HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-07 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting June 7, 1999 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................88-261 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................88-261 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.............88-261 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission.........................88-262 2. Appointments to Historic Resources Board..............88-262 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................88-263 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................88-263 3. Amendment No. 1 to Increase Contract Authority by $8,500 for Existing Contract No. C9107386 Between the City of Palo Alto and Techwise, Inc. for System Analysis Assistance for Software Acquisition and Implementation to the Utilities’ Customer Information System....................................88-264 Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company in the Amount of $5,635,000 for the Incinerator Rehabilitation at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP)...............................................88-264 5. Resolution 7854 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 7753 Relating to City Funding for the San Francisquito Creek Watershed Coordinated Resources Management and Planning Process”............88-264 6. Ordinance 4568 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 8.10 to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Tree Preservation and Management Requirements”.........................................88-264 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council Will Consider and Take Action on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Associated Environmental Impact Report, and Related Findings.....88-264
06/07/99 88−259
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11 p.m...............88-280
06/07/99 88−260
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Judith Jewell) Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
06/07/99 88−261
Regular Meeting June 7, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum (teleconference from New York at 7:10 p.m.), Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission The Mayor announced that the City Clerk would report the results at the end of the meeting of Tuesday, June 8, 1999. 2. Appointments to Historic Resources Board Council Member Schneider supported Martin Bernstein, Carol Murden, Roger Kohler, and Iqbal Serang. Mayor Fazzino supported the incumbents and Iqbal Serang. He was disappointed that there were not more applicants for the Historic Resources Board (HRB). FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR MARTIN BERNSTEIN: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR PHYLLIS BUTLER: VOTING FOR ROGER KOHLER: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR CAROL MURDEN: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR IQBAL SERANG: Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Martin Bernstein, Roger Kohler, and Carol Murden received five votes and were appointed on the first ballot. SECOND ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR MARTIN BERNSTEIN:
06/07/99 88−262
VOTING FOR PHYLLIS BUTLER: VOTING FOR ROGER KOHLER: VOTING FOR CAROL MURDEN: VOTING FOR IQBAL SERANG: Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Huber, to reopen the recruitment process for one remaining opening on the Historic Resource Board. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether outgoing HRB Commissioner Dennis Backlund could continue to serve on the HRB until a successor was appointed. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said yes. Mr. Backlund would remain on the HRB until the position was filled unless he tendered his resignation. Council Member Ojakian said in a letter included in the Council packet, Mr. Backlund stated that he would aid the new HRB Commissioner for the first three months of service. He commended Mr. Backlund for the work he did with the HRB. Mayor Fazzino said the HRB opening was an opportunity for residents who wanted to participate in public service. Many Palo Alto residents were articulate spokespeople on both sides of the historic preservation issue over the prior years. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Schneider was disappointed that the Council was unable to make a decision. There were many qualified people within the community who were underrepresented. She urged Palo Alto residents to apply for the open HRB position. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the proposed liquor store at 884 Middlefield Road. Sophia Drymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding 465 Hawthorne Avenue. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding parking. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of April 19, 1999, as submitted.
06/07/99 88−263
MOTION PASSED 8-1, Schneider “abstaining.” MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of May 3, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 6. 3. Amendment No. 1 to Increase Contract Authority by $8,500 for Existing Contract No. C9107386 Between the City of Palo Alto and Techwise, Inc. for System Analysis Assistance for Software Acquisition and Implementation to the Utilities’ Customer Information System Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Techwise Consulting, Inc. in the Amount of $172,000 for Information Technology Application Development Services for the Utilities’ Customer Information System 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company in the Amount of $5,635,000 for the Incinerator Rehabilitation at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 5. Resolution 7854 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 7753 Relating to City Funding for the San Francisquito Creek Watershed Coordinated Resources Management and Planning Process” 6. Ordinance 4568 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 8.10 to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Tree Preservation and Management Requirements” (1st Reading 5/17/99, PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent) MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council Will Consider and Take Action on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Associated Environmental Impact Report, and Related Findings Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending in Full Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Historic Preservation Ordinance), Amending Section 16.52.040 (Flood Hazard Regulations), Adding Chapter 18.18 (Special Standards for Single-family and Two-family Uses on the Palo Alto Historic Register) and Amending Section 18.90.050 (Variances, Home
06/07/99 88−264
Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Historic Preservation Ordinance Final EIR and Making Findings Thereon Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Listing Certain Historic Structures and Districts on the Palo Alto Historic Register Pursuant to Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code City Attorney Ariel Calonne announced he would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Huber announced he would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Schneider said the City Attorney mentioned that his home was a potential California Register property which could have a material effect on the price of his property. She asked for a definition of material effect. Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the Political Reform Act (PRA) of 1974 which was adopted by the voters identified certain types of financial interests that an individual had such as a home, jobs, clients, or investments. The PRA set thresholds and indicated that when a particular matter under consideration could potentially increase or decrease the value of an individual’s property the individual should disqualify themselves because of financial interest in the decision. In the case of a property that was directly affected, such as the City Attorney’s property, then the question was whether there would be any significant effect. If the property was not directly affected, but was within a certain range, then the threshold was $10,000. Council Member Schneider clarified that the threshold was still $10,000. Ms. Furth said yes. Council Member Schneider said a decision was reached in 1974 by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) that a person in an elected position was required to recuse himself/herself from discussing an item if the decision was going to affect his/her property by $10,000. She was troubled by the fact that there were a large number of people in the community who felt underrepresented or not represented as a result of the decisions made. She was advised that should she continue to participate in the decision-making process, any decisions made regarding the Historic Preservation could be overturned. She announced she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Furth clarified the threshold was set by a vote of the people
06/07/99 88−265
of the State of California. Council Member Kniss announced she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. She recused herself on two counts. The first was the material effect on her property and the second being that her property was in an area that was surrounded by homes already on the National Register. Council Member Mossar announced that an analysis of the benefit of her property did not meet the threshold; therefore, she could continue to participate. Mayor Fazzino was disappointed that the entire Council could not participate in discussion; however, it was appropriate that based upon the wording of Proposition 9 and the FPPC that certain Council Members not participate in the discussion.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf gave an overview of the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO). There were two basic categories; the proposed Palo Alto Register (the Register) and the Resource List. The Register was subdivided into Heritage Properties comprised of approximately 80-87 Category 1 and 2 properties. Additions to the Heritage Property list would come from the Resource List. Other historic properties not on the Resource List could be added to the Register, but only when requested by the owners of the property. The second part of the Register was the Historic Districts. The initial listing would consist of the Professorville District and Ramona Street Commercial District. There were two types of properties in the Historic District, contributing and non-contributing. All properties within Ramona Street Commercial District were contributing, and approximately 75 percent of Professorville properties were contributing. New districts would be formed only if there was a majority of support by the property owners. Any new district would have to have 70-75 percent contributing structures. There needed to be contributing structures in a general geographic area, and the district needed to be supported by a majority of the property owners in the area to create a new district. The Historic Districts and Heritage Properties were eligible for incentives. The second category was the Resource List which contained approximately 500 properties. The initial listing was Category 3 and 4 properties and potential National Register eligible properties. Any additions to the Resource List would come from properties that met the National Register criteria. Out of 18,000-20,000 less than 800 properties remained on the Resource List. He discussed what would happen if a homeowner’s property was placed on the Register, which regulations only applied to exterior changes. Changes could be minor alterations with staff review in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as a guideline. Minor alterations did not require mandatory compliance. For major alterations, there would be review and assistance from the HRB with mandatory compliance.
06/07/99 88−266
Demolitions were usually not allowed; however, staff made provisions because there would be certain circumstances for allowing registered properties to be demolished. There were certain advantages to being placed on the Register. One of the most significant advantages was the ability to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) up to 500 square feet. Other advantages included an exemption from the flood hazard regulations and home improvement exceptions and variances. Properties on the Resource List required a standard building permit for minor alterations. Staff review using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards was required for major alterations on a property on the Resource List; however, compliance was voluntary. Building permits might be delayed to consider addition of the property to the Register if plans deviated from the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines. Staff’s intention was to work with the property owner and to minimalize any delays. The Resource List was a list of properties that met the National Register criteria or were deemed as Historic Resources within the community. If an owner requested to demolish a property listed on the Resource List, the community reserved the right to review the request to determine whether there were alternatives. There were no restrictions on interior alterations. Free technical advice and access to the State Historic Building Code was available. He discussed the process that took a property listed on the Resource List to the Register. Staff wrote a detaled evaluation of each property describing why it was significant. The evaluations would be completed by November 1999. Only potential National Register eligible properties that met the criteria would remain on the Resource List. Staff would work closely with all property owners who wished to be on the Register. There were approximately 255 properties proposed for the Register including both Historic Districts and Heritage properties. The Resource List had a total of 517 properties, totaling 772 properties being proposed for preservation. There were an additional 42 non-contributing properties located in Professorville. Staff reviewed each property in each category. As a result of the review, staff believed that the final list for the Register would be 241 properties. Staff completed part of the analysis of the Resource List. Of the 225 Category 3 and 4 properties, staff believed that 30 of those properties no longer qualified for the Resource List. Approximately 10-30 percent of 290 potential National Register and Landmark properties would not qualify to remain on the Resource List. Staff believed the final list of properties proposed to be preserved would consist of approximately 630-690 properties, including 49 non-contributing properties. He indicated that there was some misinformation that needed to be clarified. If a property was only eligible for California Register a property could not be placed on the Register without the owner’s consent. Staff proposed incentives to encourage property owners to voluntarily request designation to the Register. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not required to remodel a structure. The City performed a programmed EIR to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)requirements for all home remodels. There were no deed restrictions for properties. A notice would be recorded with Santa
06/07/99 88−267
Clara County if the property was on the Register; however, it was not a deed restriction. He discussed significant changes to the draft HPO. The Heritage Properties definition was expanded to include Category 1 and 2 properties in Historic Districts. The HPO deleted the Council’s ability to add potential California Register eligible properties without owner consent. A provision was added on proposed Historic Districts that said if two-thirds of property owners in a proposed Historic District supported the application, there would be protection while the application was pending. Staff proposed changing the draft HPO to indicate that a majority of respondents were necessary to approve any Historic District. Staff recommended deleting “as it may be amended from time to time” from Section 16.49.060(b)(1) Designation Criteria for Heritage Properties. Some people believed the criteria needed to be made more specific; for example, how many years prior would be considered as “the past.” From the Historic Preservation standpoint, the past was considered at least 50 years prior. He reviewed the staff’s recommendations on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:259:99). He stated that staff was committed to implementing any HPO the Council adopted. Ms. Furth said the Council indicated at a prior meeting that the timelines were tightened so people did not have to wait for a decision from the City whether or not they could commence with a particular project. There were a number of deadlines as to when hearings must be held. The California Permit Streamlining Act required that the decision-making process would be completed within 60 days after an application was completed by the City. If a decision was not made within the 60 day period, the project was approved by operation of law. Mr. Gawf said that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not necessary to alter a home. An EIR provided clearance for demolishing a California Register home if the owner did not want to take advantage of the City’s incentives or maintain the historic home. Mayor Fazzino clarified that the City would not file a deed restriction with Santa Clara County on historic structures. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Mayor Fazzino clarified the program EIR would cover residents of the City who were part of the City’s program and that the City would defend that position legally. Ms. Furth said yes. Loren Brown, 633 Kellogg Avenue, supported the HPO. He had a Category 2 residence in Professorville. The basement of his residence was quite large and had to be counted against the FAR; therefore, he could not expand the area upstairs. The HPO would allow an exemption of the basement’s square footage. He did not support any proposed referendum because it might affect the ability to increase his FAR.
06/07/99 88−268
He went through the HRB review process and the building permit process on a phase of expansion on his property and found that the process was relatively easy. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, supported the HPO. He commended staff for the incentives that were put forward. He suggested that the incentives should be called entitlements because they presented an attractive package to people not on the historic list but may want to volunteer their home on the Register. The HPO would benefit the community and enhance property values as well as the quality of the neighborhoods. He urged the Council to adopt the proposed HPO. Laura Ferrel, 1020 S. California Avenue, was in favor of the HPO. The HPO was a compromise for her as a preservationist. The fact that less than 5 percent of the homes in the community would be protected was a stretch of the word compromise. She was honored to be invited to participate in the Citizens Advisory Board (CAB). She did not regret the many hours she spent on the CAB; however, she wanted to remind the community what a compromise the HPO was. The community was bitterly split over less than 5 percent of the homes in Palo Alto. She wanted to preserve the historic architecture of the City but also wanted to preserve the community. She urged everyone to stop long enough to listen to each other and to examine their motives. K.C. Marcinik, 4046 Ben Lomond Drive, said Mr. Gawf’s presentation was clear that properties could be remodeled or added on to. The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines acknowledged the need to alter or add to a historic property to continue or change uses while retaining the property’s historic character. The guidelines offered much flexibility for the future. She supported the HPO despite the fact that in the HPO’s present form it allowed 95 percent of the properties to be demolished or altered; however, if the Council did not approve the HPO, 100 percent of the properties could potentially be altered or demolished. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa Avenue, read a letter composed by the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Board (PAST) members. Some provisions of the proposed ordinance were disappointing and some serious omissions were made, but the PAST Board believed the present HPO represented an acceptable compromise. The PAST Board supported the proposed HPO. Since the Council first gave staff direction in February 1998, the HPO had weakened considerably. The two categories for Heritage properties were combined into one eliminating the option for prescribing different levels of compliance. Prohibition on demolition was changed from applying to all resources to applying to only the Heritage properties. Compliance for minor alterations to Heritage properties was changed from mandatory to voluntary and demolition of Resource List properties would be delayed for six months instead of one year. Less than 800 structures were proposed to be listed on the Resource List. Seven hundred structures were deemed
06/07/99 88−269
not eligible in the beginning; however, 1,800 structures deemed eligible for the California Register were simply dropped. That left approximately 95 percent of the historic structures in Palo Alto without protection. Owner consent previously not required was now required for all of the 1,800 properties. PAST congratulated staff and the Planning Commission on their innovative incentive package. Other cities had stronger ordinances, but no other city had a stronger set of incentives. PAST urged the Council to move forward on the three financial items still under consideration, and to support HR 1172 and S664 which would provide a Federal tax credit of 20 percent for the cost of rehabilitating a historic home. She felt it was appropriate that incentives should be referred to as “incentives/benefits” because it was incentive for people who did not have their houses listed on the Register and a benefit to people who did have their homes listed. She urged the Council to adopt the HPO. Dave Bubenik, 420 Homer Street, said a Dames and Moore (D&M) survey identified his house as being built in 1905 and potentially eligible for the California Register. He saw replacement structures to former historic properties and believed it was not a positive contribution to the communities. He believed the City needed a permanent and fair HPO. The HPO was not perfect; however it was a step in the right direction. He urged the Council to adopt the proposed HPO. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, volunteered to place her potential California Register property on the Register. She supported the proposed HPO and encouraged education programs associated with the HPO. The misinformation provided by the opponents of the HPO was disheartening. People deserved to have correct information with which to make decisions. Properties listed on the Register would be subject to review for rehabilitation or remodeling. It was not true that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards would impose the same criteria as historic properties like Mount Vernon or Monticello. The majority of HPOs written in the prior years used the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as a guide. The local jurisdiction needed to apply the standards befitting the particular style of architecture in the community. Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, supported the proposed HPO. She said the key benefits appeared to be the increased FAR, flood control exemption, home improvement exemption, and a refund of the transfer tax upon sale of the property. Elizabeth Moder-Stern, 1307 University Avenue, said her home was potentially eligible for the National Register. The community was unique with much history that would be lost if the HPO were not passed. She supported the proposed HPO. Susan Beall, 1055 Cowper Street, said she was the owner of a historic home. She appeared before the HRB for approval to remodel the exterior and her plans were approved with no problem. Questions and guidance the HRB provided were appreciated as she was not aware
06/07/99 88−270
of her home’s particular style of architecture. She was aware of California’s short history; however, the community was the heritage for future generations and was the attraction for the present generation. Most of the community did not want to lose that which contributed to its uniqueness. She thanked the Council for its efforts on the proposed HPO. Roberta Deering, Executive Director, California Preservation Foundation (CPF), Oakland, said Californians were left with an enviable geography, history, and economy which had helped to construct the communities and neighborhoods. The Council would decide whether it wanted to live in Palo Alto, or a “McMansion” in Anywhere, USA. She asked whether the Council wanted a City that built on its exemplary neighborhoods or properties or would allow trophy houses to overtake the sense of community which had built up over decades. Preservation ordinances identified, protected and preserved aspects of the communities. The community recognized and cherished its identity, place in history, and quality of life. CPF believed that a simpler HPO, more consistent with state and federal standards, and with a consistent and supportable policy relative to private property was possible and should be considered. CEQA considered historic resources to include a broader range of resources than the proposed HPO. Environmental reviews of discretionary actions required an evaluation of properties to determine whether previously unidentified resources were historic and might be affected by the project. The proposed HPO gave a false sense of exemption relative to Historic Preservation. Legislating criteria to identify and protect historic properties that differ due to owners’ interest or lack thereof in preservation would result in unequal application of the CEQA. The use of owner objections and those types of land use regulations might be a legally indefensible delegation of decision-making authority by a legislative body to individual landowners. A programmatic EIR for the proposed HPO was inappropriate. The CPF offered its assistance in the development of a HPO that could reap the benefits of a programmatic EIR and enhance the area’s property values through historic district designation and protections that were happening throughout the country. There were many other ways to achieve development and economic objectives incorporating preservation. Demolition was not the only alternative. Council Member Ojakian asked how many other HPOs in the area had incentives similar to the City’s HPO. Ms. Deering said a few had incentives, however, not to the extent of the City’s HPO incentives. Council Member Ojakian said given the number of incentives included within the proposed HPO, it would be difficult determine the impact on people’s ability to make a choice as to whether they wanted their property placed on the Register. Staff was proposing other types of incentives such as reducing fees or reducing or foregoing a transfer tax. He believed both were useful tools.
06/07/99 88−271
Ms. Deering said fee reductions happened in other communities, however, not nearly to the extent as in Palo Alto. She had not heard of a transfer tax reduction in any other community besides Palo Alto. Council Member Ojakian said since the HPO was proposing an owner consent aspect, determining whether incentives were effective tools would be difficult. Ms. Deering said the City was giving benefits to those people who consented to placing their properties on the Register. To not offer incentives to people who did not consent to placing their properties on the Register was unequal treatment. She noted that the City would not do such a thing with zoning incentives. Jim Culpepper, 2121 Amherst Street, said he and his wife lived in a Colonial-style home built in 1936. In many respects, his home did not conform to existing City codes, and he did not want to be regulated any more than he already was. He was a supporter of historic preservation and was the resident who in 1996 originated the idea of a Citywide moratorium on demolitions until such time as the City staff could suggest alternate courses of action. In 1981, he initiated a moratorium on demolitions in part of the College Terrace neighborhood, and the results had been good for College Terrace. He suggested that demolition could go on for post-1940 structures because most of the post-1940 housing lacked historic value. He expressed confidence in Mr. Gawf and the compromise HPO that was recommended to the Council. He suggested amending Section 16.49.085(h) to read, “If the Director of Planning and Community Environment determines that a two-thirds majority of the residents within a proposed district . . .” He reasoned that the word “residents” was more inclusive than property owners in that it applied to anyone within a proposed district who was eligible to vote in a Palo Alto election. The wording did not include people who were not eligible to vote in Palo Alto elections. Craig Woods, President, Palo Alto Homeowner’s Association (PAHA),1127 Webster Street, said the PAHA was formed as a grassroots organization of homeowners concerned about the policies that the Council had announced for the HPO. The PAHA realized there was no one protecting the interest of the homeowners in the development of the HPO. Palo Alto was a community of people, not homes. In response to the uproar over the draft HPO in the prior year, the PAHA developed a set of principles to guide its members. PAHA members had owned and restored homes that were subjected to the HPO. There was no contradiction between supporting historic preservation and objecting to the proposed HPO. The PAHA supported historic preservation, but opposed the HPO. Because of PAHA’s hard work, the original HPO to enroll thousands of homes was blocked. Since that time, the number of homes steadily decreased; however, the HPO was still flawed and still failed to address the issues the PAHA raised. The number of homes was not the issue; the question was
06/07/99 88−272
whether the City would propose a fair and acceptable law. The PAHA proposed an approach that would create a partnership between the City and the homeowners based on three simple principles; consent, criteria, and category. The PAHA requested an incentives-based consent program. The regulations should not be imposed on any homeowner against his/her will, just as the HPO should not be imposed upon the community against its will. The PAHA requested clear and objective criteria to identify true historic resources. The main concern over the prior six months was how to get homes off the Resource List as quickly as possible. A careful reading of the HPO showed that no specific findings or expert judgement were required to nominate a home or to create districts. The nomination process was based on subjective judgements that were at the discretion of the City. Homes were and would continue to be nominated for a wide variety of reasons that were impossible for homeowners to understand or to refute. The PAHA requested a single category of Historic Resources to make the program simple and understandable; however, there continued to be many categories and many sets of rules. For example, Resource List properties, Heritage properties, Historic District, Contributing and Non-Contributing, single-family and multifamily properties all had different rules. The rules created an unacceptable bureaucracy of rules and regulations. The principles that the PAHA proposed; Homeowner consent, clear criteria, and a single category, could provide an effective and positive alternative to the HPO. The creation of the HPO was driven from the outset by fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the future and the ability of the residents of the City to make the right choices for themselves and for the community. No polling or surveys had been conducted by the City despite repeated requests. The community had a right to be fully represented in the HPO process. The HPO issue was the most controversial, complex, and devicive issue to come before the City. If homeowners were going to be asked to subsidize the HPO and to submit control of their homes to the City, they should be allowed to participate in the decision-making process. Michael Campbell, 364 Kingsley Avenue, said that there was a myth that a crisis of historic home demolition in Palo Alto existed. The purported emergency was used to justify the harsh restrictions of the HPO. Staff reported that on page 3-30 of the EIR under the prior voluntary preservation law, only 11 applications for demolition were filed between the years 1982 and 1996. In 14 years, there were only 8 regulated homes demolished under the voluntary law. That was a demolition rate of only 0.11 percent per year and would take almost one thousand years for the homes on the former Inventory to be redeveloped. A second myth said that the HPO would protect historic neighborhoods. Despite the fact that protection was the primary goal of the HPO, the staff reason for recommending the exclusion of California Register homes from regulation was the fear that regulating too many homes in a single neighborhood would damage it in the long run. On page 777 of the EIR, staff said that including California Register eligible homes in the program, “could conceivably reduce the viability of some neighborhoods allowing incremental
06/07/99 88−273
deterioration.” Staff believed that the level of protection would stifle the redevelopment of decrepit properties and drive smaller houses into the rental market. The HPO would likely have its most negative effect on Historic Districts such as Professorville which had the highest density of regulated homes. The third myth was that the incentives of the program made the HPO a fair law. The test for the fairness of the HPO was whether the average property owner would consent to inclusion in the program. On page 780 of the EIR, staff stated that if consent were made a part of the law as currently written “the Palo Alto Register would probably only include City-owned properties.” Staff concluded that no one would volunteer for inclusion on the Register under such harsh regulations. There was no compelling emergency to justify the harsh punitive nature of the proposed HPO; second, the law was potentially damaging to neighborhoods with high densities of historic properties; and third, the proposed HPO was unfair and homeowners had good cause for being fearful of inclusion. The acceptability of the proposed HPO to the community could only be tested in one way, by placing it on the ballot. Mayor Fazzino clarified that the document Mr. Campbell was reading from was not the proposed HPO before the Council, but EIR alternatives. Mr. Gawf said yes. The EIR evaluated different alternatives to the proposed HPO. Mayor Fazzino clarified that by law, an EIR must explore any and all possible alternatives. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Staff explored different alternatives and tried to evaluate alternatives on both sides of the project description. Council Member Eakins asked whether the descriptions were from the non-recommended alternatives. Mayor Fazzino said yes, the alternatives were not part of the set of recommendations before the Council. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Ann Barbee, 1106 Bryant Street, was opposed to the increased burden of local government regulation; such as, the change from an atmosphere of informed cooperation, to complex and mandatory regulation. The proposed HPO imposed restrictions on properties without the consent of the owner. There was no vote among the residents of Professorville to ratify application of such regulations. She urged the Council to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue and place the measure in the hands of the voters. Lucinda Abbott, 646 Lincoln Avenue, said the PAHA represented only a handful of the people who lived in or owned homes in Palo Alto.
06/07/99 88−274
The preservation effort was originated, energized, and supported by homeowners. The PAHA’s primary tactic was to arouse anxiety and opposition by flooding the community with letters and statements to the media that were filled with misinformation and distortions. The proposed HPO was a compromise and did not protect all the houses the community hoped to preserve; however, the proposed HPO saved a considerable portion of the heritage Palo Alto enjoyed. She urged the Council to adopt the HPO. Bob Jenks, 355 Kingsley Avenue, had some misgivings about the HPO. He was in favor of the Council placing historic preservation on the ballot for the November 1999 election. The Council was elected by the people, and now the same people could not be served on the issue with several Council Members being absent. He asked whether the same principles regarding conflict of interest applied to the HRB. Elaine Meyer, University South Neighborhoods Group (USNG), 609 Kingsley Avenue, said the USNG was concerned that stripping the proposed HPO of its strength would eventually strip Palo Alto neighborhoods of their character. The consequences could be severe in parts of her neighborhood which included Professorville and much of the Downtown area. A walk down any street in town provided evidence that individual owners and private developers could not be relied on to protect historic properties. It was time for the City to act in the interest of long-term residents who wanted to preserve the historic neighborhoods. One of the major responsibilities of the Council was to regulate land use. She believed it was not only the Council’s right to adopt the ordinance, but also its responsibility. She urged the Council to adopt the proposed HPO. Ned Gallagher, Member, Palo Alto Homeowners Association, 440 Melville Avenue, read the PAHA’s principles which brought the PAHA together to participate in the process that was vitally important to their homes, lives, and well being. Palo Alto was a beautiful City because of its historic homes. The homes were built or purchased, maintained, and improved in good taste and design by homeowners. The intrusion of municipality into private life was an attempt to tell the homeowner what he/she could or could not do with his/her home. There should not be a HPO in Palo Alto that intruded into a resident’s private life. The HPO was not for and by the people, it was an HPO that was against the people because it seriously restricted what could and could not be done to private property. He read Section 16.49.250(a)(2) relating to civil penalty. Andrea Sutherland, 1143 Webster Street, said the ratio and percentages offered in the incentives were minuscule. There were several precedences when issues were put to a vote; for example, the Sand Hill Corridor Road and the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, both discussed much longer than the proposed HPO. She could not support the HPO despite the fact she was an advocate of historic preservation.
06/07/99 88−275
She urged the Council to place the HPO on the ballot. Relda A. Poffenroth, 4061 Verdosa Drive, was against the funding of historic properties being forced upon the property owners. She read a letter dated May 20, 1998, that she sent to the Council Members and newspapers. She believed historic property designation should be voluntary. Beth Bunnenberg, Co-chair, Historic Inventory Survey Volunteers, 2351 Ramona Avenue, clarified the role of the Volunteers. At times the press and some individuals commented that volunteers were making decisions on which properties should be considered and the historic and architectural merit of the properties. She clarified that volunteers were used to do the research and the photography of properties that were prioritized by the consultant. Volunteers did not make judgements on which properties to study or determine whether the properties had architectural or historic merit. She urged the Council to adopt the HPO. Norman Beamer, 1005 University Avenue, participated in the interim HPO process. He applied for a compatibility review in April 1998 and still did not have a building permit. He believed the exemption from flood control regulations was an important incentive. There was a significant overlap between the areas that were designated as historic and flood plain area. The national regulations encouraged the exemption; however, he noticed in the proposed HPO that there was a restriction that did not allow the construction of a new basement in a flood plain. Allowing the owner to expand the historic property into the basement area rather than expanding elsewhere would serve the interest of historic preservation and at the same time be a significant incentive to the homeowner. He believed that historic preservation should be voluntary. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, supported the proposed HPO. She lived on a street that was steeped in history. One of the houses at 1055 Forest Avenue was undergoing major renovation. She was pleased that the home was being preserved and appreciated the history of the community. She urged the Council to adopt the proposed HPO. RECESS: 9:30 - 9:50 p.m. John R. Griffiths, 1266 Hamilton Avenue, was disappointed that the entire Council could not vote on the proposed HPO. He supported placing historic preservation on the ballot. His home was on Resource List Categories 3 and 4. He did not understand why his home was on the List since his home was built in 1931 and had been altered by 25%. He did not know what criteria was used to determine that his property qualified for the list. He believed that consent was important. Gladys Woodhams, 601 Melville Avenue, was discouraged because there was so little interest in Palo Alto in creating stringent regulations for historic properties. She had her home placed on the National
06/07/99 88−276
Register of Historic Places. She hoped that interior easements would eventually be allowed. Hal Ulrich, 2160 Bryant Street, did not consider his home historical since it was only 60 years old. He asked whether the transfer tax incentive meant the property value would be lowered. Sandra Gardner, 1755 University Avenue, said the membership of the PAHA consists of approximately 700 people, which was 700 votes against the HPO. She asked whether the Council knew how many residents were in favor of the HPO. Without knowing where the residents stood, she asked how the Council could vote on the HPO and still claim to represent the entire community. She asked how six Council Members could impose the HPO on a population of 60,000 without polling them. Elsie Begle, 501 Forest Avenue, said she believed the entire Council should vote on the HPO. The HPO should be put before the community for a vote. Murray Suid, 1111 Greenwood Avenue, said he did not own a historic home; however, he would be impacted due to the HPO effect on the spirit of Palo Alto. Most of the preservation done was accomplished voluntarily by homeowners. That spirit of volunteerism should be continued in the future. He suggested the HPO should give homeowners the right to nominate their own properties as historic. Including volunteerism in the HPO would send a message to Palo Altans that the City trusted them to make sensible choices. What made Palo Alto special was the creative and thoughtful people who lived here. David Mitchell, 526 Center Drive, said his home was designated as a contributing structure. He agreed the proposed HPO was an improvement over the prior draft HPO; however, the proposed HPO needed more work. He thought too much discretion was given to staff members. The non-financial incentives were of no use to him. He suggested that if he were allowed to turn his rear building into a cottage he might be interested in volunteering his home for the Register. In 1995, the rear building was remodeled. He was only allowed two plumbing fixtures and was told by staff that he could not apply for a variance. He urged the Council to include the cottage incentive into the HPO. Leannah Hunt, Chair, Local Government Relations Committee (Committee), Palo Alto District, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, 245 Lytton Avenue, said the Committee followed the HPO issue from the beginning. The community appreciated Mr. Gawf utilizing realtors, their resources, and ideas in the development of the HPO. The Planning Department under Mr. Gawf’s leadership did a good job in incorporating the community’s ideas. She appreciated the reduction of the number of homes that would be affected by the HPO. The Committee supported the incentives that were included in the HPO; however, the Committee was concerned about the potential cost to the homeowners. The revised EIR did not address
06/07/99 88−277
the issue of cost, but it was important that the public realized the costs incurred in following the national guidelines for the rehabilitation of a historic home. Ordinarily, the square-footage cost for remodeling and rehabilitation exceeded $200 per square foot. The Committee urged the Council to evaluate the HPO in one year. Shirley Ledgerwood, 2050 Waverley Street, was not sure what was considered historical. She said the multiple requirements of the HPO were so complex that many issues were buried within the details. She asked what would happen to a historic home listed on the Register or a Resource List home if it was damaged or destroyed in a flood or earthquake. Section 16.49.210 of the ordinance said that a decision to demolish or alter property destroyed by a natural disaster must be made by the local historic board. Such a review process would take time. The Planning Department could apply to the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) thus creating an additional delay. There were no timelines that determined when a decision should be made which could potentially leave the homeless owner homeless for some time and unable to rebuild. The HPO was not about preservation, it was about control by an organization over its weaker and helpless citizenry. Lee Brokaw, Hanover Street, congratulated the Council and staff on the work performed on the HPO. There were difficult decisions to make and mistakes were made; however, he believed that goals were met. Not everyone would be pleased with the HPO. The issue was to preserve the character and history of Palo Alto for future generations. One issue not addressed frequently was the housing demographics of Palo Alto. He predicted that the City would become the Beverly Hills of trophy houses if the HPO were not adopted. He urged the Council to adopt the HPO. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said staff did an excellent job on the HPO; however, there was one serious defect in the HPO which was allowing voluntary rather than mandatory identification of homes on the Register. He clarified if voluntary rather than mandatory inclusion was a requirement, some homeowners would do as they pleased with their property rights, which would in turn infringe upon his property rights. Claims that the HPO imposed significant requirements were false. The City had building codes and a zoning ordinance that were far more restrictive than the HPO. He urged the Council to adopt the HPO. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, supported the concept of historic preservation. There were some homeowners who did not receive due process. Their homes were made heritage or landmark without any public process. The proposed HPO was an effort to prevent change in a fast changing world. Incentives addressed within the HPO were not really incentives unless they are voluntary. Government regulation had the option of taking the personality out of people’s home design goal. The proposed HPO was offensive in that it told homeowners that they were not capable of making independent decisions about how to prolong the life and desirability of their homes. Staff
06/07/99 88−278
recommended a much larger group to have voluntary compliance. She urged the Council to require the preservation movement to sell its program to the people. The issue was one of fairness, democracy, and consent. Carol Lamont, 618 Kingsley Avenue, supported the proposed HPO; however, she believed it did not protect the City, the City’s heritage, its historic resources, or the character of its neighborhoods enough. She was concerned about the loss of homes eligible under the California Register and their replacement with big “glitzy boxes.” Photographs were taken to identify the contributors to the character of the community during the review and documentation process for the preparation of the HPO; however, these homes might not be preserved and replaced leaving the City with only photographs. She urged the Council to lead the City to preserve its heritage and to provide appropriate design standards for substantial rehabilitation and new homes. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the Political Reform Act (PRA) was adopted by an initiative measure in which people found and declared that public officials whether elected or appointed should perform their duties in an impartial manner free from bias caused by their own financial interest. One of the purposes of enacting the PRA was that any public official who may be materially affected by his/her official actions should be disclosed in an appropriate circumstance and disqualified from acting in order that conflict of interest might be avoided. There was nothing in the PRA that disqualified people based upon how they would vote on an issue, but rather what their financial interests were. Six out of seven members of the HRB had potential conflicts; however, three of those six were allowed to participate because it was necessary. A court decision in 1997 determined that participation of council members was struck down as fatally flawed because of a failure to disclose in the minutes the potential conflicts and also for a failure to disclose or explain why there was no alternative to City Council as a source of decision-making authority. He referred to a Council Colleagues memo from Mayor Gary Fazzino and Council Members Dick Rosenbaum and Vic Ojakian that proposed an amendment to Section 16.49.165. Staff decided to place the new Landmark properties on the Resource List rather than the Register. He thought the purpose of the Interim HPO was to give the City a means of designating properties in one classification rather than another. Jocelyn Baum, 909 Hamilton Avenue, said the problem the City was having was that houses were torn down to make way for developers building homes that did not match the character of the neighborhood. Many residents felt the proposed HPO was unfair and placed undue hardship on certain people and certain types of houses. She believed adopting the HPO was not going to solve the problem of large developers tearing down anything they could to build something bigger and more impressive.
06/07/99 88−279
Alan Brawer, 630 University Avenue, said his home had gone through six major remodels in the course of its history. The remodels amounted to three dormer styles; four styles of windows opening in different directions; three styles of outdoor staircases, each made with different materials; and six roofs, one right on top of the other. His home was far from being a historic resource. He recognized the possible value of incentives; however, he was skeptical of further regulations. The current level of regulation was more than sufficient. He opposed the proposed HPO. Mayor Fazzino announced that Item No. 7 would be continued to a special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, at 6 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. in memory of Mayor Fazzino’s grandfather, Patrick Rossignol, who passed away June 7, 1999, to Tuesday, June 8, 1999, at 6 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.
06/07/99 88−280