HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-07 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting December 7, 1998
1. Resolution 7816 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Montgomery Anderson for Outstanding Service as a Member of the Historic
Resources Board≅ ......................................87-338
2. Resolution 7817 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Caroline Willis for Outstanding Service as a Member of the Historic Resources
Board≅ ................................................87-338 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................87-338 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................87-339 3. Approval of Change Order to Increase Purchase Order Authority for an Existing Blanket Purchase Order No. EQU91228 with B&M Collision Repair of Mountain View for Collision Repair Services..............................................87-339 4. Approval of Expenditure of Asset Seizure Funds........87-339 5. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of Tract 1722
and a Portion of Tract 1977 Known as ΑMeadow Park≅ from R-1 to R-1(S)................................................87-340
6. Ordinance 4536 entitled, ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification
of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ΑBarron Park Tract 714, Portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel Map 7721" from R-
1 to R-1(s)≅ ..........................................87-340 7. Amendment No. 3 to the Contract Restatement and Amendment No. C237 Between the City of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto Sanitary
District to Define East Palo Alto=s Obligations with Regards 12/07/98 87-336
to reimbursing Palo Alto for Costs of Incinerator Rehabilitation; and Increase the Annual Ongoing Capital Improvement Budget Cap................................87-340 8. Amendment No. 7 to Consulting Service Contract S3036240 Between the City of Palo Alto and Geodesy for Geographic Information System Application Development............87-340 9. 4100-4120 El Camino Subdivision: Application by Classic Communities for Approval of Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide 1.56 Acres into 26 Residential Lots and One Lot to Provide for Access, Common Open Space and Landscaping.............87-340
10. California Environmental Protection Agency=s (EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Required Report on Public Health Goals from Drinking Water...............87-340 11. Proposed Changes to be Included in Revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance................................87-340 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at 7:00 p.m...................................................87-356
12/07/98 87-337
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 7816 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Montgomery Anderson for Outstanding Service as a Member of the Historic
Resources Board≅ MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. Montgomery Anderson thanked the Council for having given him an opportunity to serve on the Historic Resources Board (HRB). During his tenure, he witnessed a growth of awareness of preservation within the City. He thanked the members of the HRB with whom he had associated over the years, all of whom were considered friends. The diversity of opinion had been the strength of the HRB. The HRB was the appropriate gauge of a cross-section community opinion and, as such, was a better judge of the often grey areas of preservation. For the City to achieve its preservation goals, it must recognize the burdens of preservation: time and money. He hoped the City would find incentives to help property owners balance the factors of preservation. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent.
2. Resolution 7817 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Caroline Willis for Outstanding Service as a Member of the Historic Resources
Board≅ MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the Resolution. Caroline Willis thanked the City for expanding the preservation issue and expressed hope that Palo Alto would be preserved for her children. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
12/07/98 87-338
Eve Agiewich, 3427 Janice Way, spoke regarding the Human Relations Commission Tenant Workshop. Steven Staiger, 4109 Alpine, Portola Valley, spoke on behalf of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST) regarding brochures. Frits VanderLinden, 4129 Park Boulevard, spoke regarding train horns. Sylvia Smithan, 2514 Birch Street, spoke regarding mayor for 1999. T.J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding crime. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding small town politics. Scott Wilson, 509 Hale Street, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek. John Hanna, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding petition, Chaucer Street. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of October 19, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins "abstained," Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of October 26, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-9. Council Member Eakins went on record to change her vote on Item No. 5, amending the zoning map to allow for an "S" zone in Meadow Park. Her original "no" vote had resulted because of a perceived lack of fairness for people in the balance of Track 1977; however, based on Vice Mayor Schneider's motion, as amended and passed, the fairness issue was addressed and the "S" Zone was appropriate. 3. Approval of Change Order to Increase Purchase Order Authority for an Existing Blanket Purchase Order No. EQU91228 with B&M Collision Repair of Mountain View for Collision Repair Services 4. Approval of Expenditure of Asset Seizure Funds
12/07/98 87-339
5. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of Tract 1722
and a Portion of Tract 1977 Known as ΑMeadow Park≅ from R-1 to
R-1(S) (Reintroduction of Ordinance)≅
6. Ordinance 4536 entitled, ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification
of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ΑBarron Park Tract 714, Portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel Map 7721" from R-
1 to R-1(s)≅ (1st reading 11/16/98, PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum
Αno≅) 7. Amendment No. 3 to the Contract Restatement and Amendment No. C237 Between the City of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto Sanitary
District to Define East Palo Alto=s Obligations with Regards to reimbursing Palo Alto for Costs of Incinerator Rehabilitation; and Increase the Annual Ongoing Capital Improvement Budget Cap 8. Amendment No. 7 to Consulting Service Contract S3036240 Between the City of Palo Alto and Geodesy for Geographic Information System Application Development 9. 4100-4120 El Camino Subdivision: Application by Classic Communities for Approval of Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide 1.56 Acres into 26 Residential Lots and One Lot to Provide for Access, Common Open Space and Landscaping MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3-5 and 7-9, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 7-1 for Item No. 6, Rosenbaum "no," Fazzino absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. California Environmental Protection Agency=s (EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Required Report on Public Health Goals from Drinking Water (continued from 11/9/98) NO ACTION TAKEN 11. Proposed Changes to be Included in Revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance Council Member Huber noted he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest.
12/07/98 87-340
Council Member Ojakian said Item No. 11 dealt with more than just the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), and a portion of the staff report (CMR:454:98) discussed design review. He asked where Council Member Huber's conflict fit into the discussion, since it was a Citywide issue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the main references to design and compatibility review were integral to the historic recommendations. If the Council divided the question of design review for non-historic properties, Council Member Huber would be able to participate. However, for purposes of the current discussion, Council Member Huber's conflict of interest stood. Mayor Rosenbaum suggested the Council hear from staff and set aside a specific timeframe within which the Council could ask questions, for example, 45 minutes. At the end of the 45-minute period, the Council would hear public testimony, possibly necessitating continuation to the following evening. After the public hearing, the Council would be allotted more time for questioning staff. Council Member Eakins said the staff report (CMR:454:98) contained more than the HPO. The Historic Preservation Decision Matrix (the Matrix) provided therein referred to non-historic properties. MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Ojakian, to table consideration of design review for non-historic homes. Mayor Rosenbaum said within the context of the HPO, revision and adoption of a permanent ordinance, the Council's intent was not to take up the issue of design review of non-historic structures at the current time. MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE PASSED 7-0, Huber "not participating," Fazzino absent.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the purpose of the current meeting was: 1) to present staff's thoughts on the draft HPO prior to seeking additional public comment; 2) to review the Historic Preservation Decision Matrix (Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:454:98)) outlining decisions the Council needed to make; and 3) to receive Council direction on how to proceed with the permanent HPO. Part of the Council's direction to staff in May 1998 involved working with the community to obtain additional comments for balance. Some of the themes or issues staff heard during the outreach effort included the fact historic preservation was valued by a broad cross-section of the community. Historic preservation and neighborhood compatibility might overlap in some instances; however, the two were not synonymous and might be better addressed by different policies and administrative processes. The idea of disentangling the two had been discussed in
12/07/98 87-341
the past. Staff's effort was to disentangle the two issues, with which the Council's earlier motion would assist. A need for clarity was expressed by the community with regard to historic resources and the subject property. The public wanted the process very clear. People also expressed a clear distinction between appropriate alterations and demolitions. Many people thought demolitions, not improper alterations, were the problem confronting the City. The overriding theme was the public's desire to be involved in a continuing process of developing and implementing the ordinance. Given the themes and drawing on the draft ordinance and staff's experience in implementing the interim ordinance, staff had tried to develop the framework on which the final HPO could be created. The Matrix table had four components: 1) a resource list; 2) regulations for maintenance, minor alterations, major alterations, and demolition; 3) identified eligibility for incentives; and 4) provided process for removal from the Palo Alto Register and resource list. Staff proposed that the City's HPO be divided into two categories. The first category would be "Palo Alto Register" rather than "inventory" for officially designated properties within the City either as "landmarks" or historically significant resources within the community. Staff recommended removal of the term "significant resource," since it was unclear what the difference was between landmark and significant resource. Whatever the final HPO, it was important to clearly identify and state what the terms meant. Staff recommended removal of "significant resource" since "landmark" could be defined to include properties of local significance, not just grand houses or clearly identifiable historic structures. The landmark division on the Palo Alto Register would initially draw from the present inventory Category 1 and 2 properties, which amounted to approximately 100 properties. No other properties would be added to landmark designation until after going through a public review process which included notice to the property owners, staff working with the property owner, a recommendation by the HRB, and a final public hearing and decision by the Council. The second division within the Palo Alto Register was "historic district," which was a definable area containing a concentration of buildings and sites which had something in common, such as buildings united historically, culturally, and architecturally. In such cases, the home would be greater than the sum of the parts. Often buildings within a district were not individually significant; but when put together, created historic significance. Within a Historic District, staff proposed creating two divisions: contributing and non-contributing. Contributing buildings or structures would include properties actually contributing to the purpose of the Historic District. The second division under Historic District would be non-contributing structures, such as other properties located within the boundaries of the district but not related to the purpose of the Historic District. Within Historic Districts, individual landmarks might exist which would have to qualify under the formerly mentioned process. The second category in the HPO was the "Resource List," which included properties which were surveyed
12/07/98 87-342
and potentially historically significant, but had not had a final evaluation or a public hearing process to be added to the Palo Alto Register. Staff identified two areas on the Resource List, the potential National Register and the potential California Register. The only difference was the criteria used to determine the number of properties on each, for instance, for the potential National Register, the National Register criteria was used; and for the potential California Register, the California Register criteria was used. Attachment G in the staff report (CMR:454:98) contained the two criteria, showing the similarities between the two criteria. The major difference was that the California Register was more inclusive in its "significance" criteria to reflect the fact local properties might not be nationally significant but might have importance to the community. The Resource List would be based on the Dames & Moore Study (D&M) Study. D&M expected to complete the study on January 15, 1999. Rather than having Priority 1 and Priority 2 lists, a single list would be submitted by D&M dividing properties according to whether the property potentially matched the National Register criteria or potentially matched the California Register criteria. The staff report and Matrix indicated 400 potential properties matching the National Register criteria and 1,000 for the California Register criteria. D&M had not wanted to release any numbers at the time, but staff thought it was important to show a magnitude of what was possible for the Council's review. A realistic range for the National Register was between 300 and 400 and between 700 and 1,100 for the California Register. The Palo Alto Register would reflect properties already individually reviewed and designated by the Council as being important to the community. The Matrix was explained. Regarding Major Alterations, the term "Mandatory Design Review" as conducted by staff was according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, with voluntary compliance. The one exception was under buildings potentially eligible for the National Register, where building permits could be "delayed up to six months to consider addition to Palo Alto Register." Staff envisioned a situation where the owner of a significant historic building in Palo Alto desired to alter the building in such a way that it would destroy the resource. In such circumstances, the City should have the opportunity to bring the property before the Council so the community could decide whether such a property should be altered in a way as to destroy a potentially significant resource. For the California Register, no delay period was involved which reflected the different significance of the two. The final category, in terms of demolition, could be viewed in two ways. From a historic preservation standpoint, the first sentence, "Demolition may be delayed up to one year to consider addition to Palo Alto Register," was key. If a potentially significant building was proposed for demolition, it was prudent on the City to examine the issue and decide whether it should be preserved as a landmark within the City. If, after one year, no action was taken, the property owner would have the right to demolish the structure. The second sentence, "For replacement buildings, Mandatory Compatibility
12/07/98 87-343
Standards Review by staff, and Mandatory Compliance," could be viewed in terms of the issue of review or replacement of buildings for demolition. If the Council desired, the issue could be placed in the category in the study which had been deferred or tabled. The column entitled "Removal from Category," could be accomplished after review by the HRB with an appeal to the Council. The Resource List was created by a factual determination that the property potentially met the criteria for either the National or California Register. In terms of the Palo Alto Register, landmarks and contributing buildings used the same concept. Major alterations involved mandatory compliance for Palo Alto Register landmarks because the structure would have already been designated as significant to the community. Demolitions would not be allowed except under unusual circumstances or unless the landmark designation was removed by the Council. The only difference between contributing and non-contributing structures was in the area of major alterations, where contributing required mandatory review and compliance. For demolition, a contributing building would face a one-year delay and the replacement building was subject to mandatory review and compliance. Contributing and non-contributing buildings would not decrease the historic quality of the Historic District; therefore, any replacement building or alteration should be compatible with the district. Other issues that were raised involved the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which dealt with historic resources. Staff had identified applicable guidelines to historic resources. If a structure was on a historic resource list or a register, the structure was covered under CEQA. Historic resources within the community were governed by CEQA. CEQA only applied to discretionary decisions. Staff tried to identify the discretionary decisions on the Matrix, for example, no item involving voluntary compliance involved discretionary decisions, but all mandatory review or compliance involved discretionary decisions. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be conducted on the HPO prior to its return to the Council so the Council could review both the HPO and EIR as part of its final evaluation. Some CEQA issues would also be included in that review. Staff recommended the Council direct staff to seek additional public comment and return to the Council with a revised HPO that: 1) established a Palo Alto Register; 2) established a new Palo Alto Resource List; 3) provided separate regulations for contributing structures in Historic Districts; 4) established a public review process for adding and removing structures and sites to and from the Register and Resource List; and 5) provided for regulation of minor alterations, major alterations, and demolitions of each property on the Register and Resource List. The proposal was not perfect and Staff struggled with and identified issues to bring the City closer to the final HPO which should be a balance between competing community goals and values determined by the community and the Council to balance the various issues.
12/07/98 87-344
Council Member Kniss asked about major alterations under the Resource List on Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:454:98) and whether it applied to commercial as well as residential structures. Mr. Gawf said major alterations were everything else outside the definitions for minor alteration and demolition. A minor alteration was something which would not compromise the architectural integrity of the building as viewed from the public right-of-way. If the architectural integrity of the building was changed as viewed from the public right-of-way, it became a major alteration. By defining minor alteration and demolition, anything remaining became a major alteration. Staff understood the need for increased clarity to the definitions. Council Member Kniss said some of the communities in the Southern and Northern California areas related to the same issue. When the demolition aspect under a landmark structure indicated no City review, except under unusual circumstances, she asked what the City would have in place to require or in some way control demolitions. Mr. Gawf said what was referred to was demolition by neglect where the City issued a demolition permit. Council Member Kniss asked what would occur if someone bulldozed a landmark house. Mr. Gawf said the City had the same recourse as when dealing with anyone in the community who failed to obtain a building permit to construct a structure. Violations existed for conducting unacceptable activities without a building permit. Demolition by neglect involving demolition by not maintaining a property was difficult to define. Mr. Calonne said staff tried to carry forward everything the Council had directed in March 1998 including the no demolition by neglect provisions in the draft HPO. Page 6 of the draft HPO indicated the affirmative duty to maintain a property. The State Office of Preservation had commented that the $10,000 civil penalty provision was weak, and it might be necessary for the City to examine other enforcement mechanisms. A development moratorium was discussed as a remedy for an unlawful demolition. The draft HPO had not included a boiler plate provision for grandparenting people in the process of obtaining permits. Staff had not intended to alter any of the Council's recommendations. Council Member Kniss asked whether the $10,000 civil penalty would become effective if an individual bulldozed a structure without a permit. Mr. Calonne said the State had indicated the $10,000 was too weak.
12/07/98 87-345
Council Member Kniss said it depended on the area in which one was located. In an area like Palo Alto, $10,000 was not an enormous amount. Mr. Calonne said the big difference was Council's policy direction to include an affirmative maintenance obligation. Council Member Kniss asked whether violation of the obligation involved a fine. Mr. Calonne said, unless the Council directed otherwise, it would be a crime potentially punishable as a misdemeanor, including imprisonment, if a resource was not maintained. Council Member Kniss said more discussion was necessary, particularly long-range ramifications. Council Member Mossar asked about incentives, which had not been included in the staff report (CMR:454:98). Mr. Gawf said the Matrix on Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:454:98) indicated in the third footnote: "Incentives are available only to Landmarks and Contributing Structures." The concept was to make inclusion on the Resource List easier. Once a structure was on the Palo Alto Register, it became more regulatory; therefore, incentives could be used as a benefit or incentive to such properties. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff continued to work on incentives outside the HPO. Mr. Gawf replied yes. Staff had received direction from the Council approximately one month prior. Council Member Mossar asked which properties would be on the Palo Alto Register according to the Matrix. Mr. Gawf said according to the Matrix, on the first effective date of the HPO, according to the Matrix, Landmark properties would only include Category 1 and 2 properties from the existing inventory and be included on the Palo Alto Register. Two Historic Districts would be included on the Palo Alto Register: Professorville and Ramona Street. Council Member Mossar clarified the Palo Alto Register was a "no change" category from the current time. Mr. Gawf said Category 3 and 4 properties were placed under the potential National Register source.
12/07/98 87-346
Council Member Mossar asked whether the proposal for the Palo Alto Register was for fewer properties than currently existed by the current historic regulation. Mr. Gawf replied yes. Categories 3 and 4 changed because staff thought the properties should be reexamined prior to consideration as Landmark properties. Council Member Mossar clarified no new homes would be placed on the Palo Alto Register at the time of implementation. Mr. Gawf replied yes. Each property would have to go through an individual public hearing process after adoption of the final ordinance. Council Member Mossar said the Matrix on Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:454:98) referred to the D&M Study Lists 1 and 2. Study List 1 was included in potential eligibility for the National and California Registers, but no distinction was made for Study List 2. Mr. Gawf said D&M were currently in the process of finishing both study lists. Study List 2 was scheduled for completion by January 15, 1999, at which time no "Study Lists" would exist. Rather, a listing of properties would be provided which would either be considered a potential for the National Register or the California Register. Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff visualized a time certain for a property to remain on the Resource List prior to resolution of whether or not the property was to be moved to the Palo Alto Register. Mr. Gawf replied no. The Resource List was the factual determination that properties were evaluated and potentially eligible for either the National or California Register. Staff tried to craft a recommendation with little regulatory impact for properties on the Resource List. The second sentence under
ΑDemolition≅ indicated everything was voluntary, with the issue being delay. The list could tend to be very non-regulatory and properties would be on the list because of the potential for being on either register. A property could be removed if additional information indicated the property was ineligible or if staff made a mistake in its initial evaluation and upon further review the property failed to meet the criteria. Other than that, properties would remain on the Resource List as a pool from which the City might place properties on the Palo Alto Register. Mr. Calonne said a property could be removed from the list if a property owner sought removal. If a determination was made that a particular property was not a Landmark, there was no reason to keep it as a potential Landmark. The property would not return to an "uncertain zone."
12/07/98 87-347
Council Member Wheeler asked whether properties would appear on the Resource List because of individual merits or the potential for inclusion as part of a Historic District. Mr. Gawf said properties added to the Resource List would have to individually meet either the California Register criteria or the National Register criteria and would not necessarily comprise a Historic District. Council Member Wheeler asked how surrounding structures would be affected if the owner of a property on the Resource List, because of its potential as part of a Historic District, petitioned to be removed from the Resource List. Mr. Gawf said properties listed on the Resource List would have been evaluated individually. If there was a potential Historic District, staff would have to examine individual structures within the area which might or might not be on the Resource List. Mr. Calonne said the Resource List for potential National Register would not include protection for the non-landmark fabric of potential future districts. Mr. Gawf agreed. Council Member Wheeler thought the issue needed further consideration. For a specific neighborhood, caution was necessary with regard to the impact on the neighborhood of losing a potential resource in the middle of the neighborhood. She asked about the potential California Register properties. Some people interpreted being potentially eligible on the California Register as less important or less prestigious than being on the National Register. Mr. Gawf said the two were different. The National Register applied only to properties with national significance, whereas the California Register applied to properties of local regional or state significance. He had been told that the California Register criteria was more forgiving since local and state significance could be considered, rather than just national. As staff had examined the Resource List, if a choice had to be made, being on the National Register was more significant within the community. Council Member Wheeler asked how everything would logically work together if there was a difference in importance, where properties were separated out on a Resource List between national and state, when the local register would blend properties into one category and be regulated in the same way. Mr. Gawf said the definition of "Landmark" was the issue. If Landmark was defined on the Palo Alto Register as only properties with national significance, a second category would be necessary.
12/07/98 87-348
Such a restrictive definition for Landmark was not suggested, but should be something with local, regional, state, or national significance and was, therefore, more inclusive. If a second category on the Palo Alto Register was created, it was imperative to have clear distinctions between the two. Landmark could be defined to be inclusive enough to not need a separate category. Council Member Wheeler asked when criteria would be available by which to judge what constituted a Landmark property. Mr. Gawf said discussion for the outreach effort was the criteria and obtaining feedback on the appropriate criteria. The California Register was the best of the criteria for both the National and California Registers and the draft ordinance from Spring 1998, conveying the inclusive concept. The California Register was considered a good starting point. Council Member Wheeler said within Historic Districts, contributing structures could be individually designated as Landmarks on their own merit. She presumed such structures would not be governed by the demolition rules under the Historic District, but by the demolition rules under Landmark. Mr. Gawf said Council Member Wheeler was correct, in concept. Individual Landmarks might exist in a particular area prior to the creation of a Historic District. Professorville had individual Landmarks as well. Council Member Wheeler said one reason for having every structure in a Historic District designated a Landmark was because of the question raised under the old ordinance about the treatment of contributing structures within an Historic District with respect to demolition. Mr. Gawf said if enough contributing structures were removed, a Historic District no longer existed. The issue was not a predetermined number, but whether the reason the Historic District had been established still existed. If every contributing building was removed, the Historic District no longer existed. He had not been given a specific percentage criteria; however, he was sure none existed. Vice Mayor Schneider asked about the implications of using the California Register if CEQA was put into effect. Mr. Calonne said being on the California Register established a presumption that the property had historic significance. For a property with historic significance in which City action was discretionary, CEQA applied. All properties on the Matrix on Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:454:98) where the proposal was ministerial, kept the City from entering into the environmental law.
12/07/98 87-349
Vice Mayor Schneider asked what it meant to a property owner who came under CEQA. Mr. Calonne said it depended upon the approval being sought from the City. Vice Mayor Schneider asked what would occur if the approval being sought was a demolition. Mr. Calonne said under the California Register proposal under Resource List 1, mandatory demand review compliance was a discretionary action and would require environmental review. The EIR being prepared for the ordinance enabled the Council to make the broad policy balancing about what to preserve and what not to preserve. The City was often frustrated under the environmental law because the short form environmental action, a negative declaration indicating no significant impact, would not allow the Council to make a policy which balanced and outweighed the impacts with more important considerations. The short form would not allow such actions; therefore, the property owner would be faced with a costly prospective EIR just to get to the point where the Council could make a policy balancing between the value of the historic or other environmental interest and other policy matters. Staff proposed the Council conduct the big policy balancing at the time the ordinance was enacted, thereby relieving individual property owners of that burden. The ordinance EIR would be used as a master EIR so actions taken on individual properties consistent with the ordinance would receive a streamlined environmental review. Such strategy would allow individual property owners to avoid individual EIRs. Being on the California Register would not affect what the City had to do. If a property had historic significance, whether labeled or not, it would not matter. An obligation was incumbent on staff when it had a discretionary decision to seek historical significance. The law was changed in 1992 to make it very clear. To some extent, the question of the implications of being on the California Register would not matter. If a property was significant historically, whether or not on the California Register, it would not matter. However, being on the California Register created a presumption that there was historic significance. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether staff's plan had been tested anywhere or whether Palo Alto would be the first city in the state to list individual properties on its own register via the California Register. Mr. Gawf said the concept was to have a Resource List based on properties potentially eligible for the California or National Registers as a pool from which properties could be drawn for the Palo Alto Register.
12/07/98 87-350
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether CEQA was involved and how staff would know the impacts if it had not been tested. Mr. Calonne said the standard in the staff report (CMR:424:98), regarding compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation, was mitigation that met the environmental law according to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). If the Council enacted the ordinance after conducting an EIR and staff knew at that point that property less than Landmarks would see alteration, the Council could say it knew there would be rehabilitations, but that the rehabilitations would be consistent with the Rehabilitation Standards; therefore, the impact was accepted on behalf of the community, and individual property owners would not be burdened with an EIR. The strategy would avoid the onerous problem of an EIR on an individual property owner. Demolition was another issue. Staff presumed, based on previous Council actions, that the policy was to discourage demolition of Landmark properties. If the Council desired not to discourage the demolition of Landmarks, the issue was no longer one of historic preservation. The impact of environmental law could not be minimized or avoided when it came to demolition of Landmarks. Anything less damaging could be addressed through the master EIR process. Council Member Mossar thought the Matrix on Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:454:98) had not indicated the City would list properties on the California Register. Mr. Gawf said the Resource List was designed to use the criteria for the National and California Registers as a means of determining what was historically significant within the community. Staff's intent was not to place properties on either the National or California Register, but to use both registers as a way to form the City's list. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Lee Brokaw, Hanover Street, spoke regarding the need for historic preservation in Palo Alto. The remodeling of a home did not give an owner the right to destroy the home. If the character of Palo Alto was not preserved, architectural anarchy would result. Eric Holmgren, 2124 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the burden imposed on homeowners desiring to remodel while the City placed a sculpture in his neighborhood without informing any of the neighbors. The goal of preserving the neighborhood and the history of the community did not justify city government intruding into the decisions of homeowners for reasons not related to public health and safety, a conclusion strengthened by the observation the City felt free to make changes to public areas without notifying residents affected by changes. Adopting a historic preservation policy relying on voluntary compliance and incentives rather than
12/07/98 87-351
rules and regulations to achieve the goal of neighborhood preservation would be a partial step toward creating a city government that treated its residents as one would expect to be treated by a neighbor. Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street, spoke about the need to retain historic structures which, once gone, could not be recreated. The Council was encouraged to take a longer view of the momentous decisions before it to save more structures so Palo Alto would not be known as the city that failed to save enough structures. Andrea Sutherland, 1143 Webster Street, spoke about her 1894 Queen Anne Victorian cottage on the D&M list and the failure of the City to notify affected residents with other than a postcard. Properties on the Resource List were still regulated. The incentives were not applicable to houses such as hers. The range of restrictions were onerous. Although her house was attractive and had curb appeal, the modifications made to the home had not used original materials. Her desire was for the City not to have any more involvement in her home. The Council was encouraged to provide a greater incentive to homeowners. Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, spoke regarding the two houses she owned which were potentially eligible for the National Register. Residents had a duty to save historic houses in Palo Alto. If houses were removed, there was no way to replace them. Particular care was necessary with houses in Professorville which told the story of the City. No other areas in California were quite like Palo Alto. People were not being hurt by suggesting compliance to certain standards to protect such homes. The Council was encouraged to continue to protect the historic structures. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding Category 3 and 4 structures listed on the current inventory which had been deemed to have historic merit 20 years prior. Unless the integrity of the structures had been compromised, she questioned how the homes could become less significant in 20 years. Rather than being placed on the new Palo Alto Register, the houses were placed on a Resource List for possible inclusion at a later time. Such a step downgraded the properties and deprived homeowners of access to the State's Historic Building Code, relief for mitigation measures, and benefits of being on the Registry. Such buildings were not protected from demolition or alteration. The Council was urged to stop the erosion of the historic fabric of the neighborhoods. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa, addressed the inconsistency between the Resource List and the Palo Alto Register. The structures deemed potential National and California Register eligibilities would be combined into one Landmark category on the Palo Alto Register, suggesting continuing the two categories for the Palo Alto Register. The definition could be mirrored from the National Register for the Landmark category, saving the definition from the California Register for Significant Resource category. Four major
12/07/98 87-352
advantages of having two categories were: 1) would be regulated differently; 2) gave a place for Category 3 and 4 structures; 3) would benefit from incentives; and 4) would be reviewed by the HRB. HRB review meant a public process rather than a secret between the property owner and the staff. Council Member Eakins asked whether Ms. Woolley suggested HRB review for Resource List properties be changed to ministerial rather than discretionary. Ms. Woolley replied yes. RECESS FROM 9:30 PM TO 9:50 PM Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding the complexity of the staff recommendation compared with the interim regulations. The new incentives were less clear, design/compatibility review could be extended or expanded, the number of homes had increased, and the number of categories increased. A clear definition of the goals of historic preservation should be to identify and preserve the best of the community, not cast a wide net over neighborhoods and homeowners. Three key elements of the Palo Alto Homeowners Association (PAHA) principles were: 1) the use of clear and objective criteria to identify truly worthy historic resources in the community using the National Register criteria; 2) a single, clearly defined category of landmark resources; 3) the consent of the homeowner before designation of the property as a landmark. Consent of the homeowner was key to a fair ordinance, acknowledging it was the homeowner doing the preserving. The key to cooperation was consent rather than coercion. The Council was encouraged to identify clear goals and give clear, unambiguous direction. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, PAHA, spoke about the PAHA principles to work with the City to produce laws and regulations in the best interest of the people, and supported the enhancement of the historic character and property rights of Palo Alto homeowners.
Palo Alto=s beauty and charm should be preserved by homeowners, not an ordinance. PAHA supported the individual property owner's rights. PAHA recommended a single category for Landmark structures limited to worthy, historic structures with specific criteria for Landmark designation. PAHA held that before any property was designated as a Landmark, written consent should be received from the homeowner. Daniel Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, was overwhelmed by the scope of the staff report (CMR:454:98) which moved in an unanticipated direction. The report was massive in scope and included all homes in Palo Alto. Homes could be designed by bureaucrats and lawyers as opposed to architects. The process would be very complicated and difficult for homeowners and conflicts would arise. The City was not moving in the right direction. The HRB was very involved in the proposed ordinance and was comprised of a number of advocacy
12/07/98 87-353
people. He questioned giving such power to a group. Although in favor of preserving Landmark homes, he was concerned about giving the past such a powerful role to the HRB. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, spoke about problems with the design review process which forced homeowners to select approved styles for new homes or a second story. Approval was also necessary for design features such as windows, doors, gables, and porches. The rules were onerous and autocratic. The Council was urged to reevaluate the design process and notify all homeowners as soon as possible about what was happening. Kathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding the Matrix on Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:454:98). The Resource List was very similar to a study list. The homes, whether or not on the Palo Alto Register, would still be subject to design review and regulated. Appearing on the list would decrease the value of the property. Young families chose to move to surrounding communities without such restrictions. Automatic delays for properties on the Resource List of six months to one year to determine historic status after being on a study list for nearly a year was discouraging. Other cities asked homeowners to submit plans for review and a delay would occur if the project was not approved. More details were desirable concerning second stories. Ann-Elise Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, was concerned that the proposed ordinance required mandatory compliance to design rules for all homes in Palo Alto. Four exceptions were requested to the compatibility rules for her home's design in order to enlarge the kitchen and add a bedroom and avoid demolishing the entire home. It was difficult to create design rules which made sense for all home alterations, stifling creativity and leading to designs not necessarily in keeping with the architectural integrity of the existing home. Larry Klein, 872 Seale Avenue, was dismayed over the issue before the Council as it represented the biggest mess the City had ever gotten itself into. The proposed ordinance would do serious harm to the community and should be rejected by the Council. Staff assumed the problem of demolition of historic preservation was significant, but no data supported such an assumption. Evidence was anecdotal at best. No serious problem existed with regard to the loss of truly historic homes to justify the draconian approach suggested in the proposed ordinance. Only 100 historic homes existed in Palo Alto and were in no danger of being demolished. The vast number of historic homes were far larger than what it would take to replace them, therefore, there was no economic incentive for an owner to demolish the home. Staff and D&M claimed 1,400 homes were potentially historic, representing 10 percent of the homes in Palo Alto. The fact severe restrictions might be imposed on homes on the Resource List would not diminish the value
12/07/98 87-354
of the home. The Council was urged to direct staff to return with a simple ordinance based on consent and incentives for homeowners. Shannon Elam, 321 2nd Street, Los Altos, spoke as a representative of the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors (PenWest). PenWest requested the City refrain from advancing conflicts and for a 30-day review period prior to action. Page 13 of the staff report (CMR:454:98) indicated all homes would essentially be treated as historic homes, calling for more study and community input. Formal request was given for a review period prior to final action. Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, commended staff on the draft preservation ordinance. Voluntary compliance had not worked in the past. Irreplaceable historic resources would be lost if rules were voluntary. Property rights were being waived but just owning a piece of property failed to give people the right to do anything because of the proximity to neighbors. The function of government was to mediate between two rights by passing zoning regulations which included historic preservation. Such laws had been upheld in courts for many years and was the basis of a civilized community. Laws were not based on the honor of the citizenry but to protect communities and neighborhoods. The Council was urged to pass an ordinance. Jan Wright Bressler, 1111 Webster Street, member of PAHA said the Council had the power to limit freedom of self expression in housing and dictate how homes would be decorated. The Council had the power to drop the ordinance and begin again. The issue was not about housing style or taste; the issue was the First Amendment, the foundation of the way of life. Taste and expression could not be managed. Pat Starrett, 1955 Newell Road, said the intent of historic preservation was not to preserve every home in Palo Alto but to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and public interest in preserving elements of the City's historic and architectural heritage. Potential demolition of homes and buildings should be weighed with other alternatives. Marilyn Bauriedel, 3673 South Court, said the staff report (CMR:454:98) contained many worthwhile elements, but impacted Professorville. A district could lose its integrity if a critical number of homes were demolished or altered substantially. Contributing properties in other cities across the state were treated the same as Landmark properties. Over 100 properties in Professorville were recognized as Contributing or Landmarks and all were listed on the register; however, only 20 properties would be protected from demolition. Richard Joncas, 452 Caroline Lane, many of the properties in Professorville and other historic districts were Category 3 and 4
12/07/98 87-355
and subject to demolition. A historic district was not just a number of isolated landmark buildings, but included lesser buildings as well. The proposed ordinance would not ensure historic districts would survive and deprived the Council of any effective means of controlling development within a historic district. The Council was urged to prohibit demolition within a Historic District. Debbie Nichols, Fulton Street, said homeowners needed to be concerned about the future of neighborhoods, which could be negatively impacted by a neighbor's actions. The architectural richness was one of the reasons people were attracted to Palo Alto. Developers were only interested in the immediate financial gains, not the quality of a neighborhood. Once the integrity of a neighborhood was compromised, it was lost forever. Towns that protected the architectural heritage had the highest property values in the country. The proposed ordinance was difficult to understand and should be made clearer and mandatory. Demolition would continue if compliance was voluntary. Less than 90, out of 21,000 properties, were protected from demolition by the proposed ordinance. The Council was urged to protect Palo Alto's rich heritage and historic resources and pass a strong, mandatory preservation ordinance. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, said his Category 2 home, which was an original 1908 Craftsman, was not the home of a notable citizen; however, it was worth preserving and a prime example of the artistic architecture of its time. Too much of what was really important was passed up in the proposed ordinance. He supported the proposed ordinance. Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, supported the proposed ordinance. She expressed concerns regarding Category 3 and 4 designations established in 1979. Key areas in Downtown were not Category 1 or 2 structures. Of the 17 buildings listed in the Downtown Sampler, eight were in Category 3 and 4, including the University Art Building, the Cardinal Hotel, and the Stanford Theatre. Staff and the Council were urged to move such structures to Category 2 level. Leannah Hunt, 2130 Byron Street, expressed surprise at the proposed ordinance. The key point of concern was the issue of consent. The process needed to be voluntary and homeowners' rights should be considered, with the option to be listed on a registration list. If an owner consented, it meant agreement to mandatory controls. A proper appeals process was necessary. Concern was expressed for the subjective nature of the guidelines. Very firm guidelines were necessary for equitable decisions to be made. The Council planned to make a decision prior to sufficient public input. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mossar, to adjourn the meeting to an Adjourned Meeting of Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at 7:00 p.m.
12/07/98 87-356
MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED 7-0, Huber "not participating," Fazzino absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
12/07/98 87-357