HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-02 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting November 2, 1998 1. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation......................................................87-306 2. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................87-306 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.............87-306 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Committee..........................87-307 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-307 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................87-308
2. Resolution 7805 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Extension of Time for the Refund of Debris Box Rental Charges Incurred as a Result of
Flood-related Damage and Destruction≅ .................87-308
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (2% @55 Full
Formula for Local Miscellaneous Members)≅ .............87-308 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Shooter and Butts, Inc., for Renovation of the Irrigation System at Rinconada Park .................................................87-308 5. Amendment No. 2 to Sewer Construction and Service Contract No. C869 Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University to
Define Stanford=s Obligations with Regards to Reimbursing Palo Alto for Costs of Incinerator Rehabilitation and Increase the Annual Ongoing Capital Improvement Budget Cap.........87-308
6. Resolution 7808 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Reversing the Director of Planning and
Community Environment=s Determination That 951, 953, and 955
11/02/98 87-304
Addison are of No Historic Merit and Sustaining the Appeal87-309 7. Authorization to Enter into a Partnership Agreement with the City of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto Unified School District, Ravenswood School District, YWCA of Mid-Peninsula, Haas Center for Public Service, and the Rotary Club of Palo Alto to Operate a Youth Community Service Program for Youth in Palo Alto..................................................87-309
8. Ordinance 4531 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.79 and Section 9.48.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Comprehensive Time, Place and Manner Regulations for the Placement and Maintenance
of Newsracks≅ .........................................87-309 9. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................87-310 10. Planning Commission re Development of Proposed Incentives and Benefits for the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance87-310 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-326 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m............87-326
11/02/98 87-305
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:02 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins (arrived at 6:09 p.m.), Fazzino (arrived at 6:12 p.m.), Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) arising out
of USA Waste, Inc. acquisition of PASCO stock. (Gov. Code, ∋ 54956.9(b)(3)(B).) 2. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva) Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs Association Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1 and 2. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
11/02/98 87-306
Regular Meeting November 2, 1998 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, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Committee Interim City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Dexter Dawes, Richard (Rick) Ferguson, Gerald Meek, and David Morman had received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, November 16, 1998. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Margaret Cooley, 830 University Avenue, spoke regarding "Fiber to the Home." Michael Eager, 1960 Park Boulevard, spoke regarding "Fiber to the Home." Ken Poulton, 884 Los Robes Avenue, spoke regarding "Fiber to the Home." Vincent E. May, 2201 Broadway, #209, Oakland, spoke regarding "Fiber to the Home." Michael Silverton, 114 Green Meadow Way, spoke regarding "Fiber to the Home." Edmund R. Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility. T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding voting Democratic would more likely insure settlement of discrimination in educational facilities. City Manager June Fleming noted an information report would be provided to the Council explaining the reasons the item regarding Fiber to the Home could not be agendized earlier. She said the item would be scheduled for the Monday, December 14, 1998, City Council Meeting. 11/02/98 87-307
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of September 22, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of October 5, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 8.
2. Resolution 7805 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Extension of Time for the Refund of Debris Box Rental Charges Incurred as a Result of
Flood-related Damage and Destruction≅
Resolution 7806 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending the Suspension of Collection of Landfill Fees Related to Flood Damage Authorized by Resolution No. 7749"
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (2% @55 Full
Formula for Local Miscellaneous Members)≅
Resolution 7807 entitled ΑResolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto (Local
Miscellaneous Members)≅ 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Shooter and Butts, Inc., for Renovation of the Irrigation System at Rinconada Park 5. Amendment No. 2 to Sewer Construction and Service Contract No. C869 Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University to
Define Stanford=s Obligations with Regards to Reimbursing Palo Alto for Costs of Incinerator Rehabilitation and Increase the Annual Ongoing Capital Improvement Budget Cap
6. Resolution 7808 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Reversing the Director of Planning and 11/02/98 87-308
Community Environment=s Determination That 951, 953, and 955 Addison are of No Historic Merit and Sustaining the Appeal Thereof and Designating Them as Contributing Structures Under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.50" 7. Authorization to Enter into a Partnership Agreement with the City of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto Unified School District, Ravenswood School District, YWCA of Mid-Peninsula, Haas Center for Public Service, and the Rotary Club of Palo Alto to Operate a Youth Community Service Program for Youth in Palo Alto
8. Ordinance 4531 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.79 and Section 9.48.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Comprehensive Time, Place and Manner Regulations for the Placement and Maintenance
of Newsracks≅ (1st Reading 10/19/98, PASSED 6-0, Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent) Council Member Mossar said her husband worked for Stanford University, and she would abstain from voting on Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Eakins said she would vote on Item No. 8. She had not attended the meeting, but had watched the video and understood the issue. City Manager June Fleming made corrections to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:416:98), Item No. 3 on the Consent Calendar, Resource Impact. The cost of the benefit for fiscal year 1998-99 was listed in the report as $1,115,351 but should read $1,070,686. The projected annualized cost was listed as $2,230,702 but should read $2,141,372. Council Member Kniss would not participate in Item No. 8 as she had not been present at the meeting. Vice Mayor Schneider said she would vote on Item No. 8. She had not attended the meeting, but had watched the video and understood the issue. Mayor Rosenbaum made a correction to Item No. 4 on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:398:98), that the change order amount of $29,543 should be the same as the amount shown on page 1, $22,954. MOTION PASSED 9-0, for Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item No. 5, Mossar "abstaining." MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item No. 8, Kniss "abstaining." CLOSED SESSION
11/02/98 87-309
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 9. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva) Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs Association Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 10. Planning Commission re Development of Proposed Incentives and Benefits for the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance Council Member Huber noted he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said the Council discussed policy relative to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) in February 1998 and directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to create a proposed incentive program. In Fall 1998, the Council directed staff to return with a progress report which the staff report (CMR:414:98) fulfilled. The Planning Commission held approximately seven public forums and study sessions to allow interaction with the public and other interested parties in a less formal setting. A total of 26 items were identified and assembled from previous staff reports, colleagues' memos, ombudsman discussions with members of the public and community, and correspondence received from interested parties. The 26 items were broken down into five specific categories: 1) development exceptions; 2) development review process improvements; 3) fees; 4) technical assistance; and 5) others. After reviewing the 26 items, the Planning Commission combined some incentives and deleted a few others. The final recommendation contained 22 incentives. The specific recommendations from the Planning Commission were contained in Attachment "A." Of the 22 items, staff noted the core or heart of the incentives were contained in the first 7 with the final 15 being more process improvements, changes in the fee schedule, technical assistance, and Mills Act contracts. Staff sought the Council's input and review of the 7 core items. Additional research and analysis would be necessary for each item, culminating in a final recommendation on each incentive as part of the final HPO scheduled for release in December 1998. Additional opportunities would exist through drafting of the final ordinance. On October 21, 1998, the first 7 items were provided to the Historic Resources Board (HRB). The resultant HRB comments were contained in the staff report (CMR:414:98). Throughout discussions of the incentives and benefits, the Planning Commission expressed considerable concern about the applicability of incentives to
11/02/98 87-310
categories of Landmarks and Significant Resources. The Planning Commission had considered the relative value of each incentive to property owners who could chose whether or not to preserve structures and alternately to owners required to comply with the standards. The Planning Commission determined that the utilization of benefits and incentives would assist individuals. Incentives made on a mandatory or voluntary basis exhibited a commitment on the part of the property owner to historic preservation; therefore, no distinction was made. The Council was asked to designate which core incentives should be included in the final HPO. Planning Commissioner Owen Byrd said because the final ordinance had not yet been drafted, the Planning Commission had been challenged to design benefits and incentives which would work well. Halfway through the process, the Planning Commission realized it could no longer try to hypothesize each conceivable application of each conceivable benefit or incentive. Every property was unique with its own features. The list of incentives was considered a "tool kit." No property would have the entire list of incentives applied but incentives were available depending upon the circumstances and subject to HRB design review. The Council was urged to view the list as the beginning, not the end. In March 1998, when the Council directed staff to begin work on the final HPO, it had tentatively stated that Category 1 and 2 structures would be considered in a mandatory regulatory environment, for instance, property owners with structures on the lists would be required to conform with the HPO, which had lead the Planning Commission to question why benefits should be constructed. The Planning Commission then realized the incentives or benefits would take some of the sting out of having to live within the rules. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether Commissioner Byrd's reference to Category 1 and 2 referred to Study Priority 1 or 2 or Landmark and Significant Resources. Commissioner Byrd said the reference to Category 1 and 2 meant Landmark or Significant Resources. If Landmark or Significant Resources were placed in a voluntary compliance environment, the Planning Commission had thought long about how that would change the context of any incentive. The conclusion was that the distinction was unimportant, but the Planning Commission wanted the Council to have the benefit of the analysis. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether houses currently going through HRB review, considering it might be some time before incentives were finalized, would benefit from incentives adopted at a future time. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the answer depended upon where the houses were in the review process and the desired future development. Clearly, incentives could not be applied until a permanent ordinance was adopted. 11/02/98 87-311
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether staff anticipated the withdrawal of applications since the incentives were fairly significant. Mr. Gawf was unsure. The answer depended upon what the owner planned for the property. Council Member Kniss said since the City had no permanent historic ordinance or knew how many houses would be affected, it was difficult to get the big picture. Mr. Riel the Planning Commission had faced a difficult challenge when discussing details and in trying to come up with a scenario for each incentive. Staff had not been able to go through any scenarios since the Planning Commission had finished its discussions the prior week. Staff wanted to determine the impacts. The Planning Commission expressed concern about neighborhood impacts. Many of the recommendations included wording "subject to HRB review" or "subject to design review," in recognition of the issue. The recommendations also mentioned "use by right" which was again discretionary and required HRB review of design. In terms of the number of properties to which the incentives would be applicable, staff had conducted some preliminary analyses at the start of the process in July and had realized the City had not been provided with accurate information from the Assessor's Office with which to work out the details. Some of the floor area ratios (FARs) were ludicrous, for example, a 2 percent FAR on an 8,000-square-foot lot. Staff assumed the data was about 60 percent accurate. Each of the development exceptions would have to be tested on various properties. Historic properties were very unique in their size. Staff would not expect that a property would be able to utilize all seven of the incentives, which was why the notion of a "tool kit" had been raised. Commissioner Byrd said the notion of a "tool kit" and the notion of larger and smaller tools within the kit were important. The crux of the incentives were contained in Incentive #1, i.e., additional FAR up to 500 square feet, with some presumption that the property owner would receive it and be subject to design review, signaled a significant amount of either addition to the home or, as the Planning Commission suggested, possible extraction of value by the historic property owner into cash. In return for playing by the rules, historic property owners would have extra square footage available. Council Member Kniss said further review would be necessary to determine whether the incentives could be incorporated into zoning in a way which would not require review where judgment played a part. If the City actually had something in place pushing against a certain matrix, historic property owners would again be subject to going through other boards or commissions. Planning Commissioner Bern Beecham said the Planning Commission had been very concerned about making the process simple for the 11/02/98 87-312
homeowner as well as making a process available on which the homeowner could rely. The Planning Commission wanted to make sure the homeowner could count on the FAR bonus. None of the other incentives were included in that category because each was so dependant upon the location, such as a second unit in the back might not be possible because of problems in the neighborhood, already existing flag lots, no set backs, etc. The only board required for review was the HRB, eliminating the Zoning Administrator and the Architectural Review Board (ARB), if possible. The Planning Commission had also discussed the possibility of a Planned Community (PC) Zone or analogous zone, where the tools were available but were subjective depending on how it fit in with the neighbors. Mr. Riel said staff had examined process improvements mentioned by Commissioner Beecham, and others such as working on the definition of "minor alteration," which could allow additional reviews over the counter. In terms of process improvements and technical assistance, staff sought a one-stop shop to make the process easier on the applicant. The first seven incentives were viewed as being available. Staff had not worked out the internal operations; however, staff expected applicants would come in for a pre-application conference where staff could guide applicants. If, for example, parking was a problem in the applicant's neighborhood, staff would be able to inform the applicant immediately. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Riel to describe the steps staff would take involving different scenarios or test cases. Mr. Riel said staff sought direction from the Council as to which incentives should be investigated. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff was considering live or simulated test cases. Mr. Riel said staff would choose properties to determine the applicability of the various incentives. When the Planning Commission went through the entire list of incentives, trying to determine a scenario for each, it had been very difficult and time consuming; however, the discussions had allowed staff to identify issues and further research necessary for completion. Mr. Gawf said the tension between two competing goals existed. On one hand, the City wanted a relatively clear and simple process. On the other hand, the City wanted to preserve the integrity of its historic resources without impacting the surrounding neighborhoods. Over the following weeks, staff would need to find a balance between the two, which was the challenge. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said from a legal perspective, use of the term "test cases" would more readily be described as decision makers applied discretion to the standards governing the exercise. One of the lessons staff had learned through the historic process 11/02/98 87-313
over the prior few years was that too much discretion on the part of the decision maker was undesirable. The property owner was potentially left feeling at risk, and the City was left with less control than desired. The test cases would help from a legal standpoint to design the kind of standards to govern decision making, for which staff desired the Council's assistance. Staff would find it useful if the Council voiced any concepts it sought to have included to guide the decision making by, for example, the HRB on design review. Council Member Kniss thought the response was that clarity was absolutely imperative. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the Study Priority 1 Properties report (Priority 1 report) the Council had received would be discussed at the current meeting. City Manager June Fleming said the Priority 1 report had been submitted as an information only item, for which staff was unprepared to go into any depth. Any issues could be raised and staff could return at a subsequent time to respond. Mr. Calonne said the Priority 1 report had not been properly agendized for difficult; however, some interrelatedness existed. Ms. Fleming was correct. Any specific concerns could be addressed at a future meeting. Council Member Ojakian understood, clarifying Council Members could make comments on the Priority 1 report. Mr. Calonne said a degree of interrelatedness existed between the current agenda item and the Priority 1 report; however, a full discussion would be inappropriate because of Brown Act regulations. An extended discussion was discouraged. Given the aggressive schedule and concern for doing things right, staff was not prepared to discuss the item casually without providing complete answers. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff had previously stated it was atypical in other jurisdictions to have incentives in historic ordinances or, if other ordinances contained incentives, what the incentives were. Mr. Riel said when the Council initially directed staff to prepare an historic ordinance, approximately 20 sample ordinances from around the United States had been gathered for comparison. Of the 20, the predominant incentive had been the Mills Act. Most had only one or two incentives but were specific to the particular community. Palo Alto's was the most comprehensive approach, with 7 to 22 being the greatest number of incentives. Council Member Ojakian asked why the Planning Commission had recommended 15 percent or 500 square feet FAR rather than the 10 percent initially discussed. 11/02/98 87-314
Commissioner Beecham said no analytical reason was used to determine the number. The Planning Commission was concerned about smaller lots in particular. A 10 percent bonus on a small lot would not buy very much. The Planning Commission had increased the number from 10 to 15 percent to give as much incentive as possible to the smaller lots. Also, topping out at 500 happened sooner. Commissioner Byrd said the Planning Commission had also wanted to serve an additional agenda not yet mentioned, i.e., properties not on either the Landmark or Significant Resource lists initially might choose to be on the list to enjoy the benefits which came from being on the list. An incentive or benefit should be created which was meaningful enough to at least hold out such possibility. The details on the FAR or any other incentive were unknown until each incentive had been modeled. The Planning Commission recommendations were conditioned on the presumption the incentive could hold up to further scrutiny. Council Member Fazzino said the list of incentives was fascinating, and he was very supportive of an incentive-based program. In reviewing some of the specific proposals, however, he recalled some of the difficult, even battles fought over the prior ten years with respect to issues such as parking, second units, and FARs. He asked whether the Planning Commission believed the City was in any way taking actions inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. Assuming the Council approved all the proposals, he also asked whether the City would dramatically change the scale and nature of the residential portion of the community. Commissioner Beecham said a number of policies in the Comprehensive Plan addressed to the character of neighborhoods and encouraged second units where appropriate. All were very custom-fit, based on the particular neighborhood and historic nature of the neighborhood. Any of the incentives could be put into a neighborhood and be wrong, but the right incentive applied correctly would work out well. Council Member Fazzino said Commissioner Beecham's statement argued for a highly discretionary program. Commissioner Beecham said Council Member Fazzino was correct. Whether or not one could set policies and clear standards, applying the incentives would be difficult until all the scenarios had been stated. Describing everything involved in an ordinance or policy would be difficult. The Planning Commission had also discussed the FAR for transfer demand rights (TDR). If the City could establish TDR for the incentives, a property owner with another 500 square feet and a bungalow, had an additional 1,000 square feet unused, so the 1,500 square feet of buildable area could be sold to someone else. Such a transaction would make the homeowner happy because of the cash potential, and the City would preserve the size of the bungalow forever. The FAR would be locked into whatever had not been sold. Many issues were involved in establishing a TDR 11/02/98 87-315
program, but it was a mechanism the City should explore in the future since it could go a long way to protecting the feel and nature of neighborhoods. Commissioner Byrd said an examination of the list, in isolation, in advance of the inventory and ordinance, might imply zoning was being gutted, but that was not the intent. The incentives were conditioned on what was on the inventory, the final ordinance, and discretionary design review. Without all the tools in the "tool kit," the job could not be done, which was why the Planning Commission wanted to include all of the tools. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Planning Commissioners agreed that if all incentives were adopted as guarantees, the City would look very different and the potential positive impact of the historic program would be lost. Commissioner Beecham said if all of the incentives were adopted as guarantees, Council Member Fazzino was correct, which was why the Planning Commission recommended only adopting one as a guarantee with the remainder adopted as discretionary. Mr. Calonne said the inventory had elevated the historic ordinance to mega-proportions. The number of properties subjected to the ordinance was unknown. The City would have to go through an environmental review to determine the impacts. Council Member Fazzino had not been surprised at Mr. Riel's comment about the study of other cities where incentives appeared to focus on financial incentives. The issue in California was dysfunctional since schools had to disproportionately depend on property taxes, putting the City in a difficult position with respect to the Mills Act since the legality was that there was no incentive more effective than a purely financial one. Many of the proposed incentives involved finances including utility fee waivers, fiber optic hook up waivers, etc., asking whether consideration had been given to other options, i.e., the Planning Commission recommended a fee waiver, but asked whether any other alternatives had been discussed. Mr. Newton had suggested a financial rebate program to take the place of the Mills Act but operating in the same way, having the City eat the costs of the expenses associated with historic preservation rather than the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Commissioner Byrd said the Planning Commission generally agreed that a financial incentive was the strongest, which was why it had wanted to pursue the TDR for the FAR. If a receiver site was identified like the Stanford Research Park, 500 square feet would not have as great an impact as it would in a residential area. It was the best of both worlds, providing a financial incentive to the property owner while minimizing the impact on the City.
11/02/98 87-316
Council Member Fazzino feared the City would construct two or three new corporate headquarters in the Stanford Research Park entitled "past corporate headquarters" and "Palo Alto homeowners headquarters." Commissioner Byrd said the subject was worthy of study. A special burden was placed on the PAUSD with the Mills Act because it was a basic "A" district. The Council was urged to have a representative from the PAUSD flush out the subject. The Mills Act hurt all school districts, but especially basic "A" districts. The Planning Commission had suggested waiving fees primarily for window dressing. Depending upon the scale of the project, the fee might represent a significant amount of money but it was more of a "look and feel" issue. Individuals should not have to pay to be brought under the regulatory system. Beyond that, the Planning Commission had been unable to come up with additional finance-based incentives. Council Member Mossar said the City had desired an historic ordinance because of neighborhood concerns about compatibility. Commissioner Byrd had indicated the Planning Commission viewed the FAR bonus as the key to the incentive package. Some relationship seemed to exist between neighborhood compatibility and FAR bonus. The FAR bonus had been viewed as important for small properties, yet small properties were important in terms of compatibility, with which the FAR bonus could conflict. She asked whether the FAR bonus could be used by the City given lot configurations in historic neighborhoods, such as High, Emerson and Ramona Streets. Many lots in the City were substandard. Any of the development incentives involved the consternation between compatibility and the City's ability to use the incentive. Commissioner Beecham said the issue was real. In many cases, finding a compromise for an incentive to save an historic structure and ensure the results fit into the neighborhood would be difficult. The Planning Commission had discussed allowing garages to be converted into living space, allowing uncovered parking. With a small parcel and a small cottage with a small garage in the back corner, the garage could be turned into living or office space. Such a conversion would not have a large impact on the neighborhood. A two-story unit in the back of a lot would definitely affect the neighborhood. Every design had to be reviewed. Another issue that would become clear when staff conducted its profiling of historic homes was the fact small parcels were constrained by backyard garages, setbacks, etc. As staff went through the analysis of test cases, alternatives for smaller lots would be necessary. Council Member Mossar asked whether the Planning Commission had discussed the best way to preserve small houses on large lots. Commissioner Beecham said the Planning Commission discussed enhancing the ability to build second units. Large lots with 11/02/98 87-317
cottages normally had the cottage centered on the lot. The Planning Commission had discussed encouraging flexibility to allow the envelope to be moved forward to allow a significant site for the second unit or allow subdivision, where appropriate. More of the incentives were appropriate for small houses on large lots than on small lots. Council Member Mossar asked whether the Planning Commission had discussed the issue of trying to defer demolition, aside from the full cost recovery fees for demolitions. Commissioner Byrd said since the final ordinance presumed full demolition would not be allowed, the issue might be moot for inclusion on the list. Commissioner Beecham said one could say a property owner who demolished an historic house would not receive any incentive. Council Member Wheeler said most of the incentives presented to the Council appropriately addressed a homeowner wanting to expand or remodel a dwelling; yet, an important aspect of any ordinance was the community desire to preserve historic structures. With the exception of the attempt at researching a TDR as an incentive, not much conversation was held about how the City could help the homeowner with an incentive to retain an unaltered historic home. Commissioner Byrd said Council Member Wheeler was correct. The Planning Commission had discussed some process improvement incentives, although the Council was encouraged to focus on the development exemptions. In the section of the matrix dealing with multi-family and non-residential properties, suggestions were made to expand the HRB to include additional design professionals. The whole program depended on compatibility and discretionary design review. For that to work well, it was crucial for the body charged with the task to have some expertise. The Planning Commission had tried to design incentives to preserve the historic appearance of the home in order to preserve the historic ambiance of the neighborhood. The community value, in addition to the value placed on the property by the individual homeowner. was considered. More value was placed on preservation of the exterior as opposed to the interior. The presumption was that most historic interiors were not as functional as modern interiors and homeowners should be able to make changes to the inside of their property without compromising the quality of the shared public area. Council Member Wheeler said the Planning Commission had not discussed the establishment of a trust fund. The proceeds could be used as an incentive to help homeowners achieve some of the objectives by way of low interest loans to carry out the heavy maintenance work some historic homes required or by the appropriate remodeling that could take place.
11/02/98 87-318
Commissioner Beecham said the Planning Commission had discussed low interest loans but such an incentive was not especially valuable, particularly with current interest rates. The Planning Commission had not discussed the possibility of money available in Palo Alto from some source. Council Member Wheeler said interest rates would not remain at the current low levels forever, and it was hoped the ordinance would be in place for a long time. Council Member Eakins asked for an elaboration of the Planning Commission's discussion of garage uses and where it fit into the incentives. Commissioner Beecham said the Planning Commission had considered allowing a garage to be used for purposes other than parking to ease the requirement for covered parking. Council Member Eakins asked whether easing the requirement for covered parking also included not having to have a carport. Commissioner Beecham replied yes. The Planning Commission had gone back and forth on the issue of height and having a second story available over an existing garage, although how to do so with a 17-foot height limit was questionable. Commissioner Schink had mentioned that if a second story was to be built over a garage, the garage would have to be torn down and rebuilt, raising the issue of whether or not the garage was historic in nature. Council Member Eakins asked whether the garage conversion should remain on the list. Commissioner Beecham said the garage conversion should remain as a tool in the tool box. For some cases, the incentive could be useful. Vice Mayor Schneider thought the City had been using the National Register, but the staff report (CMR:414:98) was the first document to reference the State Historical Building Code (State Code). She asked whether it was something new or something of which she had not been aware. Mr. Riel said staff had been utilizing the State Code for a number of years. Currently, the program was available to and utilized by the residents. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified residents had been using the State Code. Mr. Gawf replied yes. Staff had been using the State Code for some time because it allowed certain flexibility in the Building Code used in historic structures at the discretion of the Chief Building Official. 11/02/98 87-319
Vice Mayor Schneider asked about the advantages or how the State Code differed from the National Register. Mr. Gawf said the Uniform Building Code (UBC) was used in Palo Alto for building new structures and remodeling, which might have certain requirements which could not be met in historical buildings because of the historic nature. For example, the height of a step might be a certain number of inches in the UBC but because of the historic nature of the building, the step height differed. If the Chief Building Official believed all safety requirements and functional requirements were being met, he/she could allow for a modification from the UBC under the State Code. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified the State Code was used as an aid to the historic buildings. Mr. Gawf said in some ways the State Code was similar to the proposed incentives, i.e., exceptions to the UBC might be granted in order to preserve an historic building. Commissioner Beecham said another example was handrails. The current code required a three-inch separation for safety. The State Code required finding a reasonably functional corresponding method of preserving safety. Staff had decided that the State Code allowed saving certain constructions or appearances but was not a valuable incentive benefit to an historic house. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the State Code was much more valuable for institutional or commercial buildings. The City was required to make the State Code available, and the land owner could determine whether or not to use it. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the City might be approached by individuals, such as Commissioner Byrd mentioned, wanting to put an insignificant resource on the historic inventory in order to obtain more FAR. Commissioner Byrd said getting on the list was not at the discretion of the homeowner but was a function of whether or not the property met the criteria governing whether a structure could be on the list. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified discretionary control would remain with the HRB. Commissioner Beecham said the Council should carefully examine the current criteria and imagine which houses or types of houses might fall under the criteria. Many had discussed whether or not Eichlers fell under the third criteria. If so, the criteria made no reference to age of the structure. Potentially a brand new house, built by a famous architect, could be deemed historic and able to seek an FAR bonus. If the City determined Eichlers fit
11/02/98 87-320
into criteria three, the questioned became whether all Eichlers could, should, or ought to be deemed historic. Mayor Rosenbaum said Commissioner Byrd and several Council Members had expressed some discomfort with working on the incentives without knowing what the final ordinance itself was likely to say or what structures would be on the list. The Council deadline was March 31, 1999, and the Council was encouraging staff to complete the incentives presumably prior to the permanent ordinance being adopted. He asked how staff saw all of the elements coming together. Staff had been working very diligently to meet the Council-imposed schedule. Mr. Gawf said the task was very difficult, but staff would work very hard over the next few months. The historic preservation issue had been around long enough and staff should work as hard as it could to bring the materials to the Council within the desired time frame because it was time to make a decision and move forward. Ms. Fleming said the schedule staff had in place would allow the materials to be brought forward in a timely manner; however, one "slippage" and the schedule would be gone. Mr. Calonne said the important issue concerning the standards upon which a structure would be included on the City's inventory had not yet been resolved by the Council. Therefore, the numbers question remained open and in the control of the Council. Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the process for adding homes to the inventory. Mr. Calonne said the City would publish a notice and affected property owners would be given the opportunity to be heard. Mayor Rosenbaum asked when homes could be added to the inventory in relation to the March 31, 1999, deadline for the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said staff had discussed the issue substantially but was not prepared to respond to the Council at the current meeting. Staff was working hard and wanted to provide the Council with complete answers which could be backed up. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the issue staff had raised regarding "test cases," i.e., testing properties on a list of possible historic structures to determine whether the incentives would function, would work with the schedule. Mr. Riel said the testing of incentives should not pose a problem for the schedule. Mr. Calonne said any number of pieces would ultimately make up the final picture. Staff had tried to advance the cause of each of the pieces to the best of its ability. Ultimately, the pieces would 11/02/98 87-321
all be put together. The Council might or might not like the way the pieces were put together. In an ad hoc way, staff was doing its best to have a full public dialogue with the Council, obtain direction from the Council, and accurately reflect that dialogue in a lawful way. A multi-piece issue was being handled piece by piece. If the outcome was not what the Council wanted, it could be adjusted. Staff was doing the best it could with a process that was bound to be interruptive. Mayor Rosenbaum agreed. The discussion was as much for the benefit of his colleagues as anyone. Council Member Kniss expressed surprise at the Dames & Moore report. The City appeared to be heading down a road she thought the City had not wanted to go. The question of adding structures to the list went back to the comment by Council Member Fazzino about the City looking and feeling different, particularly in light of the TDR issue. Mr. Calonne said the Council retained ultimate control over the number of structures subject to the final historic ordinance. Staff had repeatedly advised the Council that the study priority lists were not regulatory lists or affecting anyone's property at the current time. The list would only contain properties the Council chose to regulate, both in number and quality. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Jim Newton, 216 Everett Avenue, cautioned the Council about the proposed incentive process as one that would not work, and would be counter-productive and more divisive. Modifications to historic structures were being rewarded, which encouraged change, with no rewards for maintaining historical properties. Rebates should be paid by the City out of the Historical Preservation budget, not the PAUSD, at 50 percent for landmark properties and 25 percent for others only if maintained exactly as it was when placed on the list. Richard Joncas, 452 Carolina Lane, Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage Association (PAST), said incentives should be available to anyone, whether or not structures were historic, to meet changing needs. The State Codes should be listed first to show individuals what was available. The PAST thought second units on small houses on large lots should be able to take advantage of as much FAR as possible within the parameters of the UBC and HRB review as an incentive. Incentive 3(f) of Attachment A, should be changed to read "Encourage Require construction of second unit in the rear of the site subject to maintaining visibility of the historic residence from adjacent public rights-of-ways." The PAST recommended dropping the creation of flag lots as an incentive under Incentive 4(b) of Attachment A, AND was in favor of exempting historic structures from lot coverage requirements, under Incentive 5(b) of Attachment C, where possible, to avoid the addition of second 11/02/98 87-322
stories. Specific caps should be determined on a case-by-case basis. PAST recommended deleting the use-by-right additional FAR. In some cases, the 500 square feet could not be accommodated within either UBC requirements or Secretary of the Interior Standards. PAST supported a statement prefacing the incentives stipulating HRB retention of the historic character of properties. Audrey Sutherland, 1143 Webster Street, spoke in opposition to the historic ordinance and the proposed incentives. Seven years had been spent renovating her historic house without any reward until recognized by the Historical Society. None of the proposed incentives would have applied to her property and none would have encouraged her to keep her property. The proposed incentives were already available to most homeowners and should not be considered incentives. No appeal process appeared for homes not wanting to be on the list. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether Ms. Sutherland had just discovered her property was listed on the Dames & Moore report that evening without any prior notification. Ms. Sutherland had known her house was on the study priority list and aware the property was being reviewed a second time since most of the restoration work had been done with salvaged materials of the period. The house looked historic but had never made the inventory until the drive-by list. Norman Beamer, 1005 University Avenue, spoke in agreement with the FAR incentive as significant but not with the premise that allowing the FAR exception was incompatible with historic preservation. The Secretary of the Interior Standards clearly allowed for additions to houses as long as compatible with the historic character of the house. The premise of the incentives should be to follow the standards of historic preservation. Federal regulations provided for houses listed on historic inventories being exempt from the burdensome flood regulations restricting renovations. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, Palo Alto Homeowners Association (PAHA), said the incentives should be the basis of a voluntary program and be understandable and predictable to be meaningful. The greatest negative impact of the historic ordinance would fall on smaller properties, so benefits to such properties should be carefully considered. Additional FAR was most powerful, especially for smaller properties. Discretionary incentives failed to provide predictability to a homeowner, giving more power to the HRB, and undermined the value to homeowners to choose preservation. The Dames & Moore report raised many questions, the answers to which homeowners should be informed. The Council was urged to explore the issues. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the incentives would motivate Mr. Woods to place his currently not listed house on the City's historic register. 11/02/98 87-323
Mr. Woods said the incentives had not been sufficiently clarified. None of the incentives outweighed the restrictions of the ordinance. The true measure would be seen in a voluntary program. If people were in a position of making a choice, incentives related to different properties would be known. The effect would vary from owner to owner depending upon specific circumstances. The proposed incentives were a good attempt to make the ordinance attractive under some circumstances, but there was insufficient information to decide. Therefore, at the current time, he would not be willing to have his house on the historic register. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Drive, spoke in favor of clear, easy, predictable, and workable incentives to foster additional discussion. The issue was very complex and required further discussion. The major issues were the number of houses on the inventory and whether or not compliance was mandatory or voluntary. Strong incentives and benefits would be much easier to support if compliance were voluntary. She hoped the City planned to notify homeowners about the progress on the priority lists. Mike Forster, 420 Stanford Avenue, spoke concerning the complexity of imposing a "mushy" set of incentives on the community. The additional FAR might sound good, but most historic homes were on moderate-to-large lots and the HRB was not in favor of two-story homes. The City was urged to adopt a simpler approach where less than 300 homes would be designated a single class of homes. Financial incentives were encouraged. The same standards should be applied to all homes in Palo Alto, regardless of age. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke about the usefulness of the incentives as a "tool kit" for historic preservation if the primary consideration was historic preservation, i.e., preserving the house and making it useful to the owner. The City had made a big mistake in the R-1 ordinance with small homes and small lots. The first FAR for the first 5,000 square feet allowed people to build 2,150 square feet immediately. On smaller lots, a .45 FAR already existed. Another 5 or 10 percent represented an increase in density in neighborhoods which were most fragile. The tradeoffs made for historic preservation should take into consideration the second and third owners, so potential buyers would be given notice. A clear system was necessary to track the incentives given to historic homes. The Council was urged to consider the entire picture, i.e., not much would be left of the historic fabric of a particular structure if 50 percent of the house was demolished coupled with some of the incentives. Chris Stevens, 947 Waverley Street, spoke regarding the remodeling done on his historic home. The proposed incentives were very powerful, particularly the first seven. He would have liked to have known about the State Code, which would have greatly assisted him. He had purchased another historic house on the historic list because he had enjoyed fixing his own. The real issue of controversy was the fact people could not come to the City and have 11/02/98 87-324
someone shepherd them through the process. Many options were available to people, such as building out basements, and converting garages to other uses. Financial incentives would be a benefit for people restoring properties. He had spent more money restoring his house than the cost would be to demolish and rebuild again, suggesting an incentive to assess taxes for such work as maintenance rather than new construction. Loren Brown, 334 Kingsley Avenue, spoke regarding his home on the historic list which required work. He had wanted to know what impact the incentives would have on the renovation process, and he questioned whether to remove the home from renovation until completion of the ordinance process. Martin Bernstein, P.O. Box 1739, spoke in support of retroactivity as an opportunity for the Council to remove another transition period for homeowners, so property owners would not have to withdraw applications already submitted and wait until April 1999 when the incentives were in place. Waiting added more frustration for homeowners. Even if incentives were made retroactive, the Council was still be in control of the situation. Such flexibility would serve all parties well. Monica Yeung Arima, 1052 Bryant Street, spoke in support of a voluntary program for homeowners with historic homes. The Council was encouraged to view basements, attics, and setbacks in the review process as exceptions rather than incentives because older houses were not built according to current regulations. Structures with the first floor three feet or more above ground had basements included in the FAR. Many historic homes had been built higher above ground and would have to go through a variance before the basement could be built out, yet the profile of such homes remained the same. The same applied for attic spaces and setbacks. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street #126, spoke regarding parking which should be addressed through a resident parking permit program rather than supplying more parking or converting parking areas to other uses such as garages to offices. Preservation was not an issue of preserving hard structures but building affordable units. Discomfort was expressed with grouping the incentive for second dwelling units with the increased FAR. The second dwelling unit was a more positive goal. Adrian Arima, 1052 Bryant Street, thought the incentives were confusing. As a homeowner who had gone through the process, the key was not so much what the incentives were, but how implemented. The investment to renovate an historic home was high and was a risk. People would not take the risk unless the process was reliable. Application of the incentives was also an important issue. Some of the older properties were in unique situations, suggesting a commitment of an incentive to a property so a potential purchaser would be encouraged to renovate. 11/02/98 87-325
RECESS TO A CLOSED SESSION AT 9:43 P.M. - 10:07 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 9. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 9. Mayor Rosenbaum asked when the item would appear on the Council's calendar if continued. Ms. Fleming said the item would be heard on November 9, 1998. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue Item No. 10 to the Monday, November 9, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating." Council Member Fazzino announced he would be out of town for the next meeting and asked whether he could be involved through remote participation via telecommunications. Mr. Calonne said the City Clerk would be advised as to how to set up such a meeting. The Council should give staff direction to pursue such a method, since no procedures or rules had been established for teleconference meetings. The biggest constraint was public accessibility. Council Member Fazzino would possibly just submit questions and comments through the Mayor for the next meeting. Council Member Ojakian thought it was a good idea. Mountain View had a city council member call in from Atlanta on a split vote situation. Even in the Council Chambers, when the HRB conducted its disability forum, a polycom was on the table for people to call in questions. He suggested staff pursue the issue as a procedure. COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar noted she attended a meeting of the San Francisco Airport Stakeholders regarding runway expansion. Six scenarios for runway configurations and computer simulations for flight paths were presented. In all of the configurations, airplane flights over the midpeninsula were unchanged. Scenarios included from one to four new runways and could require from 430 to approximately 2,000 acres of fill at the surface. The issue was worthy of continued attention. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
11/02/98 87-326
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.
11/02/98 87-327