HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-09 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 9, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-239
1. Resolution 7809 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to Their Proposed Destruction or
Removal≅ ..............................................87-239 2. Planning Commission re Development of Proposed Incentives and Benefits for the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance87-240
3. California Environmental Protection Agency=s (EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Required Report on Public Health Goals from Drinking Water...............87-260 4. Audit of Purchase Orders..............................87-261 5. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-261 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m............87-261
11/09/98 87-238
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider ABSENT: Fazzino, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Steve Blanton, 321 Second Street, Los Altos, Association of Realtors, spoke regarding introduction and general process remarks. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding Midtown standard conditions.
Peter M. Allen, 1127 Hopkins Avenue, spoke regarding ΑFiber to the
Home.≅
Terry Andre, 598 Vista Avenue, spoke regarding ΑFiber to the Home.≅
David Harris, 455 Margarita Avenue, spoke regarding ΑFiber to the
Home.≅ Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster, spoke regarding Historic Preservation Ordinance. Richard Gruen, Box 2351, spoke regarding Utilities Advisory Commission role.
Ruth Lowy, 551 Thain Way, spoke regarding red light Αjumpers.≅ CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
1. Resolution 7809 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to Their Proposed Destruction or
Removal≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent.
11/09/98 87-239
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. Planning Commission re Development of Proposed Incentives and Benefits for the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
(Continued from 11/02/98) (Public Testimony Closed) Council Member Huber noted he would not be participating due to a conflict of interest. Carol Murden, Historic Resources Board (HRB) Member, said the Mills Act was a useful tool, but without the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) losing money. Council Member Kniss was interested in hearing from the PAUSD regarding the impact of the Mills Act. Susie Richardson, PAUSD President, said PAUSD was a Basic Aide district, and some references about the effect of the Mills Act on the school district were very different because property taxes directly impacted the school budget. Dr. Bob Golton, Associate Superintendent, said 50 out of 1,000 school districts in California were Basic Aide districts. The superintendent of PAUSD suggested approaching the state for payment of any lost revenue due to Mills Act contracts. Past experience was that the state was unsympathetic to the plight of Basic Aide districts. The state viewed Basic Aide school districts as those having a great deal of money. The unfortunate part about being in PAUSD was that the PAUSD was not attempting to compete with San Jose or San Francisco Unified School Districts, but was competing with other districts such as Scarsdale, Arizona, who had funding
far in excess of PAUSD. PAUSD=s $6,800 compared favorably to California school districts but compared dismally to $14,000 that was available in Scarsdale. There was an analysis that indicated that the totality of potential impact for Mills Act contracts was about $30,000 for the City of Palo Alto. The Squire House and the Juana Briones House were the two Mills Act properties in PAUSD and represented over $11,000. That was a significant amount of money for PAUSD. The Mills Act would not be a problem if PAUSD were not a Basic Aide school district. Council Member Kniss asked Ms. Richardson to comment on the Basic Aide school district and whether PAUSD would remain as one. Ms. Richardson said the $11,000 that PAUSD was currently using was based on properties that were assessed a significant number of years prior. Dr. Golton said the margin of difference between a Basic Aide district and a Revenue-Limit district was about $6,000,000. Of the
11/09/98 87-240
50 Basic-Aide school districts, PAUSD would be one of the last to turn Revenue-Limit. Vice Mayor Schneider asked how many homes in Palo Alto would qualify for Mills Act tax incentives. Ms. Murden did not believe there were any statistics. Most houses would be eligible. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified the tax was based on the evaluation of the house prior to or after improvements were made. Ms. Murden said the Mills Act, rather than using the Proposition 13 tax formula, used a multiplier based on revenue. The formulas were
controlled by the Assessor=s Office, and the practice might vary from county to county. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether anyone could apply for the Mills Act. Ms. Murden said her impression was that anyone could apply for the Mills Act. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City Council gave staff direction to come up with guidelines for application of the Mills Act. Staff did not have those guidelines at the present time, and how the Council chose to apply them remained to be seen. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said during discussion the prior year of the Mills Act on 420 Maple Street, one of the things that came out of the discussion was to create the criteria that would be applicable. The Council would need to instruct staff in terms of how restrictive the Council wanted to be. There was limited use of the Mills Act by Peninsula cities. Vice Mayor Schneider said the Council was in receipt of a resolution adopted by PAUSD which asked that any loss in property tax revenue resulting from the use of the Mills Act should be directly reimbursed by the City of Palo Alto to PAUSD. She asked whether there was a mechanism in place for reimbursement to PAUSD. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said staff could create such
a mechanism if that were the Council=s direction. Council Member Mossar said that one of the speakers the prior week discussed creating an incentive by not increasing the assessment on a historic home when remodeling took place. The argument was that the work was maintenance of the structure rather than enhancement of the structure. She asked whether that was something beyond the
Council=s control and in the hands of the Assessor.
11/09/98 87-241
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said that was correct; and if the Assessor believed it was maintenance, a new assessment would not be triggered. Mayor Rosenbaum suggested the Council make individual motions for each item of Attachment A, Planning Commission Recommendations on Historic Preservation Incentives/Benefits of the staff report (CMR:414:98). Council Member Kniss was concerned with the number of houses the Council might come up with and questioned how the Council would come up with a realistic number. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said staff was asking the Council to review a mid-point status report. The Council would view the incentives again when the incentives were integrated within the proposed ordinance, and the Council was requested to provide staff with direction on the incentives. The Council would have the magnitude by the December 7, 1998, Council meeting. Council Member Mossar said the City of Los Altos allowed second dwelling units, and the law was set up to restrict 20 new dwelling units per year. She assumed Palo Alto could use that concept for a particular incentive in restricting the numbers over a period of time. Mr. Calonne said yes, subject to special Government Code findings to support numerical quotas. Vice Mayor Schneider was concerned if the Council approved incentives such as the floor area ratio (FAR) or the second-dwelling units, those would become part of the permanent ordinance. She was not willing to do that until she knew what homes would be affected. Mayor Rosenbaum said staff indicated that the permanent ordinance would come back to the Council. If the Council received more information as to the number of homes involved, the Council could decide that direction given to staff at the present meeting was not appropriate. The Council would be free to take that action. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to proceed with approving Option 1, Attachment A of CMR:414:98, regarding the Floor area ratio (FAR) development rights with clarification of "use-by-right." Ken Alsman, HRB member, said the HRB had questions relative to how the incentives fit in with the numbers and the final ordinance. There needed to be options to make judicial decisions during the process.
11/09/98 87-242
Council Member Eakins clarified the Council was looking at incentives and benefits that would apply also to commercial structures. Mr. Riel said commercial structures were part of the charge. Most of the incentives applicable to commercial properties would be development review process, improvement fees, and technical assistance. Council Member Eakins confirmed the Council was giving policy direction with the motions. Referring to Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:414:98), she said the second line of the first
recommendation regarding FAR, read Αuse-by-right≅ and should be clarified, expanded, or modified. Planning Commissioner Bernard Beecham clarified the Planning
Commission=s intent which was to give homeowners a clear incentive. The process was constrained because each situation had to be designed to fit into each neighborhood. The Planning Commission wanted to make the process as clear as possible that the homeowners would get 15 percent up to 500 square feet. The design had to be
compatible. The Planning Commission=s recommendation to the HRB was that there would be a solution that could fit into every situation.
Ms. Murden said the HRB wanted to have the Αuse-by-right≅ removed. There might be situations where the 500 square feet was not compatible with the Secretary of Interior standards. Vice Mayor Schneider recommended staff not undertake the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for historic properties because the process would be endless. She recalled that the Council, over the prior years, had discussed the property on Page Mill Road and the expansion of the Stanford Research Park as being a detriment to the
Αgood life≅ in Palo Alto. The Council spent two years working out a TDR for one business in the Downtown. AMENDMENT: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to remove Transfer of Development Rights from Option 1, Floor area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage, of Attachment A of CMR:414:98. Council Member Eakins said the removal of the TDR was premature but should remain in the potential list of things to do. Mr. Calonne said he was trying to ascertain how the Stanford Research Park could be an appropriate receiver-site for the residential square footage. He did not want the Council to assume that the receiver-site at Stanford was possible legally. Council Member Mossar agreed the TDR should remain as something for the Council to think about. Clearly every home on the list could
11/09/98 87-243
be guaranteed a particular FAR boost. The Planning Commission was concerned with context, compatibility with the neighborhood, and preservation of historic lot patterns. Mr. Beecham reminded the Council that one of the comments that arose during Planning Commission discussions and prior Council meetings was that most of the incentives actually encouraged modification. Transferring FAR rights was the primary mechanism to preserve a structure. The ability to expand the structure would be eliminated in the 50 percent FAR bonus and also any currently unused FAR that might be available at the site. That was the key benefit of finding a way to do TDR. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified that if the property transferred the development rights, the house could not be enlarged or modified. Mr. Beecham said that if a current 2,000 square-foot house with an allowable 3,000 FAR was sold, the house would not be able to expand beyond the existing 2,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified Council action would be needed to make a change. Council Member Kniss suggested as an example, to use 100 houses with additions of 500 square feet each which would be 50,000 square feet. There was a market for 50,000 square feet. She questioned what 50,000 square feet would sell for in a research park, on California Avenue, or in Downtown Palo Alto. The unpredictable quality in City government caused consternation. She thought the real estate market would wreak havoc as people found they would not be able to modify a house because the previous owner sold the rights. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-4, Kniss, Schneider Αyes,≅ Huber Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent.
Mr. Calonne said on the Αuse-by-right≅ versus discretionary review issue in Option 1, Floor area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage, of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:414:98), staff needed to receive as much guidance as possible from Council. As framed, the
Αuse-by-right≅ was misleading as described by the Planning Commission in that the amount of square footage someone might end up with was dependent on a discretionary design review process. To the extent that the Council could help the staff resolve the balance among certainty, the by-right aspect, and the flexibility of discretionary review would be helpful. Council Member Kniss supported the motion as long as the number was within 50 to 100 houses. She was troubled by the use-by-right.
11/09/98 87-244
Vice Mayor Schneider was in agreement with Council Member Kniss. She was unable to support the without knowing the number of houses. Council Member Mossar said there had to be judgement about the appropriateness of the particular site that was involved in terms of applying an amount of square footage, whether it be a sliding square footage or fixed number. Mayor Rosenbaum said the Planning Commission intended that the exception had a different character than the others and that it be an entitlement subject to design review by the HRB so the applicant could regard it as an entitlement, providing the house was considered appropriate to the neighborhood and the guidelines. Council Member Ojakian said that was his understanding.
Mr. Beecham said that was the Planning Commission=s intent. Council Member Mossar said she did not understand how it could be a fixed entitlement subject to design review, because there would be cases where it was not applicable and the neighbors of the property would be the ones to suffer. AMENDMENT: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss, to remove Αuse-by-right≅ from Option 1, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot coverage development rights of CMR:414:98).
Council Member Ojakian said the Αuse-by-right≅ was the key reward which provided a historic homeowner with a benefit and some latitude in the way he/she could use his/her property.
Mayor Rosenbaum agreed with Council Member Ojakian because Αuse-by-
right≅ had the potential to offer some certainty to the applicant. AMENDMENT PASSED 4-2, Ojakian and Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Huber Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Council Member Kniss referred to the transfer of development rights as a suggested receiver site and asked Commissioner Beecham whether only one site was considered as the recipient for whatever amount of square footage might be put on the market. Mr. Beecham said the research park was large enough and had enough existing square footage so that the rough estimate of square footage that might be transferred would probably be insignificant. The Planning Commission had estimates on the transfer value which might have been as low as $50 per square foot. The Planning Commission did not anticipate that a large number of homeowners would take advantage of the transfer; however, those who had more square footage would have more advantage.
11/09/98 87-245
AMENDMENT: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to amend the motion to direct the HRB to take neighborhood consideration into account during design review under the development exception. Mr. Gawf believed that when the HRB discussed the issue of design review, they looked at trying to preserve the historic integrity of the building and that any modification should not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-4, Rosenbaum, Kniss, Schneider, Ojakian Αno,≅
Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Vice Mayor Schneider was concerned because the Council had not yet decided whether there was a voluntary or mandatory program for houses that were Significant Resources. MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Option 1, Floor area ratio (FAR) and lot
coverage, of Attachment A of CMR:414:98, removing Αuse-by-right≅ as follows: Development Exceptions. Floor area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage.
Χ Recommended increases up to 15% FAR of the allowable FAR, up to a maximum of 500 square feet. However, the proposed addition, modification etc. is required to undergo design review and HIE and/or DEE review and approval. Increases in FAR are subject to but not limited to the following criteria: a. Not counting the existing basements or new basements that do not result in the house being raised, so long as any grade change in the base of the structure is minimal and is consistent with the historical appearance of the structure, or existing attics or unfinished spaces that do not result in exterior changes to the structure (Staff to further research). b. Allow flexibility in basement design.
Χ Recommended floor area ration (FAR) would be a better tool to regulate lot coverage. Instructed staff to complete further analysis (test cases) upon receipt of historic profiles (inventory list) for each of the following scenarios. a. Allow for increased lot coverage to 50% for rear yard additions for existing historic residences (R-1 zoning is 35%). b. Allow increased lot coverage to 40% with 5% increase for covered porches, overhangs, etc.
Χ Recommended staff research the transfer of FAR development rights from historic properties. Suggested receiver site could be the Stanford Research Park.
11/09/98 87-246
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 5-1, Schneider Αno,≅ Huber Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Council Member Mossar said that the neighbors mattered with regard to Option 2, Setback/daylight plane. It was clear from the existing text that the exception had to do with a neighborhood like the one she lived in which was developed before current regulations were developed. The standard side yard setback might be six feet rather than twelve feet, and if the house were expanded, a variance process would not be necessary to continue to use the original setbacks as part of the design. Mr. Beecham said the intent of Option 2 was to allow flexibility in setbacks. An example would be to further extend the nonconforming setback on an existing house. Council Member Mossar clarified the intent was to apply only to existing structures with nonconforming setbacks. Mr. Beecham said currently small encroachments were allowed in the setback for architectural features such as bay windows. Council Member Kniss interpreted the option as meaning that someone with a historic house would break the type of rules that infringed dramatically on the neighbors. Minor features were a good idea, but setbacks and daylight plane troubled her. Mr. Beecham said the primary point where the daylight plane would be encroached upon was on the roof plane. A steep pitch on a roof would be the most likely place that would cut into the daylight plane, but that may be required for consistency with the rest of the structure. Council Member Kniss felt Option 2 could be more finely tuned. Mr. Alsman said the provision was important for allowing judgement when someone was reviewing the preservation and addition to a historic building. Many of the buildings were originally built with a pattern in the neighborhood of three feet from one property line and a driveway next to that. Older houses were built taller than those that were considered during the R-1 ordinance review. The process should be simple when extending the roof line of an addition on an existing building. Council Member Eakins said that Item a of Option 2,
Setback/daylight plane, ΑRelax standards for historic structures
(concern was noted side yard setbacks should not be reduced)≅ was a general statement and should be a heading rather than a statement. Mr. Beecham said that was a correct interpretation.
11/09/98 87-247
Council Member Eakins asked whether roof heights were measured by an average on the pitch. Planning Manager George White said height was measured to the peak of the roof, the ridge pole. Council Member Eakins clarified a house with a 38-foot high ridge pole could have a 10-foot addition at 38 feet. Mr. White said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian was concerned with Item b of Option 2,
Setback/daylight plane, ΑAllow flexibility in roof pitch
requirements consistent with historic pattern of neighborhood≅ and asked at what stage did it become too much of an intrusion on the daylight plane of the surrounding area. Ms. Murden said the compatibility review was altered to allow for the flexibility. When the Council reviewed the design standards in April 1998, there was a relaxing of the standards because there was a problem with roof heights or overhangs which were needed for the proposed design. Mr. Alsman said the design would be a matter of judgement on the part of the owner and the zoning administrator or HRB who would be making the judgement as to the architectural merit of the proposal. He agreed with the idea that the process needed to be as simple as possible in order for people to move ahead with confidence. Council Member Mossar asked how the context would be evaluated. On 5,000 square-foot lots with three-foot setbacks, it made sense to honor the historic setback of the structure, but there was potential difficulty relating to the contextual issue. Adding 250 square feet or 500 square feet to the structure in the back of the property would cause a bedroom to become three feet away from a
neighbor=s patio. She wanted to be confident that the tools were in place to say one addition might be a burden on a neighbor and, in another case, there might be enough room for an addition between living spaces. Mr. Gawf said the idea was to give the decision-maker flexibility with respect to the historic pattern in the neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Schneider had concerns about Council Member Mossar=s issue with the side yard setbacks with a bedroom next to a
neighbor=s patio. She questioned whether the Council was talking about a historic district. Mr. Alsman said there would be cases where there were historic districts, and much had been done with the compatibility standards
11/09/98 87-248
that were used. The HRB indicated there was a need to continue to work on developing neighborhood character standards. Vice Mayor Schneider asked what type of remedy there was for a neighbor whose daylight was affected if the standards for historic structures were reduced and there was an impact on the daylight plane. Mr. Calonne said presumably the discretion given to the official making the decision would be described well enough that, via the appeal process, the Council could decide whether the official made the right decision. The key was having reasonably clear standards in order to understand the basis for a judgement call about issues such as daylight plane or roof pitch. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Option 2 of Attachment A of CMR:414:98, Setback/daylight
plane, changing Item a, ΑRelax standards for historic structures,≅
to a heading, and Items b, ΑAllow flexibility in roof pitch
requirements consistent with historic pattern of neighborhood≅; c,
ΑAllow an increase of existing setback non-conformities (enclosure of front porch which currently extends into prevailing front
setback, daylight plane, etc.)≅; d, ΑProvide a reduced setback for garages (i.e. garages on corner lots measured only from one
street); and e, ΑAllow encroachments for minor features such as
stairways, light wells, etc.,≅ to become Items a - d. Council Member Ojakian emphasized his concern was about avoiding
impacting people=s daylight plane.
Council Member Eakins clarified that the phrase in Item a, Αside
yard setbacks should not be reduced≅ was for an addition. She asked what was the base for reduction, whether it was the existing code or the prevailing setback. Mr. Beecham said the wording resulted from the Planning Commission discussions. There was much concern about reducing the side yard setback. Council Member Eakins asked if the prevailing setback was narrow, such as five feet, would an addition on the rear of the house be allowed at five feet. Mr. Beecham said the addition should be considered and approved if the addition (1) was appropriate for the structure and enhanced the
structure=s historic compatibility; and (2) was not particularly onerous to the neighbor.
11/09/98 87-249
Council Member Kniss clarified a historic neighborhood would allow each house the opportunity to relax its standards for historic structures. Mr. Beecham said that was correct. The approval would be discretionary based on the situation. Council Member Kniss was concerned that the approval was judgmental rather than discretionary. Vice Mayor Schneider said some of the loudest complaints were from people who had gone through the process, found the process inflexible, and were unable to build what they wanted. Mr. Beecham said the process was judgmental. The hope was that there were some parcels where additions were appropriate and not a burden on the neighbor. Mr. Alsman agreed there would be judgements involved. Vice Mayor Schneider opposed the motion because she did not know how many houses were affected or whether the program was voluntary or mandatory. MOTION PASSED, 4-2, Kniss, Schneider Αno,≅ Huber Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Option 3, Second dwelling units, of Attachment A of CMR:414:98. Council Member Kniss asked staff how many properties might qualify for the second dwelling. Mr. Riel estimated 10 to 15 second dwelling units had been granted by the Zoning Administrator. Council Member Kniss said the regulation was stringent, did not have as much judgement, and added to the housing stock. Council Member Mossar said the original ordinance in Los Altos limited the number of second dwelling units to 20 per year. Only five units were built in two years, and the Council canceled the ordinance. Vice Mayor Schneider said there were a number of homeowners in Palo Alto living in large houses with aging parents or children, and some homeowners lived in the larger home and would like to move into the smaller unit. She was concerned about no minimum lot size, parking problems, and increased traffic. She found few incentives that took into consideration small houses on small lots.
11/09/98 87-250
Council Member Eakins asked how the second dwelling unit with no minimum lot size related to total FAR. Mr. Beecham said the units were limited by the FAR limitations. A small lot would begin at 45% FAR up to 5,000 square feet and 35% beyond that. Whatever the Council might provide as a bonus would be maximum FAR allowable. A small lot would be constrained by the setbacks. The Planning Commission did not figure out how small a lot could be and still be feasible to add a second unit. Council Member Eakins requested to create a separate item for larger lots with preservation considerations, and small lots would go to the bottom of the priorities. She was not interested in putting a lot of effort into finding ways to do second dwelling units on very small lots. Mr. Beecham said second units would not be possible if parking requirements were not relieved for the second unit. Council Member Kniss questioned whether the practical minimum lot size could be expressed differently. Mr. Beecham suggested it might be appropriate for staff to consider what is a practical minimum and include that in the ordinance. Mayor Rosenbaum said there were already rules for adding second dwelling units. The main difference between the existing rule and what was currently proposed was that if someone with a minimum lot size met the minimum, that person could obtain a conditional use permit to add a second unit. MOTION FAILED 2-4, Kniss, Mossar Αyes,≅ Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino and Wheeler absent. RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to not include the staff recommendation that the City Council review the preliminary listing of incentives and benefits developed by the Planning Commission of Option 4, Subdivision/lot line adjustments/mergers, of Attachment A of CMR:414:98. Vice Mayor Schneider said it had not been too many years since the Council said it was not going to allow creation of flag lots, and she saw no reason to encourage it further. Council Member Kniss was also opposed to flag lots. She questioned why fronting on alleys and vehicular access from alleys were included. Mr. Riel said the items were included to allow access to second dwelling unit garages from an alley.
11/09/98 87-251
Council Member Kniss said there were many areas, such as small courts, in the city that allowed vehicular access from alleys. Mr. Riel said the option had to do with primary versus secondary access.
Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission=s understanding was that primary access was not allowed based on the width of the alley. The Commission wanted to allow flexibility for a second unit or parcel subdivision rather than a flag lot. Council Member Eakins did not like the flag lots, but favored allowing the creation of smaller lots consistent with the historic pattern of the neighborhood. She did not want to create new substandard lots but favored standard lots fronting on alleys. She asked for an explanation of non-conformities. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission did not know all the situations in the City but recommended flexibility. Council Member Eakins supported Option 4 with the elimination of flag lots. She did not want to make the flexibility such that awkward lots were created which would allow structures that were incompatible with the character of a historic neighborhood. Council Member Mossar said access to many homes in her neighborhood were through the alleys. Her neighborhood had substandard lots which were standard for the neighborhood. Council Member Ojakian said he would support items a, c, and d of Option 4. MOTION FAILED: 3-3, Kniss, Schneider, Rosenbaum Αyes,≅ Huber Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve items a, c, and d, of Option 4, Subdivision/lot line adjustments/mergers, of Attachment A of CMR:414:98. MOTION FAILED: 3-3, Eakins, Mossar, Ojakian Αyes,≅ Huber Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Mayor Rosenbaum stated that the Council agreed not to adopt any of Option 4 of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:414:98). Council Member Mossar said many planning decisions were made based around the automobile. She lived in a neighborhood that was heavily parked and she did not mind the notion of reducing parking requirements because she did not believe there was a linear relationship. It was important to remember that the City did not
11/09/98 87-252
regulate the number of cars that any resident owned. The issue of tandem parking concerned her because tandem parking was not found with historic structures. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved to approve items a through l except g of Option 5, Parking requirement reductions, of Attachment A of CMR:414:98. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Mr. Beecham said that many historic homes had garages in the back which meant long driveways. In many cases, the original garage was quite small and inconvenient for putting a car into it. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved to approve items c, d, e, and g of Option 5, Parking requirement reductions, of Attachment A to CMR:414:98. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve items c, d, and e, of Option 5, Parking requirement reductions, of Attachment A of CMR:414:98. Council Member Eakins said items c, d, and e would allow additional flexibility and would ease parking regulation burdens. Council Member Mossar was concerned with tandem parking, noting that the deeper into the lot the cars go, the cars were literally
outside a neighbor=s bedroom window. Cars with fumes or noisy engines were offensive. Mr. Beecham said the code for single-family dwellings allowed tandem parking. Mr. Alsman said the most common characteristic of existing historic neighborhoods were the garages located at the back of the property off a single-lane driveway. Vice Mayor Schneider was concerned that the houses that were being protected would not be visible because of the amount of cars parked along the side of houses and in front of houses. Council Member Ojakian said the items not included in the motion were those that would impact parking. Council Member Kniss was concerned with the complex and complicated issues. Many of the items in Option 5 would constantly require much time and energy on the part of the architect and homeowner. Parking requirement reduction was the wrong way to go.
11/09/98 87-253
Mr. Beecham noted that Item c allowed a garage to be converted into an office. Council Member Mossar argued that there was a de facto parking exception which existed in the community for a long time. MOTION FAILED: 3-3, Eakins, Ojakian, Mossar Αyes,≅ Huber Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Option 6, Relocation of historic structures, Attachment A of CMR:414:98, as follows: Allow relocation of historic structures with flexibility to include the following: a. Relocation of Significant Resource structures offsite only to promote preservation. b. Strongly discourage offsite relocation of Landmark structures. c. Allow relocation/movement of historic structures onsite. d. Evaluate reduced setbacks/daylight plane via the HIE process. e. Subject to Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Council Member Ojakian said Option 6 provided flexibility as to where a property owner could place a home on a lot in order to utilize the lot to the maximum. Council Member Mossar asked whether Option 6 applied in historic districts. Mr. Alsman said Option 6 would apply to individual lots as well as historic districts. Mr. Calonne noted that in the public redraft of the ordinance within districts, everything was a landmark and could not be taken down unless there was a safety problem. Council Member Mossar thought Option 6 applied to individual houses rather than groups of houses. Vice Mayor Schneider asked what would take the place of an historic house that was moved, assuming the house was in a historic district. Mr. Alsman said he was aware of one house in the Professorville District being designed to be compatible. He was unsure whether that effort was currently required in a historic district. The sense on the HRB was that the houses should be reviewed for compatibility in a district.
11/09/98 87-254
Vice Mayor Schneider asked about the wording in Item b, ΑStrongly
discourage offsite relocation of Landmark structures.≅
Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission=s intent was to allow that only if absolutely necessary to preserve the structure. Mr. White said that the HRB would review the replacement structure, if the original structure were removed or demolished. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve Option 7, Non-conforming uses and structures, of Attachment A of CMR:414:98, as follows: Permit non-conforming uses and structures as follows: a. Increase the time frame in which nonconformity can be vacant from 12 months to 24 months without losing grandfather status. b. Allow intensification of nonconforming use if needed to preserve historic structures in nonresidential areas. Mayor Rosenbaum asked for clarification of Item a. Mr. Beecham explained that a nonconformity use that ceased to be used for 12 months could no longer be used. The concern on the Planning Commission was that if it took longer than 12 months to remodel or upgrade, the ability to go back to the prior use of the historic structure would be lost. Council Member Kniss asked for an example. Council Member Mossar said there were a number of apartment buildings that were historic structures in R-1 neighborhoods and, if they ceased to be apartment buildings for 12 months, the apartment building would have to revert to single-family dwellings. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Options 8 - 13, Attachment A of CMR:414:98, as follows: Development Review Process Improvement. Option 8, Minor projects a. Maintain flexibility in definition of minor projects.
b. Create a definition of Αminor exterior alteration.≅ c. No noticing requirements. Allow staff to determine if courtesy noticing is required. Option 9, Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE)
11/09/98 87-255
a. Establish specific criteria (Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation) applicable only to historic structures. b. Both HIE and DEE should be reviewed and decided by HRB. (HRB review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for action would result in one public review). c. Develop less burdensome HIE standard for the HRB to utilize. Option 10, Multi-family/non-residential properties Continue current Code requirements requiring both ARB and HRB review. Fees. Option 11, Exterior alterations No fee. Total cost borne by City. Option 12, Demolition a. 100% cost recovery. b. Research fees charged to determine if increase is warranted. Option 13, Applications for Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) No fee. Total cost borne by City. Council Member Eakins said many of the options were discussed by the Council as problems or delays occurred, and the Council was
able to see how having different rules made everyone=s life smoother. The fee items were important because some of the fees could be onerous as well as irritating.
Mayor Rosenbaum questioned the intent of the inclusion of the Α100
percent recovery≅ under Option 12, Demolition, in the Staff Report (CMR:414:98) Demolition would not require much staff work.
Mr. Gawf felt the Α100 percent recovery≅ was included to discourage people from demolishing structures. Mr. Calonne said demolition was one area where the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would play a significant role. The Council should not be surprised if demolitions that were discouraged by the ordinance would require a full environmental impact report (EIR) which would be a significant cost item.
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether ΑLandmarks≅ or ΑSignificant
Resources≅ were being referred to. Mr. Calonne said demolition of Landmarks was discouraged by the ordinance. There were limited circumstances where such demolition was permitted. If for some reason the City was considering allowing demolition of broader circumstances, the City would find itself in the position of advising the applicant that it was a significant impact on the environment under state law, and an EIR was required to do the demolition.
11/09/98 87-256
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether there was a charge for a demolition permit. Mr. Gawf said a permit was required, but he did not know the amount. Council Member Mossar asked for clarification of Option 8, a,
Αflexibility in definition of minor projects≅ in the staff report (CMR:414:98). Mr. Riel said staff was working on the actual definition.
Mr. Calonne said in the public review draft based on the Council=s policy direction of March 23, 1998, minor and major projects were separated. The distinction was that minor projects received ministerial review by staff, and major projects were reviewed by the HRB. Staff projects were not subject to a public hearing. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve Options 14 - 19, Attachment A of CMR:414:98, as follows: Technical Assistance. Option 14, State Historical Building Code (SHBC) Recommended the continued implementation of the current program, continued improvement of the distribution of information to the general public, historic homeowners, developers, builder, architects, etc., to increase in training of personnel. Option 15, Use of Federal Investment Tax Program Recommended staff distribute and provide information to the general public, historic homeowners, developers, builders, architects, etc. of the program. Create a data base of information. Option 18, Architectural advice Recommended staff secure assistance in the creation and implementation of the program from the private sector. Option 19, Historic Preservation Awards Program Recommended staff begin initiation of a Historic Preservation awards program with recognition with the use of a plaque/public recognition by the HRB. Secure assistance in the creation and implementation of the program from the private sector. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Council Member Kniss said regardless of the number of houses involved, the items listed in Options 14 - 19 should be provided.
11/09/98 87-257
Council Member Mossar recalled a speaker the prior week who mentioned the savings he could have reaped by using the State Historic Building Code but did not because he was unaware it was available to him. She asked whether the City was going to be proactive about making the Historic Building Code available and what the staff commitment to that particular incentive would be. Mr. Gawf said staff would make the Historic Building Code known to people who came into the office. He was exploring pamphlets or written material that could be available at the public information counter at the new Development Center. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the State Historic Building Code involved performance standards and the more it was used, the more useful it became to other people with similar types of houses and problems. Whenever the City discovered that a technique was available or suitable for one owner of a craftsman bungalow, that knowledge became useful for subsequent users. Mr. Beecham said Option 14 did not affect determining a structure as being historic. Ms. Furth said what the City decided to put on its local register would be a Council determination. If the City wanted to use the State Historical Building Code, the structure had to be a historic resource. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether Option 15, Use of Federal Investment Tax Program, of the staff report (CMR:414:98), was only for rental properties. Ms. Furth said Option 15 was not available for owner/occupied housing. Mayor Rosenbaum said Options 16 and 17, of the staff report (CMR:414:98) spoke of low interest rehabilitation loans and questioned the type of program. Mr. Riel said it would be a City program, and the funding was previously through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. That program was discontinued due to the fact there were not many people who asked for it. Mayor Rosenbaum asked about low interest or first time buyer loans. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission did not feel that was valuable due to the current interest rates. Mayor Rosenbaum asked which agency was making low interest rate loans. He was not aware that the City had such a program. Mr. Gawf said staff would research such a program.
11/09/98 87-258
Vice Mayor Schneider supported the motion with the elimination of Option 14. Ms. Fleming reminded the Council that reviving programs such as the old Housing Improvement Program (HIP) required additional staffing. The City had one full-time staff member administering the program. Council Member Mossar said it was not her intention to reinstate City financed loan programs. She suggested adding language that Options 16 and 17 of the staff report (CMR:414:98) were concepts that were useful but not to be reinstated. Mayor Rosenbaum said Options 14 - 19 of the staff report (CMR:414:98) were modified to state that Options 16 and 17 did not imply establishment or reestablishment of any city loan program. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Option 20, Flood Regulations exemption, Attachment A of CMR:414:98, as follows: Staff is completing further research of this option and a recommendation will be provided in the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Mayor Rosenbaum asked for clarification on Option 21, Districting modifications, of the staff report (CMR:414:98) Mr. Riel said Option 21 was not an incentive but explained how the incentives would be implemented. The Option was mentioned to indicate that staff needed to complete further research, and no action was needed. Council Member Mossar said the City needed to honor the needs of the PAUSD with regard to the Mills Act. Her understanding was the City had not done a consistent job making sure the properties that had been granted the Mills Act contracts had complied with the terms of the contracts. She asked whether there had been discussion about compliance. Mr. Gawf said if the public was granted a tax benefit through a contract, there should be a reciprocal agreement to maintain the property. There should be monitoring of the contract by the public agency to make sure the contract was being fulfilled.
Ms. Fleming said it was the Manager=s responsibility to see that there was a program in place. MOTION: Council Member Mossar, seconded by Schneider, to adopt Option 22, Mills Act Contracts, of Attachment A to CMR:414:98 incorporating language that honors the need to preserve income for
11/09/98 87-259
the school district and that terms of the contract must be complied with in order for the contract to continue. Council Member Ojakian opposed the motion due to a basic philosophical problem with putting another jurisdiction in a position where they could lose money. Council Member Kniss opposed the motion. She did not recall that the Mills Act was originally intended in the way it seemed to be used. Council Member Eakins expanded on comments from Council Member Wheeler which linked together the establishment of some type of fund, such as a trust fund, which would not be a City-run program. Council Member Wheeler thought one of the uses for trust fund proceeds, if established, would be Mills Act reimbursements to the PAUSD. She did not believe the item would be included in the Mills Act contract but that there were good uses in addition to direct reimbursement to the property owners and the PAUSD. Vice Mayor Schneider said there were areas with large homes in danger of falling apart that were able to use the Mills Act in order to encourage and provide the homeowner with monetary compensation for the work that went into maintaining a large home. Mayor Rosenbaum said the Mills Act was passed in a different tax environment, at a time when school districts and cities were free to set their own property tax rates. The Mills Act was no longer a practical alternative. MOTION FAILED: 3-3, Eakins, Mossar, Schneider Αyes,≅ Huber Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Vice Mayor Schneider said the purpose of the incentives was for preservation. One of the things that came out of the Planning Commission was incentives that encouraged people to change rather than preserve. The community wanted a simple and predictable way to understand the process and encourage preservation. She would
follow the staff recommendation that ΑSignificant Resources≅ be
made voluntary and that ΑLandmarks≅ be mandatory. Council Member Kniss said the big issues had to do with discretion and judgement. The amount of predictability was important. The City did not want to find itself in situations where people had to constantly second guess or worry about the architect they chose. The number of dwellings was of great concern. Her intent was to preserve important houses and commercial buildings that had relevance to the community and provided landmarks. Council Member Ojakian believed there should be incentives. He was unsure of the argument that said because the City had offered
11/09/98 87-260
incentives, that would distract from the people who would only preserve their home and not add to it. Incentives were added in the past that allowed for additional footprint. The incentives allowed people who were in the process of trying to preserve their home flexibility to add to the home. Council Member Mossar said although it was true the Council wanted to simplify the process, there needed to be review and judgement. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. California Environmental Protection Agency=s (EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Required Report on Public Health Goals from Drinking Water MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: 6-0, Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 4. Audit of Purchase Orders MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: 6-0, Huber Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Wheeler absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 5. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements City Attorney Ariel Calonne spoke to the applicant of 4020 Page Mill Road regarding her invitation to Council to visit the site. If Council were interested in a site visit, a noticed meeting could be held at the site to be followed by a hearing at City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m. in memory of Adele Miller, a 50-year resident of Palo Alto who passed away the prior week. 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
11/09/98 87-261
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.
11/09/98 87-262