HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-23 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting March 23, 1998 1. Joint Session with the Utilities Advisory Commission re the
Utilities Advisory Commission=s Role in a Deregulated Environment...........................................86-142 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.............86-142 1. Proclamation Honoring Brian Martin for His Achievement in the 1998 Winter Olympics.................................86-143
2. City Manager=s Report re Flood ........................86-143 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................86-144 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................86-144
3. Sale of Energy and Energy Related Services Outside the City=s Existing Service Territory - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee.............................................86-144 4. Legislative Objectives - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee.............................................86-145 5. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Carollo Engineers for the Water Wells Regional Storage and Distribution Systems Study............................86-145
6. Approval of Staff=s Assessment of the Padmount Equipment Policy................................................86-145 7. Reformation of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Karlskint-Crum, Inc. for Foothills Park Irrigation System86-145 8. Ratification of Continuing Emergency "El Nino 98" Disaster86-145 9. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (CMR:138:98)...................................86-145
03/23/98 86-140
10. Council Members Eakins, Mossar and Wheeler re the Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto...................86-166 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations] Shall be in Effect.....86-168 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m............86-168
03/23/98 86-141
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss Utilities Advisory Commission PRESENT: Eyerly, Grimsrud, Gruen, Johnston, Sahagian SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Session with the Utilities Advisory Commission re the
Utilities Advisory Commission=s Role in a Deregulated Environment No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
03/23/98 86-142
Regular Meeting March 23, 1998 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, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamation Honoring Brian Martin for His Achievement in the 1998 Winter Olympics Mayor Rosenbaum read a proclamation honoring Brian Martin, a graduate of Gunn High School and recent recipient of a 1998 Winter Olympic medal for his accomplishments in the luge. Jack Morton, President, Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, 2343 Webster Street, acknowledged the perseverance necessary for Brian Martin to have become a luger from Palo Alto. Michele Poche, on behalf of Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Member Joseph Simitian, presented a proclamation to Brian Martin, thanking him for having made Palo Alto, the County, and the Country look good. Mayor Rosenbaum presented Brian Martin with a number of gifts, including a tree in a small red wagon in recognition of the tree to be planted in the Olympic Grove in El Camino Park in honor of Brian Martin. Brian Martin thanked Palo Alto for the warm welcome and support and expressed his pride in having represented the City and the Country in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Japan. Mayor Rosenbaum greeted and welcomed 12 students visiting from Nihari, Japan, and presented the students with gifts, and noted that 12 Palo Alto students would travel to Japan later in the year. The beautiful gift from the visitors was recognized. Council Member Fazzino acknowledged a group of 10 students, members of Project Harmony, who visited Palo Alto families, and also a group of 10 Palo Alto students from Gunn High School who had recently traveled to Russia. He accepted the gift the students had
presented to the City, and he would present the City=s gift to the students later that week.
2. City Manager=s Report re Flood
03/23/98 86-143
City Manager June Fleming said the creek level detectors recently installed to serve as a warning system had been tested and were operational at Adobe Creek. The system automatically monitored and transmitted information to Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and on to the Emergency Operating Center (EOC) concerning creek levels. The remaining part of the system for San Francisquito and Matadero Creeks would be completed within two weeks. Staff had also been investigating information about a weather station at Foothills Park, specifications of which had been completed and the station would be installed within one week. The search for a Community Alert System had been narrowed to three possible systems, the evaluation of which would be completed within the following month. Staff had also been asked by the Council to return with recommendations for dumpster fees which would appear on the April 6, 1998, Council agenda. Staff planned to hold regular meetings to keep abreast of flood issues. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Grady Maggard, 3818 Magnolia, spoke regarding Barron Park storm drains. Richard Gruen, Box 2351, spoke regarding graphic reporting. Ray Dempsey, 1036 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the Professorville Neighborhood Association Survey. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding fair play. Stephanie Muñoz, 101 Alma Street #701, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation senior housing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of November 18, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of November 24, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian Αnot participating.≅ CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 8.
03/23/98 86-144
3. Sale of Energy and Energy Related Services Outside the City=s Existing Service Territory - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee 4. Legislative Objectives - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee 5. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Carollo Engineers for the Water Wells Regional Storage and Distribution Systems Study
6. Approval of Staff=s Assessment of the Padmount Equipment Policy 7. Reformation of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Karlskint-Crum, Inc. for Foothills Park Irrigation System 8. Ratification of Continuing Emergency "El Nino 98" Disaster MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS CLOSED SESSION UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. Discussion and Preliminary Direction on Framework for Revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Related Policy Issues (CMR:138:98) Council Member Huber was unable to participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. Mayor Rosenbaum said the staff report (CMR:138:98) contained ten recommendations, four of which had been covered in previous meetings. Item 3 involved the creation of a list of non-designated properties of potential historical merit. While the Council had created the list, concern had been expressed about some level of protection provided to the list. Staff was asked to comment on the transition period with respect to homes characterized as Study Priority 1 or Study Priority 2, and possible actions the Council might make for the transition period. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said chronologically, Item 10 appeared prior to Item 3. The non-designated list no longer existed and would be created after the survey work was concluded in the Fall of 1998. Item 3 simply acknowledged properties identified in the 1998 survey with potential historic merit. The survey work currently underway would not complete the investigation of all potentially historic buildings, but acknowledged the possibility other buildings would be found. Item 10 dealt with the treatment of properties identified as Study Priority 1 and Study Priority 2
03/23/98 86-145
for the purpose of the ongoing survey work. The transition represented the time between adoption of the new ordinance and when the interim regulations expired and the time the Council actually reviewed the recommendations for increasing the historic inventory. The time between ordinance adoption and the revised inventory adoption would be limited. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether staff anticipated a determination would be made of most, if not all, of the properties in Study Priority 1 with notification made to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the public, with an opportunity given to adding to the inventory by the end of the year. Ms. Warheit said staff would move forward with Study Priority 1 based on the number of volunteers. The survey consultant was currently analyzing the City's position with regard to work conducted to date. The properties on the list would be assigned tasks for completion of the work. The Study Priority 2 list included properties which might be part of historic districts. As research continued and information revealed potential districts, a decision might be made to pursue one or more districts rather than focusing all research on the potentially eligible properties. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the City would have a considerable number of homes in Study Priority 2 not designated one way or the other by the end of the year. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Mayor Rosenbaum said some members of the public and members of the Council might be concerned about what occurred after the consultant finished the survey work and several thousand homes had not been either designated or excluded. Since the Council was unsure about the Study Priority 2 buildings, it might want to hold off on making a decision about protection until closer to the end of the year. Ms. Warheit said the options provided for in the staff report (CMR:138:98) for Study Priority 2 under Item 10 dealt with the period prior to the time line referred to by Mayor Rosenbaum. If people were concerned about what would happen to buildings in Study Priority 2 before the Council was able to address the revised inventory, it would be addressed in Item 10. Mayor Rosenbaum's questions were valid for people concerned about what would happen to items left in Study Priority 2 after the Council had acted, which was why staff had not made a recommendation. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the staff recommendation (5) to prohibit demolition of designated historic resources listed on the historic inventory, except in unusual circumstances.
03/23/98 86-146
Council Member Wheeler said staff had done an admirable job of presenting the Council with an understandable and compelling rationale for its recommendation on treatment of the City's historic resources. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debbie Cauble had provided a very eloquent explanation about why, from a legal standpoint, Item 5 should be the Council's legal stance with which she concurred. Council Member Mossar supported Council Member Wheeler's comments. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether Council Member Wheeler had spoken about the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Council Member Wheeler replied yes. Historic Resources Board Member Roger Kohler said when the HRB had discussed Item 5, all had agreed that something should be included to define unusual circumstances in a way which not only the public but the HRB could understand. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the staff recommendation (5A) to require a building permit for a replacement structure prior to issuance of a demolition permit for buildings on the historic inventory. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the staff recommendation (5B) to provide for salvage of historical building materials. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the staff recommendation (6) to regulate the exterior alterations to properties on the historic inventory, with direction to staff to seek Council direction about how it should be regulated by the City by affirming, modifying or rejecting the recommended proposals and options, or by specifying different options. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the staff recommendation (6A) to require review of all exterior alterations to properties on the historic inventory, except exempt properties.
03/23/98 86-147
Council Member Mossar said the integrity of the historic nature of the City's historic structures should be maintained, which was the purpose of the review of the modifications. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the last paragraph on page 15 of the staff report (CMR:138:98) addressed one of the issues which had specifically arisen under the current interim ordinance related to windows, particularly windows consistent with the design but not double-paned or would not protect the house interior as efficiently as modern windows, i.e., whether exterior alterations included windows and doors. Director of Planning & Community Services Ken Schreiber replied yes. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether or not a particular type of window, such as a weather type window which would not necessarily modify the design, could be used instead of a traditional window. Ms. Warheit said the National Park Service provided volumes of materials about how to satisfy both sound and weather protection with historically appropriate buildings. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ Council Member Ojakian thought Item 6B should treat both types of properties the same. He was in disagreement with staff's recommendation, preferring a motion where single-family and multi-family properties were treated in the same manner. Council Member Fazzino sought clarification from staff about the meaning of Item 6B. Examples of invasion of privacy over the prior year or two had occurred in the community: for example, on North Hampton. He was unclear about what Item 6B accomplished outside of the current daylight plane or other rules with respect to the issue of ensuring privacy. The second question involved Council Member Ojakian's comment about the difference between single-family and multi-family. Single-family homes adjacent to multi-family might have different expectations with respect to what was allowed as opposed to purely single-family. Ms. Warheit said staff had proposed Item 6B as merely procedural. Currently, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dealt with all non-single-family homes. By recognizing that, it allowed staff to consider the kinds of regulations desired and the best program to put in place to implement the regulations differently for the two types of properties, since single-family properties were already subject to discretionary review. Item 6B would not recommend treating properties differently once a determination was made about how it should be treated.
03/23/98 86-148
Council Member Fazzino asked whether Item 6B clarified the process, not the governance. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Council Member Fazzino asked for an example of an exterior alteration issue related to protection of privacy. Deputy City Manager Ken Schreiber said Item 6 discussed the review of exterior alterations within the context of historic qualities. The design review was based on historic criteria. The impact of visual on other properties such as windows looking into backyards, was inherently part of that review and would not be addressed in Item 5. The historic nature of the building might change the building's affect on an adjacent property, but that was not the central concern. The City had very clear standards in the ARB ordinance as to what projects were to be reviewed against. Currently, he was unsure the historic resource ordinance would have a standard or would be appropriate to address broader design concerns such as visual impact on adjacent properties beyond the historic aspects. The question he heard went beyond the historic aspect of the impact of large houses on adjacent properties. Council Member Eakins was unable to determine whether both of the two clauses in the sentence on page 16 of the staff report (CMR:138:98), "to tailor regulation of single-family properties in ways that protect the privacy of homeowners and make participation in the regulatory process less burdensome," were about process or whether one was about line of sight and the other about process but had been put together in one point. Ms. Cauble said the issue of privacy was not about line of sight but about the invasion or perceived invasiveness of the review process. For example, under the existing ARB ordinance, if a commercial or multi-family project went before the ARB, the ARB would have complete purview under everything that happened on the site, such as landscape plan, and irrigation. By separating the two, it allowed staff later in the report to suggest that landscape issues, for example, be treated differently for single-family homes. Then single-family homeowners would not anticipate, once that house became historic, that a review board could dictate how flowers were planted. It recognized that someone's home was being reviewed and allowed a tailoring to keep people from feeling their privacy was being invaded by the process. Council Member Eakins said the issue of privacy was important and not always considered in the process. She asked whether something could be added about line of sight. Ms. Cauble said a better place to insert the issue of line of sight was under Item 11 on the agenda dealing with single-family design review issues. The issue of privacy between neighbors was not one
03/23/98 86-149
related to historic properties uniquely but was a common issue which should be addressed in that forum. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the staff recommendation (6B) to provide a different set of regulations and a different process for single family properties than for multifamily/nonresidential properties. Council Member Mossar said Ms. Warheit's clarification made the recommendation acceptable. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the staff recommendation (6C) to provide for staff review of minor projects. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ Council Member Wheeler thought no one would argue with Item 6D-1 that Landmark properties should be required to comply with recommendations of the HRB and staff on exterior alterations; however, the same was not true of Item 6D-2 with regard to significant resource properties. Given what had been heard from the community about the importance of the subject and how much time was required for the process for the highly qualified people the City would require to be on the Board, she doubted the City would find anyone to serve for very long if only one tenth of the properties subject to review had to comply with the recommendations or rulings and the other 90 percent could ignore the rulings. If the City desired high-quality people willing to spend a great deal of time providing a service to the community, which the community had indicated was extremely important, then the reviews and design work the body conducted had to be complied with. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the staff recommendations for 6D-1 and for 6D-2, that Council adopt for Landmark and Significant Resources properties mandatory design review compliance for both major and minor projects. Council Member Eakins supported Council Member Wheeler's comments. The chart showing the comparison of historic preservation ordinances from different cities in the State indicated that for alterations mandatory compliance was required. None of the cities had voluntary compliance. Vice Mayor Schneider agreed with mandatory compliance for major projects but was unable to support the requirement for significant resource projects, especially when 900 properties were involved. Palo Alto had a significantly larger number of houses on the inventory than other communities, for instance, a much greater proportion of houses in Palo Alto were placed on the list which
03/23/98 86-150
could interfere with personal property rights of homeowners. Confidence should be placed in the individual homeowners, particularly on significant resource properties. She would not support the motion. Council Member Kniss supported the motion with some hesitation and the desire to see the issue monitored. A number of individuals were affected by the motion. She had become more alarmed with what was happening in the community. Many cities in the country were in the process of searching for ways to maintain their historic sites and be fair about it. The motion might not work long-term. Whatever was done should not be in concrete and should be revisited. The City had learned a great deal over the past 18 months. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the total number of landmark and significant properties was 900 or 1,100. Ms. Warheit said the current total on the inventory was more than 500. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the expectation was for the number of increase to 1,100. Ms. Warheit said the number would be affected by the number of historic districts. A substantial increase over the current number would be seen. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the number of properties could be 4 to 5 percent of the building stock in Palo Alto. Ms. Warheit said the percentage would not be significant in relation to the total building stock. Council Member Ojakian asked how other cities handled significant pieces of property such as mandatory or voluntary compliance. Ms. Warheit said all of the ordinances she had seen, where significant properties were actually on the historic inventory and subject to review, required compliance. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the reference was to both Landmark and Significant. Ms. Warheit said both. Most cities made no distinction between the Landmark and Significant properties, although some had different names. No other city called it "significant resource." Typically, anything on the inventory was subject to review, and compliance was required.
03/23/98 86-151
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the landmark status applied to every home in the district or just a certain number of homes, e.g., Professorville, which was an historic district. Ms. Warheit said only the contributors to the district were subject to regulations. The standard treatment for noncontributors in a district was simply that any new construction had to be compatible with the character of the district. Most of the buildings within a district were contributors. Council Member Ojakian asked whether undesignated properties within a historic district would go through some type of review process. Ms. Warheit said noncontributors of new construction would go through a review process for general compatibility with the district. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the types of alterations would be restricted. Ms. Warheit was unsure how alterations would be treated. Buildings could be demolished, so the City would not have much control. Council Member Ojakian was comfortable, given the limited number of homes affected and the fact nothing out of the ordinary from other jurisdictions was being done, in supporting the motion. Council Member Mossar said if the City was going to ask for a review, compliance should be mandatory. The process should not be considered onerous but an opportunity for the community to preserve very special housing in the community. Other communities had chosen to use the same type of regulation to successfully accomplish the goal for which Palo Alto would be glad to achieve the same. Council Member Eakins said the City had not proposed greater numbers or percentages of housing stock than other communities so as to make Palo Alto stand out as being extreme but had been very middle-of-the-road with its historic inventory. The most difficult aspect of the process would be the transition because homes were purchased when protections had not been in place. Council Member Kniss was correct. The initial phases of establishing the regulations would be difficult, especially during transition. She was sympathetic with people who found expectations changed. The City was doing something for the good of the community. For clarification, the requirements were for exterior alterations only. Council Member Fazzino said the issue was one of the most fundamental to come before the Council within the broader context of historic preservation. He had wrestled with the issue and came to the conclusion that if he could not support Significant Resource mandatory compliance, why had he spent an inordinate amount of time
03/23/98 86-152
over the past 18 months on the whole subject of historic preservation. Voluntary compliance had not worked over the past few years and had not worked during an over-heated housing market. Voluntary compliance had worked in the 1980s, for the most part, but the community would have still had some wonderful homes if it had a process in place to preserve them. If the Council supported the staff recommendation, he questioned the necessity of an ordinance. At the same time, he was concerned about the minor project aspect and wanted to revisit the issue. To a significant degree, his final vote on the issue would depend on how a "minor project" was defined. Predictability and streamlining were critical with respect to the whole ordinance. He would not want the City to achieve international notoriety over a minor exterior alteration, and he wanted the public to move through the process as quickly as possible. He supported the motion but wanted to retain the right to revisit the issue of minor projects, depending upon the definition of minor project during the next iteration of the process. Council Member Mossar said a window change might seem minor but had very significant impacts on the visual integrity of a house. Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the first paragraph on page 15 of the staff report (CMR:138:98), which mentioned the Secretary of Interiors Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. He said staff would interpret Comprehensive Plan Program L-60 as providing different levels of compliance with those standards, depending on whether a structure was a Landmark or Significant Resource. Ms. Warheit said every project and every building was unique. Over the past few months, the HRB had been very careful and had thoughtfully worked with each landowner during landmark reviews. A considerable amount of discretion had been used. The draft Comprehensive Plan contained a program requiring compliance to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Landmarks, which had not seemed inconsistent as being helpful to the HRB such as when the HRB knew it was looking at a Landmark, it had some rationale for trying to get the very best possible product. If the HRB was not looking at a Landmark, many options and solutions were possible. For example, the Maybeck or Sun Bonnet house which had appeared before the HRB for a window change on the second floor. The owner had proposed a change to a window which had been installed in the 1920s, removal of an original window, and installation of a pair of matching windows. Because the house had been designed by Bernard Maybeck, an internationally known designer for whom the house represented a special piece of work, an interesting discussion had ensued between the owner, architect, and the HRB about the options. At the end of the first meeting, all had agreed the proposal was probably not the best solution. It failed to give the owner exactly what was desired while leaving a special piece of architecture intact. The owner had returned two weeks later with another solution which
03/23/98 86-153
everyone approved, providing a window which met the owner's needs and left the original window intact. If the building had not been a Landmark structure, not as much time and energy would have gone into the change. Mayor Rosenbaum asked Mr. Kohler whether the HRB was comfortable making such distinctions. Mr. Kohler replied yes. The HRB had struggled with the item as well and most had reacted to the main paragraph on page 18 of the staff report (CMR:138:98) about the consultants doing the historic survey in town and reviewing categories 1 through 4, found that many of the Category 3 and 4 homes already on the inventory had been changed significantly and were no longer considered historic houses. The Category 3 and 4 homes had not been required to come before the HRB for review and a good number had not done so. The HRB had suggested Landmark structures be reviewed and be mandatory, while Significant properties would be handled in a less strict manner with more flexibility. Incentives should be given to encourage individuals to save the structures, so the degree of review would be decreased for the less important properties. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council should not assume the words on page 15 of the staff report (CMR:138:98) directed staff to use the phrases "high level of conformance" for Landmarks and "substantially conform" for Significant Resources. Staff would work on standards which were, hopefully, more usable. The Council had heard a long description about the amount of discretion being applied. The next question was whether it would make a practical difference for the person in the process with Significant Resource versus Landmark home. The quoted phrases were not directions to staff, which staff had not necessarily intended to use. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether staff would attempt to distinguish the degree to which the alterations had to satisfy the Secretary of the Interior Standards, depending upon whether an historic or significant resource. Mr. Calonne said he would ask staff, but that was the way he understood the recommendation. Mayor Rosenbaum had struggled to find a reason to maintain the two categories: Landmark and Significant Resource. Since Item 6D was the only one to which the difference applied, it might or might not be significant, i.e., he queried whether there was any reason to have a separation between the two categories. Mr. Kohler said he had been involved in the review of the interim ordinance for 18 months on the HRB, and structures had been reviewed for home improvement exceptions and variances. The HRB had the ability to discern between a Landmark and Significant structures from reading the current process. The concern had been
03/23/98 86-154
that the loss of mandatory compliance with a Significant structure, making it voluntary, would not be worth the effort. Landmark structures were more closely examined than Significant structures. Staff was very competent in providing analytical reports to help the HRB. Mayor Rosenbaum supported the motion, but was uncomfortable with the timing and would be much more comfortable if he knew how many homes would be in the categories. He had hoped the Council would have been provided with the information. Council Member Ojakian had mentioned 4 or 5 percent, e.g., with 15,000 single-family homes in Palo Alto, if the number were much larger it would be a problem. However, the issue could be revisited. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Schneider Αno,≅ Huber Αnot participating.≅ Mr. Kohler said the HRB had discussed Item 6E and proposed that fence permits be reinstituted for Landmark and Significant structures. Currently no permit was necessary for fences in such areas and some fences could be especially detrimental to the look of a Landmark structure. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the staff recommendation (6E) for single-family properties, staff recommends Option 2, limit review of landscape/site elements to those features that are important in defining the historic character of the property and that can be seen from the public right of way or private access road, such as fences, walls, gates, hedges, trees, and paving (and special features that may be identified on the State Historic Inventory Form for the property). Landscape/site features on Significant Resources property would not be reviewed. Council Member Mossar preferred to see a review for both landmark and significant resources, using the same logic which had been used all evening such as the desire to preserve the historic integrity of the residences. Compliance was not as strict for Significant Resources, but fencing or paving or other drastically different landscaping could change the nature of a residence. It seemed a shame not to have any opportunity to have dialogue with an owner of a Significant Resource about how they might improve the plans and better maintain the historic integrity. Council Member Kniss had initially felt the same way, but was not prepared to move in that direction at the current time. Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Member Kniss and for consistency sake because the review was limited, preferred to see it applied to both categories.
03/23/98 86-155
Council Member Eakins supported the motion because landscape features, by and large, were reversible, whereas alterations to the historic structure were less reversible. Council Member Wheeler had examined a number of the houses on the Priority 1 list, and her view on Item 6E had been significantly shaped by what she had observed. Many of the houses examined, which were likely to be included on the inventory at some point in the future, not only were lovely and significant architecturally, but many had very significant trees or walls or hedges present for some duration. Such landscape features became a very important part of the property's significance. The trees might not be protected under the City's heritage tree ordinance. The City would be missing something if properties were allowed to change without any review whatsoever. The direction in which Council Member Kniss was heading, was fairly judicious and would allow the City to back out and back down if it appeared too invasive. The City ran the risk of losing some significant and historic features of the property that made the property enjoyable if it failed to at least have a conversation with the owners about retention of the landscape features. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to amend the motion that the City govern single-family Significant Resource properties according to Option No. 2, limited review of historic landscape site features as described in 6E and that the compliance with that review be voluntary on the part of the property owner. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Kniss, Schneider, Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Huber Αnot
participating.≅ Council Member Fazzino supported the amendment because of the voluntary clause, but was concerned about that aspect of the issue and might wish to revisit it within a few months. Council Member Eakins thought people should have the opportunity to make their own mistakes. Optional compliance conformed with her opinion. Council Member Kniss thought voluntary meant a discussion with the applicant where advice was given and the owner had the option to take or not take the advice. Ms. Warheit said Council Member Kniss was correct. Council Member Kniss thought the item was not a significant change and had no disagreement with it. The only distinction was that the City was willing to provide free advice which might or might not be taken.
03/23/98 86-156
Vice Mayor Schneider said the cost in terms of staff time and HRB time would be significant if a review of landscape features was required on every significant resource property. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the staff recommendation (f) for single family properties that are Landmark, limit the review of exterior paint color to a general color palette that is appropriate to the historic building and district. Do not review exterior paint color on Significant Resource properties. Council Member Kniss said the color of buildings, particularly related to Landmark properties, was extremely significant. Paint color was very significant, and Landmarks could be destroyed without the limited review. Vice Mayor Schneider was concerned about discussing shades of beige and white. A number of houses fitting into the Landmark category were painted very different colors and were very attractive. Individuals should be given an opportunity to express personal taste. Council Member Mossar asked whether the City would be able to provide information about appropriate colors for a particular style or era of house. Ms. Warheit said Council Member Kniss's comment was very appropriate for the City to make available in its library. Council Member Mossar supported the motion but hoped it was one of the points of information provided to the public so the public could understand the significance of paint color and the fact appropriate colors were possible. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion but expressed concern about declaring "official" City colors for a particular time. He was not desirous of being in the position of legislating color choice. The proposal was acceptable but the City should not devote a great deal of resources determining color choices. The Council should be careful about moving away from the original intent and objective of the ordinance. If the Council became mired in detail, it could lose support of the overall objectives of the program. Council Member Eakins agreed with Council Member Fazzino's comments. For Significant Resources, color was reversible and the major objectives should be kept in mind without becoming too picky. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:35 P.M.
03/23/98 86-157
Mayor Rosenbaum had discussed with staff the possibility of having the more complex items referred to either the Planning Commission, HRB, ARB, or a combination thereof. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to refer Item Nos. 7B, 7C-2, 7C-3, and 7F to the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Historic Resources Board. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the staff recommendations for 7A, 7C-1, 7C-4, 7D-1, 7D-2, 7D-3, 7D-4, and 7E, and explore other incentive ideas that have been recommended by the public at other meetings. Council Member Wheeler said owners of historic properties faced uncertain futures and challenges. The City should do whatever make it more economically feasible to retain and maintain the homes. Council Member Kniss said the Council was looking at options. Options 7 and 7B were particularly interesting. Many of the lots were large and the house small. The temptation was very great for someone to purchase the lot, split the lot, and build two houses larger than the current house. To allow something like that would be a dramatic change in the way the issue had been considered previously. Council Member Ojakian was interested in two other incentives. Council Member Fazzino had discussed streamlining, ensuring a specific time frame was provided for the projects and minimizing the time people were in the process. Also, Option 7D involved the development of an incentive-based fee schedule, which he hoped would minimize the cost to people. The City might defray some of the costs because of the objective. He hoped the incentives would be advantageous to the homeowners. Council Member Fazzino endorsed Council Member Ojakian's comments about streamlining the review process, an important element of the plan. He was pleased with the suggestion of an incentive-based fee system. Historic preservation represented a benefit to the entire community, therefore, the entire community needed to bear some of the costs associated with preservation. One way of which was through a fee system encouraging preservation. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ Council Member Mossar asked for staff's rationale for eliminating the requirement to have one member of the HRB an owner/occupant of an historic structure.
03/23/98 86-158
Mr. Schreiber said when the Historic Resources Board (HRB) had originally been established, the intent was for the HRB to have an advisory, voluntary compliance role. A homeowner was considered a valuable part of the advisory function. As the HRB moved into a more rigorous, formal role, staff thought that to be consistent with other boards, and the HRB should not have unusual requirements. The Council had discretion to appoint the most qualified applicants. Nothing would prohibit one or more members of the HRB from being owners of historic houses, but staff wanted to provide the Council with the flexibility of making appointments as it saw fit. The four architects on the ARB had provided a good design review role. Council Member Mossar asked whether the HRB had any thoughts on the composition. Mr. Kohler said the HRB had discussed the issue. The majority of the HRB felt that increasing the number of architects was not a major benefit. He personally thought the mix of the HRB was excellent, including people who had grown up in Palo Alto, some who had made their hobby the history of Palo Alto, and four who were licensed architects. Discussions had been very enlightening between licensed and nonlicensed members. A proposal had been drafted with a recommendation for four architects on the HRB. The HRB thought having one HRB member who owned an historic structure, not necessarily a landmark structure, was important. Such an individual provided perspective on what was required to keep up an historic home. Council Member Wheeler thought since the decision had been made to make compliance with the HRB's review mandatory, the rationale was present for requiring a majority of the HRB to have formal design training or experience. On the other hand, as an observer of the HRB over the past few years, Mr. Kohler's statement about the mix of areas of expertise on the HRB were pertinent. The HRB would be talking with a number of homeowners who were very perplexed by the process and would have many questions. No one could answer the questions and concerns better than a member of the HRB who had been through the same thing. Most of the older homes in the community needed the attention of current owners. It was appropriate to continue to have an owner of an historic home or a building. The ARB was another design review body with four out of its five members with a specific designation, which had resulted in very good recommendations. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt staff recommendation (8) Changes to qualifications of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) members. The requirement in the current Ordinance was that three of the seven HRB members be architects or other design professionals should be increased to require that four members have such credentials. Continue to require that one member shall be an owner/occupant of a Category 1 or 2 historic home or structure in a historic district.
03/23/98 86-159
Council Member Ojakian said at one time the HRB position of owner/occupant had been filled by a member of the Professorville zone, which had been very useful. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether an overwhelming number of property owners could decide to remove a neighborhood from a conservation area just as an overwhelming number of people in a single-story overlay could agree to remove the single-story overlay. Mr. Schreiber said the situation with single-story overlay was similar in that people could petition for removal of the district from the single-story overlay. However, the ultimate decision was the Council's, not the property owners. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified the group could potentially petition for removal from a conservation area. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. However, the Council could chose whether or not to pursue the issue. Council Member Eakins said at the last HRB meeting, Mr. Kohler made a very eloquent comment about a flaw of the interim program, e.g., assigning historic designations on a case-by-case basis rather than looking at an entire block, neighborhood, or district. Mr. Kohler said over the past 18 months, an issue had arisen through the HRB that on any particular block, two homes could be designated contributing residents with a house in between not historic. Therefore, the house in the middle could be torn down and rebuilt in any fashion. Whereas, the two homes on either side would have to go through the interim review and compatibility review process. Council Member Eakins was less interested in the flaws of the interim ordinance and more concerned about the final process. Mr. Kohler said people continually asked why one house was historic and another was not, and why a particular house was not historic and others were contributing. He expressed concern about entire blocks. The interim period had been more isolated on an individual basis and had not dealt with blocks and neighborhoods. People questioned what the new ordinance would do to help neighborhoods. Council Member Eakins clarified a neighborhood historic district would be helpful in meeting some of the interests of the community. Mr. Kohler replied yes. People from College Terrace had mentioned some of the streets were a lost cause since many of the historic homes had been replaced by developer-type houses. If sufficient
03/23/98 86-160
numbers in the community requested an area be designated a conservation area, further restrictions could be placed on the entire block rather than individually. Council Member Eakins understood staff had used the example of the single-story overlay merely for demonstration purposes and the historic districts would not have to follow the same pattern. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Council Member Eakins asked whether 70 percent of the property owners would have to request the change or whether it would be a professional and policy judgment about the integrity of an area. Ms. Warheit said the proposal would examine the exact sort of issues Council Member Eakins had raised. Staff had not meant to propose any particular arrangement or be specific. Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the difference between an historic district and a neighborhood conservation area with respect to how it was formed, the sort of properties contained within, etc. Ms. Warheit said an historic district had a very specific definition in the Secretary's standards, National Park Service Guidelines, etc. Some historic context or meaning had to be conveyed by the structures as opposed to only being pleasant to look at. In the survey, the historic context, the cultural, economic, and social development of the City, etc., would provide the basis for identifying where historic districts should be located. A neighborhood might have a pleasant aspect and might be of a character representing the City and was something the City valued and wanted to protect, but there might not be an historic meaning. That would be the main difference between an historic district and a neighborhood conservation area. Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the differences in terms of how the districts were formed. The implication was that residents would approach the City to request an historic district also. Ms. Warheit said historic districts would be identified in the historic survey work. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified the City would create historic districts based on studies conducted where a neighborhood conservation area would come from the residents. Ms. Warheit said that was the way neighborhood conservation was being proposed under Item 9. Some communities took direction in identifying areas appropriate for conservation. Historic districts would definitely come out of survey work.
03/23/98 86-161
MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt staff recommendation (9) Property owner-initiated Neighborhood Conservation Areas, to direct staff to investigate options for establishing a process to allow property owners in intact traditional neighborhoods to initiate Neighborhood Conservation Areas, based on the process used to establish Single Story Overlay zones. If so directed, staff would present possible options as to how such zones could be established at the time the revised historic inventory was presented to City Council in the final quarter of 1998, with the understanding that the process be broader rather than narrow in its interpretation of the Single-Story Overlay zone processes. Council Member Eakins said the community had been verbal about the issue of the need for an additional way to protect neighborhoods. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to not allow demolitions or major, significant exterior alterations on properties of historic relevance in either Study Priorities 1 or 2 during the period between the end of the interim ordinance and adoption of the final ordinance until the end of December 1998 or when the historic survey was adopted by the City Council without the historic evaluation including consideration of possible district status. Council Member Eakins said the point was to find out whether or not structures on the two lists had historic significance and whether possible Landmarks or Significant Resources were included in a historic district, whether national or local, or in a possible historic neighborhood conservation district. Further, a process needed to be provided for identifying and evaluating the historic status. Council Member Kniss asked how many houses were affected and the length of time the process would take. The goal was clearly to protect houses needing protection. The second goal was to not impact staff beyond its ability to absorb what the Council was putting out. A balancing act was going on between protection and what could be provided. Mr. Schreiber said approximately 600 properties were listed in Priority 1 and 2,700 in Priority 2, of which one or two per week were involved in demolitions assuming a stringent demolition definition such as a significant change to the front facade. Significant exterior change had been added but not defined. Staff had no basis with which to provide a number. Staff resources would be diverted from the overall effort. Vice Mayor Schneider could not support the motion for the same reasons she had used all along, e.g., 3,300 houses would be
03/23/98 86-162
prohibited from demolition. There was no question some houses which should be protected could be lost, but the recommendation was against the public's will to have that number of houses, particularly Priority 2. Too much was being asked of staff. Council Member Mossar supported the motion. The biggest reason for the motion was the City's situation of having to draft an ordinance prior to completion of the inventory. Unfortunately, a clearer picture of the end result of the inventory was not available. A holding pattern needed to be created for houses the City might need to protect. Council Member Wheeler said the houses on the Priority 2 list would be on the list for a defined period of time. The City would be highly motivated to move the houses off the holding list one way or the other because of the defined period of time. A way would be afforded to people in the holding area, should circumstances arise in their personal situations requiring an answer sooner rather than later, to get the answer and evaluation. Given the fact the opportunity existed and the fact staff had indicated not a great number of houses would require an the answer within the interim period, it was perfectly reasonable to protect all of the houses for potential inclusion in the inventory for the period of time necessary to finish the inventory. Mayor Rosenbaum thought a specific four-month period had been defined without any expectation that all of the homes in Study Priority 2 would have been categorized by the end of the period. Several thousand homes would be left with a requirement to make a decision by the end of the year about what to do with the remaining homes. Council Member Wheeler thought the inventory was to have been completed by the end of the year and interim period. If not completed, the motion would motivate completion and another discussion would be necessary to determine whether the time period should be extended or allow the homes to be released. People needed assurance about the completion of the inventory. Mayor Rosenbaum asked staff to comment about characterizing 2,700 homes by the end of the year. Mr. Schreiber said by the end of the year, the majority of Priority 2 structures would not have been researched or received a recommendation for placement or non-placement on the inventory. Staff's conclusion in terms of the future holding pond was that the properties would not be subject to City restriction in the ordinance. Two classifications would be made. Absent any change, the ordinance would return with the Landmark and Significant Resource categories. The great bulk of the properties would not have had a decision regarding the inventory.
03/23/98 86-163
Ms. Warheit concurred but added staff would know more about the properties by the end of the summer, so the Council would have a greater understanding of the reasonable choices. Mr. Schreiber said the Council would be provided with a list, a map, and other information, but would not be able to make a decision as to whether the properties were inventory-eligible. Mayor Rosenbaum asked Council Member Eakins whether she had a process in the interim period for determining property eligibility. Council Member Eakins thought some of the structures would be dismissed readily. The added obstacle was the possible inclusion of an historic district which added an extra layer of attention, but addressed widespread concern across the community about losing the settings for the City's individual historic structures on the inventory. A number of suggestions from people had been received. Steve Pierce had outlined a possible procedure. She asked Mr. Kohler whether the process should be continued or changed to make it move faster, particularly for structures on the Priority 2 list. Mr. Kohler thought it might be possible to deal with it as an on-demand basis such as a homeowner wanting to do something on his house, a way could be made to determine whether or not it was on the list. Council Member Eakins asked whether ways could be found to streamline the process further, particularly in light of the volume. Mr. Kohler was unsure a speedy way of considering homes for the historic inventory was possible. In the early days of the interim ordinance, the HRB reviewed 10 to 12 homes every week. Currently, four to five homes every two weeks were reviewed. No one was able to calculate the volume of homes. Mr. Schreiber said the issue was one of both district and inventory. A merit evaluation regarding appropriateness on the inventory also opened up applications from properties not pursuing demolition but considered for sale. Staff had received requests for merit evaluation even when no building permit had been applied for. In many cases, no building permit was anticipated. Moving away from individuals desiring demolition or physical change, the numbers would expand. However, the numbers would decrease since currently staff was dealing with 6,000 structures which would decrease to just over 3,000. Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the feasibility of determining whether a structure might be in an historic district as opposed to individual designation.
03/23/98 86-164
Ms. Warheit said such an evaluation was reasonable. The purpose was not to lose properties considered eligible for the inventory, which meant a structure could be considered either because it was part of a district or individually eligible. Whoever conducted the merit evaluation at the HRB would be consulting with the survey team and relying on the information from the survey to make an earlier estimation about whether the property was located in an area seriously being considered as an historic district or not. Council Member Ojakian asked when staff anticipated completion of the review of the 2,700 homes. Mr. Schreiber said staff assumed completing review of the 2,700 houses could take any number of years since it involved volunteer efforts which would take time. Despite all the best intentions, he could not imagine the process would move very quickly given the size of the list. Council Member Ojakian said while the continued over the next two to three years, any of the homes could be significantly altered. Mayor Rosenbaum thought the Council would have revisited the issue in December when it found out what was left over in the undesignated category. Council Member Ojakian said staff thought not many homes would have been designated at the end of four months, and the Council would have basically the same discussion. Mayor Rosenbaum said the Council would have a better idea of where it stood with what had not been designated. Council Member Ojakian said in some ways, his preference would have been to create a third category of homes which could be demolished or have exterior alterations but in the meantime go through a review process to at least educate people and minimize the potential destruction of the homes. Council Member Mossar had no disagreement with Council Member Ojakian's comments about a third category, however, by supporting the motion, the Council gave itself some time to obtain more information. The number of Landmark and Significant structures was unknown. The Council would also have had some experience living with the ordinance and would find it much easier to make a decision. Council Member Ojakian would support the motion, because it would buy some time. However, an attempt was being made to match rules with reality. The Council was in the process of setting policy, which was good, but policy had to match with the housing stock or not much would have been accomplished.
03/23/98 86-165
Council Member Kniss asked how the number differed significantly from where the City stood with the current ordinance calling for pre-1940 structures. Mr. Schreiber said about half as many, i.e., 3,300 versus 6,000. Council Member Kniss said virtually the number was being cut in half, a few months time was being bought, and it seemed harmless on the surface. The number of volunteer hours made the task daunting. She hesitantly supported the motion. Although the number would decrease, the City would hear a number of complaints from individuals caught in the web. Council Member Fazzino said the City had committed itself to a huge task. The job needed to be completed right and move forward. Staff had indicated a number of the properties might be eligible for historic status, which was sufficient for him to want to find a way of including the properties in the demolition prohibition during the transition period. Since the City was in the middle of the process, if no way was found to preserve the properties during the transition period, a rush on the 5th floor would be overwhelming. A way needed to be found to protect the homes during the transition period and complete the job. At the same time, it was very important that the job be completed as quickly as possible. He appreciated the amount of work staff had to do but was convinced staff could complete the job quicker than indicated. Many of the homes could be evaluated and a decision made fairly quickly to determine whether a home was eligible for historic status, which might need to be the focus over the following months. Difficult decisions would have to be made. During the interim time, appeals to the process should be expedited as quickly as possible to avoid some of the pitfalls associated with time and expense which had plagued the interim process to date. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider Αno,≅ Huber Αnot participating.≅ 10. Council Members Eakins, Mossar and Wheeler re the Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto Council Member Wheeler thanked John Northway and Annette Glanckopf Ashton for bringing a group of three dozen citizens and City staff together to discuss the future of residential housing in Palo Alto. The group was most unique, the discussion lively, and resulted in a product of which the Council had received several versions. Thanks were also given to George Stern for his careful editing and authorship of the document. During her own tenure as Mayor, the big surprise had been the public outcry over the demolition of houses throughout the City, particularly in historic neighborhoods. The number of people who became involved in the issue resulted in the interim historic regulations. The outcry had been about the loss of the historic fabric of the town as well as the kinds of structures being used to replace the lost historic structures. The
03/23/98 86-166
purpose of the group had not been to come up with a solution, but had been designed to examine what was occurring in the City and to determine whether a problem existed. If a problem existed, an attempt would be made to define the problem. The group had decided a problem existed and had made a very good attempt at definition. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. George Stern, 705 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the need to maintain the desirability of Palo Alto. John Northway, Lytton Avenue, spoke regarding the group's attempt to define a very complicated problem with tensions which needed to be minimized. The Council was urged to continue the work on the future of residential structures in Palo Alto. Annette Glanckopf Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the difficulty in defining the various viewpoints and concerns for the future of residential structures in Palo Alto. No solutions had been discussed. The individuals who contributed were thanked. No easy solution was possible and tension would always be present. The Council was asked to approve the motion and consider formation of a legitimatized broad-based citizens group to continue to work with planning staff to investigate work in other communities to present alternatives. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, encouraged the Council to provide precision to the motion. In recent years, a work plan had been received for the Planning Division which included all of the assignments. If the work in the motion was to be included in the work plan, such an indication should be made or the objectives would not be achieved. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, asked the Council to approve the motion, and ask staff to make the issue a priority. People were upset about what was going on in the community. The Council was urged to ask staff to keep in mind: 1) the context of the houses; 2) how houses fit into neighborhoods, particularly setbacks; 3) how design review improved product; 4) paint and color; and 5) how a minor change can have a major impact on a structure's intrusion into another person's space. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. Council Member Wheeler appreciated the comments by members of the public and the concerns raised by the last few speakers. The drafters of the memo shared the concerns. Both the historic preservation issue and the R-1 design issue should be explored and addressed within a reasonable time frame in order to achieve equity among various owners and to avoid unintended and negative consequences for some neighborhoods. The intent of the colleagues who wrote the memo that direction be given to staff to incorporate
03/23/98 86-167
the item in the work plan and that staff would proceed within the 1998-99 fiscal year. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to direct staff to incorporate in the Planning Department Work Plan for 1998-1999 potential changes to Palo Alto's regulations to address the design and quality of its residential neighborhoods. City Manager June Fleming said if the motion passed, staff would take the direction as a policy decision the Council had made. Staff would return during the budget as a part of the 1998-99 work plan. Other items would, of necessity, be removed from the work plan. The Zucker Report revealed how staff would be unable to accomplish all of the items already in the work plan along with the additional item, which would be taken as a priority. Council Member Ojakian said the City Manager had raised a good point. The project was monumental and would probably have a large dollar figure with it. A process was just being started and the motion would provide the latitude to obtain information. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations] Shall be in Effect Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation to introduce the Ordinance to extend the Interim Historic Regulations to August 31, 1998.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code [Interim Historic Regulations] Shall be in Effect≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino and Huber absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
03/23/98 86-168
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.
03/23/98 86-169