HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-16 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting February 16, 1999 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................88-3 1. Conference with City Attorney...........................88-3 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m...............88-3 1. Acceptance of Gift from the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library.................................................88-4 2. Appointments to the Library Advisory Commission.........88-4 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................88-6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................88-6
3. Ordinance 4546 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $52,000 Grant from the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department for $52,000 in Support of
New Additions to Library Collections≅ ...................88-6
4. Ordinance 4547 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $13,401 Grant from the California Arts Council and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $13,401".........................88-6 5. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal on Saia v. City of Capitola, No. H01907688-6
02/16/99 88-1
6A. (Old Item No 8.) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1999...............................................88-7 7. Revised Timetable for the Review, Completion and Adoption of the Proposed Permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance to Allow for the Recirculation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Subsequent Modifications; Consideration of a Project Description for the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report; and Preparation of an Urgency Ordinance Modifying the Interim Regulations.....................................88-7 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........88-25 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at 7 p.m............................88-25
02/16/99 88-2
02/16/99 88-3
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Jaim Nulman and Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto SCC# CV779831 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
02/16/99 88-4
Regular Meeting February 16, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Acceptance of Gift from the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library
Mayor Fazzino presented a proclamation declaring February ΑLibrary
Lovers Month≅ in Palo Alto. Mary Jean Place, President, Friends of the Palo Alto Library (the Friends), presented the City with a check for $52,000 for enhancement of collections in the libraries for the year 1998-1999. The amount came from two sources within the Friends, the Library Lovers Fund and monthly book sales. The
Friends also presented to the Council books entitled ΑBay Area
Landmarks≅ which were gleaned from a Αsecond-hand roses≅ collection available the second Saturday of each month in the Terman Park Library. Each book contained a personal bookmark in the shape of the crown signifying community leadership. The gift would support programs at the various libraries within Palo Alto. She thanked the members of the Friends and the community for their efforts to
enhance the City=s libraries. Mayor Fazzino said Ms. Place had provided leadership on library issues for many years and thanked the Friends for the gift. 2. Appointments to the Library Advisory Commission Mayor Fazzino said the City had a Library Commission from 1909-1950, and noted that the Council decided in 1998 to revive the Library Commission. The Council was faced with the difficult task to choose seven individuals to serve on the Library Advisory Commission (LAC). He recommended the Council Members each vote for seven candidates. Seven individuals who received five or more votes each would then be chosen to serve on the LAC. The seven individuals selected would draw ballots to determine the members that would serve either a two-year term or a three-year term. Council Member Eakins thanked the committee that screened the applicants because their selection of 14 candidates that were interviewed by the Council were outstanding. The interviews were inspirational and the applicants sparkled. Her only regret was that there were not more applicants from the western part of town. She hoped that the 41 applicants would be used as a resource for
02/16/99 88-5
many of the LAC=s interests and activities. She recommended the following applicants to the LAC: Lenore Jones, John Owicki, John Kagel, Barry Rafter, Thomas Wyman, Anthony Angiletta, and Mary Jean Place. She was pleased with the diversity of applicants. Council Member Kniss recommended that Anthony Angiletta, Lenore Jones, John Kagel, Warren Kallenbach, Tina Kass, Mary Jean Place, and Linda Wong-Verheeke be appointed to the LAC. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ANTHONY ANGILETTA: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR KEITH CLARK: VOTING FOR GRETCHEN EMMONS: Schneider VOTING FOR LENORE JONES: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler VOTING FOR JOHN KAGEL: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbum, Schneider VOTING FOR WARREN W. KALLENBACH: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Schneider VOTING FOR TINA KASS: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR BOB MOSS: Ojakian VOTING FOR JOHN C. OWICKI: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Rosenbaum, Wheeler VOTING FOR MARY JEAN PLACE: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR BARRY L. RAFTER: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Wheeler VOTING FOR ANDREA TESTA-VOUGHT: VOTING FOR LINDA WONG VERHEECKE: Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR THOMAS WYMAN: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, that the Council appoint those candidates who received six or more votes on the first ballot.
02/16/99 88-6
MOTION PASSED 9-0 City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Anthony Angiletta, Lenore Jones, John Kagel, Warren Kallenbach, Tina Kass, Mary Jean Place, and Thomas Wyman received six or more votes and were appointed on the first ballot. It was determined by draw that Lenore Jones, Warren Kallenbach, Mary Jean Place and Thomas Wyman would serve three-year terms and Anthony Angiletta, John Kagel, and Tina Kass would serve two-year terms. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, spoke regarding a Public Records Act request for audit of the Palo Alto airport. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of December 8, 1998, as corrected. MOTION PASSED as corrected 8-0-1, Fazzino Αabstained.≅ MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of December 14, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 5.
3. Ordinance 4546 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $52,000 Grant from the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department for $52,000 in Support of
New Additions to Library Collections≅
4. Ordinance 4547 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $13,401 Grant from the California Arts Council and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $13,401" 5. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal on Saia v. City of Capitola, No. H019076 MOTION PASSED 9-0.
02/16/99 88-7
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Fazzino announced that Item No. 8 be moved forward ahead of Item No. 7. CLOSED SESSION 6. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Jaim Nulman and Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto SCC# CV779831 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) COUNCIL MATTERS 6A. (Old Item No 8.) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1999 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the Resolution to schedule the City Council vacation for Tuesday, August 10, to Friday, September 10, 1999.
Resolution 7833 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1999" MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 7. Revised Timetable for the Review, Completion and Adoption of the Proposed Permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance to Allow for the Recirculation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Subsequent Modifications; Consideration of a Project Description for the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report; and Preparation of an Urgency Ordinance Modifying the Interim Regulations. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynn Furth said one of the issues before the Council was who could participate in discussions related to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. She explained that public officials could not participate in the decision process if the decision had a financial effect on the official that was different from the effect to the general public. When the City considered an ordinance like the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance (PHPO) which could affect a large number of properties, each Council Member had to analyze their situation with respect to their own property and any property adjacent to their property. A Council Member could participate in the decision if after careful examination it turned out that the PHPO would not have a financial
02/16/99 88-8
effect on the Council Member=s property; however, if the PHPO changed the value of the property in the same way that it affected a large number of people, the Council Member would still have the ability and the duty to participate. When the Council first began considering the PHPO, Council Member Huber did not participate because the Council was addressing issues affecting properties in the Professorville District. No other Council Member was disqualified because the group of homes being considered for evaluation and regulation was large; however, when the Council gave preliminary direction as to what form the regulations should take in December 1998, and Dames & Moore (D&M) completed its study in January 1999, that changed the conflict of interest analysis. The conflict of interest analysis substantially reduced the number of potential historic homes that might be regulated. One Council Member and the City Attorney asked the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) whether they were disqualified from participation in discussion because they had homes in the group that might be potential California Register homes. She noted that an answer was forthcoming. Three Council Members did not have homes on the list and not close to any homes on the , and were not prevented from participating in all decisions. Four Council Members lived within 300 feet of homes that might be considered for regulation. A conflict of interest would exist if the regulation significantly
affected the value of the four Council Members= properties. Appraisals could be obtained to determine the impact. An appraisal performed in the prior week showed, in most cases, historic preservation regulations on properties in the vicinity would not
have an impact on the value of those four Council Members= homes. However, there could be an impact on some homes. As a result of the appraisal, two Council Members asked whether their houses next to potential historic properties would disqualify them from participating. The appraisal would be completed within two weeks. All conflict questions should be resolved before June 1999 when the proposed time table and final PHPO was brought before the Council. Council Member Huber said he would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Fazzino had a home within 300 feet of homes on the California
Register. Based upon conversations he had with the City Attorney=s
Office as well as the explanation of the statistician=s appraisal, he concluded that his home did not create a conflict of interest. Council Member Kniss noted she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest arose because her home was identified as a potential California Register eligible property according to the D&M report of January 25, 1999. The City
Attorney=s Office requested formal advice on the issue from the FPPC and the advice should be on hand within the next few weeks.
02/16/99 88-9
Council Member Schneider noted she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. She asked what the consequences would be if a Council Member chose to participate against the advice of the
City Attorney=s Office. Ms. Furth said theoretically, a number of consequences were possible if either a court or the FPPC came to the conclusion that the Council Member should not have participated and a conflict
existed: 1) the validity of the City=s decision could be jeopardized; 2) the Council Member could face civil penalties, and 3) under certain circumstances criminal liability.
Council Member Schneider was advised by the City Attorney=s Office that ownership of her home created a conflict of interest that prevented her from participating in discussion of the item. The conflict of interest arose because her home was located within 300 feet of properties that would likely be subject to the PHPO based upon the December 14, 1998, preliminary policy directives. She requested the Council authorize a specific appraisal of her property. If authorized, the process would begin immediately and depending upon the appraisal, she might be able to participate in future decisions. Council Member Ojakian said based upon the explanation of Stan
Tisch=s appraisal provided to the City Attorney=s Office, he concluded that the ownership of his home did not create a conflict of interest. Council Member Mossar noted she would not participate due to a
conflict of interest. She was advised by the City Attorney=s Office that ownership of her home could create a conflict of interest that would prevent her from participating in discussion of the item. The conflict of interest arose because her home was located within 300 feet of properties that would likely be subject
to the PHPO based upon the Council=s December 14, 1998, preliminary policy directives. She requested a specific appraisal for her property which was approved by the Council. Based upon the City
Attorney=s advice, she felt it was prudent not to participate in the PHPO process until the appraisal was completed. She might be able to participate based upon the results of the appraisal. Council Member Eakins regretted losing diversity on the Council. Better quality decisions are made when many points of view were represented and articulated. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted he would not participate due to a conflict of interest. His home was identified as a potential California Register property. Mayor Fazzino said there would be a delay in any possible adoption of a permanent HPO. The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had to be revised and recirculated because of the quality and
02/16/99 88-10
quantity of comments received. The PHPO would be returned for Council consideration at the beginning of June 1999. The delay had several consequences: 1) there would be a gap in regulations; 2) there would be additional time allowed for review and comment on the PHPO; and 3) there would be time to secure appraisals and advice from the FPPC that would allow more Council Members to participate in the PHPO decision. He believed that it was important to have all nine Council Members participating in the PHPO. The Council had to make sure the project parameters for the revised EIR covered everything that needed to be studied. He noted that if comments were made on the draft EIR, the comments would be considered and dealt with in the review. The EIR would also analyze the alternative of no PHPO and an ordinance that would protect even California Register properties. Staff needed to know which incentives the Council wanted analyzed and how the Council wished to handle the gap in protection and regulation of historic buildings. He asked whether the Council should extend the regulations instead of letting the regulations expire on March 31, 1999, and did the Council want any limits on demolition and major alterations from the present until July 1999. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said two items were being discussed: 1) the recirculation of the draft EIR; and 2) the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (IHPO). He noted that staff was not asking the Council to act or approve a PHPO. One of the advantages of recirculating the draft EIR was additional time for public review and comment. The additional time allowed staff to review the PHPO and examine the environmental impacts to ensure staff had the best decision possible in June 1999. There were two basic components to the PHPO; the Palo Alto Register and the Resource List. The Palo Alto Register tended to be the properties that were designated by the City Council as important individual properties or districts within the community. The Palo Alto Register was divided into two parts Heritage properties formerly known as Landmark properties and Historic Districts. The initial listing of Heritage properties were categories 1 and 2, which comprised of approximately 90-94 properties on the existing historic inventory. Additions to the Heritage properties would first and primarily be through the Resource List. Other historic properties or resources not on the Resource List would need to be requested by the property owner or by a motion of the Council in order to be considered for the Palo Alto Register. Historic Districts, such as Ramona Street and Professorville, constituted approximately 170 properties. Staff would develop a set of detailed criteria that would be used for the creation of new districts. The criteria would include the number of Contributing structures needed to consider a new district and the percentage of property owners needed in support of creating a new district. Staff changed the proposed regulation of demolition of Contributing structures. After additional comment from the public, staff recommended that the demolition of Contributing structures in a Historic District be restricted to Council action,
02/16/99 88-11
for example, property owners wishing to demolish a Contributing structure must go before Council and be reviewed against a set of criteria in the PHPO prior to approval of demolition. Staff recommended that incentives be limited to properties on the Palo Alto Register. The purpose of incentives were to attract property owners to designate their own property voluntarily to the Palo Alto Register. The second component of the draft PHPO was the Resource List. The Resource List contained the initial listing of Category 3 and 4 properties, potential National Register eligible properties identified by D&M, and Landmarks from the interim regulations. Staff proposed a total of 834 properties to be initially regulated under the Palo Alto Register and the Resource List. Additions to the Resource List would come from one source, properties determined by qualified professionals to potentially be National Register properties. Staff proposed not to include on the Resource List potential California Register properties as identified in the D&M study. Mayor Fazzino clarified that staff was not requesting any decisions from the Council with respect to the PHPO, but project parameters, policy alternatives to be considered by the EIR. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Staff identified three alternatives in the staff report (CMR:131:99): 1) extend the current IHPO which would expire March 31, 1999; 2) let the IHPO expire and operate under the old Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO); and 3) modify the IHPO. Staff recommended modifying the IHPO to be applicable to those properties staff proposed to be regulated by the PHPO. Staff recommended that some transitional provisions be created for owners that had started the process. Staff would be actively seeking feedback from the community to review, critique, and give feedback on the PHPO. Should Council direct staff to modify the existing HPO, staff would return to Council a draft HPO which would continue the IHPO after March 31, 1999. Staff was evaluating all comments received during the circulation of the draft EIR and would review comments heard at
that evening=s meeting to incorporate into a new draft EIR that staff proposed to recirculate at the end of March 1999. The month of April 1999 would be an opportunity for additional comments on the revised draft EIR. Time would be scheduled for public comment at the Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board meetings for consideration of the draft EIR and PHPO. Staff would return to Council on June 7, 1999, for first reading of the PHPO, second reading occurring two weeks from that date, and the effective date would be July 22, 1999. Nancy Alexander, 435 Santa Rita Avenue, objected to the PHPO because the PHPO treated neighboring properties unequally. Her property would be treated differently from both properties on each side of her home, the property to the rear and across the street. The Council was proposing that entitlement be withdrawn from her property and costly requirements be imposed; however, the same
02/16/99 88-12
requirements would not be placed on the surrounding properties. For example, following an earthquake, she would be required to rebuild her property exactly as it appeared using techniques required by the standards and guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior; however, her neighbors would not be required to follow
the Secretary of the Interior=s guidelines. She would also be required to rebuild brick walls and brick walkways. She would bear the cost of replacing the wall and walkways because those items were specifically excluded from earthquake insurance coverage. Other property owners with garages that were integral parts of their historic frontage would be required to rebuild their historic garages despite the fact that garages were excluded from earthquake insurance coverage. Those hardships would be imposed at a time of widespread destruction and grief. The reality was that the City did not have the ability to administer the type of regulations the Council was proposing in the aftermath of a major disaster. In the event that Ms. Alexander wanted to alter her home in a way which would be considered a major alteration, such as enlarge her house to add a closet to her second story, she would be required to go through an elaborate and costly process to obtain approval, which could include a requirement to undertake an EIR which could cost $30,000 or more. She felt that it was a tremendous transaction cost that was unacceptable. The newly added section of the PHPO, Chapter 18.18 applied only to properties on the Palo Alto Register and the Historic Districts. Chapter 18.18 did not include properties on the Resource List, despite the fact that being named on the Resource List would greatly encumber properties by adding costly requirements for project approval and limitations on what could be done to the property. She recommended the Council add properties on the Resource List to Chapter 18.18 of the PHPO. She requested that Staff provide her with the written evaluation which lead her home to be classified as a potential National Register property. She was informed by staff that there was no written evaluation; however, some conclusion was reached to list her property as potential National Register. There was written criteria and written conclusions; however, there was no analysis or evaluation to connect the two. The City should conduct a poll of owners of affected properties targeted by the PHPO to learn what percentage favored passage of the PHPO. The results of the poll should be made public. She urged the Council to obtain answers before voting on the PHPO and requested her property be removed from all historic lists. Richard Alexander, 435 Santa Rita Avenue, said the staff report (CMR:131:99) did not report significant facts. The draft EIR should be reissued because it was required by law, not because there were many comments. The City released a draft EIR in December 1999 which was a waste of public funds because the PHPO should be in its final form before issuing a draft EIR. During the January 23, 1999, meeting at Cubberley Community Center, there was overwhelming opposition to the PHPO by the property owners in attendance. Not one of the official City files on properties had
02/16/99 88-13
any evidence of objective scoring showing how decisions were made to select a home. By definition the selection was a subjective process. The greatest concern was the cost of federal standards that were being imposed on the homeowners. An owner of a Heritage property when performing maintenance or repair could not change the material used in the original construction; for example, if the owner wanted to improve their home by replacing rusted, galvanized rain gutters, with new copper gutters, that was a change in materials that violated the ordinance. Every owner on the Palo Alto Register and on the potential National Register, whether planning a voluntary alteration, or an involuntary rehabilitation, after a fire or earthquake had to pay for an EIR unless the Director of Planning and Community Environment (the Director) determined the project was exempt. The EIR could cost approximately $30,000 and take months to complete. The discretion delegated to the Director without any controlling standards from the Council was a grant of power that should not be allowed. The Director was not only the judge and jury when imposing an EIR, the Director was also delegated under the PHPO to write law. Chapter 16.49.040 in Attachment B, page 8 of the staff report (CMR:131:99), said the Director had the authority to promulgate written historic guidelines and code interpretations to facilitate implementation. Civil penalties would be levied if the property owner altered or caused an alteration no matter how small. The slightest alteration meant a homeowner would be liable civilly in a sum equal to the replacement cost of the building, which was equivalent to confiscating a car for a parking violation. The PHPO was unreasonable, punitive and coercive. Council should focus on incentives to encourage homeowners to voluntarily support preservation. Council Member Ojakian asked whether Mr. Alexander had any suggestions related to his comment on incentives. Mr. Alexander said the cost of historic preservation should not be forced on a handful of people to benefit the whole community. Everyone should pay the price. The Council should consider a city-wide Revenue District, similar to the Open Space District, with revenues available to make loans and incentives so homeowners could proceed to repair and still enjoy the right of private property and provide an opportunity for the community to live in a pleasant environment. George Morris, 874 Boyle Avenue, along with his two brothers inherited a home in Palo Alto. He spoke with the City Planning Department and pointed out changes that took place. He was surprised to learn that records were in terrible shape and no one could figure out why his home was given a historic designation. He urged the Council to abandon the PHPO. Harold Justman, 836 Ramona Street, owned two homes on Ramona Street that were being considered for the List. He was marginalized and
02/16/99 88-14
ignored. The process was rigid, inflexible, and insensitive. He
started with a historic merit screening of his mother=s house, followed by a compatibility review. He was still trying to get
plans approved to renovate his mother=s house. The insurance company was disappointed with the condition of the property and continued to charge high prices for limited coverage. He was informed that should the roof leak due to an El Nino storm, he would not be covered. Historic expert, Michael Corbett, gave a tour of historic homes to the Council on January 30, 1999. Mr. Corbett informed the Council that three homes on the 800 block of Ramona Street had added historic significance because they were inhabited by Japanese-Americans who were forcibly removed during World War II. The information provided by Mr. Corbett was incomplete and inaccurate. The history being told about the homes on the 800 block of Ramona Street was based upon review of insurance maps from Palo Alto phone books and copies of the old
Palo Alto Times obituaries. The information was misleading and inaccurate. There were three homes on the 800 block of Ramona, the
rest were parking lots. Mr. Justman=s home was originally built on the corner of Waverley and Homer Streets in the 1920's. His home was moved in 1976 to its present location at 834 Ramona Street; therefore, there was no evidence that his home was ever occupied by Japanese-Americans. The same was true about the structure on 842 Ramona Street, the original structure had burned down. The existing structure on 842 Ramona Street was originally located on 618 Channing and moved to its present location in 1976. Shannon Elam, 321 2nd Street, Los Altos, represented West Valley Association of Realtors (WVAR). She acknowledged the Council and staff for the countless hours and hard work put into the PHPO. The list of potential historic properties was more manageable than it was previously. The WVAR offered their support to the concept of a new IHPO which removed properties not on the List from restrictions that previously encumbered them. She voiced concern over the remaining properties on the List. Deed restrictions placed on homes raised the question of California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)applicability which could entail significant costs up to $30,000 for the preparation of an EIR for certain modifications of the historic property. An incentive-based process was beneficial to everyone concerned. She believed there should be a demolition process in place, particularly in instances where an act of God caused irreparable damage to the historic property. Homeowners should bear the burden of proof, but not be penalized for events beyond their control. As Realtors, the WVAR would like to be sure that its clients understood their obligation when moving into a historic home. The WVAR was eager to work with staff to develop an accurate disclosure statement to inform homeowners of their duties and responsibilities. The WVAR suggested that potential membership of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) be expanded beyond the homeowners of the 800 properties list.
02/16/99 88-15
Lee Brokaw, College Terrace, used an analogy for the PHPO. The parts were the individual residences and the whole was the ambience of the City. The whole would be greater than the sum of the parts if the parts were taken care of. Elsie Begle, 501 Forest Street, said her client was the first recipient of the IHPO. A PHPO was even more bureaucratic because
it was intrusive of every family=s home. She urged the Council to abandon the PHPO. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, said the Palo Alto Homeowners Association (PAHA) was not opposed to the PHPO. PAHA recognized there were historic homes in Palo Alto that should be recognized. He quoted the PAHA Principles with regard to their cooperation with the Council on the PHPO. The PAHA pledged to work with the Council to produce laws and regulations in the best interest of the people of Palo Alto. The PHPO was inadequate from the viewpoint of the PAHA. The PHPO was based on a prior draft PHPO that was found to be unacceptable to the public at the PAHA Town Hall meeting in May of 1998. There was a public outcry at the meeting which demonstrated public anxiety, frustrations, and anger at the PHPO. At a prior Council meeting, a Council Member noted that the public did not understand the PHPO. The City Attorney was directed to
rewrite the PHPO in Αplain English.≅ The PHPO was taken off the table and the IHPO was extended. A prior staff report proposed a timeline of scheduled events leading to a PHPO by March 31, 1999. The staff report stated an intention to use the previously PHPO that had been rejected by the public at the May 1998 PAHA Town Meeting and was the basis for the current PHPO. The PAHA was
alarmed at the Council=s persistence in using the rejected HPO and immediately stated their concerns. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, said the PAHA formed a grassroots organization of homeowners concerned about the IHPO and the policies the Council had announced for the PHPO. The organization realized there was no one representing the interests of the homeowners in the development of the PHPO. The PAHA developed a set of principles in response to the uproar over the PHPO. The PAHA supported historic preservation; however, it opposed the PHPO. The PAHA proposed an approach that would identify and preserve the best historic resources in the community and create a partnership between the City and homeowners. The PAHA urged the Council to develop an incentives-based, consent driven program. Consent was the critical issue and had not been analyzed as an alternative in the draft EIR. Regulations should not be imposed on the homeowner against their will and the PHPO should not be imposed against the community against its will. Significant time, money, and interest was required to preserve a home well and a fundamental choice that
was a homeowner=s right. Incentives made a PHPO more attractive and invited greater participation. The PAHA had urged the use of clear, objective criteria to identify worthy historic resources;
02/16/99 88-16
however, this advice was not heeded resulting in criteria that appeared arbitrary and capricious. So many homes were initially judged historic, that the main concern had been how to get homes
off of the List. The historic preservation program=s main consideration was to remove homes from the program, which pointed to the flawed process and criteria used and the punitive nature of the program. The PAHA requested a single category of historic resources in order to make the program simple and understandable, and proposed a goal of identifying and preserving the best historic resources in the community. Instead, there were many different categories and sets of rules and confusing terminology. The Council requested to drop the term Landmark in order to make the highest category appear less exclusive which contradicted the goal of identifying the best. The lack of support of the PHPO by homeowners affected could not be ignored and the lack of community support and vehement opposition to the PHPO had been evident every time it was presented. Many promises were made to correct the PHPO, but there were no substantial results. The PHPO was worse than the last draft HPO. The PHPO was deeply flawed and could not be salvaged. There was no data nor analysis. The process was driven by fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the future and ability of citizens to make the right choices for themselves and the community. The solution required action and not words. He urged the Council to abandon the PHPO. Annelise Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, said her property was listed as eligible for the California Register. She attended many Council meetings and watched the debate over historic preservation in Palo Alto. In June 1998, after the first draft of the PHPO was tabled due to public outcry, the City Council directed staff to do
three things: 1) provide meaningful incentives to homeowners who=s homes were being regulated by the PHPO; 2) reduce uncertainty for homeowners; and 3) publish the rewritten PHPO in plain English. After reviewing the latest draft PHPO and reflecting upon the current state of affairs, she was disappointed to report that the City failed to accomplish even one of the stated goals. The few incentives that were included in the new PHPO all provided for increased floor area ratio. The increased floor ratio might appear to be an incentive however, with some thought it was clear that it was not an incentive. A meaningful incentive that supported preserving the historic fabric of the community would be to provide some tax relief for the homeowner on the portion of the taxes paid to the City. Tax relief was done in many other communities that had implemented preservation programs and also nationally through the Mills Act. Those opportunities had been excluded from the new PHPO. She asked why the most meaningful and effective incentive was stricken from the law if the City and the vast majority of residents of Palo Alto supported the goals of preservation. The Council promised the residents that they would
be prepared to cast final votes by that evening=s meeting for the adoption of the PHPO and the public would know how the law was going to affect the residents; however, after 2 1/2 years there was
02/16/99 88-17
still no law. There was an emergency at hand, and the uncertainty had been extended an additional 6 months. CEQA was a huge uncertainty and it was clear that CEQA would apply to all historic and potentially historic properties; however, the City had provided no information on how CEQA would impact the homeowner, such as would the homeowner need to file an EIR in order to alter their homes. Further uncertainty arose with the inclusion of California Register properties. Upon careful reading of the PHPO, she discovered that homes could be included on the Palo Alto Register by being nominated by a property owner and a majority vote by the Council. A recent example was a group of homes designated as having no historical merit by the HRB but were added by the Council to the list of homes to be regulated, proved the arbitrary and uncertain nature of the decisions. The new PHPO was a more complex law than the original ordinance. Uncertainty was greater than ever due to the lack of clear criteria, the inclusion of CEQA, and the broad discretionary powers allowed the HRB and the Director in the oversight of the new PHPO. She asked why a clear and simple law, with thoughtful and tangible incentives, clear criteria for inclusion of properties, a single category of regulated homes, and broad support from the community could not be developed. Cathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, found the nomination process for historic homes as outlined in the PHPO troubling. The original PHPO regarding protection of historic Palo Alto homes began in September 1996. Twenty-nine months later, after hundreds of thousands of dollars had been spent on reviewing homes, the PHPO defined the process of nominating homes to the Inventory as an open-ended process. Section 16.49.080(a), page 10 of Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:131:99) detailed that any property owner, the Director, City Council, or the HRB might apply for designation of a Resource List property as a Heritage property. Section 16.49.080(g), page 10 of Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:131:99) stated no building, demolition or other City permit affecting a proposed Heritage property should be issued while the application for designation was pending. D&M was hired as an expert to review the historic significance of Palo Alto properties; however, the report was not clear to the public as to what criteria was used to evaluate the homes. Ms. Woods believed that if the criteria were clear and definable, Sections 16.49.080 (a) and (g) were not needed in the PHPO. The open-ended nomination process would not foster historic preservation in Palo Alto, instead the owners of Resource properties would be burdened. Ms. Woods urged the Council to have staff publish clear criteria for historic designation so the criteria could be understood. Should the community and Council agree on the criteria, and the value of preserving the homes added to the community, then the City should support the upkeep of the homes designated historic with monetary incentives. Michael Campbell, l364 Kingsley Avenue, said CEQA was chartered with the protection of the environment. CEQA required projects
02/16/99 88-18
which altered the environment under the analysis called the EIR, to determine the possible adverse environmental impacts of the project. He believed the EIR was an important environmental function because the environment belonged to everyone. The environment was composed of public resources. The State of California had declared that all historic structures were a part of the environment. From a practical standpoint, all building projects for historic properties which had discretionary review would require an EIR. The state had declared that a home was not required to be on any inventory or register to be subject to an EIR. Many homes in Palo Alto studied by D&M would be subject to CEQA requirements. The City was required to act as the lead agency for CEQA; therefore, the necessity for an EIR was called for in the PHPO. CEQA was not good news for homeowners because the typical nonrefundable deposit for an EIR was $12,000. In addition to the deposit, CEQA allowed the City one full year to complete the EIR for any individual property. The PHPO appeared to allow the HRB unlimited time to review the EIR before considering the design aspects of a permit application. The application of CEQA to residential properties carried with it the implication that historic homes by decree were public spaces. Homes were not public spaces, homes were where children were raised, faith was practiced, and where private and personal interests were pursued. Mr. Campbell rejected the assertion that his home was a public space and demanded that his home not be subject to CEQA regulations. In
order to alleviate the burden of CEQA to the homeowners, the City=s certified local government contract should be terminated and discretionary permit programs, including the IHPO and the PHPO, should be terminated unless the PHPO was altered to require the consent of the property owner for enrollment. Ann Barbee, 1106 Bryant Street, said a plaque near the corner of Waverley Street described the Professorville District (Professorville). Many of the original Stanford University professors built homes in Professorville. Professorville was a national historic district, registered as a Landmark area. Professorville was registered with the Department of the Interior in 1979 and included 113 homes. The Document of Registration described the District as having a period of historical significance between 1890 and 1920. All but 10 homes were built before World War I. Residents of Professorville had been good and faithful stewards of their neighborhood. In the 20 years since Professorville was recognized nationally, only three structures had been demolished and replaced, according to HRB member, Dennis Backlund. Additional areas which included 70 homes were added to Professorville by the Council in 1993. The areas made the boundaries more regular; however, the areas included only a few homes from the period of historic significance. She asked why the homes were included in Professorville. She noted the homes were attractive, but were not Professorville historic homes. The late additions were not subjected to the rigorous standards of a national historic district. She asked why people did not object to
02/16/99 88-19
the designation at that time. She urged the Council to: 1) leave Professorville alone and let the residents decide its fate; 2) require a vote from people directly affected before enacting a law; 3) be historically rigorous, use original districts and houses that reflected the period of historical significance and make other properties noncontributing; and 4) grant owners relief from significant financial burdens if laws were passed that no historical structures could be demolished or meaningfully altered. She urged the Council to show the community that it supported historical preservation and was willing to commit City resources to aid in preservation. Palo Alto was built on a sense of collective trust and shared destiny. Mrs. Flexer, 595 Matadero Lane, was interested in what happened to homes that were California Register eligible. Her home was a Category 3 structure and she did not understand whether her home was still being considered for historical designation. Mr. Gawf said the staff proposal was that California Register homes not be included on the Resource List and only added to the Palo Alto Register if the owner of the property requested their property be included or from a motion by the Council which nominated such a property. Daniel Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, said one of the seven principles of the PAHA was that homeowners should be encouraged to participate in the preservation program through incentives. Many had spoken about incentives and were disappointed that incentives were absent from the current law. He found three incentives related to floor area ratio (FAR) that were incentives to change the historic structure, not to maintain the structure. To obtain the incentives, the homeowner had to prove that the project was
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards for Rehabilitation and both the Director and the HRB needed to be convinced. Other incentives existed; however, the incentives were punitive in nature. For example, if the homeowner proposed making changes to the home, the Director at his discretion could cause the
homeowner to hire, at the homeowner=s expense, a preservation
architect to Αassist the evaluation of your project based on
alleged loss of reasonable economic value.≅ There was no limit as to how long the homeowner needed to retain a preservation architect. Another incentive was the opportunity for deed restriction. He said the City had yet to answer the question regarding the economic effect of deed restrictions. The members of the PAHA worked diligently for 10 months, asking their principals to develop a partnership with the City in support of thoughtful preservation. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, said according to the staff report (CMR:131:99), Attachment A, page 6, Section 16.49.030 (c)(3)the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto Stanford
02/16/99 88-20
Heritage, and other interested groups would be sent notice of vacancies on the HRB and should encourage their members to submit applications. She urged the Council to either dilute the two organizations or include other organizations. Ms. Harrington believed that Attachment A, page 8, Section 16.49.030 (e) (15) did not need to be part of the ordinance; however, should the paragraph remain as part of the PHPO, she suggested replacing the word retreat with meeting, as retreat had negative connotations that suggested the meeting would not be open to the public. She was disappointed that the formerly high community value of historic
preservation had become a noose around the homeowners= necks. Council Member Ojakian clarified that the HRB retreat was held in the Downtown Library and open to the public. Mayor Fazzino announced speakers with numbers 31 and above return the next evening at 7:00 p.m. He also announced that speaker cards would no longer be accepted. RECESS 9:30 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. Margo Schmidt, 449 Addison Avenue, supported a strong HPO. She urged the Council to pass an HPO to protect the community. Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, believed the community did not need to be regulated. A preservation ordinance needed to be drafted that took a leadership role in California. Chris Stevens, 947 Waverley Street, spoke on behalf of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PASH). He complimented staff on the improvement on the staff report (CMR:131:99) which addressed a number of serious deficiencies in the matrix that was released in December 1998. The succinct analysis of ordinances was helpful and informative. PASH was concerned about the gap in protection under the PHPO. The PASH encouraged the Council to allocate funds and time to expedite the processing of Resource List properties and final determination of their Heritage property status. PASH believed that the rapid processing of the Resource List was the single biggest thing that could be done to dissolve any remaining uncertainty. The processing of properties included on the old inventory as Categories 3 and 4 should be simple to complete as the research and documentation of those properties were already done. Once the final PHPO was in place, PASH could provide assistance to owners of Resource List and California Register eligible properties who wish to volunteer their homes for inclusion on the Heritage property register. PASH would also support neighborhoods interested in seeking Historic District status. PASH informed the Council that it intended to create a funding pool to assist limited income owners of Heritage properties that required maintenance. Owning a register listed property was a matter of pride and it was in the communities interest to insure that the properties were maintained.
02/16/99 88-21
Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, referred to the staff report (CMR:131:99) page 6, regarding item 1, Status of Properties Identified as Potentially Eligible for the California Register, paragraph 2. Staff believed that further evaluation of California Register properties was not warranted because identifying California Register properties that were most important and significant would require establishing meaningful criteria on which to make the selection, which would involve substantial consultant resources and time to complete. She urged the Council to direct the consultants and assign funding to give evaluation of California Register properties high priority, which could be done in a reasonable amount of time thus eliminating the uncertainty factor. The Council would have to explain why the 1,800 potential California Register properties were eliminated from protection. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa Avenue, suggested that owners with properties on the Resource List could, at any time, request a determination of the eligibility of their property to the Register. Those properties would take priority over others. The property would be removed from the Resource List if the home was not deemed to be eligible. A possible time frame for this procedure would be a hearing with the HRB within 45 days with Council action in 90 days. Category 3 and 4 properties were researched and the evaluation of the Category 3 and 4 properties should be a brief process. Should staff be directed to proceed with the evaluation, the research could be completed. A historic property was lost on the 1500 block of Waverley Street because the criteria used under the IHPO was more stringent than the National Register criteria. Ms. Woolley suggested the National Register criteria, rather than the criteria under the IHPO which was extremely stringent. Bern Beecham, 321 Cowper Street, spoke with a number of people on both sides of the Historic Preservation issue to see whether there was room for compromise that would broadly take care of concerns from both sides. He discussed a matrix he created that was not complete and missing a key item that might provide some basis for consideration on the concepts that Council might want staff to pursue. One area that people on both sides of the Historic Preservation issue could not agree upon was what happened in the Resource List at the end of the interim period. From the preservation side, there was no tolerance of a risk that Landmark homes would be torn down. On the other side, there was no tolerance for the continuation of uncertainty. He saw only one solution, which was to complete processing the approximately 450 structures on the Resource List by the time the IHPO was complete. The criteria for promoting category 3 and 4 structures from the Resource List to the Register was whether the structures still had historical integrity. The evaluation of historical integrity was a simple evaluation which could be done in a matter of a few weeks. He suggested that only the best examples of a group of structures, such as Eichlers, be selected for historic designation.
02/16/99 88-22
Council Member Ojakian asked Mr. Beecham which category was his home classified. Mr. Beecham said he lived in a Category 4 home and according to state law, he could not discuss the historic preservation issue with his colleagues on the Planning Commission nor with people within his agency, the Planning Department. However, he could discuss the matter with the Council and members of the public. John R. Griffiths, 1266 Hamilton Avenue, expressed concern over the fact that some of the Council had declared themselves in conflict with historic preservation. He believed the Council had done a fine job in creating standards for the development of single-family dwellings. There were some bad examples and eyesores; however, overall, the City had great diversity in its architecture. He believed including properties on a Resource List was a taking of property. People who were affected by their property being on the Resource List should have input. If the Council wanted to save the historic homes, some kind of tax incentive should be given to the people whose properties were affected. There were ambiguities in the PHPO, and many people were being hurt by the PHPO. Jim Culpepper, 2121 Amherst Street, complimented the Director and staff on the job of pulling together a PHPO which was moderate in tone and modest in its purposes. The PHPO did not and could not address the concerns which the people of College Terrace brought to the Council; however, the PHPO did provide the mechanism for addressing their concerns which was the creation of a Historic District. He quoted the designation criteria and procedures for Historic Districts. The designation criteria applied to College Terrace which was the oldest neighborhood in the City and the birth place of Birge Clark, and the longtime home of Lucy Evans. He requested that the Council expedite the procedure, address the concerns specifically regarding College Terrace, and that the Council request the Director to prepare an application for the designation of the College Terrace neighborhood as a Historic District. The Director had access to more information about College Terrace which brought a fresh and interested point of view to the situation, which was precisely what the community needed. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said there was some
misapprehension regarding the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards. The standards were developed by nationally prominent historians and architects. PAHA and other organizations that supported historic preservation recognized that the Secretary of
the Interior=s Standards were the best approach to assure the historic properties retained their integrity. Remodeling was not prohibited, but permitted. The standards only applied to the exterior of the historic property. The standards were clearly written to allow older homes to be updated and to accommodate new uses or changes in lifestyle. According to the Secretary of the
02/16/99 88-23
Interior=s Standards, other materials were permitted if it was not technically or economically feasible to use original materials to preserve the character of the historic property. He understood demolition was permitted when a property was substantially damaged due to a disastrous incident such as an earthquake and that CEQA did not require an EIR. CEQA specifically provided that
alterations that complied with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards met the CEQA requirements. Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:131:99) was a useful comparison of HPOs of other cities in the state. The survey underscored the fact that in order for an HPO to be in effective compliance, it should be mandatory rather than voluntary. K.C. Marcinik, 4046 Ben Lomond Drive, discussed Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:131:99). She compared the number of properties protected by mandatory compliance with the population of each city,
and did the same for Palo Alto=s proposed registry of properties.
Based on the per capita numbers, Palo Alto=s PHPO would protect fewer than 20 percent of its properties in comparison to the properties protected in four of the cities, and fewer than 60 percent of its properties protected compared to the remaining four cities. Only a few registry properties would benefit from incentives such as increased FAR, basements and attics not included, and exceptions to setback, height, and daylight plane requirements. The incentives would make the difference between properties which would be torn down and those which were remodeled and had additions. Including Category 3 and 4 properties on the Register would protect the same percentage of properties protected in Boulder, Riverside, Orange, and Pasadena, and protect a smaller percentage in comparison to properties protected in Alameda, Claremont, Los Gatos, and Pacific Grove. Ida Stelling, 3160 Louis Road, did not know whether her property was on the Resource List or not and requested that her property be removed if it was on the Resource List. George Koerner, 2130 Yale Street, said the City was known for its older homes and friendly neighborhoods. He believed the two attributes were connected. He expressed his concern over the loss of historic homes. The PHPO was a chance to protect historic properties from being lost. He urged the Council to make the PHPO airtight and without loopholes to protect the community and heritage. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, spoke on behalf of the University South Neighbors Group Board of Directors. She was concerned that stripping the teeth from the PHPO would eventually strip Palo Alto neighborhoods of its character. Preserving the older homes and buildings in the area, preserved the character and heart of Downtown Palo Alto. Individual owners could not be relied on to protect their historic properties. Property rights should
02/16/99 88-24
also extend to the neighbors and community, not only to the current owners of historic properties. A strong HPO would help preserve the history and neighborhoods that contributed to the identity of the City. She urged the Council to adopt a strong HPO as soon as possible. Dimitri Rotow, 789 University Avenue, bought his home as a place for his family to live. He opposed the PHPO. Real historic preservation was living with a home and dealing with plaster and lathe, ancient wiring, plumbing and people with little knowledge of how to work on the properties. The Council had criminalized the owners of historic properties who invested in real terms in historic resources. The Council did not understand the PHPO and few people could identify the actual impact of the PHPO. He urged the Council to allow incentives to people that could not afford the upkeep on their historic property. Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Street, spoke on behalf of the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors (PWVAR). The PWVAR concurred with Mr. Mike Santolo who spoke to the HRB in December 1998, regarding the issue of disclosure and historic homes. The PWVAR was working on the standard disclosure, they encouraged its use by all firms that did business in the area, so that any perspective buyer would understand the historic properties would be subject to regulation and that there would be criteria for any alterations. Mr. Santolo mentioned at the December 1998, meeting that he did not receive a full list of the documents needed to apply for an alteration which he wished to make to his Hamilton Avenue home. The PWVAR, as well as, the HRB was dismayed after one and one-half years that a review committee that was set up to streamline procedures still had not produced an appropriate matrix for the
public=s use. The public should have a full understanding and a definitive list of all documentation needed to apply for an alteration. The PWVAR urged the Council to vote for the PHPO as suggested by Mr. Gawf. The process of including homes on any Palo Alto Register of historic homes should be consensual as it was in the City of Pasadena. The PHPO was flawed for several reasons: 1) there was no clear support from the community regarding the list of 800 homes, and the subjective nature of the guidelines was of concern; 2) the criteria for potential inclusion of additional homes was unclear; 3) there would be a recorded deed restriction and potential expense for homeowners changes to their homes; and 4) the homeowners might be responsible for an EIR which could cost $12,000 or more. Perspective buyers wanted clarity and needed to understand that there was no clarity and there were 800 homes still in limbo, possibly for another six months. The lack of time constraints on the HRB was a concern. The PWVAR requested definitive, timed guidelines which would clearly define specific time parameters. Andrea Salmon, 1143 Webster Street, said her husband and she had spoken to the Council at intervals during the PHPO process. At a
02/16/99 88-25
prior meeting, she provided the Council with a graphic of her home when it was bought and how the home currently existed. Her home did not merit being ranked as a National Register property nor did
the home appear to fit the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards. The Planning Department notified her that her property was taken off the National Register and also removed from the California Register. Although she was relieved that her property was safe from the regulations, the relief was short-lived because the principles under which she had opposed the PHPO were, in fact, continuing to evolve. There was also no guarantee that her home would not be reassimilated into a list at any time. She believed the intent of the legislators is oftentimes responsible for unintended consequences. Her home survived the 1906 and the 1988 earthquakes; however, her home did not do well during the El Nino storms. She urged the Council to allow homeowners that preserved their own homes to continue to do so. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Avenue, was interested in preserving the community and not trying to maximize profit from his home. He was well aware of the cost of the upkeep and problems of maintaining an older house. He emphasized that his house was a home, not an investment. Many people spoke in favor of a voluntary HPO; however, he urged the Council to make the HPO mandatory. He heard people comment that there were not enough incentives in the PHPO; however, he noted that many people would love to have 500 square feet added to their property when they were already maxed out. Regarding the people that did not want to use the 500 square feet, he suggested the Council make the 500 square feet transferrable the way it was done for commercial properties in the Downtown area. A problem with giving rebates in property taxes was that most of the money would come out of the school district within the City of Palo Alto. He suggested an incentive similar to the utilities discount the City offered when encouraging residents to install solar panels. He supported option 2, page 9 of the staff report
(CMR:131:99), ΑModify the current Interim Regulations≅, with one modification; instead of dropping the 1,800 possible California Register eligible properties, he suggested setting the properties aside to be extensively reviewed. The properties should be separated with clear criteria, the properties not eligible should be dropped, and concentration be placed on the 200 or 300 properties that were eligible. He believed that staff and Council did a good job in general. Concentration should be placed on the community ambience and not the profits of a few individuals. RECESS: 9:30 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. Mayor Fazzino announced that Item No. 7 would be continued to an adjourned meeting of Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at 7 p.m. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
02/16/99 88-26
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at 7 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.
02/16/99 88-27