HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-17 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of February 16, 1999, to February 17, 1999 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 (continued from 2/16/99)...........88-27 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m............88-54
02/17/99 88-26
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Schneider UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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 (continued from 2/16/99) Mayor Fazzino opened the public hearing. Jared Bernstein, 1330 Tasso, suggested the Council ask the Planning Commission to consider City redevelopment of the former Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) property; for instance, the City could buy and move historic houses to the PAMF property. The new development would be visually and architecturally integrated with the surrounding area. People who owned but did not want historic houses would have a means by which to recover, and the City could directly invest in historic preservation. Earl F. Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, supported Mr. Bernstein's suggestion. Having been actively involved in historic preservation in California since 1947, he worked closely with all of the State historic officers and staff. The new California Register was created in 1998 with no track record and came into existence solely to avoid further State embarrassment over the earlier, nearly frivolous non-historic site nominations with political landmark designations for historic sites in California under the National Register. The Council was warned about becoming involved in the California Register or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He was the owner of a piece of residential property located at the corner of Homer Avenue and Emerson Streets, currently zoned by the City without his knowledge, for a hotel/motel development. The property contained four occupied residential units designated as 201 Homer Avenue, 209 Homer Avenue, 761 Emerson Street, and 795 Emerson Street; each of the other units were rentals with long-term tenants. None of the property properly qualified for single-family consideration under any existing or proposed historic plan. He also owned two other commercial properties located at Homer and Edison Streets, which had been carefully preserved for historical character for more than 90 years without any City help, ordinances, or support. None of the properties fit the present plans' single family home designation. The Council was asked to immediately
02/17/99 88-27
remove the private holdings from any landmark, heritage, or any other historic designation, zoning or other special consideration. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke in favor of historic preservation. The City's current ordinance was unsatisfactory in dealing with the current situation with respect to historic structures. If the community wanted to preserve its fabric and history, a stronger ordinance was necessary. Staff had done its best to separate the major issues, but if any historic legacy was to be preserved in Palo Alto, effective changes had to be made soon. Inflammatory and inaccurate information was spread to homeowners on the list and, as a result, tensions had risen. The only important "tooth" in the draft ordinance was the prohibition of demolition. The insides of houses and whether or not the owner could expand were issues not affected by the draft ordinance, although there was regulation with regard to how expansions could be handled. The Council should consider the issue of property rights in light of what it meant, for instance, the right to demolish a historic home. If homeowners were allowed to destroy homes regardless of the historic value, nothing of value would be left of Palo Alto's history. The most important structures should require mandatory compliance. The CEQA issues would probably not apply to individual homeowners since the issue was covered in the ordinance's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). When properties were treated as lots, developers purchased land for quick sale regardless of the house. If historic structures were designated as houses, they would sell as houses. Landmark designation of homes increased rather than decreased the value. Chuck Bradley, 2957 Waverley Street, spoke about the complexity of the historic ordinance as opposed to what was proposed one year prior. He was concerned about the potential effects of CEQA which would place an unjustified burden on homeowners. The Palo Alto Homeowners Association (PAHA) was thanked for bringing the issue of CEQA into the open. To take the 1,800 homes from the Resource List, but still subject to CEQA regulations was unfair. He asked whether it was true that under CEQA any property once listed for study purposes was automatically considered an environmental resource even if removed from the list, or whether CEQA was invoked and an EIR required creating a $12,000 expenditure or whether CEQA violation fines could exceed the market value of the property. The Council was urged to terminate the contract with CEQA, as stated in paragraph 2 in the Certification Agreement, Appendix E, in the draft EIR which allowed the City to be de-certified at will. Anna Gardner, 731-D Loma Verde, life-long resident of Palo Alto, saw historic houses torn down daily. Her business involved recycling building materials, whereby she and her husband went into homes prior to demolition to claim salvageable materials. The house she was currently working on was located at 1106 Hamilton Avenue, was a Spanish style house which, contained hand-wrought iron work and accents. The prior owners owned much property
02/17/99 88-28
Downtown. The original owner had designed and built the house and had recently given up the property because the owner was sure the house would be preserved, but through the historic ordinance process had discovered to their dismay that the house could be destroyed. The Council was urged to replace the removed 1,800 houses, expand the number of houses, and slow down because the face of the City was changing too fast. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale, spoke about the possible compromise being attempted by the two sides which, although laudable, could not happen. Homes in Palo Alto sold quickly and for a large amount of money. Some homeowners indicated obtaining permits to modify or maintain old homes was expensive, cumbersome, and nearly impossible; however, one homeowner received a permit for extensive remodeling on a landmark home in about six weeks. Owners of listed properties would not have to prepare individual EIRs for changes to homes since compliance with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation was full mitigation under CEQA, eliminating the need for individual EIRs. Many charming historic homes were destroyed or remodeled to all but erase the original house. Since compromise was impossible, the Council was asked to exercise the leadership role for which they were elected to move forward with the ordinance, concentrating City energy and resources on speedy evaluation of Resource Listed properties, and directing staff to develop the appropriate process to reduce or eliminate any extra bureaucratic burden associated with owning historic property. The Council was also urged to move ahead quickly with the second half of the purpose of the ordinance: preservation of neighborhood character. Neighborhoods deserved protection and the Council was urged to move quickly to direct staff to develop a neighborhood conservation district program while there was still something left to be saved. As a member of the board of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST), she recommended the draft ordinance contain additional language to notify the Historic Resources Board (HRB) upon any application for a major alteration of a Resource Listed property, providing the HRB the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the property whether or not action was taken. Monica Yeong Arima, 1052 Bryant Street, spoke as a property owner in Professorville who had recently gone through the Landmark Alteration Review process. The neighborhood compatibility and historic home protection issues should be separated. The historic ordinance would not stop demolitions in Palo Alto nor the creation of the "Taco Bell" or monster house, which were Citywide design review issues. A house designated as a Landmark should truly be a Landmark, not just a house neighbors did not want torn down. Appreciation was expressed for adjustments made to regulations for older home remodeling, which was crucial for the success of preservation. If more residents were to be encouraged to remodel rather than tear down older homes, the economics had to work. Older homes deserved the same land-use rights as new constructions. People who owned historic homes should not be required to bear
02/17/99 88-29
costs or fees for the review, such as extra consultation fees and deposits. Disagreement was expressed with the maintenance burden contained in the ordinance. The original ordinance, although weak, worked and should not be changed. Mary Schaefer, 742 DeSoto Drive, said magnificent homes were built in Palo Alto during the prior five years, some of which had gone through an awkward stage until the landscaping had developed. Compelling reasons could result in demolitions, such as lack of structural integrity, neglect, flood plain, and optimum use. Many were maintained and cherished without legislation. Although some changes were more satisfactory than others, the City was a living organism which changed over time. The draft ordinance and mandated Professorville restrictions could cause the City to lose its sense of history. Financial and creative hurdles were found. Much of what was going on was not a historic problem, but a zoning problem. Although new homes stood out, the problem was the location next to a modest ranch homes. Zoning, landscaping, and sensitivity could eliminate such problems. New houses, with landscaping, could in time settle into the rich architecture the community enjoyed. To limit creative additions to neighborhoods would result in the City's loss. Zoning that reflected the contour of a neighborhood was far better than historic controls as the growth and age of the City changed. Karen Fredrickson, 2257 Hanover Street, spoke in appreciation of historic structures and good architecture whether old or new. Good design should be encouraged. The former work of the HRB and Barbara Judy was frightening for people interested in remodeling older homes. Support should be given to the owners of older homes. The Council was urged to make the requirements simple, clear, predictable, not arbitrary, and not bureaucratic, which resulted in good architecture. Some of the older houses should be taken down, but the new houses should have strict design review. A homeowner's bill of rights with an appeal process was encouraged. She asked about a task force comprised of members with different points of view with a willingness to come to some common agreement to provide help to people interested in modifying older homes. She thought there was a consensus of opinion, but the difference was how to get to the same place which had become divisive. She disagreed that College Terrace was an historic district. Although some nice homes were in the College Terrace neighborhood, there were also some bad examples of architecture both old and new. The CEQA contract was opposed as well as the extension of the interim ordinance. The solution became worse than the problem. Not everything old was good. A strong effort on the part of the City could result in an acceptable compromise. Mayor Fazzino closed the public hearing. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the public made a number of comments regarding CEQA implications of the
02/17/99 88-30
draft ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Wynn Furth conducted an analysis of both CEQA and its application to the draft ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Wynn Furth said staff had not covered the issue of the City's ability to eliminate itself from the CEQA process, because she had not understood it as a source of confusion. The City could not terminate its contract with CEQA as a certified local government, because CEQA was a Statewide environmental law which applied to projects the City carried out or approved, whether or not certified local government for local historical preservation purposes. Confusion surrounded the question of what it meant to be subject to CEQA. CEQA was modeled after the Federal Environmental Protection Act (EPA). When originally adopted, CEQA had only applied to government projects, such as new city halls. However, in a case involving a ski resort to be built by Walt Disney Corporation, CEQA was changed to apply to private projects as well if government approvals were required. The purpose of CEQA was to provide information to decision makers. CEQA only came into play when there was a decision to be made and discretion to be exercised. If something on the property resulted in an automatic entitlement after evaluating objective standards such as a building in a setback area with sufficient support to meet construction standards. CEQA would not be involved, no matter how large the project. Without a discretionary review, no information would be necessary about the environmental impact, because there was no choice as to whether or not to issue the permit. The first question for the Planning Department when a permit was pulled was whether the project was subject to CEQA. Most of the time the answer would be "no," since a building permit was ministerial. If discretionary approval was necessary, for instance, a variance to build a doorway in the setback was discretionary and not something the owner was entitled to as a matter of right. The next question was whether a statutory exemption from CEQA was possible, for instance, the kind of discretionary approval on which the State required no review. Categorical exemptions handled most of the discretionary permits that came before the City, such as minor changes in land use decisions in the building of a small building and minor changes in land use regulations. Typically, when the City approved a home improvement exception, variance, or conditional use permit for a business, it was categorically exempt. There was no CEQA analysis and no EIR. Although subject to CEQA, the process was short and quick. If none of the exemptions were possible, an initial study would be conducted. The checklist for the initial study was 12 pages long and contained a list of environmental factors that might be affected, ranging from geology in soils and air quality to cultural resources. If the checklist was marked entirely with "no impact," a negative declaration could be issued meaning there was no impact. The negative declaration was posted for 21 days but was a simple document prepared in-house. If there were significant impacts, an EIR would be conducted which focused on the problem
02/17/99 88-31
areas of the project. Often, a project might have an impact, but the City could rely on a previously prepared EIR, the most common example was the EIR in the City's Comprehensive Plan in which the global situation of the City was examined, and decisions were made. A proposed project consistent with what the City had already approved, if it would not create new impacts and would not require any site-specific analysis, a new EIR would not be required. The first step for the City was adoption of the ordinance, followed by an initial study. Since staff already knew environmental impacts were involved in the ordinance, a focused EIR was sought on cultural resources and aesthetic impacts. Once the EIR was finished, it would either find significant adverse impacts in an environmental sense or it would not. Staff believed that under CEQA, the draft ordinance had significant adverse environmental impacts. Staff had not proposed the City save every building the State classified as a cultural resource. If the Council adopted the draft ordinance after reading the EIR and understanding the full environmental consequences, a "statement of overriding considerations" would have to be adopted. That statement indicated the Council understood there were costs to the proposal, for instance, buildings would be lost which were considered by the state to be cultural resources but, for the reasons articulated, was a choice the Council made. Implementing whatever program was adopted meant maintenance on a heritage property, minor alterations, and major alterations would be exempt from CEQA. A demolition, however, was more complicated. The initial study questionnaire would have to be filled out. If the impacts of demolishing the particular type, group, or class of buildings were discussed by the Council, the 1999 ordinance's EIR could be used. A negative declaration could be used if, for example, the property was in terrible physical shape. If someone wanted to destroy a famous, high-quality building, an EIR might be necessary. Other factors might be involved with the property other than the historical significance, such as heritage trees or toxic waste problems. The same analysis applied for Resource List properties. The difference was that in major alterations, voluntary compliance was given so a permit was not issued. There could be something about a proposal to demolish a Resource List property could that lead to a CEQA action. If the Council decided to place property on the register, it would be an exempt activity. If a decision was made not to place the property on the register, an initial study would had to be conducted. In most cases, staff expected the Council to be able to rely on the 1999 ordinance EIR. The purpose in doing the EIR was to sufficiently describe the possible consequences of not protecting all cultural resources so that as the Council decided to implement the program in the future, it would not require a negative declaration or focused EIR. Although the City might not be successful in all cases, that was the plan. Historic district contributing properties would be involved in the same analysis. In the process of adding or removing properties from the Resource List in the Palo Alto Register, buildings to be added would be exempt under CEQA. If not added, the Council would
02/17/99 88-32
have considered the environmental consequences of not having added the building to the Resource List when consideration was given to the ordinance itself, since that was the regulatory scheme staff proposed. In the draft EIR, staff would describe how not adding a particular building to the Resource List meant the property would not be protected by law, could be demolished if so desired, and then list the possible consequences of such action. If the Council adopted the ordinance, a statement of overriding consideration would be adopted indicating the Council understood it was in the best interest of the City to consider not just environmental factors but all the things decision makers had to consider. The same analysis would apply to additions to the Palo Alto Register. Properties for removal from the list due to poor condition and lacking integrity, would also be covered by the 1999 ordinance EIR. Given the creativity of the community, it was unlikely but possible that the addition of a closet or any other alteration would require a negative declaration or EIR. Council Member Eakins asked about Ms. Furth's reference to a property that was not in good shape which the draft ordinance had described as a "dangerous" condition. Ms. Furth said her reference had not been from the point of view of standards in the ordinance but from the standpoint of CEQA. CEQA was not concerned with the particular permits the City might or might not issue, but about changes on the ground. From CEQA's standpoint, a very decrepit structure might be considered to be demolished through time and neglect and not by the decision made by the Council. The decision merely ratified what had already occurred rather than having created the demolition. Council Member Eakins thought there was a fine line between the description of "decrepit" and "dangerous" and asked whether decrepit would be relevant to the economic feasibility of maintaining such a structure. Ms. Furth said not necessarily. An application could come before the Council for a demolition which the Council thought should be granted because of economic reasons, but might still require an environmental review. Council Member Eakins said a number of comments were made over the months about buildings being in such bad shape that no one would buy them. She asked whether it was just the discretion of the decision-making body to determine the building was not marketable and could be destroyed or whether the draft ordinance declared more was involved than reliance on the 1999 ordinance EIR. Ms. Furth said a more definitive answer would be possible after staff proceeded further with the ordinance EIR. The intention of the EIR was to cover and analyze the consequences of alterations and classifications, for instance to cover demolitions of any
02/17/99 88-33
California Register eligible properties the Council determined would not be placed on the Palo Alto Register. The first draft had not contained detailed analysis of the consequences of Palo Alto Register properties, which should be more closely examined to determine to what extent it might be covered. Staff had not designed the EIR to facilitate such demolitions or to anticipate in advance what all of the particular factors might be. Vice Mayor Wheeler said many concerns were enunciated about CEQA and to whom it would apply. Questions and statements were made about whether the 1,800 homes staff recommended be removed from the ordinance would be subject to CEQA in any way. Ms. Furth said for homes, the answer was no. For other structures, the answer could be yes. Whether the structure was subject to CEQA depended upon the proposed project. CEQA stated when an analysis was conducted, the whole project had to be considered. If, for example, a project was to redevelop commercial property and the property qualified as a cultural resource under the State's standards, such a project was almost always subject to design review as a discretionary project. If the whole project was analyzed, the old building knocked down and replaced with a new one which included a discretionary review, the project would be subject to CEQA and would include an analysis of the historic structure. However, the same discretionary review was not true for houses which, therefore, were not subject to CEQA review. Vice Mayor Wheeler understood it would not only apply to the 1,800 structures, assuming the Council agreed with staff's latest recommendations, but also applied to the larger "universes" which at one point were 4,400 and another 6,000. She assumed the larger universes would not be affected by CEQA if it was an individual home. Ms. Furth said Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler said concern was expressed about potential financial impacts on homeowners who might be in the position of having to prepare or pay for the preparation of environmental documentation for demolition of a home. Numbers ranging from $12,000 to $30,000 were expressed by members of the public, which she thought referred to a full EIR document. Ms. Furth seemed to indicate the need for a much more narrowly-focused document. She asked the potential cost impacts of such environmental documents to individual property owners. Ms. Furth said Palo Alto conducted the ultimate EIR with Sand Hill. The environmental documents an individual homeowner would be required to produce would focus on one particular impact, in most cases, the loss of a cultural resource.
02/17/99 88-34
Mr. Gawf said even a focused EIR was several thousand dollars. A full EIR ranged from $20,000 to $30,000 up to the larger Sand Hill type of numbers. The goal of the City's 1999 ordinance EIR, however, was to provide clearance for most actions, including demolitions. The intent was not to make each person desiring a demolition of a house to prepare an EIR, which was why staff was going through the laborious process of conducting an EIR for the ordinance itself. Ms. Furth said when an EIR was prepared for an ordinance, it could either just talk about the process of adopting the ordinance, a "Project EIR," or a "Program EIR" could be prepared which provided environmental clearance not only for the ordinance, but for implementing the ordinance, which was the project staff had undertaken. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about case in which a house was on the Resource List and by one means or another was considered for the Palo Alto Register. There was no issue if the owner volunteered to place the house on the Palo Alto Register. But if the owner did not want the house on the Palo Alto Register, the Council would make the decision. He asked whether an EIR would be required to help the Council make the decision. Ms. Furth replied no. Such decisions would be covered in the 1999 ordinance EIR. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about a contributing structure in an historic district under the draft ordinance for which a permit was applied to the City for demolition. The Council, in order to approve the demolition, must make certain findings. He asked whether an EIR would be required. Ms. Furth replied no. The City was required to make a finding that the loss of the building would not significantly impair the district, which was designed to avoid the need for an EIR. One of the consequences of that threshold was the avoidance of damaging the district and, therefore, an EIR would not be expected, which was one of the issues to be analyzed in the 1999 ordinance EIR. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the possibility of a reoccurrence of a situation when the City Attorney determined a negative mitigation was sufficient in a recent case involving a set of tennis courts where the neighboring property owner felt differently. Ms. Furth said the Council was more aware of the potential pool of litigants than she, but it was always possible someone would disagree with an analysis and it was even possible the individual could win. However, staff would try to write both the 1999 ordinance EIR and staff reports on individual actions in a way which presented a clear record that whatever action the Council
02/17/99 88-35
took would be justified and hoped the courts would support the City's stand. However, any person could file a lawsuit under any circumstances. Mr. Gawf said a significant difference between the two was that in the current case, staff would prepare an ordinance EIR in anticipation of Council action. In the scenario described by Council Member Rosenbaum, no EIR existed to cover the proposed action. Ms. Furth said Mr. Gawf's point was important. The most difficult CEQA lawsuit to win was the one sustaining a negative declaration because the burden of proof on the City was heavy and the burden on the person wishing to overturn the negative declaration was very light. It was more difficult to overturn an EIR or reliance on an EIR. Mr. Gawf said the Council was provided with two documents, one outlining the circulated draft EIR with questions staff considered posing to the Council, and the other was the interim ordinance laying out the options he had described the prior evening concerning direction to staff. Council Member Eakins asked about a claim by a member of the public the evening before that City representatives stated the draft ordinance would not apply to historic City properties. Mr. Gawf understood the draft ordinance would apply to City properties. Ms. Furth said cities normally had the authority to include or exclude themselves from the application of their own ordinance, so the choice was the Council's. The City's properties and projects were subject to CEQA, so because the City was the government agency the expenditure of public funds was always involved. Anytime the City undertook a project involving one of its historic resources, it would be subject to CEQA analysis. Council Member Eakins asked whether the draft ordinance applied to Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) historic properties. Ms. Furth said school districts had special status under state law as local branches of state government. Whether or not subject to local regulation was a decision initially made by the state. A large range of school district activities were not subject to city regulation, which provided the district with the power to exempt themselves from local zoning regulations. A detailed analysis was not conducted of whether historic regulations would fall into that group. The Council could chose whether or not to seek to regulate the PAUSD, but PAUSD might also have the ability to avoid any attempt by the City to regulate.
02/17/99 88-36
Council Member Eakins asked whether the City could regulate state- owned properties. Ms. Furth replied no. The City would also be unable to regulate federally-owned properties. City Manager June Fleming said staff previously received instructions from the Council not to exempt the City from rules, regulations, and ordinances imposed on others. However, the Council could make an individual decision for each. She could not recall a time that the City had exempted itself. Council Member Eakins said her experience supported Ms. Fleming's comments. Vice Mayor Wheeler confirmed no language in the draft ordinance indicated the City had chosen to write into the law that it was exempting itself. Ms. Furth said Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler said lengthy discussions were held in the past concerning City properties and the City's existing inventory under the original ordinance; for instance, the City had subjected itself to historic review on properties such as the Children's Theater. Ms. Furth said Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct. Council Member Ojakian said the Council received an e-mail from Mr. Blaze from Klein, Valantine and Blaze describing a piece of property on which he wanted to make alterations and get the property recognized on the National Historic Register. Initially, some of the alterations were objected to at the federal level but after working with federal staff, he was able to make alterations to the property while placing it on the National Historic Register. He asked how much flexibility would be involved in the process with regard to alterations to properties. Mr. Gawf understood flexibility was possible. At the Council's December 7, 1998, meeting, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) relayed a message indicating the City might have applied Secretary of Interior standards too rigorously. There should be flexibility. Staff began to examine the range of modifications and improvements consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and found the statement true. Staff's goal was to work with property owners to provide flexibility from the personal, as well as, the historic preservation standpoint. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff would work from a policy perspective or use the general language in the draft ordinance on a case-by-case basis.
02/17/99 88-37
Mr. Gawf said staff would work on a case-by-case basis but the draft ordinance also provided implementation guidelines that might be made more specific as to how some of the processes and standards were applied. Several places in the draft ordinance contained phrases addressing how the City would work with property owners on almost a consulting basis to help achieve objectives. Staff intentionally included such phrasing to ensure not only that the ordinance language was clear but that the philosophy the Council wanted instilled in the ordinance was clear. Council Member Ojakian asked how to respond to individuals who made comments about clarity in the process and procedure. Mr. Gawf said staff was faced with the dilemma of trying to provide predictability along with flexibility. The City could provide predictability by having written guidelines but could at the same time allow flexibility in its application. The attitude and approach staff took to the review was of great importance, for instance, assisting and educational versus regulatory. Staff planned to take the assistance and education approach to help people preserve, not regulate, historic property. The only way to determine whether or not the City had been successful was to ask the people who had gone through the process. Staff was committed to conduct a survey of every user of the process to find out how well the City had done and whether the process was reasonable, flexible, and produced good results. Results would be shared with the Council and the community. Such accountability was the best determinate. Council Member Rosenbaum asked who would pay for the expert mentioned on page 16 of the draft ordinance under Alteration of Heritage Properties (f), "if due to the unique or unusual nature of the work the director determines it is necessary to use the advice of an expert consultant and/or to fully evaluate the application, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to retain an expert satisfactory to the director." Mr. Gawf said staff anticipated the applicant would actually pay for the consultant; however, taking that course became one of the "red flags." Although the language was fairly standard in historic ordinances, it was a flag he raised. Given comments made by members of the public, the issue could be a double red flag. The City needed to consider different approaches. The process should not be burdensome either time-wise or financially for people to go through. Rather than as great a reliance on consultants, more reliance should be placed on an historic preservation officer who worked for the City, for instance someone who was available to help people and provided some of the expertise. Staff knew the draft ordinance was not perfect and required refining based on comments members made by the public and the Council made.
02/17/99 88-38
Council Member Rosenbaum said the next sentence in the same paragraph on page 16 of the draft ordinance stated, "the director may also utilize the services of an expert consultants of the City where necessary to evaluate an application at the expense of the applicant" for a commercial property while the prior statement had not specifically mentioned who would pay for consultants for residential properties. Mr. Gawf said a commercial developer on a commercial or non-single family, non-duplex property was required to go through CEQA review, which was paid for by the applicant. Also, discretionary reviews were required and paid for by developers. City staff hired the consultant, and the consultant was reimbursed by the developer. In non-developer situations with single-family houses, the applicant would not be required to pay for the review. Council Member Rosenbaum asked exactly what the director was permitted to do under Section 16.49.135(a) at the bottom of page 16 of the draft ordinance with reference to the comment the director could "modify a proposed alteration." Mr. Gawf said the section was intended to address the fact the director could recommend conditions on major alterations to ensure consistency with Secretary of Interior guidelines. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the wording meant the director still had the right to make a change on a project approved by the HRB or the City Council on appeal. Ms. Furth replied no. The intention was to say the reviews were similar to design reviews or conditional use permits in that the director, after hearing from the HRB or the Council on an appeal, was not limited to saying "yes" or "no" but could say yes with certain conditions. Mr. Gawf said the HRB could only make a recommendation to the director or the Council for action. Mayor Fazzino asked for further staff comments on the draft ordinance. Mr. Gawf said staff sought direction from the Council on two issues. The first was for comments on the recirculated draft EIR or issues staff should examine to ensure the full range of options the Council might want considered were covered, including additional incentives. Mayor Fazzino clarified the other issues the Council could potentially identify were either in the EIR or draft ordinance. Mr. Gawf replied yes. Staff sought comments to ensure the City had environmental clearance prior to June 1999 so the Council would
02/17/99 88-39
have the flexibility to consider the options. The second direction staff sought was whether to continue the existing interim ordinance, let the interim ordinance expire, or modify the interim ordinance. Staff would not want to include properties eligible for the California Register under the interim ordinance. Mayor Fazzino asked whether staff required formal action from the Council on the EIR project parameters or simply sought comments and suggestions. Mr. Gawf said formal action was unnecessary, since staff was primarily interested in hearing comments to ensure the things the Council wanted staff to consider were included. Mayor Fazzino asked about incentives. Mr. Gawf said the incentives should definitely be according to the direction or will of the Council. Mayor Fazzino said, based on the information staff had provided, he was unsure. The staff was asking the Council not to be in a decision-making mode with respect to the permanent ordinance. Mr. Gawf said such a request of staff was legitimate. Staff wanted to focus as much as possible on options on which the Council was truly interested. Council Member Eakins asked whether the comments and suggestions made by the Council at the current meeting would be used for discussion of the EIR in the future. Ms. Furth replied yes. If staff failed to discuss and analyze the impacts in the EIR, the Council would be unable to act on them. Mayor Fazzino recommended the Council continue to proceed along the same lines it had been going, identifying the issues constituting possible project parameters after which the Council could discuss the interim ordinance. Council Member Eakins asked whether other syntactical or clarity issues could be submitted in writing rather than going through each item individually. Mayor Fazzino and Mr. Gawf replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum said several speakers had referenced an issue, for example, the statement on page 11 of the draft ordinance under Section 16.49.080(a), "any property owner the director and city council...may apply for designation," which was somewhat ambiguous. He suggested the wording "the property owner" instead.
02/17/99 88-40
Mr. Gawf said in the first sentence, "any" property owner was appropriate because it spoke of moving a nominated property from the Resource List to the Palo Alto Register. In the second sentence, the property owner of the property in question was being referenced. Ms. Furth agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum that the first sentence failed to make sense if it meant any property owner for any property, then why not any person for any property. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the intent. Ms. Furth said in the prior draft, the wording was "any person." The issue was for moving property already placed on the Resource List. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why the City would want to put itself in the position of saying that anyone could nominate 300 properties, for example, in one week. Mr. Gawf said the decision was one the Council would have to make. The Council might wish to be more restrictive. The first sentence was seen in other historic preservation ordinances. Given the issues surrounding the draft ordinance, it was a policy question for the Council. The Council might wish to restrict nominations to the property owner, staff, or the HRB. Mayor Fazzino asked how the issues would be flagged. He had concerns about the language for the section mentioned by Council Member Rosenbaum. Instead of having staff listen to his five minute speech, he wanted to be sure the issue was flagged and the Council would have the opportunity to address the issue from a policy perspective. Mr. Gawf agreed, indicating staff was flagging Council Member comments from the two evenings as well as other comments. It was not too late for good comments, which helped staff to identify how the City should proceed for the final ordinance. Council Member Ojakian agreed with not limiting comments to the one section since the issue was sprinkled throughout the draft ordinance. Section 16.49.085(a) also used the same language, "any individual or group included but not limited to a property owner." He thought Council Member Rosenbaum's comments were meant to be pervasive and not isolated to a particular section. Ms. Fleming suggested the Council verbalize agreement, such as Council Member Ojakian had done, so staff could determine whether the suggestion received unanimous agreement upon which staff could proceed.
02/17/99 88-41
Ms. Furth said the comments were important for trying to put together an ordinance that would work well. The comments were less crucial in the CEQA analysis since procedural processes could be modified and tightened. Other kinds of categorizations and incentives would have a big impact on the CEQA analysis. Mayor Fazzino suggested if a Council Member raised a point, other Council Members should indicate interest, not as a vote. Council Member Rosenbaum said historic districts were a problem with the interim ordinance, and the Council decided every home in Professorville was considered a Landmark. In 1998, Council Members Fazzino, Schneider, and he was interested in considering a different approach to historic districts that would involve the City and/or the Council prior to final designation of Professorville under the permanent ordinance to consider individual properties. Such action would give property owners of houses which, although possibly contributing because of age, were otherwise so insignificant and the burden of meeting the Secretary of Interior standards so overwhelming, an opportunity to withdraw from being a contributing structure would be given. The point became moot with staff's recommendation in December 1998 to give absolute protection only to homes in addition to being in Professorville which were also in Categories 1 and 2. Between December and the current time, based on input staff received, a change was made bringing the City back to the point where everything was contributing and up to the owner to demonstrate to the Council that several possibly onerous findings had to be made before a house could be eliminated. If that was staff's recommendation, he would be interested in returning to his colleagues before June 1999 to come up with a different approach to provide for the initial exemption for such properties. If another historic district was ever designated in Palo Alto in the future, it would be necessary to have something in place or people would never agree to the historic district. At some point before June 1999, the EIR evaluation should take into account the possibility of approaching historic districts differently. Mr. Gawf said staff would include Council Member Rosenbaum's comments in EIR consideration. Staff would also want to examine Professorville and contributing and non-contributing designations to ensure as much accuracy as possible. Some cases might not be as accurate as possible. An analysis would be conducted to determine which structures were truly contributing in Professorville and which were not. The information would be brought back as part of the ordinance in June 1999, which might also help with concerns about properties classified as Contributing. Council Member Rosenbaum was not seeking Council affirmation at the current time but thought staff should be aware of the issue for the purposes of EIR.
02/17/99 88-42
Vice Mayor Wheeler thought Council Member Rosenbaum had something specific in mind. She tended to agree with Mr. Gawf's comments. One of the things that she learned on the tour the Council had taken a few weeks prior with the architectural historian was that if Professorville were studied at the current time rather than 15 to 20 years prior, the definition of what was a contributing structure would have been different and differently applied. She would not want to prejudge the way it should come out, but Professorville was not been examined and was worth looking at in terms of the differences that had evolved in evaluating and defining a contributing structure in an historic district with more up-to-date standards than the original examination. Council Member Rosenbaum said he would not want to be faced with receiving information from staff in June when it was time for the ordinance to be passed which would have a high degree of uncertainty with respect to what a contributing structure was in Professorville without any opportunity for public discussion. He asked how any change in the definition of contributing would be brought to the Council with sufficient time for comment and public input prior to the absolute deadline for passing an ordinance. Mr. Gawf said staff prepared a fairly detailed schedule for the draft EIR which gave sufficient time for public review and comment during the month of April as well as giving staff time to respond to the comments. He would examine the schedule to make sure additional information could be timed for sufficient public review. One of the upsides of recirculating the draft EIR was the two to three months more time to examine the ordinance. More time was necessary to review and obtain comments. He would make sure the schedule for such information allowed for sufficient public review and comment. Mayor Fazzino revised Ms. Fleming's suggestion slightly. Rather than trying to make many votes, Council Members were asked to make public their suggestions. If staff believed providing information on the particular recommendation would be difficult, clearer direction should be sought. Council Member Eakins was very interested in seeing the permanent ordinance contain a way to move properties from a Resource List. Bern Beecham's presentation the prior night was reinforced. Finding an expediting process for the project was important. The City would need to explain why it was willing to risk the loss of more cultural resources, but the overriding effect was to make the process faster, cleaner, and more fair. She appreciated Mr. Gawf's comments that staff intended to be responsive and give advice. One person indicated a staff person should be available for "hand holding," which might be an informal way of saying what Mr. Gawf had said. She asked whether the commitment would be clear in the project and the division would be organized to do so.
02/17/99 88-43
Mr. Gawf replied yes. Council Member Eakins said having the City become a certified local government (CLG) would give individuals or groups a "hammer" with which to ensure the staff did what it was supposed to do, which should be very clear so the public would have access to the means to make sure the City followed through on what it said it would do in the ordinance. She interpreted the SHPO letter, page 4 of 8, second paragraph, that the City needed to include regulations in the project. She was confused about the level of detail for regulations. Mr. Gawf said staff was unable to respond because no one had a copy of the letter; staff would respond after reviewing the letter. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the Council was told by a member of the public that there was some concern, which she shared, about what happened to a designated property in the event of a natural disaster which severely damaged or demolished the property. Section 16.49.210 of the ordinance referenced a state law with which she was unfamiliar. She asked about the requirements on a heritage property owner under Palo Alto's ordinance, when a home was destroyed by natural disaster. Ms. Furth said the section Vice Mayor Wheeler referenced had not been rewritten in the last revision and she was not as familiar with the background as she would be later in the process. Under the local ordinance, if an historic home was destroyed, nothing required rebuilding as an historic replica. Historic preservation law would not anticipate reconstructions. The difficult decisions were with severely damaged historic structures. State publications required a greater degree of discussion and environmental reporting. The Council would be provided with more detailed information prior to making a decision. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff suggested the Council consider only potentially National Historic Register structures, such as the 830 structures. Mr. Gawf said the draft ordinance contained a provision that the City regulate the 830 structures and the potential California Historic Register not be placed either on the Resource List or the Palo Alto Register, which would become the project description. Staff would clearly analyze the environmental impact of the decision as part of the EIR. Alternatives would also be examined as well as part of the alternative section of the EIR. The issue would be contained within the EIR if the draft ordinance was accepted as the general project description. Ms. Furth said among the alternatives staff had to analyze were the no ordinance alternative, for instance no protection of the resources with a new historic preservation ordinance, and the more
02/17/99 88-44
comprehensive regulatory conservation plan proposed by a number of speakers in the first EIR analysis. Council Member Ojakian asked how long the process would take for someone with a project, either major alteration or demolition, and how the EIR played into the determination for the timing. Mayor Fazzino said the composition of the HRB was one he wanted considered. The nature of the HRB would change dramatically as a result of the draft ordinance, becoming more of a quasi judicial body. Even though qualified architects and perhaps one owner of a heritage or Landmark home should be on the HRB, it was important to have a balance of opinions. No member of the HRB should be a board member or officer of an organization lobbying actively before the HRB. The rule with respect to outreach to organizations with regard to openings on the HRB should be changed. The language should reflect the fact the HRB was a quasi judicial body and must represent the entire community. The issue on page 10 of the draft ordinance regarding California Register criteria which, although a policy issue, should be consistent with respect to the ultimate decision with regard to National versus California Register. The messages being sent to the public indicated a focus on National Register criteria yet a section in the draft ordinance allowed for the possibility of homes returning to the list as a result of California Register criteria, which should be clear and consistent with whatever policy decision was ultimately made. Agreement was voiced with Council Member Rosenbaum's mentioned of "any property owner." If a member of the Council, HRB, or director felt strongly someone was making a legitimate case for nomination of a property, it could be carried forward. But giving anyone the ability to nominate a home was questioned. The issue of timetables should be clear for decision making with regard to holding a public hearing within 45 days. Time should be spent evaluating the possibility of prescribing that decisions had to be made within a certain period of time. Page 21 under New Structures in the draft ordinance mentioned historic versus design with which, as a result of the process, he was unenthusiastic about tackling. Page 22 under (d) suggested "new structures need not initiate the architecture district, but shall be compatible with the district in terms of the scale, size, material, color, and texture." Some liked design-related criteria as opposed to historic-related criteria. Although not interested in suddenly introducing the ARB into the process, he asked dealing with design rather than historic criteria. Mr. Gawf said page 22 represented one of the only exceptions, which dealt with replacement of non-contributing buildings. If a non-contributing building was demolished, the new structure should not harm the concept of the historic district. Mayor Fazzino clarified the building would not originally have been deemed historic.
02/17/99 88-45
Mr. Gawf said Mayor Fazzino was correct. The desire was to make sure the new structure did not have a greater non-contributing impact. Staff tried to separate the concepts. Staff wanted to be sure someone would not feel compelled to build a replica historic building as a replacement. People needed to be given flexibility to build anything that would match the general character of the neighborhood. Mayor Fazzino understood staff's intent. HRB analysis might be the right place but historic and design issues should be clearly distinguished. On page 21, HRB decision making did not contain a timeframe for a hearing or final decision. The alternative should be explored. Page 22 of the draft ordinance mentioned appeals and appeal fees. Some people were interested in limiting or eliminating the fees. The ordinance should be consistent and eliminate fees associated with appeals as well. Alternatives to the penalties should also be sought and evaluated. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Mayor Fazzino covered a number of her own process issues. She agreed with comments made by Mayor Fazzino and Council Member Rosenbaum about timelines and putting boundaries on decision-making times. Staff was responsive to earlier requests to do so. No mandatory timeframe was delineated within which the HRB had to act on a project. HRB and ARB meetings tended to operate in a way that might not be spelled out in the ordinance. Both boards often denied an applicant's continuance because there seemed no way to resolve the issues, which allowed the applicant to appeal to the Council. Although the permanent historic regulations might allow for the same procedure, it was unclear in the draft ordinance. Mayor Fazzino was correct about the issue of the recruitment of HRB members. The City Clerk's Office kept an extensive talent bank for all boards and commissions, holding periodic orientation and training sessions for interested community members. The HRB should not differ from other boards and commissions that relied on the methods already in place through the City Clerk's Office. A statement was made about fees charged for consultation with staff or contract staff which might have been the practice when Ms. Arima went through her process but no longer existed. Mr. Gawf said Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct. Fees were charged at one time but had been eliminated months ago. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the problem with the interim process regarding applicants having to deal with the HRB and then deal with zoning and other issues would change. Ms. Furth said a way to avoid the "shuttle diplomacy problem" was the proposal for a home improvement exception granted for historic properties by the director after review and approval by the HRB, which was intended to avoid multiple stops. However, if someone wanted a variance, which was a much bigger change than the normal
02/17/99 88-46
setback rules, the issue was one of zoning and not recommended for HRB review. Mr. Gawf understood the problem and said staff would examine the concurrent processing issue. Council Member Ojakian would not want to see someone go through one set of processes only to discover a conflicting problem with another set of processes. Mr. Gawf said staff would examine the issue and attempt to make the process even more concurrent. RECESS AT 9:35 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. Mayor Fazzino said Karen Holman signed up as a speaker but was delayed getting to the meeting. Several of her recommendations and comments were read into the record: 1) provide color advice free to homeowners by the HRB; 2) training of the HRB on Secretary of Interior Standards should be included in the ordinance; 3) the most effective ordinance or corporate program was one in which a person was as independent as possible because if the person in the position of authority changed the implementation and character of a program it could change significantly, for instances, pages 5, 7, and 18 gave the director of planning the authority to make a determination concerning the compliance of alterations to Secretary of Interior standards; and 4) ensuring the interim ordinance was kept in the spirit of the proposed new ordinance. Council Member Eakins expressed an interest in seeing a number of incentives brought back, particularly ones the Planning Commission identified as making historic properties work better and where the vote was tied. Staff was asked to explore the idea of a property tax credit, which was discussed by many people. The entire share of the City's property taxes should not be refunded, since the historic house was not much different in cost than other houses, but some acknowledgment of the commitment to the care and maintenance of an historic house should be included. Limiting the benefit to residential properties might not make sense. The City benefitted little from property taxes and some properties already received a benefit. Susan Haviland provided her with a list of possible incentives, most of which were discussed, but suggested the real estate transfer tax of .035 percent as a pool from which to pull. Vice Mayor Wheeler agreed with Council Member Eakins' comments about the need for the City to acknowledge maintenance of historic homes. The Council had good reasons for having hesitated to get into a large number of Mills Act contracts, including a property tax rebate. Any use of property taxes should be limited to the City's portion of the tax and not PAUSD money. Low interest loans were an area in which the Council hesitated to get involved. With
02/17/99 88-47
current interest rates, the City would be unable to provide a better loan than what was obtainable on the open market. Mr. Stephens discussed the prior evening the issue of PAST which was considering creating a pool of funds for use by owners of historic properties, income eligible, for maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the properties. The program could be very similar to one the City already funded through the Senior Home Repair Program. The City contracted with Arbonitas to deliver services through qualified repair and maintenance people at reduced rates to income-eligible seniors. The concept could be reworked appropriately, with the age restriction removed, and applied to owners of heritage-designated homes. Utility discounts might face difficulties with respect to the cost of utilities and the City's fiduciary responsibility to set rates in a fair and equitable manner. Ms. Furth said any utility discount offered to owners of heritage properties would have to be made up by the General Fund and not paid by other ratepayers, for example, a grant from the General Fund. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought the idea had inherent problems and was one she was not interested in pursuing. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the Council would know how the current incentives applied to people on the inventory list. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said staff conducted an analysis of 10 to 15 properties, some of which were on the list. The information was presented to the Planning Commission and could be made available to the Council. Council Member Ojakian said the issue of incentives was frustrating since he hoped the public would have told the Council which incentives it had missed. However, every time the issue of incentives was raised, the only comments had been that the City was not offering an incentive the people needed. Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct in her assessment of Mills Act funds involving the PAUSD. Nothing should affect the PAUSD's portion of property taxes. The issue raised by a member of the public concerning transfer development rights (TDRs) was also something interesting to examine. If some sites were unable to apply the additional square footage, he asked whether the City would be in the position of transferring the square footage. The issue was discussed in relation to commercial properties and admittedly dealing with programs in the Downtown area was difficult; however, consideration should be given to determine whether feasible. Council Member Eakins questioned how the statement, "Make incentives available to Resource List properties," would work.
Mr. Gawf said Council Member Ojakian=s comment about TDRs would face difficulties with respect to residential properties. Not only
02/17/99 88-48
would development rights have to be available, but a receiver site had to be available where neighbors would not object to increased intensity. TDRs were difficult tasks to analyze with respect to the EIR because of the number of permutations of what could happen. Unless the Council was serious about considering TDRs, from an efficiency standpoint, he suggested not doing so at the current time. Council Member Ojakian agreed the issue was difficult. What the City had experienced with commercial properties had not been easy, with very few in the Downtown area utilizing the program. With respect to his comment about incentives not being forthcoming from the public, he queried whether the idea could be reinstated if the public returned with suggestions for other similar incentives. Mr. Gawf said yes, as long as staff could incorporate the ideas within the draft EIR. Timing for the draft EIR was tight, given comments staff heard. His experience with TDRs and a similar situation with which he had dealt, revealed that although the idea sounded good in concept, it failed to work as well in practice. The concept would be difficult to incorporate within the timeframe. Council Member Ojakian withdrew the comment unless another Council Member was interested. He asked about the last date to provide the staff with incentive ideas and how ideas should be presented. Mr. Gawf said the best time for presenting ideas was the current meeting, however, good ideas were always welcome. If an idea could be incorporated, staff would do so. If the process would be delayed, staff would inform the Council Member of the inability to do so. Staff had conducted the study and found there were real benefits to the FAR, which was a real incentive. Council Member Rosenbaum asking whether staff interpreted anything involving a modified Mills Act, which would be very complex for the draft EIR, as an assignment to be completed before the draft ordinance, i.e., how a modified Mills Act affected staff. Mr. Gawf thought the Mills Act was not an environmental issue requiring consideration under the EIR. Staff had taken the comment as a directive to explore prior to returning the draft ordinance in June. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the subject was very complex and legal. The Mills Act involved understandings and a contract between the homeowner and the City. A modified Mills Act would involve much the same thing. The City was not able to give away money. Mr. Gawf said staff would take the point as one to be examined. If a way could be found to make it work without impinging on the time schedule, staff would return with the information and the Council
02/17/99 88-49
could decide whether or not to continue to examine the possibility even after adoption of the final ordinance. He assumed the schedule was of primary concern. If issues were peripheral to what was being considered, the schedule should not be delayed. Council Member Rosenbaum said the issue was also financial. The assignment was large to take on in anticipation of the Council's desire to take action before adoption of the ordinance. He asked his colleagues whether staff should seriously consider a modified Mills Act as an incentive. Mayor Fazzino indicated an interest in a modified Mills Act which was a financial incentive, and financial incentives were important to the success of the program. A good financial analyst could quickly determine the financial impact of different Mills Act scenarios, which was the kind of information he was interested in receiving. He assumed staff could come up with a representative property tax figure for the homes on the list to determine what it would cost to provide the incentive, or a modified version of the incentive, to people on the Register. Mr. Gawf said if staff thought a modified Mills Act would affect the schedule, direction would be sought from the Council. Mayor Fazzino was interested in hearing about the successful use of the Mills Act in other cities. He shared Council Member Ojakian's concern about the impact on the PAUSD but was frustrated about the State's dysfunctional tax system and the fact the school districts were heavily reliant on property taxes which caused cities to rely on sales taxes. Until the State's system became more flexible, the City might not be able to do much. The financial implications were important for consideration as it represented a significant incentive and should be considered. Serious consideration of historic preservation would result in a financial cost. He was interested in exploring alternative ways of paying for such a program. A few weeks prior, Jim Newton proposed a city-wide fund to pay partial costs of historic preservation, a philosophy with which he shared. To a significant degree, historic preservation was a community-wide benefit for which the community should pay. He was unsure how it could be translated into a financial program. He wanted to understand what tools were available to the City, such as the Mills Act and funds for preservation on the ballot in light of what other cities were able to accomplish. Ms. Furth's comment was probably true about paying for Utility discounts through the General Fund, but it was another meaningful financial incentive. He preferred to focus all financial incentives through a single City program rather than a little in Utilities, a little in property taxes. Vice Mayor Wheeler's comments with respect to low-interest loans were probably correct. Insurance was raised as an issue, however, he would not expect staff to come up with a proposed insurance program. Former City Manager Bill Zaner's suggestion for municipal insurance in the early 1980s resulted in
02/17/99 88-50
the Council Chambers full of insurance agents. Lack of access by historic home property owners to insurance might be something the City wanted to consider, for instance, a program offered in conjunction with other cities with historic programs. Although not something staff could resolve before June or July, the issue was something he was interested in considering. With regard to the Council's prior meeting on incentives, at which he was not present, he would have probably joined the minority on the issue of second dwelling units as well as subdivision and lot line adjustments and mergers, which were meaningful incentives. Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum's comments regarding the Mills Act and the ability of staff to complete the draft EIR. A good analysis of the financial impact was important in order so the Council could make a reasonable decision. Mr. Gawf said staff would take a quick look at the Mills Act to determine how difficult it would be to obtain the required information and how it would affect the time table. Consideration would at least be given to the concept. The Council had given staff good direction for both the draft EIR and draft ordinance. Council Member Rosenbaum said Bern Beecham suggested designations based on famous people be at least on a state or federal, rather than local level. Although unaware of the number of homes such a decision would affect, the information might be helpful for the Council. Mr. Gawf said staff could see how such a decision would affect the ordinance. Mayor Fazzino asked how quickly Resource List properties could be moved through. Staff was asked to provide the Council with several resource alternatives to resolve the issue of making final decisions with respect to Resource List homes as quickly as possible. Mr. Gawf said staff was working on Resource List properties at the current time and the information would be brought to the Council. Vice Mayor Wheeler said in one of the letters the Council received, a suggestion was made to place the 13 buildings identified as Landmarks during the interim regulation process on the Resource List rather than the Palo Alto Register. She asked what work remained on the 13 homes to make the information comparable to the Category 1 and 2 properties presumed to be on the Palo Alto Register. Mr. Gawf said the paperwork was complete. The resources necessary to include the properties on the Palo Alto Register were completed as part of the interim ordinance.
02/17/99 88-51
Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the Council could evaluate whether the buildings could be moved quickly or elevated to the Palo Alto Register initially. Mr. Gawf replied yes. Council Member Ojakian had not objected to Mr. Beecham's suggestion as a benefit or incentive that should be applied to the mandatory review or mandatory compliance structures. Mayor Fazzino asked staff to comment on the recommendation regarding the interim ordinance until the permanent regulations went into effect. Mr. Gawf said staff proposed the temporary historic regulations regulate: 1) the 830 properties in Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the existing inventory, 2) the historic districts of Professorville and Ramona Street, 3) National Register eligible properties; and 4) landmarks under the interim regulations. Staff had not proposed inclusion of California Register eligible properties. Some review of major alterations would use Secretary of Interior Standards and that demolition requests be reviewed by the HRB. Staff also recommended transition regulations so properties already started with the existing interim regulations be allowed to continue through the process until August 1, 1999, for the compatibility review process. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought staff's direction was appropriate. She thought the Council had not given specific direction with respect to not including the 1,800 California Register eligible properties, but she agreed with the recommendation. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to direct staff to draft an interim ordinance for presentation to the City Council as outlined below: A. Temporary Historic Regulations Total of approximately 830 properties regulated
Χ Categories 1, 2, 3, 4
Χ Historic District contributors
Χ National Register eligible properties
Χ Landmarks under the Interim Regulations
Χ NO California Register eligible properties
Major alterations reviewed using Secretary of Interior=s Standards Demolition requests reviewed by HRB B. Transition Regulations
02/17/99 88-52
National Register Eligible properties that were deemed
Αcontributing≅ under the Interim Regulations Until August 1, 1999, to complete compatibility review process Council Member Rosenbaum asked how the interim regulations would apply to the owner of one of the 800 homes and wanted to make an alteration over the next months, for instance, whether the HRB would be free to make the home a Contributing structure, in which case the building could be demolished or the HRB could take advantage of the Dames & Moore work and make it a Landmark. Mr. Gawf said staff conducted the merit screening and the homes were historic resources. Alterations should be consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards, and demolitions would be reviewed on an individual basis. He would not envision the Contributing structure concept continuing, so it was a modification of what the City reflecting the fact the staff had good research and knew the properties, rather than the broader scope of the present ordinance. Council Member Eakins asked about the files on properties researched to date. Statements were made that there were no files and no information. He asked what officially existed, what was accessible, and in what form. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said property files existed for all of the Category 1 properties as part of the research project and a number of Category 2 properties also had files. The type of research conducted on the Category 2 properties differed from what was developed with the California Office of Historic Preservation in order to handle 3,000 properties within a few months. A file existed for every Study Priority 1 property and was held in the Main Library. The front of each file contained a list of 24 different types of research information sources contained in the file used in making the assessment. When a property owner expressed an interest in seeing the file, Beth Bunnenberg had graciously agreed to meet with the property owner to go through the file. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how staff would handle Historic District properties under the interim ordinance. Mr. Gawf said all properties would be treated the same during the short four-month interim period, whether within an historic district or individual property. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified any property within an historic district would be treated as a Landmark.
02/17/99 88-53
Mr. Gawf said major alterations would be reviewed under Secretary of Interior Standards and individual demolitions would be evaluated by the HRB on which a recommendation would be made. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Schneider absent. Mayor Fazzino said the recommendations would return to the Council the following Monday with a proposed new temporary ordinance at which time final action would be taken. Staff indicated a willingness and ability to meet with any property owner from whom additional information was needed for classifying the property properly. Mr. Gawf said Mayor Fazzino was correct. If anyone needed more information about the ordinance or property, staff would meet individually to discuss unusual circumstances. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 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.
02/17/99 88-54