HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-22 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting February 22, 1999 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission...........88-57 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m..............88-57 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................88-58 APPROVAL OF MINUTES.........................................88-58 1. Proposed 1999 Legislative Objectives - Refer to Policy and Services Committee.....................................88-58 2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Utility Constructors for Providing Overhead Construction Services88-58 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Gachina Landscape Management for Cubberley Community Center Landscape Maintenance............................................88-58 4. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Sarcom for the Acquisition, Installation, and Implementation of an Electronic Mail System............................................88-58
5. Temporary Rental Assistance for the Children=s Preschool Center (CPSC) Located at the Cubberley Community Center88-59 6. Request for City Council to Consider an Application to Designate a Coast Redwood as a Heritage Tree by Mr. and Mrs. Olmsted, 3759 LaDonna Street, Palo Alto................88-59
7. Ordinance 4548 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 22.04.035 to Title 22 (Parks) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize Enforcement by Park
Rangers≅ ...............................................88-59 8. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation.............................................88-59 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Regulating Demolition and Major Alteration of Certain Historic Resources
02/22/99 88-55
and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately.......................................................88-59 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m..............88-65
02/22/99 88-56
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in the Palo Alto Art Center at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Schneider SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
02/22/99 88-57
Regular Meeting February 22, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in the Palo Alto Art Center at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding democracy.
T.J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding Debbie Gregg=s murder and the
need to make Rico=s Law a required class in law school. Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, spoke regarding safety. Sally-Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper Street, spoke regarding structures. Karen Holman, 725 Homer, spoke regarding historic preservation. Olga Loya, 427 #2 Page Street, spoke regarding saving Juana Briones house. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of January 4, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 7. 1. Proposed 1999 Legislative Objectives - Refer to Policy and Services Committee 2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Utility Constructors for Providing Overhead Construction Services 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Gachina Landscape Management for Cubberley Community Center Landscape Maintenance 4. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Sarcom for the Acquisition, Installation, and Implementation of an Electronic Mail System
02/22/99 88-58
5. Temporary Rental Assistance for the Children=s Preschool Center (CPSC) Located at the Cubberley Community Center 6. Request for City Council to Consider an Application to Designate a Coast Redwood as a Heritage Tree by Mr. and Mrs. Olmsted, 3759 LaDonna Street, Palo Alto
7. Ordinance 4548 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 22.04.035 to Title 22 (Parks) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize Enforcement by Park
Rangers≅ (1st reading 2/8, PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item Nos. 1-3 and 6 and 7, Schneider absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 for Item No. 4, Fazzino Αabstain,≅ Schneider absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 for Item No. 5, Wheeler Αabstain,≅ Schneider absent. CLOSED SESSION Council Member Huber noted that he would not participate in Item No. 8 due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Kniss noted that she would not participate in Item No. 8 due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Mossar noted that she would not participate in Item No. 8 due to a conflict of interest. 8. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Extension of the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(B) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 8. Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 8. ORDINANCES 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Regulating Demolition and Major Alteration of Certain Historic Resources and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately
02/22/99 88-59
Council Member Huber noted that he would not participate in Item No. 9 due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Kniss noted that she would not participate in Item No. 9 due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Mossar noted that she would not participate in Item No. 9 due to a conflict of interest. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the discussion was about a temporary Historic Regulations Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance was to modify the interim regulations to be more focused and simpler. Staff was concentrating on approximately 830 properties being proposed for regulation which fell into the following categories: Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the existing Historic Inventory and the historic districts, Professorville and Ramona Street, which included approximately 530 properties. The third area was the National Register eligible properties which included approximately 276 properties. Two other properties had been identified which were included on Exhibit A of the staff report (CMR:159:99)and were National Registry Eligible Properties which did not belong on the list. He said that 724 Bryant Street should more appropriately be placed on the California Register and that 1234 Middlefield Road was a duplicate parcel number which had a separate address but referred to another parcel. Those two properties would be deleted from Exhibit A. The last category staff was proposing to regulate would be Landmarks under the Interim Regulations consisting of approximately 13 properties. Staff was currently proposing to regulate California Registry eligible properties. Given the draft ordinance that was submitted to the Council, staff would focus on the properties being proposed to regulate with the Permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance (PHPO). The modified Interim Ordinance would be reviewed and
modified using the Secretary of Interior=s Standards. Demolition requests would be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) which would make their recommendations on the proposed demolition to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. In either case, included within the Urgency Ordinance would be the ability of the property owners to go directly to the HRB and bypass staff review. With regard to transition relations, those were regulations that would apply to properties that had gone through the present Interim Ordinance within the past few years. They would be National Register Eligible Properties deemed Contributing under the Interim Regulations and would be provided the opportunity until July 31, 1999, to complete the compatibility review. In some cases, the properties had already gone through the compatibility review and had approval for the new structure, but in most cases, the properties had not been approved. Approximately 20 properties, with another 4 or 5 to be added in March, would comprise the list and would still retain the ability to use the existing Interim Regulations during the transition. With regard to
02/22/99 88-60
timeline, the revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was due to be released at the end of March 1999 for the public review period during April, with June 7, 1999, for the first reading of the PHPO and certification of the DEIR, and the PHPO effective date would be the end of July. Staff provided that the Interim Ordinance would be in effect or would cease to have force on the effective date of the PHPO or at such time as the Council might repeal the Urgency Ordinance. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, representing Palo Alto-Stanford Heritage, said the Interim Ordinance did not clearly and consistently address protection for Contributors in districts because it stated that if an applicant could show why their property was not eligible for the National Register, they could demolish or do major alterations without benefit of the Secretary
of the Interior=s Standards. The Interim Ordinance also identified those properties as protected resources. The Palo Alto-Stanford Heritage Group (the Group) believed that protection should be afforded to the 1,800 potential California registered properties for the interim period for two reasons: 1) the Council had not taken a formal vote stating its intention not to include any or all of the properties in the PHPO, so why allow for their demise in short term, and 2) the intention of staff and perhaps Council included identifying districts which might have come from the 1,800 properties, so why allow for those eligible properties to be demolished during the interim period. Another major point was that the staff recommendations for the interim period were that the Director of Planning and Community Environment should determine whether major alterations to the Register and Resource Properties
complied with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards. The Group believed the HRB should make that determination for the following reasons: 1) it would be a public process; 2)it was the job the HRB was appointed to do; and 3) the HRB had the expertise in applying Secretary of Interior Standards, whereas it would take some time for the Director of Planning to familiarize himself with application of the Standards. The Group suggested putting in place a system that would be consistent with the PHPO to create a smooth transition to the permanent process. Norman Behmer, 1005 University Avenue, was concerned about SECTION 2.(c)(1) on page 2 of the Proposed Ordinance attached to the staff report (CMR:159:99), Alteration of a street-facing facade. Previously the Council narrowed that definition in connection with demolition under the prior ordinance to include wording
Αsignificant alteration≅ which affected the historic integrity of the structure. He urged the Council to narrow that provision as well. For example, if a homeowner came to the City for a building permit and there was some minor alteration to the street-facing facade, he did not think they should be forced to go through the formal process. The Planning staff should have the discretion to determine for themselves whether the alteration was not significant and only the regular building permit process was necessary.
02/22/99 88-61
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynn Furth said with regard to Mr.
Behmer=s comment, it would be a good idea in SECTION 2.(c)(1) on
page 2 of the Proposed Ordinance to indicate Αsignificant
alteration of the street-facing facade≅ which would refer to when it would alter the historic character, and secondly with regard to
the comment about ΑContributing structures in a historic district≅ as getting demolition clearance for them. The comment made by Ms. Renzel was correct. The standard should not be whether the structure was National Register eligible, but whether in the case of a Contributing structure in a historic district, that the structure was improperly classified as Contributing. Staff would propose that language in SECTION 3.(a)(1). The same standard would then be applied functionally to all of the structures. Structures should be allowed to be demolished if erroneously classified by the City. Mayor Fazzino confirmed that staff supported the two suggestions. Ms. Furth said yes. If a property owner were on the list for protected structures, they could request a demolition permit and be granted permission to demolish the structure if the structure were in dangerous or bad condition and the Building Official believed it should be demolished, or whether the structure was so deteriorated or the circumstances of the property were such that applying those rules would take away from the economic use of the property. The third basis was whether or not the City erroneously classified the structure as National Register eligible, and it was not. The point brought up by Mr. Behmer was that among the buildings that staff was recommending be protected from demolition during the window period was Contributing structures in historic districts. There were many Contributing structures in historic districts, but they did not all individually qualify as National Register eligible properties. The suggestion was what text staff should be applying in that case which was whether the property was properly classified as a Contributor in a Historic District and if the property was classified properly, it should not be demolished. Council Member Rosenbaum asked where the specific language was in the Proposed Ordinance. Ms. Furth said Section 3. Demolition Clearance Certificate, at the
top of page 4 of the Proposed Ordinance, ΑA demolition clearance certificate should be issued only if the Director determines, based on substantial evidence, that: (1) the Protected Historic Resource would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places because it no longer has sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance, or it meets none of the National Register of
Historic Places criteria.≅ Staff should have included text, which
it had not, stating Αor in the case of the Contributing structure in a Historic District, the structure was, in fact, not
02/22/99 88-62
Contributing,≅ which was a clearly defined concept in Historic Preservation law. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to adopt the Draft Urgency Ordinance including the following changes: SECTION 2.(a)(c)(1) Significant alteration of a street-facing facade, and SECTION 3.(a)(1) The Protected Historic Resource either (i) would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places because it no longer has sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance, or it meets none of the National Register of Historic Places criteria, or (ii) in the case of a Protected Historic Resource in a historic district, the structure is not a Contributing structure in the historic district.
Ordinance 4549 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Regulating Demolition and Major Alteration of Certain Historic Resources and Declaring the Urgency Thereof,
to Take Effect Immediately≅ Vice Mayor Wheeler said that staff, Council, and the community had contributed an enormous amount of effort in revising the regulations pertaining to historic preservation. Much time was spent over the prior year to determine what the likely candidates were to add to the existing inventory and to begin the work of updating that inventory. Circumstances placed the Council in a position where if it failed to take an urgency action that evening, the Council was at risk of losing a number of those resources which had been carefully been identified and screened over the past year. Now the most significant historic structures had been identified, it would be unacceptable to allow those to be subject to demolition in the period of time between the present and the enactment of new permanent regulations. She supported the motion. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion. Council Member Rosenbaum asked for an explanation of SECTION 12. on page 8 of the Proposed Ordinance. Ms. Furth said Section 12 was an Urgency Ordinance which took effect immediately. Section 12 was not an ordinance that specifically repealed either Chapter 16.49 or Chapter 16.50 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, so they continued to exist. Chapter 16.50 would expire on March 31, 1999. The ordinance would grandfather houses already in the merit screening process so they could continue to take advantage of that process and the rights to proceed with a demolition in the building or remodeling on Compatibility Review until July 31, 1999. Structures that were protected under the ordinance, the National Register eligible structures, Categories 1 through 4 and the 13 Landmarks and the Contributing structures in Historic Districts, the demolition and remodeling major remodeling provisions of the Proposed Ordinance would govern, not the ordinances that formerly governed under Chapters 16.49 or 16.50. The Urgency Ordinance
02/22/99 88-63
would end by Council action to repeal it, or by adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 16.49, the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Upon the effective dateof the adoption of the PHPO, the Urgency Ordinance would cease to exist. Council Rosenbaum clarified that in theory, if the Council did not adopt what was called the PHPO, the Urgency Ordinance could go on forever. Ms. Furth said that was correct. The Council would need to adopt an ordinance repealing the Urgency Ordinance. Mayor Fazzino viewed the Urgency Ordinance as temporary. He agreed that an urgency existed, but in reality it was due to the fact that the sheer quality and quantity of public comments regarding the proposed PHPO, required the City to recirculate the DEIR. That being the case, a potential gap existed in regulation and given the
City=s commitment to preservation of historic homes in the community, he felt it would be poor public policy and a potentially significant negative impact on the community if a gap were allowed to occur. Staff recommended to the Council that with the new Urgency Ordinance, coverage of 1,800 homes would be eliminated, which lent credence to a more focused and limited historic preservation effort being put in place for the upcoming few months while the City was in the last stages of development of a PHPO. He supported the ordinance which was limited in scope and nature. He did not feel the Council had any alternative but to act on a PHPO in July if it wanted to keep its faith with the community. Council Member Eakins said regarding a comment Ms. Renzel made about structures, that California Register eligible properties would not be protected under the Urgency Ordinance, but might be the basis of future districts. She asked whether there was a reason why people could not begin the process on a future historic, local, or conservation district. Mr. Gawf said for a Historic District there was not. Nothing could be done until a PHPO was in place for Historic Districts at the end of July 1999. She might recall from a discussion the prior week, that staff indicated there were a couple of factors that were important in creating Historic Districts: 1) to have 70 to 75 percent of the structures within the Historic District as Contributing, and 2) to have a majority (60 percent) of the property owners in favor of the district. Those two factors could be applied with the California Register eligible properties to see whether there were some potential historic districts. That would come from the neighborhoods themselves, rather than City staff. Council Member Eakins understood, but her question was whether people could begin the process.
02/22/99 88-64
Mr. Gawf replied yes. He did not see staff modifying the recommendation on the percentage of Contributing structures nor the percentage of support. Council Member Eakins said that did not assume that the proposed PHPO from the prior week was in effect. Mr. Gawf said no. That was why he began his comments by saying it would be dependant upon whatever was adopted by the Council. Council Member Eakins clarified that people could move California
Register properties to the City=s Register. Mr. Gawf said only when the PHPO was in place. Council Member Eakins clarified that there was indeed a gap for the 1,800 properties which was pointed out by Ms. Renzel. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 3 of the Urgency Ordinance attached to the staff report (CMR:159:99), SECTION
2.(e)ΑProtected Historic Resource≅ means, (2) All properties in the Professorville Historic District that were built before 1938..., and asked whether that date was intentionally 1938.
Ms. Furth said yes. Sometimes the phrase was ΑBuildings built
after 1937 or non-contributors,≅ and sometimes ΑBuildings built
before 1938 and Contributors,≅ but the date in the SECTION 2. (e) was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum asked what the basis was for selecting that date, was it based on when the Historic District was established. Ms. Furth said when the Historic District was created and modified, there were statements of what was historic about that district.
Based upon that, staff asked the City=s Historic Preservation consultants to look at the property in the District and to give staff a clear line so that houses built prior to that date were likely to be Contributors and houses built after that date clearly were not. MOTION PASSED: 5-0, Huber, Kniss, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
02/22/99 88-65
City Clerk Mayor
02/22/99 88-66
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.
02/22/99 88-67