HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-03 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting August 3, 1998
1. Resolution 7785 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Oaxaca, Oaxaca,
Mexico≅ ................................................87-88
2. Resolution 7786 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to
the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France≅87-88 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................87-88 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................87-89 3. Authorization to Proceed in Selection of Consultants for Capital Improvement Program Project 19804, Regarding Feasibility of a Joint City/Palo Alto Unified School District Project at Gunn Library - Refer to Finance Committee................................................................................................87-89 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval
of the City Auditor=s Annual 1998-99 Audit Plan, including elimination of the scope limitation contained in the Public Access to City Services Audit..........................87-89
6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Andy=s Roofing
Company, Inc. for Cubberley Community Center Classrooms ΑA≅
and ΑB≅ and Covered Hallways Re-Roofing Project - CIP 1901887-89 7. Approval for Expenditures of Asset Seizure Funds.......87-89 8. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C8101269 between the City of Palo Alto and Utility Constructors for Providing Overhead Construction Services..................................87-89 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ...................87-89
08/03/98 87-86
9. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation.....87-89 10. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation.....87-90 11. City of Palo Alto Proposed Comments on Woodland Creek Apartments Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (continued from 7/27/98)...............................87-90 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties Herein Described............................87-90 13. Request for Council Approval of Revisions to Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Regulations and Compatibility Review Standards, and Use of an Ombudsman
and a Public Outreach Consultant Regarding the City=s Historic Preservation Programs..................................87-91 13A. (Old Item No. 4) The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation that Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance that would make changes to the current methodology used to calculate the in-lieu parking fee...........................................87-105 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-105 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:45 p.m...................................................87-106 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m......87-106
08/03/98 87-87
08/03/98 87-88
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:09 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian (arrived at 7:09 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 7785 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Oaxaca, Oaxaca,
Mexico≅ MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
2. Resolution 7786 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to
the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France≅ MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Warren Kallenbach, 1248 Harriet Street, spoke regarding ΑFiber to
the Home≅. Grady Maggard, 3818 Magnolia Drive, spoke regarding Barron Park storm drains. Sophia H. Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding harassment. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding thanks. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding Sand Hill Corridor archaeological services contract conflict of interest. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding traffic.
Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, spoke regarding ΑSpare the Air≅ Days.
08/03/98 87-89
Bob Moss 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding a storm drain project. James Witt, 722 Chimaws Drive, spoke regarding storm drains. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of May 11, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, with Item No. 4 removed by Mayor Rosenbaum at the request of a member of the public. 3. Authorization to Proceed in Selection of Consultants for Capital Improvement Program Project 19804, Regarding Feasibility of a Joint City/Palo Alto Unified School District Project at Gunn Library - Refer to Finance Committee 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval
of the City Auditor=s Annual 1998-99 Audit Plan, including elimination of the scope limitation contained in the Public Access to City Services Audit
6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Andy=s Roofing
Company, Inc. for Cubberley Community Center Classrooms ΑA≅
and ΑB≅ and Covered Hallways Re-Roofing Project - CIP 19018 7. Approval for Expenditures of Asset Seizure Funds 8. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C8101269 between the City of Palo Alto and Utility Constructors for Providing Overhead Construction Services MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 4 would become Item No. 13A. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 9. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Danton Camm v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC# CV772633;
08/03/98 87-90
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 10. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (Re: Danton Camm),SCC# CV773215 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. City of Palo Alto Proposed Comments on Woodland Creek Apartments Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (continued from 7/27/98) Council Member Mossar understood the Department of Fish and Game had conducted preliminary research and were in the process of writing a report. Other pieces of information were coming together from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) which would help the City better understand the issues. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Huber to continue the item to a date uncertain. City Manager June Fleming said the City faced a deadline with respect to responding to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Council Member Mossar said the Council had approved the comments the prior week. What remained was an appropriate response. The City had insufficient information upon which to draft such a response. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties Herein Described Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. No one appeared or filed written objections against the weed abatement assessments and any resolution passed by the Council on the matter should reflect that finding. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation to adopt the resolution.
08/03/98 87-91
Resolution 7787 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties
Herein Described≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 13. Request for Council Approval of Revisions to Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Regulations and Compatibility Review Standards, and Use of an Ombudsman
and a Public Outreach Consultant Regarding the City=s Historic Preservation Programs Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Historic Preservation Regulations Including Compatibility Review Standards Council Member Huber had been advised by the City Attorney not to participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest. Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Anne Cronin Moore said the Council had been provided with a key to the proposed revisions to the ordinance and resolution, vis a vis, a matrix which discussed the differences between three expiration dates for the interim ordinance, e.g., December 31, 1998, March 31, 1999, and June 30, 1999. The three time frames were discussed in relation to the development of the permanent ordinance, the effects on staff and the Planning Division, outreach and input opportunities associated with the permanent ordinance, the relationship of the time frames to the ongoing historic inventory, the relationship of the time frames of the Planning Commission's incentives assignment, and the relationship to subsequent code changes. In conclusion, severe difficulties were associated with the December 31, 1998, date; however, most of the important assignments could be accommodated with the March 31, 1999, expiration date as approved by the Council. Attachment C, a more detailed chronology of the historic preservation program and efforts in the City, had not been completed but would be provided to the Council at the next meeting. The report had been very difficult for staff to prepare. No predetermined recommendation had existed when staff began its analysis. Staff had examined various factors before developing its primary recommendation of eliminating compatibility review and developing two options for proceeding with a March 31, 1999, expiration date for the revised interim ordinance. Staff had taken into account the effects the various options would have on public
08/03/98 87-92
input and review. The Council had directed, and staff agreed, that public outreach be handled differently and better than had been done in the past. Consequently, the staff report recommended retention of a public outreach consultant, and a scope of work for the consultant had been included in an attachment to the report. Staff had also considered the various options and effects of the Planning Division's staffing and operations. A very critical consideration in developing the staff recommendation involved the availability of qualified consultants to assist staff in implementing the interim ordinance and regulations. After two months of extensive outreach, consultants had been identified by colleagues in other cities with experience with historic preservation. Two months prior, the City had several consultants expressing interest in working on merit evaluation and compatibility review. Currently, interest had been expressed by only two architects, one of which was willing to conduct merit evaluation screenings and the other compatibility review. The Council had approved securing a pool of consultants from which the City could draw. Neither of the interested consultants had done the kind of work described and, therefore, had no track record. Staff had no reason to believe the architects would be unable to perform successfully. Consideration had been given to the amount of effort involved in putting together a permanent ordinance proposal for the public, the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and the Council. Consideration was also given to the ongoing staff commitment to the historic inventory and the process under which the staff would find itself when findings were to be released. As a result of all considerations, staff recommended that compatibility review be eliminated. Staff had prepared detailed revisions to the compatibility review standards in the event the Council decided to continue compatibility review. Staff had followed the direction of the colleagues memo, previously discussed by the Council, and many of the comments and written correspondence received over the past few months from the public in preparing the revisions contained in the draft ordinance and draft resolution. Council Member Kniss said since the beginning of the Council's dealings with the issue of the historic preservation ordinance, major divisions were seen in the community and with the Council, and were a topic of discussion throughout the Bay Area and the Country. Something about the issue was causing more than the average amount of difficulty in coming to agreement as to how to proceed. She suspected it had to do with the fact the City might not be comparing apples to apples. Ms. Moore said much of the recent correspondence and editorials in the media had identified two issues which had been pursued and accomplished via the interim ordinance and regulations. One involved historic preservation in that a mechanism had been able to identify historic landmarks and pursue historic preservation similar to the manner in the existing ordinance. The other was being accomplished through the compatibility design review function
08/03/98 87-93
when a contributing residence was to be demolished and there was City design review of the replacement structure, which was not necessarily a commonplace component in an historic preservation ordinance. Council Member Kniss thought the City was dealing with historic preservation with one set of components and dealing with compatibility or design review as a second category. She asked about the difficulties staff had putting the information together. The report was so large it was difficult for the Council to know exactly what it was trying to accomplish. Ms. Moore said much of staff's focus had been reflective of the commentaries heard from the community and was, therefore, addressed to compatibility review, i.e., focusing on whether or not to proceed with compatibility review as it currently existed, having no compatibility review, or finding a middle path to significantly reduce the number of homes subject to compatibility review. Suggestions had been made to use Priority Lists 1 and/or 2 as a screening mechanism. Staff and the City Attorney were concerned the lists would become a regulatory device or extension of the ordinance, which could be problematic in that the study lists had not been expected to be static but lists from which properties could be added or removed, as consultants and volunteers conducted their work. Council Member Kniss thought Ms. Moore was indicating the issues were very different from what they had been, i.e., one dealt with preservation and one with design review. Ms. Moore clarified yes, design review of new construction. Council Member Fazzino understood Council would receive the Dames & Moore report the following week along with a discussion about combining the two items and, therefore, would not raise the issues at the current meeting. However, he asked about the statement on page 5 of the staff report (CMR:336:98) that "Dames & Moore has demonstrated to staff that enough meaningful inventory data and reports cannot be produced in a time frame to make December 31, 1998, the sunset for the interim ordinance feasible." He informally understood that a significant amount of inventory data would be completed well before December 31, 1998, possibly within six to eight weeks. Ms. Moore said preliminary recommendations regarding Priority List 1 and Criterion C, regarding the architecture of structures, not Criteria A and B, and a preliminary evaluation of Priority List 1, would possibly be available. Staff would not have Priority List 2 information at that time. Council Member Fazzino asked whether Ms. Moore meant the information would be available within six to eight weeks.
08/03/98 87-94
Ms. Moore said the product could be available in mid-October. In working with Dames & Moore, staff had sought a way to obtain preliminary recommendations for Priority Lists 1 and 2 and all of Criterion A, B, and C by the middle of January, which was a much more significant amount of preliminary recommendation product in that it covered both lists. Concern was expressed about the uncertainty of Priority List 2 properties, and the product would cover all three criteria. The product would not be the completion of the state forms, but would be a report on all preliminary analyses conducted by the consultant. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the second product was for both Priority Lists 1 and 2 or just 1. Ms. Moore said the product would be for both Priority List 1 and 2. Council Member Fazzino asked what staff would recommend for an interim course of action using its best planning judgment and experience. Ms. Moore said the answer was difficult because the issue of whether compatibility review should continue after the interim ordinance was an open question. If the Council decided compatibility review was extremely important and something needed by the City, it should not be tied to the interim ordinance. The interim ordinance would expire at the end of March 1999. Compatibility review should become part of the program. Staff would soon begin developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the residential neighborhood study. By Spring 1999, the City would be in the position to move forward with selection of a consultant to start the effort. If the Council discontinued compatibility review during the period between the end of the interim ordinance and the results of the residential neighborhood study, the City would have no compatibility review. The policy decision with regard to compatibility review was the Council's. Staff recommended compatibility review be in effect until the residential neighborhood study was completed and various options were identified for dealing with the issue differently than in the past. Council Member Kniss asked about Council Member Fazzino's reference to resources since Ms. Moore had identified both monetary issues and finding the right person. Council Member Fazzino said his comments had related to both types of resources. Council Member Kniss asked whether Ms. Moore's references to resources had spoken to both types. Ms. Moore replied yes.
08/03/98 87-95
Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff had considered the proposal to waive fees as an incentive. Ms. Moore said in spite of the staff recommendation regarding compatibility review, numerous changes had been made to the recommendations, among which was waiving of the fees. The fees had been only partially recovered in the first instance. Historic Resource Board Member Roger Kohler said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) had not seen the staff report (CMR:336:98) and had not been given an opportunity for comment. Council Member Eakins asked about the professional requirements for each of the three consultant tasks, which included merit screening, compatibility review, and landmark alteration review, i.e., whether any positions were easier or harder to fill and whether any of the three areas combined easily or separated out more readily. Ms. Moore said theoretically, a qualified individual should be able to handle all three functions. In the past, the City had employed an historic architect to conduct the work. The one person the City had identified, who for health reasons had been unavailable, was interested in merit screening and landmark alteration reviews and was technically an historian with significant architectural review experience. Staff was comfortable with her background and qualifications. The two architects currently in practice together were interested in compatibility review but the merit screening and landmark alteration review because they were not historic architects or historians with architectural experience. The architects had a bit of experience with historic properties. Staff thought the two were not well qualified for merit screening or landmark alteration reviews. Compatibility review for new construction, e.g., evaluating structures deemed landmarks, could be handled by the two architects. There was not a set criterion. Council Member Eakins thought merit screening and landmark alteration review could be combined with the other being a separate category not requiring the historic element as a major consideration. Ms. Moore said compatibility review would not require the same level of expertise; however, sensitivity was necessary. Council Member Mossar referred to page 5 of 12 of the staff report (CMR:336:98), and asked whether the fifth incentive was existing in new basements. Ms. Moore replied yes. Council Member Mossar asked whether an interim compatibility review process could be established while the final solution was sought.
08/03/98 87-96
Ms. Moore said Council Member Mossar's suggestion was possible. Council Member Mossar was confused about the staffing concern since, until recently, the City had one preservation architect and existing staff handling merit screening, landmark alteration, and compatibility review. She understood staff had discomfort with relying on that level of staffing; yet, in the staff report (CMR:336:98), staff indicated although there was the potential of doubling staff, discomfort was still expressed. Two people had been identified to work on the projects. She asked why, with more staff, an insurmountable problem still existed. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said the hours and dollar amounts staff estimated were based on the existing preservation architect. Additional hours had been included because staff thought service to the public could improve with additional hours made available. The current program had allotted only four hours to the public. The proposed program made 10 to 12 hours available. The turnaround and time for review could be significantly reduced, which was one of the reasons for seeking a number of individuals. The program would be more customer service oriented. Previously, a number of months were required to get through the program because of the limited number of hours and only one individual handling all the applications. Council Member Mossar asked whether additional changes could be made to the compatibility review process so the City would not have to rely on an expert. Ms. Moore said staff would have to evaluate Council Member Mossar's question before providing a good response. Council Member Mossar would have been interested and more informed if the HRB had been able to respond to the staff recommendation. Council Member Wheeler asked about suggestions contained in the colleagues memo for introducing flexibility into the compatibility review process and lightening up the burden on the applicant and staff, i.e., whether other changes could be made to the regulations or standards for compatibility review to make the burden compatible with the amount of staff resources available. Ms. Moore said staff would want to pursue that line of thinking in consultation with the HRB. Council Member Wheeler asked about the timing of pursuing such a line of thinking. City Manager June Fleming said staff would return to the Council with a more firm time line.
08/03/98 87-97
Council Member Ojakian asked how many structures would remain affected by the interim ordinance if the City had no compatibility review in the interim ordinance. Ms. Moore said the pace would probably be the same. However, if a structure was deemed contributing, it would not proceed to the compatibility review process. Approximately 200 structures had been addressed. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the number of structures affected by the interim ordinance would remain the same. Ms. Moore said merit screening would still have to be conducted for classification of the structure to determine whether it was only contributing and, therefore, subject to compatibility review. Council Member Ojakian asked whether a structure was out of the process if during merit screening it was deemed a structure and not a landmark. Ms. Moore said from December 1996 to May 1998, 274 historic merit evaluations had been completed. Approximately 200 were found to be contributing residences and 52 sent on for compatibility review. Council Member Ojakian understood, however, approximately 5 percent of the structures in the process were found to be landmark structures. Ms. Moore seemed to indicate only structures deemed landmark would be affected. Ms. Moore said Council Member Ojakian was correct. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Andrea Sutherland, 1143 Webster Street, spoke in support of some of the good ideas contained in the staff report (CMR:336:98), in opposition to the interim ordinance which should be abandoned, in support of excising the compatibility studies into residential review, in opposition to an ombudsman, in support of streamlining the process, and in support of an incentive to allow basements beneath historic homes. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, read a letter from the Palo Alto Homeowner's Association in support of the staff recommendation to remove compatibility review from the interim ordinance to bring balance to Palo Alto and in support of an advisory committee. Jan Wright Bressler, 1111 Webster Street, spoke in support of the staff recommendation for elimination of the compatibility review process from the interim ordinance and in support of the ethic of property rights as the primary focus.
08/03/98 87-98
Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa, spoke in support of Option A of the staff report (CMR:336:98), based on her concern for mid-range historic structures. Decoupling compatibility review could sacrifice mid-range historic structures resulting in a rush of demolitions. The interim regulations should clarify that most of the buildings not on the study lists would not have merit. Significant corrections were necessary. The Council was urged to "stay the course." Marilyn Bauridel, 3673 South Court, spoke against the removal of compatibility review, which dovetailed with historic preservation, because of the possible loss of integrity in neighborhoods, particularly if Council wanted to later add historic districts which might have lost ambiance. She agreed with Ms. Woolley's charge to the Council to stay the course. Dot Farrand, 436 Valencia Drive, Los Altos, owner of an older Palo Alto home, spoke regarding the Council's fiduciary management responsibilities to the citizens of Palo Alto, encouraging the Council to direct the City's finances toward real problems, such as vandalism, traffic, schools, etc. The Council was urged to appoint an advisory committee and to listen to homeowners. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding the community's shameful treatment of Preservation Architect Barbara Judy. The interim ordinance had originally been designed by the Council to: 1) protect true historic landmarks, and 2) to explore protection for neighborhood character by preventing mammoth structures from replacing modest structures. The Council was asked to support Option A and to press on with the changes recommended, particularly the Ombudsman to help with communication and misinformation problems. Norman Beamer, 1005 University Avenue, spoke about the importance of building zoning incentives into the compatibility review procedure. Page 2 of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:336:98) under compatibility review standards indicated that minor adjustments to various zoning requirements might be part of the process. Pages 13 and 14 gave a number of specific exceptions to zoning requirements built into the compatibility review process. The Council was urged to eliminate the requirement to engage in the compatibility review process, but still allow people to voluntarily engage in the process in order to take advantage of the zoning exceptions and incentives. Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto District of West Valley Association of Realtors, spoke in support of historic preservation with a balanced approach. The Council was urged to approve Option B of the staff report (CMR:336:98) and the use of an ombudsman and community spokesperson. Support was given to termination of the interim ordinance by December 31, 1998.
08/03/98 87-99
John Lovas, 650 Coleridge, spoke regarding communication surrounding the issue of historic preservation, i.e., clear statements about what was at issue, changes in the ordinance, etc. Staff and the Council had not been able to manage what had been attempted, so a "breaking out" of the work was suggested, allowing the City to deal with the two major items separately. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, spoke in opposition to compatibility review and in support of changing the cutoff for older homes from 50 years to 75 years as a means of decreasing the number of homes included in the historic ordinance. Robert Jenks, 355 Kingsley Avenue, spoke in support of safekeeping the history of the community through preservation but without the burdensome and tedious amounts of paperwork associated with architectural changes. The Council was urged to approve the staff recommendations to eliminate compatibility review for pre-1940 homes and provide incentives for landmark and other homes as well as variances and home improvement exceptions. The diversity in Palo Alto was part of its legacy. Emily M. Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke in support of Option A. The City should stay the course and not create a flood gate of people trying to remove houses from the list of homes with historic merit. California's history was shorter than other places, so houses over 50 years old took on a different importance. Many of the changes to the ordinance were good, but the Council was urged to stay with the compatibility review. RECESS 9:17 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Lee Brokaw, Hanover Street, spoke in support of "surrette" meetings or workshops to address the issues without conflict. If the City lost compatibility review, it would lose the protection of a vast number of homes in the City. The ordinance should not be one money could "buy off". Every bulldozed house meant a loss to the City. Nelson Ng, 1260 Emerson Street, spoke about the Council's image, which had changed from one of rigidity to one of listening to the community, and encouraged further dialogue to promote improvement of the City. The Council was urged to remove the compatibility review process, remove review for backyards which were not seen from the street, remove compatibility for blocks with structures with various eras, not to make every house in every neighborhood compatible with each other, and preserve only houses of great historic significance and style. He had spent over $1,600 in his own merit screening process, suggesting the City reimburse for out-of-pocket expenses. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, spoke in support of the staff recommendation to eliminate compatibility review during the interim program and strongly supported the public outreach program.
08/03/98 87-100
Support was given to the incentives found on page 5 of the staff report (CMR:336:98), particularly Attachment E. Support was also given to the idea of a surrette. Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, spoke in support of historic preservation and some sort of review, but the process was very confusing. An understanding of the City's neighborhoods was important but should be simplified. He encouraged the Council to obtain recommendations and for review by the HRB. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke about the problem of trying to handle both design review and historic preservation simultaneously. He urged the Council to approve Option A and adopt the book of Compatibility Review Standards the City had issued 15 years prior as mandatory rather than advisory. The Council was asked to realize the community's need for voluntary rights regarding property. Bodil Gerotwol, 633 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding compatibility review. The uniqueness and charm of Palo Alto was the fact that houses were all different. She failed to see the importance of making everything regulatory within a certain district, which was undesirable. Because some kind of review was necessary, she suggested having neighbors provide an opinion on changes. Murray Suid, 1111 Greenwood Avenue, spoke regarding his own difficulties in going through the compatibility process, which failed to address the concerns of many in the neighborhoods. The compatibility review process was the wrong tool for what the community sought. A variety in size of houses gave neighborhoods variety and was not the issue. Most people with truly historic houses would protect the houses, even without compatibility. Kathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke in favor of continuing compatibility design review of new structures built in the place of pre-1940 structures, not all new structures. The Council was urged to approve Option B of the staff report (CMR:336:98), since "monster" homes could be regulated through zoning laws. Sandra Gardner, 1755 University Avenue, spoke about the need for the community to know the criteria for historical status and the guidelines used by the HRB for determining such status. Carol Lamont, 618 Kingsley Avenue, spoke about the need for design review to preserve the historic character of neighborhoods as part of the interim and final ordinance. All new homes should go through a design review process not only for compatibility with the general neighborhood but also adjacent properties. The recent modifications were appropriate and should be given time to work. She urged the Council to approve Option A of the staff report (CMR:336:98).
08/03/98 87-101
Larry Chew, 204 Waverley Street, spoke regarding the conflict in which the City found itself. He urged the Council to eliminate compatibility review and to form a committee to address the issues of historic preservation. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, spoke in favor of a demolition moratorium to save the historic inventory until a permanent ordinance could be in place and staff could focus its attention on completing the inventory. She suggested including a significant resource category, regulated differently from landmark. An expenditure for historic preservation was long overdue. Greg Van Der Veen, 2133 Yale Street, spoke in favor of devoting sufficient resources to the task to accomplish the goal of not losing landmarks as well as modest bungalows. He urged the Council to approve Option A. Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, spoke regarding Jim Handley, a great leader during World War II, who recently died at 81 years old and epitomized the saying, "In battle, leadership is the ability to get men to voluntarily follow your lead." Although an historic ordinance might be good for the City, the land was the value. Man had the right to the product of his labor, his property. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the item to the Monday, August 10, 1998, City Council Meeting. Council Member Eakins was interested in receiving the fuller report and inventory update prior to proceeding. As part of the group who had put together the recommendations to "bring more common sense" into the compatibility review program, she still believed in it. A friend told her the City had not gone far enough. Council Member Wheeler had asked earlier what could be done with resources. Many suggestions had been made by members of the public. She did not believe in government by convulsion, i.e., that all of a sudden direction was changed. Rather, things should be handled thoughtfully and carefully. A plan and approach had been established to save the intent of the interim ordinance compatibility review, which had to do with neighborhood character. At that time, the Council thought about the community interest and public realm as well as individual needs for accommodating the change. The Council needed common sense direction, sensitivity, and consideration for the community as well as for the individual. The Council needed to keep its arms around the biggest issues as simply as possible. Vice Mayor Schneider would not support the motion to continue because she would be unable to attend the next meeting.
08/03/98 87-102
Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. The Council should have all of the information necessary to make the right policy decisions based on the policy direction in which it wanted to go. Regardless of where one was on the merits of the issue, it was bad politics and worse public policy to lurch from crisis to crisis and from interest group pressure to interest group pressure. The Council needed to decide on the right course of action and move ahead. He was troubled about the staff report (CMR:336:98) which failed to focus on public policy, but on the politics of the situation. The Council should have the necessary information by which to make decisions with respect to the program the following week. He asked what levels of resources were needed to address the compatibility review issue. He preferred a more limited compatibility review approach but wanted to better understand what resources were needed to do the kinds of alternatives raised by staff in the staff report as well as by the public. At that point, if the Council had all the information in terms of cost, what could be done given the time frame, etc., a rational policy decision could be made. Consistent with Council Member Eakins' suggestion, discussing compatibility review as part of the Dames & Moore discussion made sense, since the inventory was a major factor with respect to how much could be accomplished as quickly as possible, which would have a significant impact on his decision on how to proceed. Council Member Mossar supported the motion. The public had mentioned different ways of accomplishing the different goals of the compatibility review. Staff's ideas could help the Council understand how compatibility review could be accomplished with realistic resources. The public's ideas were worth considering, which included: 1) adding a category between landmark and contributing structures, which would limit the number of houses going through review; 2) demolition protection, specifically demolition moratoriums; 3) compatibility review for study lists 1 and/or 2; 4) voluntary compatibility review; 5) simplifying the definition of compatibility; 6) using the neighborhood compatibility the City already had as a basis for review; and 7) review for new houses replacing affected structures. The Council had insufficient information to make a policy choice. Unintended consequences might result from moving forward on the course, but there were potentially serious unintended consequences of dropping compatibility review without having a better understanding of what the decision entailed. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. The Council had received substantial information at the current meeting but had also received some new and different thoughts from members of the public. The issue was unusual in many ways, with economic repercussions to which the public had alluded. Rather than more information from staff, she wanted time to consider the information. She appreciated the sharing of information. When the Council made its final decision, the City would be headed in a very
08/03/98 87-103
determined direction. The issue had significant impact on the homes and economics of the community. Council Member Wheeler supported the motion. The Council would be presented with the Dames & Moore contract revisions at its next meeting as well as more information on the status of the inventory and how the City would proceed toward implementing the permanent regulations. The Council would also be given the Planning Division's Work Program via the Finance Committee, which had not been addressed during budget hearings because of the work load. The Work Program would provide a more complete picture of what that division was faced with for the following two years. With the number of resources available, it was important the document be before the Council along with the historic information. If the Council wanted to keep compatibility review in the interim regulations, consideration would need to be given to the fact other programs might fall off the table or be delayed. The issue of simplicity with current resource levels, with respect to accomplishing the compatibility review process, was an issue in which she was interested. Rather than inundating staff with suggestions and asking for responses to each, the Council should be realistic. If the Council wanted the item back on its agenda the following Monday, staff had only 48 hours in which to produce the report. The Council could not ask staff to respond to specific questions and directions. The issue had to be left to staff's professional judgment. If the Council simply asked what could be accomplished with the amount of resources available, staff should be trusted to return with answers about what could be done. Staff had a good idea about the many suggestions and possibilities. The time frame was limited, and staff would do what it could to respond to the Council direction. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion. Staff was encouraged to respond to Mrs. Gardner's question concerning the draft revision of the permanent ordinance, not the current discussions on the interim ordinance. Ms. Gardner had raised questions which could easily be clarified. If the City had no compatibility review, he questioned how homes in the inventory review could be protected from falling into a demolition process. A logical process should include a check on the inventory to ensure principles in the final revised ordinance would not become moot because no mechanism was in place to prevent the houses from being torn down. If not compatibility review, the question was what would protect the structures. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the decision could be brought to the Council in two weeks, rather than one week. The Council should not make the same mistake it had in the past, e.g., reacting to a situation prior to having received sufficient information. She questioned whether staff was being given sufficient time to respond to the Council's requests.
08/03/98 87-104
Ms. Fleming said a few weeks prior, staff had taken the report outlining the Planning Division's work load to the Finance Committee, at which time staff was told that it should assist the Council in not getting the department to the same level of performance again. Staff was told to let the Council know when an assignment could not realistically be accomplished. Staff had never told the Council it was unable to complete a project unless it truly could not do so. She understood the Council's severe need for information and the severity and impact of the policy issue before the Council. However, staff would have only two days to continue regular work plus write a report. There was insufficient staffing, resources, and energy to do so. Staff could return with information regarding resources; however, the list Council Member Mossar had indicated, along with her own list, meant staff had to respond to 14 to 15 issues. She respected the need for the Council to have the information; however, it could not be written up in a readable, manageable form in time for the packet Thursday. The option from staff's point of view was to do the best it could with the suggestions and to respond orally on Monday and put its efforts into the Dames & Moore report. She understood the response was unacceptable to Council Member Fazzino; however, she promised
earlier she would let the Council know when staff had met staff=s limit. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the incentives listed and discussed during the evening could be put into effect prior to the final discussion, i.e., enacted immediately. Ms. Fleming was reluctant to respond to the questions immediately. Staff had made mistakes in the past by doing so. Council Member Mossar clarified earlier comments. She was not interested in receiving a detailed report on every suggestion made about different ways to handle compatibility review. Different people had different suggestions for ways of handling the issue which might be less onerous for one and all and not as large a burden on staff. If staff had a suggestion about how the Council could more expeditiously handle compatibility review, she wanted to hear about it. Ms. Fleming understood. Staff had to spend time discussing the items and going through the list. Although the time would be well-spent, to provide a worthy response in the packet was unlikely. Council Member Fazzino had been troubled by the staff report (CMR:336:98), not with the issues raised by Ms. Fleming. The central issue was one Council Member Wheeler articulated concerning the alternative resources available to conduct compatibility review and the implications for the City when each of the alternatives were considered.
08/03/98 87-105
Council Member Eakins said the issue was what could be done with what the City had, other than "no." MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-1, Schneider "no," Huber "not participating." 13A. (Old Item No. 4) The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation that Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance that would make changes to the current methodology used to calculate the in-lieu parking fee 1. Establish the fee based on the highest cost option for parking projects under design or construction at the time, rather than the lowest cost option. At the current time, the highest cost option being designed was Lot R, and amounted to a fee of $30,250 per in-lieu space in 1998 dollars. 2. Authorize staff to also adjust the in-lieu fee to reflect more up-to-date cost information for parking projects already under design or construction in the following instances: a) at the time when final designs were completed; and b) at the time construction was completed. 3. Exclude any bond financing costs from the fee. 4. Require that a deferred in-lieu payment be calculated at the rate in effect on the date the deferred payment was actually made, rather than at the time the agreement was executed. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma, spoke regarding the in-lieu fee parking increase, comparing it with the federal gas tax to accommodate motorists on the freeways. He suggested opening up uses of the fund such as a shuttle study and operation, bicycle and pedestrian improvements Downtown, etc. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 4. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Ojakian noted that the City of Palo Alto became the first local issuer in California to receive a Standards and Poors
AAA rating on the City=s bonds.
08/03/98 87-106
Council Member Eakins was interested in the next steps for the
ΑFiber to the Home≅ trial.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the ΑFiber to the Home≅ trial involved a delay in the Universal Access Request for Proposals (RFP). Staff wanted to be more clear on how much the trial would cost and which neighborhoods would be involved before bringing the item to the Council. Council Member Eakins asked when the trial would begin. Ms. Harrison said the trial would begin in late September. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:45 p.m. The Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 9 and 10. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 9, and the Council had authorized an appeal of the trial court ruling in City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union, Local 715 concerning termination of Danton Camm on Agenda Item No. 10. The vote was 8-0, with Council Member Huber absent. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
08/03/98 87-107