HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-14 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting December 14, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-379 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................87-379
1. ΑFiber to the Home≅ Trial - Refer to Policy and Services Committee and Utilities Advisory Committee............87-380
2. Resolution 7818 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political
Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution No. 7655"87-380
3. Resolution 7819 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Amended City of Palo Alto Deferred Compensation Plan for Regular Employees and Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Trust Agreement for Said Plan......................................................87-380
4. Ordinance 4536 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $238,000 for the Council Chambers Refurbishing Capital Project Number 19625"87-380 5. Approval of Authority for Staff to Expend FY 1998-99 Funds for Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program......................................................87-380 6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bank of America and Union Bank of California for Banking and Custodial Services87-380 7. The Policy and Services Committee re School Commute Safety87-380
12/14/98 87-376
8. 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane: Application of Jeff Levin for Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide a 41,253-square-foot Parcel into 12 Residential Condominiums...............87-382 9. Application by Carrasco & Associates for Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide the 10.26 Acre Cabana Hotel Property located at 4290 El Camino Real...............87-382 10. Construction Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Jim Duffy Construction for the Environmental Compliance Laboratory and Offices at the Water Quality Control Plant........87-382
11. Ordinance 4537 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide to Return Funding from Several Capital Improvement Projects to the General Fund and to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $142,895, to Fund a Total of $650,235 for
Emergency Infrastructure Repairs≅ .....................87-382
12. Ordinance 4538 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending the Operation of Urgency Ordinance No.
4478, ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibiting the Removal of Specified Protected Oak Trees, Imposing Penalties for Such Removal, and Declaring the Urgency
Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately,≅ Through July 31, 1999, and Declaring the Urgency of the Extension, to Take Effect
Immediately≅ ..........................................87-382
13. Ordinance 4539 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $200,000 for the Stanford West Underground Extension Capital Project Number 9901".................................................87-382 14. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-383 15. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................87-383 15A. (Old Item No 18) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $136,457 for the Police Department to Receive Supplemental Funding for the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Program - State Assembly Bill (AB) 1584.............................................87-383 15B. (Old Item No. 19) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated...............87-384 16. Proposed Changes to be Included in Revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance Proposed (continued from 12/8/98)87-384
12/14/98 87-377
17. Mayor Rosenbaum re Council Oversight of the Electric Utility in the New Competitive Environment (continued from 12/8/98)87-405 20. Mayor Rosenbaum re Cancellation of the December 21 and 28, 1998, Regular City Council Meetings...................87-405 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-405
12/14/98 87-378
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (joined the meeting at 7:45 via telephone conferencing from London, England), Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Deborah Ju, 371 Whitclem Drive, Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding joint petition for area study. Howard Belfer, 4275 Los Palos, Green Meadows Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding South Palo Alto area study. Tom Vician, Sr., 3718 Redwood Circle, Fair Meadows Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding joint petition for area study. Shirley Nanevicz, 3865 Mumford Place, Walnut Grove Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding area study. Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, Barron Park Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding area study. Louise Herring, 3945 Nelson Drive, Greenmeadow Community Association, spoke regarding request for area study, Charleston corridor. Clark Akatiff, 105 Rinconada Avenue, spoke regarding Juana Briones house and police station. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Avenue, spoke regarding Printers, Inc. Herb Borock , P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding City Council Procedural Rules and the Ralph M. Brown Act. Edmund R. Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility. T.J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding memorial for Debbie Gregg. Cathie Lehrberg, Judy Maxwell, 1085 and 1057 University Avenue, spoke regarding Impeachment Proceedings in the U.S. House of Representatives. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the minutes of November 2, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent.
12/14/98 87-379
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 13.
1. ΑFiber to the Home≅ Trial - Refer to Policy and Services Committee and Utilities Advisory Committee
2. Resolution 7818 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution No. 7655"
3. Resolution 7819 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Amended City of Palo Alto Deferred Compensation Plan for Regular Employees and Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Trust Agreement for Said Plan Trust Agreement for City of Palo Alto Deferred Compensation
Plan≅
Resolution 7820 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Designating Co-Trustees for the Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust for Hourly Employees, to Reflect
Changes Made to Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code≅
4. Ordinance 4536 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $238,000 for the Council Chambers Refurbishing Capital Project Number 19625" Construction Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Jim Duffy Construction for Council Chambers Refurbishing Project, Phase 2, Capital Improvement Program Project 19625 5. Approval of Authority for Staff to Expend FY 1998-99 Funds for Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program 6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bank of America and Union Bank of California for Banking and Custodial Services
Resolution 7821 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Director of Administrative Services, to Sign Documents Relating to the Bank Accounts of the City of Palo Alto; and Rescinding Resolution No. 7561"
7. The Policy and Services Committee re School Commute Safety recommends to the City Council to direct staff to take the following actions to improve school commute safety in the 12/14/98 87-380
study area: 1) Continue an active speed enforcement program along school commute routes, including radar enforcement in school zones deployment of the radar trailer(s), and regular enforcement of non-speeding violations; 2) Develop a special signage program for one school commute corridor as a test installation, evaluate the community's response and the success of the program, and report back to Council before extending it to other corridors; 3) Work with Caltrans to further refine the scope of traffic signal, island and curb alignment improvements at the Stanford Avenue/El Camino Real intersection, and consider recommending a project through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process; 4) Restripe the bicycle lanes on segments of Newell Road, Channing Avenue and Churchill Avenue to conform to Caltrans design standards, which would result in the prohibition of parking at all times on the following street segments: a) East side of Newell Road from Channing Avenue to San Francisquito Creek; b) North side of Channing from Newell Road to Addison Avenue; and c) South side of Churchill Avenue from Alma Street to Bryant Street; 5) Study the feasibility of installing bicycle lanes on the four-lane segment of Middlefield Road in conjunction with the Residential Arterial Traffic Calming Project, and in the interim install signage to designate Guinda Street from Addison Avenue to Palo Alto Avenue as a Class III bicycle route; 6) Pursue the following measures related to school commute safety along the two-lane segment of Middlefield Road from Oregon Expressway to Channing Avenue: a) Install a 12-foot wide bicycle lane on the west side of the street with parking allowed 24 hours a day, and an 8-foot wide bicycle lane on the east side of the street with parking prohibited 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; b) Target Middlefield Road as a high priority for driver education campaign in conjunction with the community awareness campaign recommended by the study report; 7) Study the feasibility of installing bicycle lanes on Embarcadero Road in conjunction with the Residential Arterial Calming Project; 8) Install signage to designate Stanford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard as a Class III bicycle route; 9) Develop a plan, in coordination with Stanford University, for a jointly sponsored pedestrian sidewalk/path on the north side of Stanford Avenue between El Camino Real and Escondido Road and report back through the budget process with recommendations, including City's share of costs for any CIP projects; 10) Forward the study report and recommendations for school safety improvements along Stanford Avenue outside the Palo Alto city limits to Santa Clara County, Stanford University, and the Palo Alto Unified School District for further review and action; 11) Forward to the Palo Alto Unified School District for further evaluation and action, the study recommendations related to: a) school site circulation, and b) traffic safety education improvements; and 12) Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District to develop a jointly sponsored Traffic
12/14/98 87-381
Safety Community Outreach Program to increase community awareness of school commute safety, with the intent to recommend funding of a pilot program in FY 1999-2000. 8. 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane: Application of Jeff Levin for Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide a 41,253-square-foot Parcel into 12 Residential Condominiums 9. Application by Carrasco & Associates for Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide the 10.26 Acre Cabana Hotel Property located at 4290 El Camino Real into 14 Single-Family Residential Lots and One Parcel for the Cabana Hotel Facilities, Tract No. 9071 (continued from 11/23/98) (Staff has requested the item be delayed indefinitely) 10. Construction Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Jim Duffy Construction for the Environmental Compliance Laboratory and Offices at the Water Quality Control Plant
11. Ordinance 4537 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide to Return Funding from Several Capital Improvement Projects to the General Fund and to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $142,895, to Fund a Total of $650,235 for
Emergency Infrastructure Repairs≅
12. Ordinance 4538 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending the Operation of Urgency Ordinance No.
4478, ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibiting the Removal of Specified Protected Oak Trees, Imposing Penalties for Such Removal, and Declaring the Urgency
Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately,≅ Through July 31, 1999, and Declaring the Urgency of the Extension, to Take Effect
Immediately≅
13. Ordinance 4539 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $200,000 for the Stanford West Underground Extension Capital Project Number 9901" MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-12, Fazzino "abstained." MOTION PASSED 7-1 for Item No. 4, Mossar "no," Fazzino "abstained." MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item No. 7. MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 13, Fazzino, Mossar "abstained." 12/14/98 87-382
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to move Item Nos. 18 and 19 forward ahead of Item No. 16. MOTION PASSED 9-0. City Manager June Fleming announced that Item Nos. 18 and 19 would become Item Nos. 15A and 15B. CLOSED SESSION This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 14. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Chicago Title Company v. Gerardo Rosas-Maxemin et al., Case No. CV 763260 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 15. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Lanie Wheeler, Micki Schneider, Dick Rosenbaum) Unrepresented Employee: City Attorney Ariel Calonne PUBLIC HEARINGS 15A. (Old Item No 18) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $136,457 for the Police Department to Receive Supplemental Funding for the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Program - State Assembly Bill (AB) 1584 Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $136,457 appropriate funds provided to the Police Department by the State of California and allocated by the Santa Clara County as set forth in Government Code Section 30061.
Ordinance 4540 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $136,457 for the Police Department to Receive Supplemental Funding for the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Program - State Assembly Bill (AB) 1584"
12/14/98 87-383
MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15B. (Old Item No. 19) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation that Council adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7822 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. 16. Proposed Changes to be Included in Revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance Proposed (continued from 12/8/98) (Public Testimony Closed) Council Member Huber noted he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Fazzino received and reviewed a audio tapes of the December 7, 1998, and December 8, 1998, Council meetings and posted a notice of the December 14, 1998, City Council meeting which satisfied the public meeting requirements as outlined by the City Attorney. Mayor Rosenbaum said the Council would be considering revisions to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO). The intent was for the Council to give staff tentative direction on how to proceed. Direction was tentative because the Council was still seeking public input. City Manager June Fleming said staff had a brief presentation for the Council. The information was available to the Council on transparency; however, since staff was unable to get a visual uplink for Council Member Fazzino, the items would be read. There was a memorandum prepared by staff after the Historic Resource
Board=s (HRB) deliberations on December 9, 1998. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said staff had assembled issues heard at the December 7, 1998, and December 8, 1998, Council meetings. Staff believed the issues identified would help to frame further discussion and aid in the process of finalizing the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff understood that there might be other issues that the Council felt should be added to the list. The historic regulations issues were divided into three areas: 1) resource list; 2) register; and 3) existing inventory. Three questions were identified under the resource
12/14/98 87-384
list. The first question, the number of properties on the resource list, was an issue the Council struggled with. Staff presented the Council with numbers divided into two categories; 1) properties that met the criteria for the National Register; and 2) properties for the potential California Register. The second question dealt with eliminating the Replacement Building Review for properties on the Resource List. The third question dealt with review of major alterations of properties on the Resource List. Two issues were identified under the third question; 1) whether a review/voluntary compliance was required, and if so, should it be handled by the HRB or staff; and 2) whether potential building permits should be delayed to consider addition to the Palo Alto Register. Council Member Fazzino requested clarification of the categories. Mr. Gawf said he was discussing the Resource List and dealing with review of major alterations of properties on the Resource List. Staff identified under the second area, Register, four issues: 1) what was the role of the property owner in designating property on
the Register; 2) whether the category ΑSignificant Resources≅ should be dropped; 3) whether Contributing structures in historic districts should be treated differently than Landmarks; and 4) what was the process for new historic districts, for example, the degree of property owner support or threshold of contributing properties that constituted a district. The final issue staff identified under the third area was whether Category 3 and 4 properties should be added to the Register and subjected to further evaluation. He recalled staff proposed adding Categories 3 and 4 properties to the Resource List under potential National Register eligible and indicated staff would evaluate Categories 3 and 4 properties to determine which properties should be moved from the Resource List to the Register. There was considerable discussion at the prior Council meeting regarding the value of structures on Category 3 and 4 properties and indication that the properties should be considered under the Landmark designation and subject to further evaluation by staff. Issue No. 3 second sentence changed to read, "Potential building permit to consider demolition addition to the Register." Mayor Rosenbaum asked staff to discuss on-going work. Mr. Gawf said staff was, 1) looking at clarifying definitions; 2) defining the criteria for Landmarks; 3) looking at criteria and process from other historic districts; and 4) establishing a responsive and clear process to administer the historic regulations. He said touring potential National Register and California Register properties in Palo Alto would be valuable for the Council.
Council Member Mossar was interested in hearing the HRB=s perspective.
12/14/98 87-385
Mildred Mario, Member, Historic Resources Board, said nine recommendations presented in a memorandum dated December 10, 1998, from staff to the City Council were voted on at the HRB meeting and all unanimously passed 6-0 with one member absent. Council Member Kniss received calls regarding the Dames & Moore (D&M) study. She asked how the D&M study would be done. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the volunteer work was completed and the work underway with the Study Priority 2 properties was being done by D&M. D&M was working with paint researchers and three individuals hired by the City to do archival research at the Main Library. Council Member Kniss asked what criteria was being used and whether it was being documented. Ms. Warheit said the Study Priority 1 properties was completed. Archival research was being done for both study priority 1 and 2 properties. Many sources of information were researched to find architects, builders, and other people who were important in the development of Palo Alto. Addresses were sought to identify properties with historic significance. A second site visit performed by the architectural historian was being done on the structures to determine architectural significance. Council Member Kniss asked whether any research done by a volunteer would be documented by someone working with D&M. Ms. Warheit said yes. The main task of the volunteers was field work in which they documented on a form what was observed in the field. The architectural historian had been to the sites to personally view the structures and did not rely only on the information collected by the volunteers. The information was being corroborated by professionals. Council Member Kniss believed the information presented at that
evening=s meeting was important for the community to know. Some members of the community were concerned that volunteers observed structures in passing and decided that the structures qualified to be placed on the Register; therefore, it was important that the information was heard and made a part of record. Vice Mayor Schneider suggested the Council concentrate on the National Register and that the properties selected met the
Secretary of Interior=s Standards. She envisioned approximately 100 homes selected to be placed on the Palo Alto Register. Mayor Rosenbaum said an existing inventory for Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 homes outside of Professorville amounted to approximately 330 homes. D&M indicated that 213 homes of study priority 1 were found to be potentially eligible for the National Register. He asked how
12/14/98 87-386
Vice Mayor Schneider proposed to limit the number of homes on the Palo Alto Register to 100. Vice Mayor Schneider said there should be only one category of 100
homes to be considered Palo Alto=s Landmarks or treasures. However, there was a place for a second category for the homeowner whose home did not qualify to be a Landmark or treasure but wished to be included in a program of historic regulations or some type of merit. The homeowners should be allowed to apply for such designation so that they would be able to participate in potential city, state, or national programs. She believed following designation onto a list, the property should continue to be listed even upon sale of the property. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified that a list of 100 properties which did not require owner consent would be designated as Landmark or treasure properties, and owners who wished to be included in a program of historic regulations could be included on a second list.
Council Member Wheeler concurred with Vice Mayor Schneider=s comments; however, determining the number of categories and how they would be addressed on the Register was difficult. If the Register required more than one category with varying standards and requirements, such as, voluntary compliance instead of mandatory compliance for structures, the description and types of resources looked at on the Resource List would be broadened. Should Vice
Mayor Schneider=s suggestion be taken into consideration, broadening the descriptions and resources for the Resource List would not be necessary. Structures that were deemed eligible for listing on the National Register should be considered. She was open to touring the properties and wanted input from D&M and the public. She requested additional information about the California Register and the impact of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the use of the criteria before making a final decision. Council Member Mossar supported including all properties eligible for the National Register and the California Register. Unfortunately, the California Register had been treated as the
Αweak step-sister≅ of the National Register. The California Register was designed to acknowledge the historic significance of
California=s history. She suggested consideration of the California Register, its impacts, and its relationship to CEQA. Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Members Mossar and Wheeler. He was concerned where CEQA fit in and how to negate its impact. He wanted to see more homes on the inventory and then discuss regulations. Mayor Rosenbaum asked Council Member Ojakian to clarify what he meant by inventory. Council Member Ojakian said he meant the Resource List.
12/14/98 87-387
Council Member Kniss believed the issue was difficult to direct without any numbers. She was in favor of the National Register but hesitant to include the Landmarks; however, since the Council was discussing the National Register, she believed the Council was obligated to discuss Landmarks as well. The addition of a second category was essential. More data was required before the Council could proceed. Council Member Eakins favored relying on the National Register to supply a significant part of the Resource List. The California Register was too important to give up since Palo Alto was a very prominent city in California with many important citizens. She wanted the Council to consider the California Register. The question of numbers was not as important as the criteria and how clear and meaningful the criteria was. She did not want to lock into a number without having a sense of criteria. Council Member Fazzino agreed that emphasis needed to be placed on National Register structures and consideration should also be given to California-related structures that were remarkable. The list should be limited to several hundred structures; however, the numbers should be realistic. He was open to Council Member
Schneider=s suggestion of a second list for the individual whose property did not qualify to be a Landmark but wished to be included in a program of historic regulations. Mayor Rosenbaum noted a number of speakers pointed out the difficulty in saying there were 1,400 homes in Palo Alto outside of the historic district and if the Council wanted to consider both the National and California Registers, there would be a potential to reach those numbers. Although the Council was not prepared to make a final decision, the Council needed to think of possibilities. He suggested the Council consider homes eligible for the National Register plus the existing inventory with no homeowner consent required for the Resource List, or the Resource List could be made up of California Register eligible properties with homeowner consent required. The first category would be what most people would consider as the more important properties; while the second category would be less important properties where homeowner consent would be required. The Council had a self-imposed March 31, 1999, deadline; and unless staff was given direction, the Council would not make the deadline, which was when the Interim Regulations for the HPO would expire. He encouraged the Council to give serious consideration to the issues at hand. Council Member Mossar asked staff whether most of the properties included on the Register were in existing districts or were there many properties outside of the districts. Mayor Rosenbaum pointed out a chart that noted the number of homes in the different districts. Professorville contained approximately
12/14/98 87-388
200 homes, and the Ramona District contained 8 buildings. In regard to the existing inventory, in accordance to the Decision Matrix, attachment A of the staff report (CMR:454:98), all of the homes indicated on the chart would be considered eligible for the Register without homeowner consent. Council Member Mossar asked whether Category 3 and 4 homes would qualify. Mayor Rosenbaum said yes. The Council would have to distinguish properties within a district and outside of a district. He believed the 338 homes outside of Professorville and the staff proposal categories 1 and 2, which contained 95 homes outside of Proffesorville, should be placed on the Register immediately with some kind of public process. These homes would be distinct from the approximately 240 homes in categories 3 and 4. In addition to those homes, the Council would add to the Resource List without homeowner consent required, the approximately 213 homes that are eligible for the National Register from study priority list one, which are being identified by Dames and Moore. There would be relatively few homes from study priority 2. Council Member Mossar clarified that Mayor Rosenbaum was suggesting homes identified by Dames and Moore as California Register potential homes could be added to the resource list with the
homeowner=s consent. Mayor Rosenbaum said the homes eligible for the California Register could be on the Resource List; however, the homes could only be added to the Register.
Council Member Mossar asked what CEQA=s relevance was in regard to the Resource List or the Register. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said CEQA was irrelevant if there was no design review.
Council Member Mossar wanted a clarification of Mayor Rosenbaum=s suggestion and its merits. Mr. Calonne said the Resource List would contain the California Register properties. Some properties might qualify for the
National Register and could be designated over the property owner=s
objections. He believed Mayor Rosenbaum=s suggestion was that a
property owner=s consent would be required to be added to the Palo Alto Register if the property was only of local significance. The primary effect under the Matrix would be that the demolition
prohibition would not go into effect without an owner=s consent as to California Register properties.
12/14/98 87-389
Ms. Fleming said staff was in the process of faxing a chart
entitled ΑExisting Inventory≅ to Council Member Fazzino. Council Member Wheeler noted that Birge Clark was a very important local architect who created many residential and commercial structures in the community. The community would not react well to having Birge Clark subject to owner consent to be placed on an
inventory. She did not know whether Birge Clark=s structures were National Register potential or California Register potential because Mr. Clark was local and not an architect of national renown. Council Member Fazzino said a property that related to the work or where an extraordinary Palo Altan lived might not have national significance; however, the property might be characterized as a
Palo Alto Landmark or treasure based on the individual=s impact on the area. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether staff had information as to whether Birge Clark homes would fit the National Register or the California Register. Mr. Gawf said staff did not specifically look for Birge Clark structures to determine which category the structures belonged; however, he believed that Birge Clark structures belonged on both lists. There were also other structures eligible for the National Register that were not on the Council agenda. Staff could look at the structures to identify which lists they were on. Buildings that were local and treasured as a local resource and architecturally preserved could be potentially eligible for the National Register. One of the significant differences between the National Register and the California Register from an architectural integrity standpoint was that the California Register was more forgiving. Staff could study Birge Clark structures to determine which list they qualified for.
Ms. Fleming said Birge Clark or any other prominent person=s structure could be added to the National Register. Mr. Calonne said the Council could identify special categories as it presented itself; however, the Council might be in a better position after reviewing the D&M study. Vice Mayor Schneider said Birge Clark also designed some unremarkable structures; therefore, she did not feel that it was necessary to designate a separate category for Birge Clark structures. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved to limit the number of properties on the Resource List to 200 and use the National Register as the standard.
12/14/98 87-390
MOTION DIED FOR A LACK OF SECOND Council Member Kniss said without any additional data, limiting the Resource List to 200 properties would be difficult. The landmarks, which numbered approximately 100 should be mandatorily protected; the other structures should not be protected. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, that the Resource List include Category 3 and 4 structures currently on the existing inventory, structures eligible for the National Register, and the very best of structures eligible for the California Register with direction to staff to return with the appropriate criteria.
Mr. Calonne suggested the Council define the statement Αand the
best of structures eligible for the California Register≅ or direct staff to return with criteria options for the means to limiting the number of California properties that end up as landmarks. Council Member Eakins clarified that staff could rank the California Register eligible homes in terms of A, B, C, or D. Mr. Calonne suggested that Council also direct staff to return to the Council with a means of defining the best of the California Register structures. Council Member Eakins said the intent was to identify extraordinary or remarkable structures. Council Member Kniss believed the California Register eligible structures were estimated at approximately 1,000 properties and was too large a number to keep on a resource list. Council Member Mossar said the Council was only discussing the Resource List. Some assumptions were being made that the Register had another group of properties on it. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified the Register would be selected from the Resource List. Council Member Mossar asked whether some criteria needed to be established with regard to the existing inventory. Assuming the Resource List was the pool from which the Register was created, there was no stipulation for what happened to the existing inventory both within and outside the districts. Mayor Rosenbaum asked Council Member Kniss whether the existing inventory, along with the homes potentially eligible for the National Register, plus the best of properties eligible for the California Register, be included.
12/14/98 87-391
Council Member Kniss said yes. Ms. Fleming reminded the Council that staff would not be able to return to the Council until February 8, 1999. The information had to be returned to the Council as a complete packet because nothing could be done to it after February 8, 1999, to keep the March deadline that the Council imposed. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified that the Council would be voting that the number of properties on the Resource List be a combination of those properties that were currently landmarked. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified properties currently on the inventory were in Categories 1 through 4. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified that the Council was not discussing the number of properties but the categories and that the numbers would be driven by the criteria as opposed to straight numbers. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Schneider, to eliminate replacement building design review for properties on the Resource List. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He thanked Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf for clarifying the differences between historic preservation and design review. The replacement building issue was significant and underlying much of the current debate about what was called historic preservation. The Council had to tackle that issue eventually. Mr. Calonne wanted to be sure the Council was clear that the discussion focused on residential structures, assuming the Council was not suggesting eliminating existing review procedures for non-residential structures for the downtown area. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Huber "not participating." Mayor Rosenbaum said on the Historic Preservation Decision Matrix under Resource List Major Alterations, distributed at that
evening=s meeting, staff was proposing mandatory design review by staff with the Secretary of the Interior Standards as guidelines with a voluntary compliance. The building permits could be delayed up to six months to consider addition to the Palo Alto Register. The issues before the Council were: 1) should the review be done by staff; 2) should the review be done by staff and/or the HRB; 3) should compliance be voluntary or mandatory; and 4) how should the 6-month delay to consider addition to the Palo Alto Register fit in with the mandatory review or mandatory or voluntary compliance.
12/14/98 87-392
Council Member Mossar asked staff how the issue of compliance fit into the whole design review. Mr. Gawf said the goal was to make sure that prior to altering his/her property, the owner would have the advantage of outside independent review versed in the Secretary of the Interior Standards to provide advice on how to proceed. The idea behind the 6-month delay was in extraordinary circumstances where a significant resource existed, and the owner proposed to do major alterations. The staff had the ability to refer to the HRB and eventually to the Council to see if the City wished to designate the property as a Landmark and placed on the Palo Alto Register. Council Member Mossar asked whether an owner with a home on the Resource List that had not been determined to belong on the Palo Alto Register at that time would be subject to design review, or would the owner be required to wait six months and then be subject to a design review. Mr. Gawf said the design review would be part of the initial process. The owner would submit a plan of the alteration, and staff would review and return with comments. Cases where alterations appeared to adversely affect the structure would be taken to the next step to consider delay. The purpose of the delay would be so that the community could determine whether the structure qualified for the Palo Alto Register. Council Member Mossar clarified the design review was review for consistency with the architectural style and should the architectural style be changed, that would trigger the design review process for addition to the Palo Alto Register. Mr. Gawf said correct. Mayor Rosenbaum said alteration was proposed and the HRB would make recommendations; however, if the design review was made voluntary there would be room for concern. Council Member Mossar asked whether the review body, staff or HRB, determined the proposed remodel was potentially deleterious architectural change. Could the review body delay the issuance of the building permit giving the City the opportunity to include the structure on the Palo Alto Register. Mr. Gawf said yes. Mayor Rosenbaum noted a way to get around the issue was to make compliance mandatory with the HRB recommendation. If there was voluntary compliance with a possibility of a 6-month delay, the applicant could chose to ignore the HRB. The HRB would then have to decide whether or not to add the structure to the register in
12/14/98 87-393
order to prevent the owner from altering the structure and there would be a built-in conflict of interest. Council Member Kniss was unsure as to whether there was a total definition of major alteration. She assumed that when an application for alteration was made, someone would decide whether the alteration was minor or major. Mr. Gawf said there would always be some judgement involved. He referred to a list that identified future work items. Clarification of terms such as alteration and major alteration were included on the list. He understood the importance of having both terms clearly defined and identified. Council Member Kniss asked whether the terms were not clarified or defined. Mr. Gawf said the term major alteration was defined as alterations that were not demolitions or minor; therefore, everything above and beyond minor alterations would be considered a major alteration. Staff was aware that further clarification was required on the term
Αmajor alteration≅. Vice Mayor Schneider said Mr. Gawf stated that a 6-month delay would allow time for the community to decide whether a structure would be landmarked. She asked what Mr. Gawf meant when he said
Αcommunity.≅ Mr. Gawf said he meant the community as represented by the City Council. The Landmark Designation Act as proposed was one the City Council handled. Vice Mayor Schneider said in conversations with the HRB, a 6-month delay was used to give the property owner time to think about recommendations and to consult with preservation architects. She believed a 6-month delay to give the property owner time for consultation was more appealing than a 6-month delay to determine how to get the structure onto the Resource List. Further discussion regarding the purpose of the delay was needed if the Council decided a delay was necessary. Council Member Wheeler said one of the problems with the Interim Regulations for the HPO was the feeling that some applications that were subject to staff review were put on hold and never addressed. An appeal process was inserted in the Interim Regulations for the HPO so there was a way to move the application forward in case the staff and the applicant could not agree. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to require mandatory design review for major alterations of properties on the Resource List.
12/14/98 87-394
Vice Mayor Schneider said she would not support the motion without knowing how many houses would be placed on the Resource List.
Council Member Fazzino understood Vice Mayor Schneider=s concern. The issue of numbers was critical. Time limit for review was an important aspect of the issue and a legitimate concern raised by the public. The emphasis should be on a collaborative process between the City and the homeowner to identify ways to preserve the
structure=s historic nature. Incentives were also an important aspect and could result in a much more collaborative process focused on ways to preserve the historic nature of the property
rather than a Αgotcha≅ process where every possible way would be found to prevent the homeowner from remodeling his home. Council Member Mossar reminded the Council that there was a process to remove houses from the Resource List, and houses inappropriately placed on the List could be removed. She supported the motion. Council Member Ojakian was troubled that a group of homes could potentially go through a design review process that would not be involved with being on the Register. MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Ojakian, Schneider "no," Huber "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to require voluntary compliance with mandatory design review, for major alterations of properties on the Resource List. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Huber "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Ojakian, that staff perform the design review with an appeal process for the property owner to the HRB and City Council. Council Member Wheeler said staff would be trained and ready to give advice to property owners; however, she was aware that sometimes there were irreconcilable differences and believed the owner should have the right to an appeal process. Mr. Calonne said staff was trying to work an appeal process into voluntary compliance. He was unsure as to the relationship the Council wanted the HRB and staff to have in the voluntary advisory design review. MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, that staff conduct mandatory design reviews. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the review would be ministerial.
12/14/98 87-395
Mr. Gawf said yes. Council Member Kniss noted two issues were very important in the review: 1) education and support; and 2) incentives. If both issues were integrated into the review process, a workable solution could be created those who were required review, but would be voluntary in his/her compliance. Mayor Rosenbaum did not support the motion. He believed the review should be done by the HRB. MOTION PASSED: 6-2, Ojakian, Rosenbaum "no," Huber "not participating. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, that there be a 6-month delay for a potential building permit to consider addition to the Palo Alto Register. Council Member Eakins said incentives would not be available unless a property was on the Palo Alto Register. There would be no incentives on the Resource List, which was reason to create a procedure for placing qualified properties on the Palo Alto Register. Vice Mayor Schneider asked why there was no delay for major alteration as opposed to a building permit. She did not want the 6-month delay to be viewed as punitive. The potential 6-month period should be viewed as a learning process for the homeowner and discussions could take place to educate the homeowner as to what the advantages would be. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He believed the process should be collaborative. Staff should manage the process correctly, performance standards should be adopted, and adequate training for staff should be provided. Staff should report to the Council on a regular basis about the experience associated with the program. Mayor Rosenbaum opposed the motion. Voluntary compliance with the threat of a 6-month delay was inconsistent. He believed there should be mandatory compliance or no 6-month delay. MOTION PASSED: 6-2, Ojakian, Rosenbaum "no," Huber "not participating." RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:40 PM TO 10:05 PM The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation and Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item Nos. 14 and 15.
12/14/98 87-396
Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Items 14 and 15.
Council Member Eakins said the HRB memo stated, ΑOwner consent to place properties on the Palo Alto Register is desirable but not necessary, any concerns or objections of the property owner could
be considered by the HRB Council at a public hearing,≅ in other words, there would be full process. She heard and considered all the arguments why owner consent should be required and understood it was a belief of a number of people. The proposed Palo Alto Register was a City land use designation and property owner consent, though desirable, should not be required for a land use designation just as it was not for zoning requirements. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the role of the property owner in designating property on the Palo Alto Register not require consent of the property owner. Council Member Wheeler agreed with remarks made by the HRB and Council Member Eakins. There was a careful balance drawn between protecting the rights of individuals and protecting the community in all of land use designation. The Council was trying to balance the rights of the residents and business owners and others that live and work in the community. Vice Mayor Schneider did not support the motion. The motion was at the heart of objections made in the community that personal property rights must be respected. She noted land use designations and zoning restrictions did not require consent; however, the City should not designate a private home to the Palo Alto Register
without the homeowner=s consent. Mayor Rosenbaum supported the motion. Council Member Fazzino said in order for the program to be a success, the incentives and process by which the City managed the program had to encourage the property owners to take part. MOTION PASSED: 7-1, Schneider "no," Huber "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mossar, that the Palo Alto Register include two categories. Council Member Kniss believed a real landmark would be detracted from if there were only one category. She supported including a second category. Mayor Rosenbaum noted that rules would have to be determined for each of the categories. Staff suggested one category because staff felt there was only one set of reasonable rules.
12/14/98 87-397
Council Member Kniss said Council Member Eakin=s motion that dealt with criteria would also deal with how the Council would handle the second category. Mayor Rosenbaum asked how staff would view establishing two categories with respect to the question of differentiating the regulations for each category. Mr. Gawf said staff needed to identify criteria that differentiated between Landmarks and Significant Resources and determine whether the regulations would be different. Staff would research and prepare a second category should the Council decide a second category was needed. Mayor Rosenbaum reminded the Council that staff provided the Council with a list of options that included a second category at a prior meeting in March 1998. The only significant difference that the Council voted on at that time was that alterations made to a Landmark would have to comply with the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior. Council Member Mossar clarified the HRB made an outstanding case when it discussed people who wanted to be listed on the Palo Alto Register who would not automatically end up on the Register and were Category 3 or 4. The structures would not qualify as Landmarks but could be Significant Resources. By allowing the
owner=s to register their property as significant resources then they had the opportunity to take advantage of various incentives available. Mayor Rosenbaum said there was no intention to leaving Category 3 and 4 structures without protection. He asked whether Council Member Mossar was concerned there would only be 100 homes on the Register if there were no Significant Resource List. Council Member Mossar said no. She believed having one category called Landmark or treasure and have everything grouped into that one category was confusing. The numbers question was a significant one. She was willing to view a different set of standards for Significant Resources; however, the difficulty was knowing what path to take until the Council knew the number of structures it was dealing with. Mr. Calonne said according to the State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO) the National and California Registers should be used as the differential point. Different sets of criteria should not
be devised to judge a remodel, the Secretary of the Interior=s rehabilitation standards should always be used. The state office would review the ordinance if the Council wanted to add the second category. In a prior meeting, there was a fine line between the two categories, and SHPO commented negatively on the effort to
12/14/98 87-398
distinguish Landmarks and Significant Resources in the prior ordinance. Mayor Rosenbaum said few homes would fit into the Landmark category. The state office suggested the usage of the National and California Registers to determine Landmarks; however, the concern of limiting the number of homes within a Landmark category would not be satisfied because the National Register plus the existing inventory amounted to approximately 600 homes. Additionally, there would be no reason to have a second category if there were no differential between regulations for two categories. Council Member Eakins said there would be no need to determine distinctions between degrees of regulation and enforcement if there was one category that was enlarged or broadened to accommodate all the Significant properties; however, the one category should not be called Landmark, rather it should be a historic category on the Palo Alto Register. Council Member Wheeler said some kind of differentiation was needed between properties should the Council decide that two categories were necessary. Some of the differences were obvious, such as voluntary compliance with the design review which was a staff recommendation on Significant Resources. Review of paint palettes and significant landscape features were areas where definite distinctions could be drawn between Landmark structures of the community and other significant structures which were not considered Landmarks. Mr. Calonne said SHPO and HRB both recommended the usage of the National and California Registers should the Council decide on two categories for the Palo Alto Register. Staff required direction from the Council as to how to determine the second category on the register. Staff had to create a category of significant regulations without Council direction; and as a result, SHPO notified staff that the distinction was too discretionary. The National and California Registers were verbal structures that depended on connotation and experience in the field. Council Member Mossar said criteria and clarity were keys to the success of the entire program. Mr. Gawf said there were two basic choices: 1) create two categories, Significant Resource and Landmark; or 2) define Landmark to be inclusive. He believed naming the category Historic Properties or Historic Resources instead of Landmark to create a
new definition would be helpful. For clarity=s sake, having one category that was inclusive enough to cover the Squire House and the more modest properties as well was desirable. Council Member Mossar clarified staff was comfortable including the Squire House and Inventory 4 properties in the same category.
12/14/98 87-399
Mr. Gawf said yes, if the criteria was met. Vice Mayor Schneider believed there was a place for properties that did not meet the strict guidelines of the National Register. She suggested creating a voluntary program for homeowners interested in designating their properties. The voluntary program would receive a much higher degree of compliance rather than a forced program. She asked the Council to consider a category that used the National Register and a second category for homeowners who wanted their properties designated historic. Mr. Gawf said based on Council discussion, there were two alternatives available. The first alternative was to have two categories, a landmark type of category based on the National Register. The second category would be Significant Resources based on the California Register. Regulations would be different between the two categories. The second alternative was to have just one category that was inclusive. Council Member Fazzino favored a single regulated category with the possibility of a second category based on voluntary inclusion. The Council should consider structures from the National Register and the best structures from the California Register based upon one or more criteria to create the Palo Alto Register. He urged the Council to incorporate nomenclature which could incorporate a property of historical significance as well as a Landmark structure. He favored a single regulated category with the possibility of a second category that allowed for voluntary inclusion. Council Member Kniss preferred the Council stay within three categories, the National Register category, the potential California category, and landmarks/historic category. In order to collect the landmarks/historic category, one had to collect homes from the National Register and the California Register; however, the selection would be narrow if only Category 1 and 2 structures were considered for the Palo Alto Register. Mr. Calonne said the HRB was not requesting the creation of a second category with lighter regulations. Inclusion of a second
category was the Council=s prerogative; however, it was not what the HRB requested. Council Member Ojakian said at least two HRB members suggested a second category would be an interesting addition. A single category would be simpler; however, for the sake of experimentation, creating the second category where owner consent was necessary to see exactly how the second category would operate over a period of time would be interesting. Council Member Eakins said on page 4 of the SHPO letter and on page 12 of the ordinance with the annotations, there were no distinct
12/14/98 87-400
levels of regulation. She asked whether having two categories with the same kind of regulations made sense. Mr. Gawf was unsure whether having the same regulations for two categories made sense. Council Member Eakins asked whether SHPO was asked for a clarification. Mr. Gawf said no.
Mr. Calonne said SHPO meant the Secretary of the Interior=s rehabilitation standards had room for judgement that a rational design jury would recognize a stricter degree of compliance was warranted for a special property than for another kind of property. Vice Mayor Schneider thought the designation should follow the land. As long as the ordinance was in effect, the home would be preserved. MOTION FAILED: 1-7, Ojakian "yes," Huber "not participating." Council Member Kniss requested to change the category name to another term other than Landmark. Mr. Gawf said staff would develop another term. The Historic Properties list would be comprised of properties the Council determined to be eligible for the National Register and the best of the California Register. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the homeowners would have to appeal to the Council to be included on the list if the HRB determined the structure did not meet the Secretary of the
Interior=s Standards. Ms. Warheit said according to the draft ordinance, the presumption would be in favor of the property owner. Mayor Rosenbaum said a question posed by staff was should Contributing Structures in Historic Districts be treated differently than Landmarks. Mr. Gawf said there was no demolition of Landmarks or Historic Properties unless the designation was removed; whereas with a Contributing Structure, there was a one-year delay and a required review of the replacement building to ensure it was compatible with the Historic District. The key difference was whether the Council wanted to allow any provision for demolition of Contributing Structures in Historic Districts.
12/14/98 87-401
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, that Contributing Structures in Historic Districts be treated differently than Landmarks. Council Member Kniss said there were structures in Professorville that were not Landmarks. The Council needed to decide how differently the Contributing Structures would be treated. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether a one-year delay for building permits would be included in the motion. She believed a 6-month delay for building permit was enough time. Council Member Kniss supported the 6-month delay. Council Member Wheeler clarified within a Historic District, there would be buildings that were Contributing, non-contributing, and there were buildings that had, on their own merit, been categorized as former Landmarks. Former Landmark buildings would fall under the demolition guidelines for former Landmarks. Mr. Gawf said correct. Some of the Contributing structures would also be Landmarks and were governed by the Landmark regulations. In the ordinance, there was a one-year delay for demolition, and decreasing the delay to six months would be a lessening of that period. There were 59 structures in Professorville that were Category 3 and 4 that could be demolished after one year. Of all the decisions made by staff when assembling the Matrix, the delay period for demolition was the toughest one. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the one-year delay in the original ordinance was automatic. She believed the delay could be for up to one year; however, it could be for a shorter period of time. Mr. Gawf said correct. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that there be up to a one-year delay for replacement buildings. Mr. Calonne said the one-year delay provision was essential to the Contributing properties if the Council was going to preserve the opportunity to make the properties Landmarks to prevent demolition. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff was comfortable with an up to one-year delay. Mr. Gawf said yes. Mayor Rosenbaum said one possible use for the one-year delay was to consider addition to the Palo Alto Register. He believed staff did
12/14/98 87-402
not intend to use the one-year delay for purposes of considering whether a property was a Landmark.
Mr. Gawf said staff=s focus was to have a period of time for people to think about the decision and to give the community the opportunity to look at the structure to determine whether it should be a Landmark. Council Member Eakins reported that the HRB was concerned about the effect on the Historic Preservation Decision Matrix of allowing demolition of Contributing buildings in Professorville. The HRB was concerned about losing too much of the Historic District.
According the Dennis Backlund=s Historic Inventory Demolitions and Adverse Alterations, 1980-98, between 1980 and 1998, 11 percent of Professorville structures were lost. She thought the loss was large and did not want the loss to accelerate and lose the Historic District in Professorville. Vice Mayor Schneider asked how many houses had to be retained or demolished in order to lose the Historic District. Mr. Gawf was unsure whether there was a definitive answer. There was a rule of thumb of 75 percent contributing in creating a new district; however, even if Contributing structures went below 75 percent for an existing district, that did not necessarily mean the district would lose the historic designation. People were reluctant to remove a historic designation. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether an 11 percent loss over a period of approximately 20 years in a Historic District was a significant number of houses. Mr. Gawf heard that most of the loss had occurred in the last three or four years. Twenty years might not be the proper perspective. The real issue was whether something was changing within the community putting increased demand on replacement buildings in Professorville that had not occurred before. Council Member Mossar said the bulk of the historic resource was in districts or groupings, and the preservation of those districts was essential to the preservation of historic character. She had met
with the Palo Alto Homeowner=s Association (PAHA) wherein the PAHA referenced an article by a Harvard MBA who acknowledged that property values for historic homes were enhanced when the homes surrounding the historic property were maintained in a contextually accurate manner. Property values in Professorville remained high because Professorville was reasonably intact. She felt the discussion mirrored a prior discussion regarding whether or not to have two categories. Any Landmark, be it former Landmark or Contributing, should be regulated the same way. Only in that framework would the City be able to preserve the districts. She did not support the motion.
12/14/98 87-403
Council Member Ojakian said there were several regulations on the Historic Preservation Decision Matrix under Contributing, such as no City discretionary review and mandatory HRB design review using
the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards. He assumed Council
Member Kniss=s motion encompassed all those regulations. Council Member Kniss said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian asked whether an appeal to the Council would
be possible if the HRB=s findings were disputed for those properties. Mayor Rosenbaum said on the Historic Preservation Decision Matrix, under Landmarks and Contributing, the same rules applied for major alterations; therefore, an appeal to the Council might not be pertinent. MOTION PASSED: 6-2, Eakins, Mossar "no," Huber, "not participating." Mayor Rosenbaum said the Council was not in a good position to make any decisions regarding the process for new Historic Districts, the degree of property owner support and the threshold of Contributing properties that constituted a district. Mr. Gawf said those were factors that staff would work on during the next 6 weeks. Mayor Rosenbaum said the final issue for that evening was whether Category 3 and 4 properties should be added to the Palo Alto Register and subject to further evaluation. Mr. Gawf said the staff proposal was to add Category 3 and 4 properties to the Resource List. The question heard at the prior Council meeting was there might be significant buildings and structures that were Category 3 and 4. These buildings should be started out as Landmarks and de-designated if for some reason the buildings were altered or torn down. Mayor Rosenbaum said staff recommended Category 1 and 2 homes on the existing inventory go directly on to the Palo Alto Register. Staff was also asking whether Category 3 and 4 homes should be placed on the Palo Alto Register with consideration given at a later date to remove homes or should Category 3 and 4 homes be placed on the Palo Alto Register and treated the same way as Category 1 and 2 homes. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, that Category 3 and 4 properties on the current inventory be placed on the Resource List and to include the HRB recommendation that a streamlined process be used for those Category 3 and 4 properties
12/14/98 87-404
to be placed on the Palo Alto Register at the request of the property owner. Mayor Rosenbaum said a process of expediting the motion from the Resource List to the Palo Alto Register be done for Category 3 and 4 homes was being suggested by the HRB. Council Member Kniss understood the inventory had existed for a long time and probably had a different owner understanding inherent in it. Mayor Rosenbaum said there were no regulations for Category 3 and 4 homes in the inventory. Owner consent would not be required if Category 3 and 4 homes were added to the Palo Alto Register. If the property owner wanted to expedite the process, he/she should be able to go to the head of the list. Mr. Calonne said the motion was to leave Category 3 and 4 homes on
the 1A Resource List and to include the HRB=s recommendation that a streamlined process be created for Category 3 and 4 property owners
who wished to be placed on the Palo Alto Register. The HRB=s recommendation was not to make compliance voluntary, but to allow an easy path for Category 3 and 4 owners who desired to be on the Palo Alto Register. Vice Mayor Schneider did not support the motion. MOTION PASSED: 7-1, Schneider "no," Huber "not participating." 17. Mayor Rosenbaum re Council Oversight of the Electric Utility in the New Competitive Environment (continued from 12/8/98) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 20. Mayor Rosenbaum re Cancellation of the December 21 and 28, 1998, Regular City Council Meetings MOTION: Mayor Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the Regular City Council Meetings of December 21 and 28, 1998, be canceled. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Huber absent. 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
12/14/98 87-405
Council Member Kniss noted that the current meeting was the last meeting that Mayor Rosenbaum would be serving as Mayor and thanked him for his leadership during a difficult year. Council Member Eakins requested that the meeting be adjourned in
recognition of Ms. Fleming=s 6th anniversary as City Manager. Council Member Mossar noted she attended a San Francisco Airport Stakeholders Meeting on Friday, December 11, 1998. Two preferred new runway configurations proposed three new runways in the bay with flights to be lower over the lower peninsula, not higher or at the same elevations. A noise analysis was being prepared for the midpeninsula cities at the January meeting. She emphasized the importance of all the cities on the midpeninsula to begin dialogue to deal with the issue. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:28 p.m. in recognition of the 6th anniversary of City Manager June Fleming. 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.
12/14/98 87-406