HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-10 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting August 10, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-109 1. Adoption of New Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for San Francisquito Creek and Revisions to
the City=s Flood Hazard Regulations - Refer to Policy and Services Committee....................................87-109 2. Approval of Compensation Plan and Memorandum of Agreement for Police Employees .....................................87-109 3. Rejection of Bids for Installing Utility Trench and Substructure System in Underground Utility District No. 37 - Embarcadero/Middlefield Roads.........................87-110 4. Watershed Management Initiative Signatory Document....87-110 5. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C7092505 between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill for Los Altos Treatment Plant Site Development Services - Phase II.......................87-110 6. Approval of Cost Sharing for San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Study and Delegation to the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement...............87-110
8. Ordinance 4515 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $340,000 for the Major Intersection Improvements Capital Project No. 19073"..87-110 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ..................87-111 9. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-111 10. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-111 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will review a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and consider three appeals of a Zoning Administrator approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a private outdoor recreation service
08/10/98 87-107
(tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center................................................87-111 11A. (Old Item No. 13) Finance Committee recommendation re the revised Planning Division Work Program; and amending the Table of Organization to add five additional positions, one for the Planning and Community Environment Department at large and four for the Planning Division, and the associated funding of $488,364 to be added to the 1998-99 Planning Department Budget................................................87-112 12. 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 (continued from 8/3/98).........87-116 14. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $437,400 for an Interim Historic Inventory Consultant............................................87-126 14A. (Old Item No. 7) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.321 of Chapter 22.04 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Use of the Skateboard Facility in John Lucas Greer Park..........87-141 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-141
08/10/98 87-108
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Susan Richardson, P. O. Box 1035, spoke regarding new street corner ramps. Eleanor Kraft, spoke regarding St. Ann Chapel. Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, spoke regarding HRB update. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government. William Mahrt, 67 Peter Coutts Circle, Stanford, spoke regarding St. Ann Chapel. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, spoke regarding Human Relations Commission Retreat Agenda - Brown Act Violation. Martin Bernstein, P. O. Box 1739, spoke regarding St. Ann Chapel. Ann Lafargue Balin, 2385 Columbia Street, spoke regarding St. Ann Chapel. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding Storm Drain Project. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler, moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-6, and 8, with Item No. 7 removed by a member of the public. 1. Adoption of New Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for San Francisquito Creek and Revisions to
the City=s Flood Hazard Regulations - Refer to Policy and Services Committee 2. Approval of Compensation Plan and Memorandum of Agreement for Police Employees
Resolution 7788 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Police Non-management Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 7612"
08/10/98 87-109
Resolution 7789 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace
Officers' Association≅
Ordinance 4513 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $182,200 for Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1998 for Police
Personnel≅ 3. Rejection of Bids for Installing Utility Trench and Substructure System in Underground Utility District No. 37 - Embarcadero/Middlefield Roads 4. Watershed Management Initiative Signatory Document 5. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C7092505 between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill for Los Altos Treatment Plant Site Development Services - Phase II 6. Approval of Cost Sharing for San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Study and Delegation to the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement
Ordinance 4514 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $112,500 for Phase I - San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation
Study≅
8. Ordinance 4515 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $340,000 for the Major Intersection Improvements Capital Project No. 19073"
Contract between the City of Palo Alto and O=Grady Paving, Inc. for Intersection Improvements at Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard
Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Agreement No. C4041683 between the City of Palo Alto and Nolte & Associates for Intersection Improvements at Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-6, and 8, Schneider absent.
08/10/98 87-110
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming said Consent Calendar Item No. 7 would become Item No. 14A. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 9. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Charlene Farish v. City of Palo Alto, SCC# CV765129 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 10. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Colorado Park Housing Corporation, Brown and Caldwell, Inc., SCC# CV771599 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will review a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and consider three appeals of a Zoning Administrator approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center, including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court, a passive park area, restroom facilities and related landscaping and site improvements. (continued from 7/20/98 - item to be continued to a date uncertain at the request of staff) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to move Item No. 13 forward to precede Item No. 12. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Schneider absent. 11A. (Old Item No. 13) Finance Committee recommendation re the revised Planning Division Work Program; and amending the Table of Organization to add five additional positions, one for the Planning and Community Environment Department at large and
08/10/98 87-111
four for the Planning Division, and the associated funding of $488,364 to be added to the 1998-99 Planning Department Budget. Of that, $300,000 would come from the General Fund Contingent Account which had already been appropriated as part of the 1998-99 Budget and the remaining $188,364 would come from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve Council Member Wheeler said three items of unfinished business had remained from the Finance Committee's budget discussions in June 1998: the Planning Division's Work Program, a reorganization plan in response to the Zucker Report, and the resource request to accomplish both items. The two-year Work Program differed slightly from other programs the Council had seen in the past but allowed easier integration into the budgeting process and allowed staff, the Council, and the community to see ahead. A number of items in the Planning Division were large and would spread over a two-year period. While staff had included within the Work Program planning for personnel deployment of a more reasonable amount of working hours per employee, i.e., time for sick time, vacations, training, etc., no flexibility had been left for extra assignments. If and as the Council or members of the community desired additional assignments over the next two years, the importance of the project would have to be weighed against assignments already included in the Work Program. If deemed more important, action would be necessary to review and remove programs. The Work Program would return to the Council every six months to allow for the possibility of reprioritizing needs. In response to the Zucker Report, the Planning Division would be reorganized into four areas, as outlined in the staff report (CMR:316:98). One of the hallmarks of the reorganization was how members of the Planning Division would work in a team concept. The significant amount of cross-training would allow Planning staff to fill in for each other, give broader experience, etc. Planning sought to add five positions, one of which was a department-wide administrator, similar to positions in several other large departments in the organization. The position would relieve staff members of some administrative burdens. The other four positions would be members of the Planning Division. Emphasis was placed on training of the employees. Significant public comment concerning the need for the training of new employees had been taken into account in the Work Program and resource allocation plan. The important question when discussing additional employees was whether five permanent employees for the department were truly necessary. Even the local press had seen the obvious need for additional employees within the Planning Division. People within the division had been asked to assume a work schedule most people were only asked to assume on an occasional basis. The Finance Committee understood and agreed with the necessity, which was not due to the booming economy but had existed for a long period of time and would continue to exist long into the future.
08/10/98 87-112
Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Anne Cronin Moore said Council Member Wheeler had covered the points extremely well. The materials compared the existing work program with the proposed Work Program and identified items not in the proposed Work Program. The most important change involved how the department was being reorganized, moving away from the linear, and vertical organization with everyone reporting to the Assistant Planning Official and the development review section reporting to the Zoning Administrator. The change would significantly help The latter position which had been the most difficult. The proposed organization would provide the City with a pool of planners who worked together in teams on various projects with cross-training and mentoring. The result would be a more efficient use of staff, a variety of work, and a decreased use of contract planners. Mayor Rosenbaum said City staff had simultaneously handled development projects such as the Stanford project, the Comprehensive Plan, a historic plan, and a rapid increase in development. Clearly, two items were gone, and the boom in development might not continue. He asked whether the increased staffing was designed for something which had occurred in the past but was not likely to continue in the future. Ms. Moore said the heavy work load had been augmented by consultants to a large degree. The Zucker Report had identified staffing deficiencies, and the additional staffing necessary to deal with additional historic preservation programs had not been contemplated in the staffing requirements. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the staff report (CMR:316:98) implied less reliance on contract personnel to handle developments. Ms. Moore said staff's plan and desire was for less reliance on contract personnel. Some of the more interesting, complicated, and controversial projects were typically given to contract planners and were projects on which City staff desired to work. Moving away from heavy reliance on contract planners would take time because hiring so many additional staff within such a short period of time required training, primarily by existing staff. The augment of capacity as a result of the new positions would not be felt until into 1999. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the City would see less reliance on contract personnel after training of the new positions. Ms. Moore replied yes. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether costs would increase for development projects with the additional positions since at least some of Planning's activities were cost recovery.
08/10/98 87-113
Ms. Moore said the most recent round of City fees for development review had not included an increase but might be something a new director would want to examine. Such an increase would probably not appear until the following year or budget cycle. Staff was not currently considering such an increase because of time constraints. Council Member Kniss asked how much of Ms. Moore's time had gone into the item. Ms. Moore said significant changes had recently occurred. She had been the interim director since the mid-March and had become involved in the historic preservation programs during the mid-June. Over the past six weeks, she had spent at least three-quarters of her time on historic preservation items, leaving other divisions not well attended. Additionally, an associate planner had been hired as a full-time assistant to the planner to staff the Architectural Review Board (ARB) but was currently working 100 percent on historic preservation. Two consultants had been identified to handle merit screening and compatibility review, which could change the staff work. Processing of the ARB had been affected and had reverberated throughout the entire Planning Division. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the public hearing open. Annette Glanckopf-Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, spoke regarding placing a high priority on the review of single-family zoning and design review by the Planning Department which was supported by thirteen neighborhood associations. The Council was urged to support the Work Plan, particularly the team approach. Choosing a consultant to assist staff who had an understanding of the history of Palo Alto and had a stake in the outcome was critical. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, spoke in support of Chief Planning Official Eric Riel's indication that the impact measures and functional areas would be patterned after the proposed Work Program, linking impact measures with the functional organization of a department or division. Code enforcement officers should be given copies of plans when making site visits rather than relying on the file copy which had to remain at the office. Planning Division approval for zoning compliance on building permit documents lacked authority and should include zoning code authority since when disputes occurred on enforcement issues, a key issue was whether or not there was a valid entitlement. The lack of a paper trail made it difficult for code enforcement officers to determine exactly what had occurred. Vonnie Brown, 831 Colorado Avenue, spoke in support of the Comprehensive Plan regarding preservation of the character of residential neighborhoods by keeping new construction compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The Council was encouraged to keep review of single-family residential zoning and
08/10/98 87-114
design a high priority in the Work Plan as well as establish a citizens committee to work with the Planning Division to accomplish the review. Richard Elmore, 820 Hamilton Avenue, said the only way to achieve the City's goal of maintaining the historical character, and thus maintain property values, was to require a design review for every building permit. The cost to the City would not increase since the City could charge whatever the review cost. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Fazzino supported the recommendation. Staff and the Finance Committee had done excellent work. No one could fail to realize the need for additional planning resources in the City. Inadequate resources and contract planners had exacerbated the problem. Although he preferred to step back rather than lead a reform effort by increasing positions, many of the issues were legitimate and had to be addressed. Although larger issues existed of attitude, management, communication, flexibility, training, etc., the resources were absolutely necessary. The focus on teams, flexibility, and training for Planning staff to move around the department were appreciated. The increase in staff would not result in success, however, unless the City moved forward and implemented a number of the recommendations in the Zucker Report, particularly regarding the need to be more customer-focused and public-oriented. Council Member Eakins praised the department administrator position as one who could serve the administrative needs of the entire department, bridging the gap between clerical support and the professional planners, engineers, and code enforcement officers. The City should carefully examine the needs addressed by Council Member Fazzino in the area of customer service. City Manager June Fleming said the Zucker Report had been the basis for much of the staff report (CMR:316:98) and had been authorized by her without Council approval because of the management issue. The Council was voting for not only what was contained in the staff recommendation, but a commitment to turn the department around to address the multitude of issues contained in the Zucker Report. The Zucker Report had not only dealt with issues related to staffing but other management issues as well. All aspects of the report would be implemented. Interim Director Moore had done a magnificent job of beginning to make the change. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler for the Finance Committee to: 1) approve the revised Planning Division Work Program; and 2) approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance which amended the Table of Organization to add five additional positions, one for the Planning and Community Environment Department at large and four for the Planning Division, and the associated funding of $488,364 to be added to the 1998-99 Planning Department Budget. Of that, $300,000
08/10/98 87-115
would come from the General Fund Contingent Account which had already been appropriated as part of the 1998-99 Budget and the remaining $188,364 would come from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve.
Ordinance 4516 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $488,364 for the Addition of Five Full-Time Positions and Associated Resources to the Planning and
Community Environment Department≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 12. 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 (continued from 8/3/98) Council Member Huber said he would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. City Manager June Fleming said when the Council met on the subject of the historic preservation ordinance one week prior, staff had put together a bold proposal related to compatibility review. When the proposal was discussed by the Council, staff received a great deal of input from the Council and various members of the public. The proposal had been unacceptable to the Council and clear guidance was given to staff, part of which was a reiteration of information contained in the "Colleagues Memo." The Council received a variety of reactions to the proposal including some very constructive comments from the public. The Council, after hearing from the public and discussing the item, reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of integrity of historic preservation and asked staff to take all it had heard into consideration and return with additional information. Because staff had another staff report to prepare for the current meeting, staff was unable to respond to the Council's directions in writing. Staff verbally responded to the Council's request. The main concern about compatibility review had been heard and staff had discussed the issue, considering ways to preserve the historic integrity of buildings in the community, refine processes, focus on outreach, and meet the general goals and objectives. Staff worked hard to pull the information together and would make visual presentations.
Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Anne Cronin Moore thanked the City Manager's Office, the City Attorney, Planning staff, particularly Virginia Warheit and Amy French, and the Utilities Department for their support. Three major decisions were before the Council: 1) an ordinance revising the interim historic ordinance, consistent with the "Colleagues Memo" and
08/10/98 87-116
included suggestions made during the past few months; 2) a resolution amending the historic preservation regulations, which included compatibility review; and 3) a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) with various components, the total dollar amount would include interim historic consultants, interim planning consultants, ombudsman, and public outreach consultant. The last two were particularly important additions to the City's historic preservation program. Letters to the editor, herself, Council Members, etc., all had been collected and would be presented to the ombudsman as a resource for establishing interviews with people who had experienced the City's interim program, members of the Historic Resources Board (HRB), etc. In the future, staff reports would be easier to read with graphics to help understand the complicated subject matter. Staff had prepared a process flow chart showing how the process currently worked. The process started at the pre-application stage, which staff thought could be streamlined by requiring the meetings to be mandatory rather than voluntary, with better materials available to help applicants. More consultants would be sought with more hands-on time with applicants. "Minor projects" would be redefined to allow staff to work with such projects. If a project was deemed incomplete at the staff level, staff would meet with the applicant within one week to provide detailed information and work to identify ways to resolve the situation. Compatibility review would be addressed in September. Staff suggested making compatibility review a requirement for properties proposed for demolition which would significantly reduce the number of properties subject to compatibility review. The public was invited to make suggestions for change to the compatibility review document. An appeal to the HRB from staff was also suggested to allow an additional appeal. Some decisions were currently left at the staff level with no appeal process. A time-line graphic identified some of the things which directly or indirectly affected historic preservation, including the interim historic preservation ordinance. With the interim ordinance ending in March 1999, additional time would be necessary to review properties identified on the ongoing historic inventory. A transition ordinance and regulations would probably be necessary, including direction to the HRB on how to treat the properties which had been identified and to move them through for decisions as to whether or not to formally add to the City's inventory. Staff suggested a separation of compatibility review from the interim ordinance to continue compatibility review after the interim ordinance ended, at least until properties were identified for inclusion on the historic inventory and identified as Landmark or Significant resource. Staff would begin the Scope of Work for the Residential Neighborhoods Study in October. Staff had attempted to identify how the various aspects of the historic preservation and residential neighborhood study related to each other. The most significant part was inherent in a staff recommendation that compatibility review be separate from the interim historic ordinance but become part of the zoning ordinance, reviewed by the Planning Commission, and brought forward to the Council in noticed
08/10/98 87-117
public hearings with adequate time for quality public input and review. The resources necessary for the historic preservation issue were significant, pulling staff from the ARB and other development review considerations. Other less tangible effects had been seen throughout the department with support staff and more lengthy time frames for ARB and development review. Staff expected to return in September with a second round of proposed revisions to the compatibility review ordinance and regulations for further streamlining and identify the resource implications. At the time of the permanent ordinance recommendation, staff would submit a resource request. With the amount of work and continued compatibility review, the historic inventory and information from the inventory available to the public in October and the other large amount of information in January would trigger a great deal of public interaction with City staff which would require adequate resources. A more specific resource request would be submitted in September. The Council referral to the Planning Commission regarding incentive had already begun and a schedule was being prepared. Staff would provide incentives information prior to November so the Council would be able to take the information into consideration along with transitional rules and properties being recommended by the HRB for inclusion on the City's inventory as Landmark or Significant resources. Mayor Rosenbaum said the item had been continued from the prior week because staff had recommended discontinuing compatibility review. Staff currently indicated further revisions would be returned in November on the compatibility review process. Ms. Moore had not sensed a great deal of support from the Council for the staff recommendation the previous week. Options were included for proceeding with compatibility review, and staff returned with an indication of the direction it was moving. Council Member Mossar asked about the difference between items 1 and 2 on the overhead list. Ms. Moore said the difference was between Attachment A and Attachment B in the August 3, 1998, staff report, one being a draft ordinance and the other a draft resolution. Council Member Mossar asked what the ordinance and the resolution would accomplish. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the ordinance would: 1) preclude applying the compatibility review process to areas not visible from publicly accessible locations; 2) modify the definition of demolition to allow flexibility in compatibility review properties where facade changes were not significant; 3) allow appeals of compatibility review decisions; and 4) allow a streamline process for minor alterations of landmarks.
08/10/98 87-118
Council Member Mossar understood "B" involved compatibility review standards but asked how that related to the suggested change. Ms. Moore said staff assumed the Council wanted to move forward with positive revisions to the interim ordinance. The work had been done and largely reflected the "Colleagues Memo" and was available for adoption immediately. Staff would return in September with a second generation. Council Member Mossar asked whether adoption of the ordinance meant no compatibility reviews would occur in the interim. Mr. Calonne replied no. The staff recommendation the previous week to eliminate compatibility review had been presented along with amendments to the regulations and ordinance, pursuant to the Council's direction. The proposed ordinance and resolution carried out the Council direction contained in the June 25, 1998, "Colleague Memo." If the Council wanted to eliminate compatibility review, staff would advise not adopting the resolution changes and staff would return with ordinance changes eliminating the compatibility review. Mr. Calonne noted a change on page 5, Exhibit "A" of the Compatibility Review Standards to revise recommendation 4. 4) to indicate a change to "require" the pre-application appointment rather than "recommend" same. Council Member Fazzino was impressed with the way staff had been able to capture the system on a process flow diagram, given all the interest generated over the issue. He asked about the potential elimination of workload in the proposal to require review for demolitions and not remodels, i.e., how many homes would be affected. Ms. Moore was unable to provide a numerical response, the answer to which depended on how significantly the definition of "demolition" was changed. Currently, the definition was very broad and many projects people would deem remodels were demolitions. The draft ordinance modified the definition, making it more qualitative with more flexibility to staff in reviewing projects, i.e., more emphasis on substantial changes to the facade rather than the 50 percent rule. If the definition changed further than staff's recommendation, the number of properties subject to compatibility review would be substantially reduced. Mr. Calonne cautioned the Council not to act too hastily, since staff had only had one week to put together the proposed ordinance and resolution. The Council would receive written materials for review at a later time. The crux of the issue was in the definition of "demolition." The "Colleagues Memo" directed changing the current rule, i.e., removal of any portion of a street facing facade was demolition. The proposal from the "Colleagues
08/10/98 87-119
Memo" substantially liberalized the definition. Staff had indicated that in order for compatibility review to be handled in a manageable way with available resources, more help would be needed in changing the definition of "demolition." Staff would return with any changes at the earliest possible date. Council Member Fazzino asked what other categories of compatibility review staff had considered. Staff had made a proposal with respect to demolition, which was one way to reduce work loads. Ms. Moore said the revisions which had come out of the "Colleagues Memo" were a major step in the right direction, simplifying and making less onerous the design standards. Staff would examine the standards more closely to determine whether a standard could be articulated as a guideline with more flexibility in how an applicant could prove consistency with all of the sections. Staff wanted to approach it more like a check list to make demonstration of compliance easier. Ms. Fleming said staff had examined the whole range, from making the process work better in terms of customer service orientation, to looking at the documentation required to obtain essential information but make the process as easy as possible, to making more substantive changes to definitions. When staff explored ways of changing the definition, scrapes to minor adjustments were considered. Staff looked toward the more liberal one in terms of scraping. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff had evaluated categories of homes. Ms. Fleming replied no. Council Member Fazzino asked about individuals interested in listing their homes during the process. Ms. Moore said staff needed to work on the transition rules, such as how to bridge the end of the interim ordinance with the permanent ordinance while still working on the inventory, identifying which properties should be Landmarks or Significant resources, etc. Staff would not be able to return to the Council with anything in September. The target was to return with the information packaged with the incentives recommendations from the Planning Commission in November. The incentives, if significant and compelling, could affect what were reasonable transitional rules to utilize. Council Member Fazzino said although the explanation sounded logical, some 3,700 homes were being studied. The reality was that a number of the homes had no historic merit whatsoever. The question was whether someone could initiate the process rather than
08/10/98 87-120
have the City initiate the process about making a determination with respect to whether the house should or should not be included. Mr. Calonne said the public made a good recommendation to allow any property not listed on either the Priority 1 or 2 list to be removed from the process. After staff had drafted the change, the study priority lists staff created to be made into a formal legislative process were over-formalized and over-emphasized. Staff sought an alternative to making priority lists 1 and 2 overly formalized but indicated that any structure not identified on the lists, even if pre-1940, was strong evidence or presumption that no merit was to be found in the building. Such identification would occur at merit screening, which was the very first step handled by the consultant. If the Council wanted to take such direction, staff had a mechanism that could be workable within the framework. Ms. Fleming said the bottom line as to why staff had not proposed the draft were the implementation issues staff would have to work out before bringing it back to the Council. Council Member Wheeler said one of the goals of the Council and the public was for greater clarity during the interim regulations regarding rules and expectations. If the Council took actions recommended by staff to revise the ordinance and resolutions affecting the compatibility review standards, she was unclear what it would mean to an applicant, that is, whether the ordinance changes would require a second reading in 30 days and when changes would go into effect. Mr. Calonne said everything contained in the resolution (Attachment "B") would become effective immediately. The changes addressed what an applicant had to show in order to get through compatibility review. The ordinance changes required a second reading at the Council's first September meeting, 31 days after which the ordinance would become effective. Council Member Wheeler had been intrigued by Ms. Moore's presentation regarding separating the compatibility review standards from the historic ordinance, what the impact would be and to what applications the standards would be applied, i.e., only historic structures, anything requiring a building permit, etc. Ms. Moore said staff had vigorously pointed out that the compatibility review standards had been developed for older neighborhoods and older homes, but were not appropriate elsewhere. Staff had not proposed developing compatibility standards for other neighborhoods. The standards were appropriate and could be streamlined for older homes and older neighborhoods. Council Member Wheeler clarified the compatibility standards would not be applied to newer homes in older neighborhoods citywide.
08/10/98 87-121
Ms. Moore replied yes. Council Member Wheeler agreed that members of the Council and staff had expressed a willingness and eagerness to hear any constructive criticism or suggestion. Ms. Moore had mentioned a checklist she hoped to develop for applicants for compatibility review, and a member of the public had provided her with the beginnings of such a form, which she would share with staff. Council Member Kniss had been impressed with Ms. Moore's presentation. Staff had put the information together in such a way to readily interpret the issue. The tone was considerably better and began to be about service and not punitive measures toward individuals who happened to own historic homes. She was particularly interested in knowing the amount of time necessary if compatibility review was only required for demolitions and not remodels. Mr. Calonne said staff was given only five working days to respond to the Council's request and was unable to provide detailed answers on how the definition of demolition could be changed by the deadline. The compatibility review currently applied only to demolitions, but demolition meant much less than scrape. Council Member Kniss thought not much time would be required before the Council could judge empirically what would be required. Ms. Fleming said by the time staff returned to the Council in September, staff would have a better handle and could provide approximate ranges. She reminded the Council that Ms. Moore was not a full-time employee. Council Member Kniss said what staff had provided regarding compatibility versus historic preservation was very helpful and began to define the issue more clearly for the Council. The table staff put together was additionally helpful. Council Member Eakins asked whether applicants who had submitted applications under the interim ordinance would be excused from the heavier regulations once the final ordinance took effect since the current ordinance contained more requirements for the applicants. Mr. Calonne said in effect, yes. Backyard changes would go into effect immediately. The change in the definition of demolition was jurisdictional and would take time to go into effect. Staff would be able to process applications from the standpoint of the new definition but would not be permitted to issue permits until the ordinance became effective. With any measure of good fortune, the City would not see any appeals on compatibility review for four to six weeks. The definition of minor alteration that allowed the director to avoid involving the HRB was another jurisdictional issue the City could not implement until the ordinance became effective. The HRB would continue to be involved for minor
08/10/98 87-122
alteration projects. Of course, the HRB would be informed by the process as well. Council Member Eakins asked about a "grandfathering out," for instance, if someone had already submitted an application and the hearings and the process were not completed, whether the applicant would be excused from the requirements at the time the application was filed by the ordinance change. Mr. Calonne said the two issues involved the change in the definition of demolition. He saw no problem with staff processing applications as though the change were in effect, not issuing permits until the change became effective. Council Member Eakins clarified people would wait for the permits until the date the change went into effect, if the issues in the application were covered by the change in the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said when state law had any impact on the City, the applicant was entitled to lock in the requirements at the time the application was filed, but there was no requirement for the applicant to do so. Applicants could come back for a revision after the ordinance went into effect. Council Member Ojakian asked about the pre-application step, i.e., whether an applicant would understand where they stood in terms of the historic process, whether an home improvement exemption (HIE) or variance were involved, and whether information would be obtained at that stage. Ms. Moore hoped within one or two months of input from the outreach consultant, staff would have more standardized materials which would reflect the changes made to the ordinance and resolution. Enough time would be allotted at an appointment to explain the process, what materials were needed, and whether any other entitlements were involved. The City would maximize the likelihood an applicant would submit a complete application and one more likely to garner staff and/or HRB approval than would be the case without such a meeting. Council Member Ojakian asked what a "remodel" would constitute in relation to the point concerning compatibility review being required only for demolitions. Ms. Moore said staff would provide a definition of demolition which would certainly result in a change in the definition of remodel. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the Council would receive something about the change in September. Ms. Moore replied yes.
08/10/98 87-123
Council Member Ojakian asked about ways to limit the inventory. If the City limited the number, he asked how many would be eliminated from the process between that and a redefinition of remodeling. Ms. Moore said the total number of 50 year old homes would have to be compared with the numbers on the priority list. However, she was unable to provide the exact number. Council Member Ojakian thought the number could be reduced from 6,000 to 3,700 plus whatever was affected by some of the change. Ms. Moore suggested roughly half. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council endorse Interim Historic Preservation Program Option B and adopt the revisions to
the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (ΑInterim Ordinance≅) and the Resolution approving modifications to the Historic
Preservation Regulations (ΑInterim Regulations≅). Staff also recommends that Council authorize staff preparation of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO), consistent with the selected Program option, for consultants to implement the interim programs, backfill for reassigned Planning Division staff and perform ombudsman and public outreach services. That BAO will be scheduled for Council approval on August 10, 1998, so staff can move immediately to secure authorized consultant services. Further, that page 5 "Exhibit A," Recommendation 4. 4) be revised to read as follows: "As you begin reviewing your options and developing your plans, it is recommended required that you make a
pre-application appointment to meet with the city=s preservation architect, who can help you in complying with the Compatibility Review Standards and assist you with your application."
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance 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 7790 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Historic Preservation Regulations Including
Compatibility Review Standards≅
Ordinance 4517 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $269,600 for the Interim Historic
Regulations Administration≅ Council Member Kniss said the action was a result of the public's outcry. Issues on the process had great interest in addition to
08/10/98 87-124
being able to cut back on the anxiety, time and pressure placed on applicants. She suggested ultimately requiring only compatibility review for demolitions. The rest was reflected well in the proposed ordinance and resolution. Council Member Ojakian suggested an amendment adding language to the interim regulations regarding no merit. Council Member Wheeler agreed but asked staff to explore the issue further during the interim period. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the staff be directed to review additional language to be added to the interim regulations which would establish a presumption that if a home was not on the study priority lists it had no historic merit for the purposes of merit screening and that staff report back to the Council at the Monday, September 14, 1998, City Council Meeting. Council Member Fazzino had been prepared to introduce seven or eight amendments, which the City Attorney had stopped. However, when given the opportunity, he would be making motions regarding: 1) focus on demolitions not remodels, agreeing with the change in definitions; 2) a more formal process to allow someone to remove his/her home from the list; 3) elimination of fees associated with the program because it was a community wide benefit which homeowners should not bear alone; and 4) incentives implemented as quickly as possible. He knew people of good will had been working on the program, and it was the first time he had seen the process captured in a way which communicated to the public with mutual expectations about when decisions could or could not be made, appeals, and other avenues for individuals who disagreed with a decision. Council Member Eakins was pleased to see the item return which was the first round of downsizing. September 14, 1998, would see another round of downsizing for the program. The City should still maintain the goal of protecting the oldest neighborhoods in town. She especially liked the ombudsman in the program because it was important for people to have help. Council Member Mossar agreed with Council Member Fazzino's comments about the quality of the work and thanked staff for what was a great amount of work. Staff provided the Council with a packet of information that explained what it had and where it was going, and she was greatly relieved and appreciative. Council Member Ojakian asked when the next hearing on incentives would take place. Ms. Moore said the meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, August 12, 1998, as a public meeting, workshop, and study session. As a more
08/10/98 87-125
informal meeting, good public input and dialogue would be generated. Council Member Ojakian liked the pre-screening concept to provide people the opportunity to understand without getting caught up in the process. The City could provide an overview on some of the various issues which would be a benefit to any applicant. He liked the ombudsman idea. Staff had made a start with the notion of seven days to resolve an issue. The idea of streamlining the process was good. In the future, other ways of doing more could be found. He agreed with Council Member Fazzino about fee reduction or zero fees. Incentives were important also. He would be interested to see what other ideas staff would come up with in September. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber "not participating," Schneider absent. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:25 P.M. - 9:40 P.M. The City 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 Nos. 9 and 10. ORDINANCES 14. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $437,400 for an Interim Historic Inventory Consultant Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Anne Cronin Moore thanked Virginia Warheit, Denise Bradley, staff, and Dames & Moore for the hard work put into developing the options. Staff had tried to focus on critical time frames within historic preservation in order to minimize uncertainty for homeowners by generating definitive information, particular points in time that would reasonably relate to some benchmarks on the interim historic ordinance and regulations with the permanent ordinance. The table on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report (CMR:337:98) described and compared two major options. The far left column presented required tasks, work in process or what would be completed whether Option 1 or Option 2 was considered, e.g., completion of preliminary recommendations for Study Priority 1 Properties as related to the
Secretary of the Interior=s Criterion C, but the evaluation process would be incomplete. Some of the major differences between Options 1 and 2 included the fact Option 1 only dealt with study Priority List 1 properties. At the end of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Option 1, at a cost of $380,000, recommendations and documentation for Priority List 1 only would be completed. To arrive at the end of Phases 1 and 2, Option 2 provided the same level of information for both Priority 1 and 2 Properties and the cost differential was less
08/10/98 87-126
than $40,000. Because of the fairly minor cost differential, staff recommended the Council consider Option 2. Both options were expensive. Most communities involved in such work tended to phase the work in over many years and typically spent five to ten years to complete. As was the case with interim program fees, an option for getting the work done was to put the cost back on individual property owners. The community benefit was great and the City's approach for historic preservation programs had not been cost recovery in the past, e.g., generally 15 percent. Council Member Kniss asked about the abbreviations contained in the table on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report (CMR:337:98) and where the City was actually going with the particular inventory, particularly in light of separating the historic inventory from compatibility review. If the City only completed the $200,000 work, just Phase 1 versus the $380,000 versus the $419,000, she asked what house numbers the City would have at the end of the study. The usual criteria people thought about was architecture design and construction of property structure. Once history and other items were considered, the number changed substantially. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said approximately 600 properties were on the Study Priority 1 list, which had been selected based on the properties' apparent eligibility for the National Register based on what could be seen, i.e., architecture without the other research being conducted. After further research, some properties would be found ineligible. The consultant would note that even when additional research was conducted on people and places, if the properties were eligible for the National Register based on Criteria C, they were already eligible. Essentially, the number of eligible properties would not change. Council Member Kniss was interested in knowing the number of eligible properties at the end of the study. Ms. Warheit said if the properties were eligible for the National Register, the properties would more than likely be recommended for inclusion on the City's historic inventory. Council Member Kniss asked how many houses would be examined under Option 2. Ms. Warheit said Option 2 included an examination of both Priority 1 and Priority 2 properties. Council Member Kniss thought the number of properties on the Priority 2 list would be significant. Ms. Warheit said the consultant's best estimate, without having conducted research, was that 80 percent of the Priority 2 properties would not be included. Several hundred properties would remain on the list; however, very few would reach the national
08/10/98 87-127
criteria. The City's standards would then determine what would be chosen for the local historic inventory. The methodology developed for handling the very large number was a backdoor approach and sought addresses which were associated with important people or events. If the addresses failed to show up and no architectural importance existed, the properties would be dismissed. Council Member Kniss asked how many more houses would be seen with the extra $40,000. Ms. Warheit said the result would be a decrease in the number of houses on the Priority 2 list; however, the City would have the ability to say definitively that a few of thousand were not historically important. Council Member Kniss asked whether it was important to have looked at the few thousand to begin with. Ms. Warheit said the uncertainty for the property owner was reduced because the property would no longer be included on a study list. Council Member Kniss asked whether the extra money was worthwhile for the extra houses. Several hundred houses would still remain on the category. Ms. Warheit said several hundred properties would have to be evaluated by the HRB and the Council, with recommendations, which would not be screened out at the earliest study stage. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Council was being asked to make a decision about whether or not to take in just one set of criteria and expanding it for the final evaluation of everything on Priority 2. The City might end up in the precarious situation of having an enormous number of houses which had been examined and subject to some kind of a process before being allowed to remodel. She understood Ms. Warheit was saying there was a need to eliminate some of the houses, but she wanted to know whether the houses should have been selected in the first place. Council Member Eakins asked what made Phase 2 in either option so expensive. Phase 1 was under $100,000 in each option and Phase 2 was $140,000 in Option 1 and approximately $200,000 in Option 2. Ms. Warheit said the bulk of archival work was conducted in Phase 2 while much of Phase 1 work could be delegated to aides, assistants, and volunteers. The documentation, final write-ups, and most of the work conducted in Phase 2 would have to be done by the professional historic architect. Council Member Wheeler said the object of the process was to obtain an updated, local inventory. The staff report (CMR:337:98) was troublesome when she had tried to figure out at what stage the City
08/10/98 87-128
was left with sufficient information upon the consultant's retirement from the scene to have a body of properties go through the City's process, e.g., staff, HRB, and the Council. She asked whether there was a place either after Phase 1 or in the middle of Phase 2, or whether the end of Phase 2 was necessary before the Council would have a work product by which a local ordinance could be updated. Ms. Warheit said if the City only completed Phase 1 or Part A of the State form, properties could be registered on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), but would be listed as "surveyed but not evaluated." Evaluation was the final step for potential historic significance in a period of significance based on complete information about the property. Council Member Wheeler understood. However, she failed to understand the relationship, if any, between the process Ms. Warheit mentioned and listing on the City's local inventory, i.e., whether having Form DPR523A submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation was a necessary precursor to the City listing a property on its own inventory or at what point along the scale of work the City could obtain sufficient information to do so. Ms. Warheit said the City could list whatever criteria it wanted on the local inventory. The Council's only guide might be that the City was a certified local government, of which it was one of 52 in California. As such, the City would attempt to operate according to established professional standards using the criteria for National Register as an accepted standard for placing items on an inventory. A city might not want to just strike off on its own and invent everything. Certainly any local inventory could set its own standards. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City could set the standards wherever it wanted. The Council had not taken any legislative action establishing standards. In the Spring, something of a "chicken-and-egg" problem had been identified relative to moving from Priority lists 1 and 2 into the permanent ordinance, e.g., how the City would formally designate properties until a permanent ordinance was in place. However, the City had not wanted to complete the permanent ordinance until it had a good idea of which properties were subject. One of the dovetailing components Ms. Cronin had alluded to on the prior agenda item was the issue of transition rules, which had a significantly different connotation than last spring. In fall 1998, staff would present Council with proposed transition rules to legislatively define the categories into which the HRB and the Council would package the properties. At that point, the local standards could be set. The City had been operating under implicit direction to comply with the letter and spirit of the Certified Local Government status, i.e., using national standards for designation. The other important element was how the City had arrived there and whether it was something
08/10/98 87-129
that had to be handled all at once or spread over time. Clearly, it could be spread over time. The regulatory focus would change from rules that applied to known historic resources to how proposals were handled to change potential historic resources. The program could be restructured as a holding pattern. Rather than having the general community or taxpayers finance the historic work up front, the cost could be imposed on the homeowner by a requirement to have the historic survey conducted to demonstrate whether or not the property was actually of historic significance. Staff had not pursued that approach. Ms. Moore said staff preferred Phase 1 of Option 2 because by the middle of January 1999, in advance of the interim ordinance which would sunset at the end of March 1999, the Council, the HRB, and property owners would know whether their list 1 and 2 properties were likely to be recommended. Phase 1 of Option 1 only addressed list 1. List 2 had been established and a certain amount of work had already been completed, so it was a continuation of a direction staff had already taken. Phase 2 of Option 2 could be handled on a case-by-case basis whenever changes were proposed to any of the properties identified in Phase 1. The property owner/applicant would be responsible to complete the work proposed for funding by the City in Phase 2, as another option. Council Member Wheeler said the issue of incentive programs had been discussed as part of the City's ordinance update because the City wanted the ordinance to contain rewards for people who complied with the ordinance. She asked whether any of the incentives would be adversely affected if the Council chose not to go all the way with the study. Ms. Moore said Federal tax credits were only available for properties on the National Register or in a National Register district. If a property was not already on the National Register but had been identified as eligible, a project could be started and tax credits used while in the process of getting the property on the National Register. Leaving the question unanswered would make credits unavailable to people who otherwise would be eligible. Council Member Fazzino asked whether use of the Mills Act required any kind of listing, aside from local. Ms. Warheit replied no. Council Member Fazzino asked how the City would go about eliminating as many homes as possible as quickly as possible. Ms. Warheit said Option 2 should be followed. Then by January 15, 1999, ineligible properties could be eliminated from all criteria. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff could possibly do a second "Windshield Survey."
08/10/98 87-130
Ms. Warheit thought staff had gotten as much out of the Windshield Survey as possible. Archival research and more specific evaluation of builders, designers, persons who might have lived at or used the properties, etc., had to be obtained. Council Member Fazzino said a number of homes, particularly in Midtown area neighborhoods, clearly had no historic architectural interest qualities which other neighborhoods might have. He heard from a number of people in the neighborhoods that the homes should not be on the list. Inclusion of such homes and neighborhoods in the study made the whole process less credible than it should be. Staff had indicated through the Windshield Study that certain homes had potential architectural integrity and, therefore, could not be eliminated from the list. He wanted to remove as many homes as possible from the list as quickly as possible based on a cursory review of the homes. He believed another level of homes could be removed from the list without having to go through the process. Ms. Warheit asked whether Council Member Fazzino's references were to tract homes, since the methodology being developed would treat such homes as a complete unit and not individually examined. Council Member Fazzino asked about the desire to remove a tract or home as part of a tract which in turn was viewed as a complete unit. Mr. Calonne said there was a sensitive balance between answering Council Member Fazzino's question as a process, i.e., how to do it versus the substantive historic issues at stake. Council Member Fazzino wanted to apply basic common sense to the process. Most people would look at a number of the homes and feel it was absurd to have the house on the list, which spoke to the issue of the program's credibility. He wanted to find a way of moving such homes off the list right away in order to concentrate on homes which had true potential historic value. Mr. Calonne said the problem was how to do so while delivering an inventory in time for March 31, 1999, plus the transitional period. Staff was not unsympathetic or unaware of the desire to trim the list. Council Member Fazzino's question was well-taken but vexing given the time and resources. The broad-brush alternative would be to shift the responsibility for identifying the inventory from the City and general taxpayer to the homeowner. Then the issue would only be addressed when a homeowner proposed a change to the property, allowing the City to get out of the study process. Whether a property was actually historic was highly speculative. Such action would cause problems. In some ways the strategy was to get at the specific, final and complete list by fronting the cost and putting behind the community the anguish of not knowing what the rules would be.
08/10/98 87-131
Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the transition. The Council had wanted to delay implementation of the permanent ordinance in May 1998 in order to be better able to complete the inventory and to eliminate an awkward transition period. Ms. Moore said January 15, 1999, was an important date when preliminary information from the consultant would be released to owners of properties. The release of such information would trigger a great deal of contact with City staff and with people wanting more information. A certain proportion of the people would disagree and want to generate information. Staff expected the date, whether limited to list 1 or 2, to trigger additional work for staff. More work would be triggered under Option 2 since it involved both lists. The City had a study Priority 2 list for a long time and a fair amount of work had been completed in an attempt to move the product forward on January 15, 1999. Therefore, staff recommended Option 2. Mayor Rosenbaum asked what staff anticipated for the transition period. Mr. Calonne asked whether Mayor Rosenbaum wanted to know why staff had recommended a transition period again. Mayor Rosenbaum said yes. He asked how the transition would work, assuming the interim ordinance ended on March 31, 1999, and how people would know whether they had one of the properties. Mr. Calonne said staff had brought the transition back because the time lines made it impossible to deliver the inventory products completely before the permanent ordinance needed to be in place. As a practical matter, and so the City would not face more surprises, it was inconceivable that the City could move several hundred homes into preservation status, giving individualized due process to all homeowners, without a transition period. The process would take HRB action after public hearing and Council action after public hearing. The transition period was a dose of reality. It would not be possible to move from interim day 31 to permanent day 1; a transition was necessary to move smoothly. The last transition period involved a modified set of rules to stop people from doing adverse things to inventoried properties until the individualized due process could take place. Some of the process was contained in the new transition period but, more importantly, well in advance of expiration of the interim ordinance, staff was putting into place the specific process and standards for HRB and Council hearings. In January, when staff had the book of evidence indicating whether or not a property should be designated, the rules would be enacted and in place to establish the process by which the book of evidence would be considered by the HRB and Council. The process advance would remove and replace
08/10/98 87-132
the uncertainty of a process by which people could know for sure whether or not the property was proposed for designation. Mayor Rosenbaum thought the transition period for completion of the consultant's work for Option 2 ran through December of 1999 and for Option 1 ran through September of 1999. Much interest had been expressed in terminating the process where the March 31 date had come from, with the interim regulations continuing where the contributing properties were a big concern. He asked what was anticipated during the transition region. Mr. Calonne was unable to respond. In discussions, staff had proposed synchronizing the Council's action on incentives with its action on developing and implementing the transition period. If the Council had a fully enacted book of incentives, it would be in a better position to make policy choices about how it wanted to maintain the stock. The incentives might be sufficient for the Council. He had focused on sequencing in terms of laying out all the necessary legislative acts. Staff had contemplated the September timeframe for further revisions to the compatibility review regulations, November for completion of the Planning Commission process on incentives, a concurrent November timeframe for establishing the transition rules including standards for designation, ending with enactment of the permanent ordinance and public hearing on the inventory. Mayor Rosenbaum asked what information the Council would have available with respect to the inventory when the Council considered the permanent ordinance. Ms. Moore said page 12 of the staff report (CMR:337:98) indicated the timeline for how the information from Dames & Moore would fit in with the time schedule, working backwards from March 31. To have the interim ordinance sunset on March 31 and a new ordinance in place at the same time, the City would be into public hearings at the beginning of February. At the time of the first public hearing, people would know what the recommendation was on specific properties. However, the public would not have had much time to interact with staff. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether people would know about the Landmark and Significant Resource designations at the same time and what the Council would know about the number of properties in each of the categories. The information might be considered important in determining what the regulations should be for the categories. Ms. Warheit said the Council and the public would have information in the aggregate about how many properties were likely to be identified as Landmarks and Significant Resources, along with examples, such as a sample set of six properties recommended for landmarks and why; a sample set of six properties recommended for significant resource and why; and a sample set of six properties which failed to list on any inventory and why. An actual
08/10/98 87-133
recommendation for every individual piece of property would not be available since the time, from when the recommended list was identified until March 31, 1999, to go to the HRB and have the question answered on a property-by-property basis was not sufficient. Council Member Eakins asked whether the Priority List 1 had originated from the Criterion C architectural distinction only, which reflected what had occurred 20 years prior when the current inventory was developed. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Council Member Eakins asked whether Priority List 2 represented structures of a certain age and integrity, without the distinction. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Council Member Eakins asked whether the question of people and events was the issue keeping the properties under study, i.e., Criteria A and B. Ms. Warheit replied yes. The consultants had insufficient information to eliminate the properties. Council Member Eakins asked whether the consultant knew the properties would not remain on the list for architectural distinction. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Council Member Eakins asked about staff's methodology for dealing with Priority List 2 properties. Ms. Warheit received the consultant's draft report for the State Office of Historic Preservation outlining what was being proposed. The approach was novel for Palo Alto's situation of wanting to dispense with a very large project in a very short time. The method had been referred to as a "back door method," i.e., the consultant would search Who's Who in local biographical files, the work of prominent architects and builders who had worked in Palo Alto, historic contexts, etc. The information would be searched for locations or properties. Council Member Eakins asked whether the search was for a match with the individual properties already identified. Ms. Warheit replied yes. After a search, if no historic significance was found, the properties would be eliminated from the lists.
08/10/98 87-134
Council Member Kniss thought the only way to cut down on the numbers was to go with Option 1. Ms. Warheit said Option 1 would cut down on the numbers in terms of stopping any further research. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, President Palo Alto Homeowners Association, responded to Council Member Wheeler's question about the effect of the historic standard on the availability of tax credits, e.g., Federal tax credits applied only to income-producing properties, not private properties. The Council should minimize the work with Dames & Moore and approve the least possible amount of work only after specific goals and objectives for the programs had been defined. The proposal implied policy directions that should be made clear to the community prior to an expenditure of $1 million. Dames & Moore had been paid in excess of several hundred thousand dollars for contracts to provide deliverables which had not actually been received and where some of the performance had been unacceptable. The staff recommendations in Option 2 proposed continuing historic evaluation based on significant events and historic people in addition to architectural merit. The basis and scope of work moved beyond what the Council had proposed. The Council was urged to approve Option 1 since so much was still unclear. Martin Bernstein, P. O. Box 1739, spoke about the need to focus on identifying historic resources. If properties had historic merit but had not been identified during the process, many houses might not be able to take advantage of the incentives being adopted, resulting in a loss to homeowners. The Council was urged to support Option 2 since the more houses evaluated the less the risk of losing historic resources. Historic preservation meant one could modify, make changes to, remodel, and add on to an historic home. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, spoke in support of staff and the Council's responsiveness to the concerns raised by the public and for being the report regarding the Dames & Moore contract. She questioned the need to spend more money for a job that should already have been completed. She suggested funding a canopy-type organization to promote historic preservation and educate homeowners about how to do so. Murray Suid, 1111 Greenwood, supported a self-evaluation program as a means of removing properties from the lists. Kathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding the current historic inventory of 500 homes, and the addition of Study List 1 of 650 homes and Study List 2 of 2,700 homes, plus or minus 700. If 20 percent of Study List 2 was included on the inventory, the
08/10/98 87-135
City would have 1,690 homes on its historic inventory. She questioned whether the issue was design review or historic preservation. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, urged the Council to approve Option 2, since the incremental cost of $40,000 was worth the extra work. The point was to gain more information about the City's historic resources. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. Council Member Mossar said the Council's packet contained a BAO for an additional contract amount for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the development of the Los Altos Treatment Plant site that put into perspective the dollar amounts. The BAO had been approved without comment and without public notice, bringing the total price for the EIR to $724,348. The historic inventory had received much public comment and Council policy direction, and was a project long overdue for updating. Though the numbers were large, in the perspective of the expenditures the City made for projects benefitting all or parts of the community, the proposal for historic preservation was not that large. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to 1) approve Option 2, assuming an adoption date of March 31, 1999, for the permanent Historic Ordinance, and requiring completion of the Historic Inventory by September 30, 1992; 2) adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance, not to exceed $437,400, to fund continued Historic Inventory work by Dames & Moore and to fund part-time, temporary workers and supplies to assist with the volunteer research effort; and 3) authorize the City Manager to sign the amendment to the Dames & Moore contract, with a scope of services to complete the Historic Inventory, consistent with the option selected.
Ordinance 4518 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $437,400 for an Interim Historic
Inventory Consultant≅ Council Member Wheeler understood in past situations, when the outcome of phase 1 of a multi-phased project was unknown, the Council had approved phase 1, and, based on the results and performance of the contractor during phase 1, either authorized extension of the contract for phase 2 or not. If information was insufficient or performance had not been up to expectations, the Council would have the ability to cease work. She asked whether that was a possibility for the historic project, since it was in phases. Ms. Moore replied yes. The staff would need to know whether the Council wanted to approve Option 1 or Option 2 since the work and the costs were different.
08/10/98 87-136
Council Member Wheeler wanted the Council to direct staff to either do Phase 1 of Option 1 or Phase 1 of Option 2 at the current meeting. She also wanted the review, which would have to take place very quickly since the desire was to move the project through quickly. She asked whether Phase 1 of Option 2 contained interim deliverables which would come back to the Council prior to January 15, 1999. Ms. Moore said in October 15, 1998, the Council would receive Study Priority List 1, preliminary recommendations for Criteria C. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the information would be received publicly or internally. Ms. Moore said the information would be advertised through the public outreach consultant. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the Council approve Phase 1 of Option 2 with the understanding that the Council may determine after receiving the deliverables associated with Phase 1 not to proceed further with Phase 2. Council Member Kniss asked about the total cost incorporated into the motion, based on the bottom of page 9 (page 2 of the chart) of the staff report (CMR:337:98). Ms. Moore said the amount was $48,500 for retired task and $86,300, plus a $23,000 contingency in case volunteer work decreased. Council Member Kniss was unconvinced the recommendation could take the City where it wanted to go. She was still concerned about reducing the number of houses, although willing to give the work a try. She asked whether the motion included Criteria A, B, and C. Ms. Moore said yes. Council Member Eakins supported the motion and agreed with much of the previous discussion. Staff was asked to brainstorm ways to expedite reducing the uncertainty about the 2,700 homes which had been the most difficult problem. Council Member Fazzino thought money was not the driving issue. Regardless of where one stood on the issue, it was generally one of the most important and problematic issues, challenges, and programs to come before the City over the past 20 years. The dollars proposed for the project were not as troublesome as the issue of getting homes off the list as quickly as possible. He was convinced that if three individuals drove around the community, agreement could be reached on removal of probably 1,400 homes from the list within hours. It was very frustrating that the City had
08/10/98 87-137
to engage in a long, laborious, unpredictable process associated with many homes which could create obstacles to the implementation of the historic program the Council began a few years before. He was interested in a windshield survey or bicycle survey to remove homes from the list as quickly as possible. He understood staff would search for ways to get the homes off the list as quickly as possible, but he proposed Study 2 homeowners had the right to appeal to the City for exclusion from the list. Council Member Mossar said Council Member Fazzino's proposal sounded easy, but she questioned the process. Council Member Fazzino thought the City should not wait for Dames & Moore to volunteer to show up in front of someone's house on December 10, 1998, with a final determination with respect to that home. If the homeowner wanted to force the issue, deal with it right away, and make it clear whether or not the home was historic, he wanted the issue resolved immediately. He wanted to give the homeowner as much standing as City staff on the issue. Council Member Mossar asked who would make the determination if a homeowner wanted his/her home off the list immediately. Council Member Fazzino said staff could have the right to review the request at which point the request could either go to the HRB or the Council. Council Member Wheeler said a homeowner who currently came forward and wanted to do something with his/her property before the study, could apply for merit screening. Council Member Fazzino said Council Member Wheeler was correct if there was potential historic value, but he would not want to force the person in to an extensive and expensive process for a property clearly not historic. Council Member Mossar thought Council Member Fazzino's proposal was exactly what the motion indicated. She would accept Council Member Fazzino's notion if it was a merit screening process. The City had been trying to make the process better, and the cost had been removed. If it were important for a homeowner to remove his/her house from the list prior to January 1999, that was fine. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified anyone could currently apply for historic screening and answer the question Council Member Fazzino proposed. A process other than merit screening should be made clear. Council Member Fazzino thought if there were a belief on the part of staff that a home was potentially historic, then the home could be considered through merit screening. However, what differentiated Study Group 1 from Study Group 2 was the large number of homes on the list which had no historic merit. Such
08/10/98 87-138
individuals should not be forced into a bureaucratic process. If it were an easy call, the homeowner should not have to go through the merit screening process. A staff member could easily say the property was not historic. Mayor Rosenbaum said at one time, there was a provision for individuals who came in for merit screening without going to the HRB. Ms. Warheit said merit screening was not directly related to the two study lists. If an individual came in with a property on Study List 2 desiring removal from the list, staff had information available regarding Criteria C, windshield survey. Staff had no basis for a conclusion based on Criteria A or B until the additional work was completed. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff could summarily remove a property from the list if the homeowner could demonstrate to staff that the home would clearly not meet Criteria A or B, without going through any bureaucratic process or screening, etc. Ms. Warheit said currently when staff received calls from individuals with pertinent information in order to finish the study, the information was immediately passed on to the survey team. The study list, therefore, was not the same as it had been a few months prior because the properties were being removed from the list. For example, she received a call from an individual who indicated a home on the list was built in 1990. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff could make a decision on the spot if an individual owned a tract home in Midtown which was built in 1939 by an "unknown" individual, purchased in 1973, and had no value as an historic home. Ms. Moore said staff could definitely consider such information and would welcome property owners providing complete information such as chain of title and use of property. Mayor Rosenbaum said if Council Member Fazzino wanted to make a motion for a process other than what existed, he could do so. Council Member Kniss thought the only thing to simplify Council Member Fazzino's proposal was to eliminate Criteria A and B, leaving Criteria C, which was the architectural piece. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, that a provision be made that the Priority Study 2 homeowners have the right to appeal to the City staff for exclusion from the list if they can demonstrate that the home does not meet the Criteria A, B, and C.
08/10/98 87-139
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-2, Ojakian, Rosenbaum "no," Huber, Schneider absent. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the City Council approve Phase 1 of Option 1. Council Member Kniss said Criteria C was the one which determined whether a house had historic merit. Mayor Rosenbaum said the main point of Option 1 rather than Option 2 was the obtaining of an important deliverable, e.g., completion of the primary record DPR523 A for Study Priority 1 properties, which Phase 1 of Option 2 failed to include. He doubted that the work on Study Priority 2 would be completed for a mere $40,000. Council Member Eakins said commercial properties might have strong local importance to the history of Palo Alto and should not be excluded. She shared Mayor Rosenbaum's concern about being able to handle 2,700 structures for a mere $40,000, but if the methodology were good or a cut-off date was changed, the problem could be handled more readily. She would not support the substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-4, Fazzino, Kniss, Rosenbaum "aye," Huber, Schneider absent. Council Member Kniss would not support the 2,700 homes. At the same time, she would not vote against the recommendation since the City needed to continue to deal with the inventory. Council Member Ojakian asked what would be lost by dropping Phase 2 in Option 2, particularly since the paperwork mentioned in Option 1 would not be completed. Ms. Moore said it would be more difficult to back up an appeal since that was the definitive type of record to establish a property's eligibility or refute someone's appeal to the potential eligibility. No insignificant information would be obtained through Option 1. As appeals came up on a case-by-case basis, staff would examine how information was generated to consider the appeals on a case-by-case basis. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion. An inventory had not been conducted in the City for 20 years, and the City should move forward and do as extensive a job as possible. Once the homes on the inventory were defined between the two categories, the Council could apply the regulations appropriately. The issue before the Council was the inventory, which should be completed. Council Member Mossar's comments about the cost were interesting, although there were probably several more comparisons that could be made. The cost was reasonable considering the work had not been done for 20 years.
08/10/98 87-140
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 14A. (Old Item No. 7) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.321 of Chapter 22.04 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Use of the Skateboard Facility in John Lucas Greer Park MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, that Council approve the ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code section 22.04.321 regulating use of the skateboard facility in John Lucas Greer Park.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.321 of Chapter 22.04 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Use of the Skateboard Facility in John Lucas Greer Park" MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Mayor Rosenbaum announced it was City Clerk Gloria Young=s last official meeting. Council Member Fazzino noted the aggressive panhandling which was recurring in the Downtown area. Council Member Eakins asked that there be a continued dialogue regarding St. Ann Chapel. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 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
08/10/98 87-141
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.
08/10/98 87-142