review of those properties if demolition were applied for and they either were recommended to go on the inventory or were not.
03/02/98 86-110
Ms. Cauble said in actuality there was no such thing as a quick review. For non-single family properties, she did not think it was that sensitive of an issue because those properties were already subject to discretionary review under the Architectural Review Board (ARB) ordinance. She said if the structure were on the list then it was possible and appropriate to look at the historic issue in the context of the ARB review to make sure that if someone were to replace a building with a new building, he or she could look at the list and say it was historic. There was administerial approval for demolition of single-family homes; it was not discretionary. If Council introduced a discretionary component to that as suggested, then those projects would be subject to review under CEQA which entailed a fair amount of time. Council Member Kniss said her motion was in support of the list of structures in the holding area. Mayor Rosenbaum thought the direction was to establish a list without any sanctions or benefits associated with it. He said the Council could adopt the motion to create the list, and then when the Council reached the sections on Demolition and Alterations, it could consider whether or not to add some sanction to the list. At that time, the Council Members who were not supportive of creating the list could move to delete the list. Council Member Ojakian said he would support the motion at the present time, but he was concerned because he had a clear definition of what a landmark was and somewhat of a definition of what significant was, but he did not have any knowledge about the other homes, and it was difficult for him to want to exclude the homes and not necessarily overregulate them. Council Member Mossar asked approximately how many properties would end up on the list. Ms. Warheit said there were currently about 3,300 structures on the Study Priority 1 and Priority 2. She said staff had not put forth a recommendation about control of the properties on the list because there were so many unknowns. Council Member Ojakian said no Council Member had spoken about to what degree the structures should be regulated or incentives applied to them. He asked the Council to remain flexible. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the staff recommendation (4) to make provision in the ordinance to facilitate property owner-initiated requests for their properties to be added to the historic inventory, for those who want to enjoy
03/02/98 86-111
the same rights, benefits and obligations as other designated historic properties. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅
Mr. Calonne said the Attorney=s Office would do some analysis with the Planning staff and return to the Council with their best approach on extending the interim regulations to allow the Council sufficient time to complete the process. He was not sure what form it would take at the present time. He said it would likely involve a public hearing on the extension to provide the public with proper notice. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to the Monday, March 23, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Rosenbaum announced that Council Member Huber, representing the Finance Committee, and Council Member Kniss, representing the Policy and Services Committee, were appointed to the Telecommunications Advisory Panel. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to a Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation and Public Employee Performance Evaluation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation and Public Employee Performance Evaluation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
03/02/98 86-112
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.
03/02/98 86-113