HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-08 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of June 7, 1999, to June 8, 1999 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission.........................88-282 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.....88-282 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m............88-314
06/08/99 88-281
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum (via teleconference at 6:05 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Kniss, Schneider UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Richard Carlson, Richard Gruen, H. Keith Henson, and Charles Powars received five or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, June 21, 1999. 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 (continued
from 6/7/99) 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) and, 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 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 Harold Justman, 836 Ramona Street, spoke in support of historic homes; however, the staff review process in the interim Ordinance failed to provide for appeals to the City Council, even though the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) included such an option. Criticism from people in favor of preservation but in opposition to the exact wording of the proposed HPO was
appropriate. A Αminor alteration≅ to an old house often resulted in surprises that could elevate the construction into a major alteration involving major expenses. The new Ordinance should address the question of how to handle situations where approval was
received but Αsurprises≅ resulted. If someone was engaged in construction with contractors and subcontractors, the Planning
06/08/99 88-282
Director should be given the ability to address such surprises without having to go through a major alteration review. Richard Elmore, 820 Hamilton Avenue, said the proposed HPO was valuable to some degree but failed to lessen the exposure the City attempted to avoid. Reconstruction in Palo Alto was difficult and expensive without having historic controls for which even greater costs would be incurred. The intent of the Ordinance was to alleviate the concern many felt over new, incompatible structures. The Council was urged to put a design review Ordinance into law for all residential structures to protect property owners from incompatible structures. Historic preservation was important; however, a new HPO should contain architectural control and then be submitted to the people of Palo Alto for a vote. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke about the difference between voluntary laws, which were oxymorons, and draconian laws, which were high-handed and unnecessary. The City could control the issue by not granting demolition permits, insist that the replacement of units demolished by fire be limited to what previously existed, and not issue permits to build even a storage shed for several years for structures demolished without approval. The City was better off placing a selection of measures on a ballot addressing the principle aims. The HPO was not an appropriate tool for preventing monster houses in Palo Alto. Primary support for the HPO came from people opposed to monster houses. The cultural prejudice against waste made it offensive to most in the community to demolish a good house. Before telling someone they could not change their house, the City Attorney should discuss a minimum HPO necessary to rebuild a house. A permanent HPO need not be as restrictive as a temporary HPO. The City faced a ballot proposition if it tried to restrict people from enlarging two-bedroom, one-bath houses. Substandard homes should be allowed to expand without being different from other homes on the block. Many cottages in Palo Alto added second stories and were better than historic overlays. Restrictions on property should not prevent owners from having a reasonable residence to sell. Richard Geiger, 714 East Charleston Road, spoke about the lack of understanding of the HPO and asked that the issue be placed on a ballot. The community would be given an opportunity to see the HPO and bring clarification. Compliance should be voluntary on the part of property owners. The requirement to maintain a historic structure might be impossible financially for some property owners. The newspaper reference to pre-1940s houses should be clarified. Nancy Alexander, 435 Santa Rita Avenue, asked about the percentage of destruction to a house that would not require rebuilding exactly as it had existed; for example, whether 40 or 50 percent damage by an earthquake would allow homeowners to rebuild as they wanted or according to the requirements of the City. She suggested that any historically designated structure that was 33 percent or more
06/08/99 88-283
damaged be deemed no longer historic and automatically removed from all historic lists. Kathy Woods, member, Palo Alto Homeowners Association (PAHA), 1127 Webster Street, said older neighborhoods in Palo Alto might fall into disrepair because of the HPO. Collusion was not the way to foster preservation and maintenance of older sections of town. A
better example was found in the Pasadena law, which was Αto encourage public understanding of and involvement in the unique architectural and environmental heritage of this city through educational and interpretive programs. Such programs may include lectures, reports, publications, films, open houses, and special
events.≅ Another purpose of the law was to Αrender advice and guidance on any structure as time permits and upon request of the property owner. By way of example, but not by way of limitation, such advice might relate to painting, colors, materials, fencing, landscape, lighting fixtures, or restoration. This advice shall not be construed to impose any controls but shall be offered in the
spirit of friendly help.≅ The issue of consent was required in the Pasadena law for landmark designation, and the criteria was clearly
identified. Pasadena=s Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC), similar
to the City=s Historic Resources Board (HRB), used 11 criteria to evaluate a cultural resource for landmark designation. Alterations for landmarks were reviewed by the CHC for compatibility to the
Secretary of the Interior=s guidelines. If the operation failed to comply with the standard, the CHC could delay issuance of a permit for 425 days at the end of which a building permit would be issued as a matter of right. The CHC could terminate the delay at any time if it determined that the delay caused an economic hardship or conditions were met to bring the alteration into compliance with the standards. The CHC would review applications within 30 days. For all designated landmarks, the CHC had the authority to delay demolition for a maximum of 425 days in an effort to preserve the building on its site or relocate it. Pasadena had approximately 50 landmarks, a small number of which were homes. Pasadena was rich in architecture and history and preserved its legacy with the cooperation of the citizens. A better HPO would inspire homeowners to participate in preservation. Jared Bernstein, 1330 Tasso Street, said the City could purchase properties to preserve historic structures. Some homeowners were limited by the HPO because of the financial burden. Smaller houses could be moved from the larger properties and placed on the vacant Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) property by the City. Sometimes the burden on a single person could be severe. The issue might end up as a referendum so the desire of the entire community would be known. Monica Young Arima, 1052 Bryant Street, said as an owner of two historic properties, both in need of repair, she faced the problem of having regulations imposed on her and others wanting to do the
06/08/99 88-284
community some good. Problems developed because of misunderstandings about how things really were. Preservation was a partnership between property owners and the City. People in Palo Alto should help others in the community without having to rely on people outside the community. The problem was a city-review problem. The responsibility was shifted to historic homeowners who were given the responsibility to care for the older homes. Regulation was difficult for people. The City should only pass necessary laws. Individual homeowners should be respected through the process. She urged the Council to place the HPO on the ballot so the people of Palo Alto could vote. John Grisand, 225 Middlefield Road, opposed the proposed HPO. The
HPO was poorly written, complex, and used the words Αmay≅ and
Αpotential benefits≅ too often. The incentives were not really incentives, since the HPO was not voluntary, but were compensation for the detrimental economic impact. City involvement in the aesthetics of his property was improper, although support was given to City involvement in the demolition of older homes. The major difficulty with the HPO was the economic impact. One of the designating features for the sale of homes in Palo Alto was whether or not it was on the historic list, thus the HPO would have a negative financial impact on homeowners of historic homes. An expenditure of thousands of dollars and many hours had still not resulted a consensus of the community. The Council was urged not to pass the proposed HPO but to produce an ordinance that met the goal of historic preservation and brought in more community support. Richard Alexander, 435 Santa Rita Avenue, spoke about recommended language to clarify that the civil liability in the case of demolition should be equal to the replacement cost of the property and that in the case of an alteration the penalty should be limited to restoration of the alteration. The process was more important than the HPO itself. How people read the process was much more important than what was being done with the Ordinance. The standard applied to an older house should be applied to other houses. The City should offer sufficient incentives without imposing burdens and penalties. The City could purchase some of the historic homes, like it had done with the Squire House. Combined with a voluntary program, better incentives could be offered. The proposed HPO would place a financial burden on a select few that should be carried by all. Agreement was voiced with others who suggested the item be placed on the ballot. Karen Fredrickson, 2257 Hanover Street, urged the City Council to represent all of its constituents. A strong special interest group supported historic houses, but recognition should be given to the high cost of maintaining such historic homes. The HPO should be voluntary and appealing enough so people would want to comply. Agreement was voiced with the comments about the problem surrounding the type of houses being built. Architectural review
06/08/99 88-285
seemed to be the route to consider, encouraging a more beautiful Palo Alto with materials that were more environmentally friendly, easier to maintain, and less demanding on utilities. The City was urged to look to the future, not burden homeowners unduly, and make the HPO voluntary. Mayor Fazzino declared the Public Hearing closed and thanked members of the public for their participation. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf identified the three documents left at places, the first of which was a post-amendment to the draft HPO. The second was a revision to the resolution dealing with the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and making findings, including identification of the usage of the
EIR. The third document was staff=s response to two comments made the prior evening on the adequacy of the final EIR in written form. The provision in the HPO regarding natural disasters was found in Section 16.49.210. The HPO would not require rebuilding of destroyed structures but addressed California Public Resources Code
(CPRC) ∋5028 which applied to properties on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or the Palo Alto Register (PA Register) but not the Resource List. In situations where life or property was in peril, the structure could be demolished. Prior to non-emergency demolition, the State offered preservation and free local resident review of the feasibility of repair and considered cost as part of it. The response had to be within 30 days. The final decision was
still the City=s. The building could be removed from the Register
and demolition allowed, i.e., the control was still the City=s for non-emergency demolition. If an emergency situation existed, the City could use its normal police power for that purpose. The essence of the section was designed to protect the building owner from condemnation made in haste, for instance, giving time to evaluate the situation to make sure all alternatives were explored within a reasonable timeframe of 30 days. The second category of comments related to additional incentives. Two or three issues were raised. One was whether a new basement could be added to a historic house, for which there was some merit. The argument was that if the basement area could be expanded into a new area, the house above ground might not have to be expanded. The difficulty, however, was that it went against another policy or goal of minimizing basement construction in the flood plain. The recommendation was to allow existing basements but not to provide for new basements in historic houses. The Council could direct staff to include basements as an incentive. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the exclusion of basements was found in Section 18.18.050. A number of older homes
had floors more than three feet above the ground. Under the City=s standard rules, it would be considered part of the floor area ratio (FAR) and Section 18.18.050 said it should not be calculated as
06/08/99 88-286
part of the FAR. Council Member Eakins asked whether basements were excluded only in flood zones for historic houses or for all historic houses. Planning Manager George White said Section 18.18.050 addressed how basement FARs were calculated for historic homes. Section 18.18.050-C indicated the exemption would not apply new basements within the flood plain designated in Chapter 16.52. Ms. Furth said the prohibition on new basements in flood plains was not contained in the chapter on historic houses but was found in the flood regulations. When staff first wrote the exemption, expanded basements in the flood zone were referenced. Existing basements were excluded from the calculations.
Council Member Eakins asked whether Αexcluded from the
calculations≅ meant it was permissible. Ms. Furth said the issue was about not counting basement areas when calculating the permitted FAR on a lot. Council Member Eakins said the FAR on a lot would not include existing basements anywhere, but in a non-flood zone the issue was moot because new basements were not allowed. She asked whether a historic house could have a new basement in non-flood zones that would not count in the FAR. Ms. Furth said yes. However, the floor level of the house could not be altered. Council Member Eakins asked whether the floor level of the house could be altered up to the 36 inches. Ms. Furth said no direct requirement in the Ordinance spoke to moving the building up and down in relation to the grade. Council Member Eakins asked whether the additional square footage would be counted if the grade level of an existing structure had to be altered in order to put in a new basement in a non-flood zone. Ms. Furth said yes. The benefit for an existing structure in the historic district was probably not moot. A house four feet above grade under the present rules would count the basement space in the FAR even if in the flood zone. If the HPO were adopted, basements would not be counted. Council Member Mossar said a reference was made to Section 18.18.050-C, which appeared in the first version the Council received that staff said was a mistake. The revised draft, dated June 3, 1999, was the correct one where there was no Section C.
06/08/99 88-287
Ms. Furth said Council Member Mossar was correct. When the
language was written, she did not realize that the City=s flood regulations prohibited new basements in the flood district whether or not historic. Mr. Gawf said the central point was that the flood plain ordinance regulated the issue. Mayor Fazzino clarified the flood plane ordinance could be amended. Mr. Gawf said yes. Staff would recommend against doing so because of the conflicting values between flood protection and reducing damage due to flood loss and historic preservation. Mr. Gawf said the incentive discussed the prior evening was the concept of a second unit on a lot, which was not addressed in the packet of materials the Council received but was included in the list of incentives the Council received at its December 7, 1998, meeting at which time the Council decided not to proceed with the incentive. If a lot was large enough, a second unit would not be prohibited. In some cases, a variance might be necessary for a home improvement exemption to allow the use on the lot. Given the language staff proposed as an incentive for home improvement exemptions and variances, there might be a basis for such support. The key point was that staff decided that one of the incentives not available was the second or additional unit on a lot. The third was the question about reducing parking Downtown, which staff had not proposed. On December 7, 1998, the Council discussed reduction of parking requirements but eliminated the idea. The next set of questions dealt with major and minor alterations. An exterior change to a structure that required a building permit was an alteration. Ms. Furth said the sections dealing with alterations appeared in a number of places. Section 16.49.020(a) on page 3 contained a definition of alterations, Section 16.49.020(k) on page 4 was the definition of major alteration, and Section 16.49.020(m) at the bottom of page 4 was the definition of minor alterations. The section governing alterations of heritage properties was contained in Section 16.49.130 on page 16 and major alterations of Resource List properties was found in Section 16.49.150 on page 19. On page 20, Section 16.49.160 dealt with major alterations of contributing resources and Section 16.49.170 on page 21 dealt with major alterations or replacement of non-contributing resources. Mr. Gawf said the question raised the prior night was what an alteration was and whether the addition of a mailbox or tree required City approval. The answer was no, according to the section on page 3. Alterations were changes to a structure that required a building permit and changes to the exterior of the structure that required a building permit. Alterations would not include painting or landscape to a single-family dwelling or
06/08/99 88-288
maintenance. Anything that would not require a building permit was not viewed as an alteration requiring City review. The question was where the major alteration came into play, which went to the definition of major and minor alterations on page 4. Staff tried to identify changes that could be a major or minor alteration. The director was left with some discretion that if an alteration met the Secretary of Interior standards, it might be viewed as a minor alteration. Some judgment was involved, for example as one went through the process, the director would have some latitude in making a determination of major and minor alteration. Vice Mayor Wheeler said a speaker from the prior evening indicated that when the interim regulations under which the City currently operated were changed, provisions were made to allow minor alterations, even to the street-facing façade. The language seemed to take the City back to August 1998 when the Council felt the need for some correction and leniency. She asked whether the statements about flexibility of the director would address such changes or required more explicit language. Mr. Gawf said the interim ordinance under which the City was operating until March 31, 1999, dealt with the broader language and array of properties. The City dealt with a smaller number. Given the way major and minor alterations were defined, the director had flexibility as long as it was in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards in making the judgment. The items identified in the definitions were intended to be clues to help determine what was major and minor. The key was whether or not it met the Secretary of the Interior standards. If so, it could be allowed as a minor alteration. Another issue raised both the prior evening as well as that evenings meeting was the question of whether the real point of design review of replacement buildings was being missed. The issue was discussed extensively on December 7, 1998, because it was a real issue in the community. The community needed the questions of both historic preservation and design review of replacement buildings answered. At the time, the Council directed that staff complete the HPO. At the same time, the Council directed staff to begin work on the other issue, which it had been doing. There was an issue in the community about design review of replacement buildings, which had to be addressed, but the City also needed to finish the HPO. Council Member
Rosenbaum=s comments regarding the general category on several penalties were appropriate as far as modification to the section. Ms. Furth said Section 16.49.250(a)(2) on page 25 under enforcement addressed the issue and was designed to deal with people who chose not to obey the rules. Civil penalties were charged by a judge after a finding and a trial indicating a person violated an ordinance. There were several methods of enforcement when an ordinance was enforced with a civil penalty. One was a criminal enforcement action, which staff thought was not an appropriate way
of enforcing the rule and not a good use of the criminal court=s
06/08/99 88-289
time. The City also had administrative penalties and fines for minor violations. A classic example was the parking ticket. The problem was that for some people such penalties were only the cost of doing business and were factored into the cost of the project, which could be a serious problem if a great deal of money could be made by violating the rules. Staff tried to structure a civil penalty which could be as high as the value of the house. The civil penalty in the case of a demolition would be a sum equal to the cost of replacing the building that was destroyed and, in the case of an alteration, the cost of restoring the alteration. Both suggestions were to the point and would not lead people to fear draconian or inappropriate penalties. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the civil penalties were the equivalent of what the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee passed for code enforcement where the issue of civil versus criminal penalties was discussed. Ms. Furth said yes, but the penalties under code enforcement were administratively handled outside the court system, while the penalties involved in ordinance violations would be handled within the court system. Council Member Ojakian asked whether Mr. Alexander had given staff a copy of the text the Council could examine. Ms. Furth replied yes. Mr. Gawf said one other point made the prior evening should be clarified regarding the demolition of historic properties over the years. Staff examined its records and found 11 demolitions occurred between 1983 and 1996 in the Category 1 and 2, Professorville and Downtown, historic areas. The proposed amendments to the draft HPO were discussed. Mayor Fazzino asked whether staff had the total number of demolitions for the same period. Ms. Furth said there were a number of figures. In 1997, 50 houses were demolished and in 1998, 90 houses were demolished. Most of the demolitions had not involved designated historic properties but
potentially affected the City=s pre-1940 housing stock and the
community=s potential historic properties. From January to September 1996, more than 60 residential demolitions occurred, 34 of which were pre-1940s homes. From August to September 1996, demolitions of two significant properties occurred, one an 1899 Victorian located in College Terrace and one involving a home in Professorville designed by Julia Morgan. The page further showed more than 50 residential permits were issued during 1997 and over 90 residential demolition permits had been issued in 1998, a number of which dated pre-1940. Demolitions included properties recently identified in the 1998-99 historic survey as potentially eligible
06/08/99 88-290
for the NRHP, such as 6 Tevis Place and 1527 Waverley Street. The landmark criteria was more restrictive than the NRHP criteria and would not apply to houses built after 1940. Mayor Fazzino asked whether staff had demolition figures from earlier years. Ms. Furth said no. The indication was there was an increase. Council Member Ojakian asked how the figures compared with other cities. Mr. Gawf said from reading newspaper articles and speaking with planners in other cities, the issues confronting Palo Alto were occurring in other cities as well. Many people recently saw the Palm Beach article in the New York Times. About two weeks prior he spoke with someone from Boulder, Colorado, where a resolution was passed in the mid-1990s dealing with demolitions. Planning directors in Santa Clara County (the County) indicated the replacement of demolished structures was a major topic of
discussion. A comparison of Palo Alto=s numbers with other cities was not possible at the current time. The five changes staff
recommended for the Council=s consideration included changes to the
criteria description. The phrase Αas it may be amended from time
to time≅ was changed. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked about the revised language of 16.49.060(2)
ΑThe resource has achieved significance at least 50 years ago,≅ which seemed to indicate a structure had to be 100 years old rather than 50 years old. Mr. Gawf agreed, but the wording was taken verbatim from the NRHP. The purpose was to provide additional clarity for the NRHP criteria. The essence of the criteria was retained. The 50 years was also a NRHP statement and was an appropriate clarification to the criteria section. Council Member Mossar said a number of speakers expressed concern that the City had not clarified the criteria that would be used to place a home on the PA Register. Mr. Gawf said the criteria was used to evaluate the property for the NRHP.
Council Member Mossar said a speaker indicated Pasadena=s ordinance contained 11 criteria that were published and were clear. She
asked how Pasadena=s list compared with Palo Alto=s.
Mr. Gawf said staff=s proposed criteria were based on the NRHP criteria, which was used for 30 years throughout the country, additional information was provided for it, and it would provide a
06/08/99 88-291
consistent basis for evaluation. The second proposed change dealt with the majority required for formation of an historic preservation district, which was fairly clear cut, for instance, the majority of the respondents were required in order to form a historic district. A ballot would be mailed and a district would be formed if a majority of the residents agreed to the formation. Council Member Mossar said when the single-story overlay was discussed, Council asked staff to examine appropriate percentages to make sure that the neighborhood had adequate representation in the decision. She asked how the majority requirement compared with the current single-story overlay and whether staff had given consideration to the issue for the future. Mr. Gawf said staff had not considered the single-story overlay because of its focus on historic preservation. The majority of respondents would be the base majority, or solid majority, which was important. Council Member Mossar asked whether a majority would be considered 51 percent. Mr. Gawf replied yes. Ms. Furth clarified 50 percent plus one. The definition of
Αmajority≅ in the definition section was essentially one property equaled one vote. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked staff to respond to the comment by one of the speakers that residents of a potential district should be the ones to vote rather than absentee owners. Ms. Furth said the customary procedure had property owners vote rather than the resident. The choice was one the Council could make. When the citizens of Palo Alto voted, registered voters were all legitimate categories. It was also appropriate to indicate that property owners should cast the deciding vote. The traditional area in which silence was consent was in property-owner elections, the most common of which were assessment districts. The notion was that the people most directly affected were property owners. Mr. Gawf said the third change was one submitted by the Council and dealt with changes to the criteria for demolition of a contributing structure. Ms. Furth said the June 7, 1999, Council colleagues memo suggested there were cases when flexibility to permit a demolition of a contributing structure in a historic district was important as long as the integrity of the district was not damaged. The Council should have the ability to weigh factors to make decisions.
06/08/99 88-292
Ms. Furth said the Resource List started out with a number of identified structures but other structures could be found in the future that qualified for the NHRP could be added. The current wording indicated the director would maintain the list and could add a property after consultation with the HRB and a qualified historian. If both agreed the property was a NHRP, it could be placed on the Resource List for further study. The decision could be appealed to the Council under the HPO. If the Council thought it should be involved in direct action rather than through an appeal process, it could make the decision to do so. The bottom of page 4 of the June 7, 1999, Colleagues memo contained the text in such an instance. Mayor Fazzino said action could be taken to place a property on the Resource List. Ms. Furth said yes. Staff closely examined the issue since the issue was raised. The language regarding appeals was examined and
staff used standard language from the zoning code, such as Αany
aggrieved person can appeal a decision.≅ A court case found that city councils were not aggrieved people and if a council member had the power to call something up, the code had to explicitly say so. Mayor Fazzino said someone suggested that anyone could say a house should be placed on the Resource List. Ms. Furth said that was not possible. Council Member Rosenbaum said a point was made that aside from the currently identified houses; nothing would be added to the Register without owner consent. The changes proposed by staff appeared to
be a Αbackdoor≅ way to put a house on the Register. Mr. Gawf said the concept of the Resource List was that any future addition to the Resource List had to meet the NRHP criteria. Staff proposed adding a provision that would only give the Council authority to place a property on the Resource List in the future, even if it met the NRHP criteria. Council Member Rosenbaum suggested the City might take one step further by placing a home on the Resource List only if the consent of the homeowner was obtained. The 1,800 homes that were already CRHR eligible could find themselves on the Register. The issue
would be whether the City was using a Αbackdoor≅ way of adding homes to the Register without homeowner consent. Except for homes currently identified as being on the Register or Resource List, without homeowner consent no other homes could be added. The staff language seemed to suggest a house could be placed on the Resource List without owner consent. Mayor Fazzino said the question Council Member Rosenbaum raised was
06/08/99 88-293
a policy issue, which the Council needed to face at a later time.
Ms. Furth said the City=s current update survey identified potential NRHP properties. The 1,600 identified as CRHR eligible were identified as not being NRHP eligible. At present, the properties were not vulnerable to being shifted onto the Resource List or the Register. However, the Council could write the HPO in whatever way it wished. Non-residential resources might be available that over the next five years might be resources the Council would want to protect, with or without owner consent. Based on her limited experience with the community, an example
would be something like St. Anne=s Chapel. The decision was one entirely for the Council to make. Mr. Gawf said prior to making such a decision, staff needed to check the EIR to ensure environmental clearance. He would raise the question about whether there was environmental clearance for the option and if it was one the Council wanted to pursue. The concept was that the City would evaluate under the potential NRHP criteria. If the property failed to meet that criteria, a determination was made that the 1,800 homes on the potential CRHR would not return to the Resource List. People from the CRHR would
not be Αbackdoored≅ into the Resource List. By giving the Council the authority, it became a double-check. Ms. Furth said if the Council wanted to make that choice, the Council needed to articulate the reasons, and staff would need to rewrite the resolution approving the HPO. Council Member Mossar thought the intent was to address future updates to the Resource List, as a general category. Mr. Gawf said one of the dilemmas was the 20-year lapse between updates of the inventory list. Staff performed an exhaustive survey of the community, so the number of properties would be small, but there would still be properties in the future that would meet the NRHP criteria. The City would then be given the opportunity to evaluate such properties by placement on the Resource List. Every five years or so, staff should review potential properties. Council Member Mossar asked about a scenario in five or ten years when staff looked again and found ten properties it considered possibilities, three of which were possible NRHP eligible. Staff would bring the three properties, along with justification for eligibility, to the Council. The Council would decide whether or not the properties should be included on the Resource List. Using the other sections of the HPO, the properties would remain on the Resource List unless the homeowner wanted properties moved to the PA Register. Mr. Gawf said yes. The homeowner might also challenge the
06/08/99 88-294
determination as to whether or not it met the NRHP criteria. Council Member Mossar clarified the homeowner had to take action at that point. Ms. Furth said another possibility was if the homeowner came in to request demolition of a building on the Resource List. At that point, if staff and the HRB agreed the building was a Register quality building, it would be brought before the Council for determination as to whether or not it should be added to the Register. The Resource List was designed to prevent properties from being demolished or altered in a way that would destroy their historic significance without the City having an opportunity to review and make a determination about its inclusion on the Register. Council Member Mossar asked whether Ms. Furth was saying the Resource List was primarily demolition protection. Ms. Furth said yes. The Resource List was designed to ensure that buildings would not cease to be historic resources without some review. Council Member Ojakian asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum was asking that the particular exercise was a one-time update of the Register, since it was not done in 20 years, and any future potential register property regardless of whether or not it was NRHP eligible would require owner consent. Council Member Rosenbaum said the major concern was with the 1,800 CRHR eligible properties. If the City could provide some statement either in the HPO or as a matter of Council policy that the CRHR properties that were not NRHP eligible would not be placed on the Resource List or Register without owner consent. Council Member Ojakian said the staff handout contained wording to that effect. The proposed changes to the HPO stated that the Council would not be able add potential CRHR properties without owner consent. Council Member Rosenbaum understood the change was with regard to addition to the Register. His concern was about placing homes on the Resource List without owner consent. Once a home was placed on the Resource List, it was then possible for the home to be placed on the Register without owner consent. To the extent the City was interested in letting the CRHR eligible property owners know they could not be placed on the Register without consent, it would be helpful to indicate the property could not be added to the Resource List without permission because by definition the property was not NRHP eligible. Ms. Furth said the revised CEQA resolution discussed the fact the Council believed different levels of protection were appropriate
06/08/99 88-295
for different kinds of resources. Only the most significant properties should be subject to the requirements of preservation and alteration. Paragraph (f) talked about the other 1,800 historic resources in the City that were CRHR eligible and should be treated differently but were not of the same quality as the PA Register properties. A sentence could be added that the properties could not be added to the Register or the Resource List without homeowner consent. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed. Council Member Eakins clarified the process under discussion was for the future, not the present. Mr. Gawf said Council Member Eakins was correct. Council Member Eakins said if the recently destroyed Birge Clark buildings stood another 10 to 15 years, the buildings might have gone through the process. The principle of having a future path was important, but not using an existing building as an example and possibly alarming some owner. Mr. Gawf agreed. Staff talked about identifying the process and making sure it was clear how the process would work. Council Member Eakins said the post-World War II (WW2) buildings would eventually become a concern, even though the buildings were not of great concern to the community at the current time. The immediate post-WW2 buildings were put up at a time of inadequate resources and were not particularly special to the community at the current time. But as time went on, some of the post-WW2 structures became nicer and might come to look better to future members of the community. Future members of the community should be given the opportunity to preserve post-WW2 era. Attention was on pre-WW2 but future considerations would be largely post-WW2 with a different flavor and a different set of issues.
Mayor Fazzino said Section 16.49.060(b)(1)(ii), ΑThe resource is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past whose activities were demonstrably important in the development of this
community, state or nation.≅ He supported and understood the wording, but questioned whether it was in any way inconsistent with the NRHP language. Even though someone like Birge Clark or Bill Hewlett made significant contributions to the community, they also obtained national recognition for their accomplishments and therefore their homes might be captured under the NRHP. Ms. Furth said the additions were not inconsistent with the NRHP standards since the language was taken directly from the NRHP
standards, and Mayor Fazzino=s observation of who would or would not qualify was correct.
06/08/99 88-296
Mayor Fazzino clarified the language was not at all inconsistent with the NRHP. The intent was that someone would have a national impact.
Ms. Furth said Mayor Fazzino=s example of Birge Clark was good. A vast majority of the buildings were in a small area, but Birge Clark was of great enough significance to be of national importance. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff had information about
other communities= lists of criteria.
Mr. Gawf said Pasadena=s ordinance was older. Most of the newer ordinances used the national or state criteria, which was not the
case when Pasadena=s ordinance was drafted. It was one of the reasons the state developed its criteria, to bring in some consistency and a body of evidence by which to interpret the rules, which was a key part of any set of criteria. Mayor Fazzino recommended the Council work through the HPO section by section, then the EIR, and then the incentives. Ms. Furth said two insertions should be made in Section 1.C. on
page 1 of the HPO, which cited the history of the City=s regulatory efforts. The Urgency Ordinance was adopted on February 22, 1999.
The word Αcertain≅ should be added in the sentence Αthe demolition
or damaging alteration of certain historic properties.≅ Council Member Mossar asked about definitions in Section 16.49.020 on page 3 of the HPO. A comment was made the prior evening that
the definition of Αdemolition≅ was changed from the interim ordinance. Staff indicated the interim ordinance covered a broader range of houses. The proposed ordinance dealt with a specific set of historic homes for which the definition for demolition was appropriate. Mr. Gawf thought the issue was raised regarding the definition of alternation not demolition. Staff made changes to the definition of demolition as the result of some of its experiences with the interim ordinance.
Council Member Mossar asked whether Αremoval of 50 percent or more
of the exterior walls of the building or structure≅ meant the same as the interim ordinance under which the City was currently operating. A member of the public expressed concern the prior evening that the City began to loosen up the definition which the proposed Ordinance subsequently tightened up. Mr. Gawf thought the reference was to the interim ordinance that expired in March.
06/08/99 88-297
Council Member Mossar had the same concern with regard to the
definition of Αmajor alteration≅ on page 4 of the HPO under Section
16.49.020(k)(2), Αremoval of more than twenty per cent (20%) of the
exterior walls.≅ Staff was asked to explain where the City had been and where it was going. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the issue raised the prior evening was about the location on the building at which an alteration would take place. The statement was made that under the current HPO, if the alternation for the removal of the building was not on the front façade or a façade that faced a public street, the definitions and regulations were less stringent. That distinction seemed to be missing from the permanent HPO.
Ms. Furth said the definition of Αdemolition≅ had not changed from the interim Ordinance currently in effect or the previous interim Ordinance, each of which had the 50 percent and exclusion of new construction and repair and replacement. Vice Mayor Wheeler questioned the flexibility or permissiveness of doing more by way of removal, remodel, or alteration if it would not impinge on or affect the street-facing façade. Ms. Furth said the definition in the new HPO would still have
Αstreet-facing façade.≅ There was an assumption that an alteration that was significant enough to require a building permit on a street-facing façade was a major alteration. However, the proposed ordinance said that even a street-facing façade alteration that was
potentially compatible with the Secretary of the Interior=s guidelines was available or approved as a minor alteration and
could be approved by staff. She assumed the issue was whether Αany
alteration≅ was interpreted as a mailbox or flowerpot. Council Member Mossar asked which section controlled the kind of alteration on the street-facing façade. Ms. Furth said page 4 of the HPO under Section 16.49.020(k) listed the presumptions. The Council directed staff to make quick decisions whenever possible and filter as many remodeling jobs out of the more extensive process as possible. There were concerns by neighbors and others about some types of alterations. When an application came before staff, the first thing to be checked was whether or not any of the elements suggested the alteration was major, which included an alteration of a street-facing façade. If an application was received, although an alteration to a street-facing façade was something of which preservationists would approve or was consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation, it could still be classified and treated as a minor
alteration. Hence the meaning of the sentence, Αunless the Director determines that proposed alteration is a Minor
06/08/99 88-298
Alteration.≅ Council Member Mossar clarified the decision that an alteration was
ΑMinor≅ meant it was consistent with the guidelines. Ms. Furth said yes. Council Member Mossar asked for an interpretation of Section
16.49.020(k)(2), Αremoval of more than twenty percent (20%) of the
exterior walls,≅ if none of the walls were visible from the street. Ms. Furth said the distinction was not whether it was visible from the street but whether it was consistent with the standards; however, the standards emphasized appearance from public areas. More flexibility would be granted on hidden and removed parts of
the building. The 20 percent figure was based on staff=s experience that most rear house alterations involved 20 percent or less of exterior walls. Council Member Mossar understood how someone could read the section
and be confused about the intention of the HPO. Ms. Furth=s explanation made the section clear, but she was unsure the section was comforting to someone who had not received the long explanation. Ms. Furth said staff could attempt to rewrite the section. One of the complications in writing an ordinance was that the rules were more like computer programs or sets of instructions for a staff member to examine. One section authorized the director to write guidelines, interpretive bulletins, and explanations. In such documents, staff intended to write explanations from the point of view of a property owner interested in making a change.
Mr. Gawf said Section 16.40.020(m) on page 4, Α=Minor Alteration= means an alteration of a Historic Resource which the Director
determines is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards for Rehabilitation and therefore does not have an adverse
impact on the historic integrity of the Historic Resource,≅ was the operative sentence. One test was with the guidelines to identify which alterations were major or minor. The other test was whether
or not alterations met the Secretary of the Interior=s guidelines. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff could write a public document making the decision clear. Mr. Gawf said yes. Staff had already started putting the HPO into language that any applicant could understand. Council Member Eakins said things could be done to buildings which would not require a building permit, such as replacing in-kind or
06/08/99 88-299
same dimension windows. If someone had genuine multi-pane windows with separate pieces of glass and wanted to replace the glass with plate glass, she questioned whether a building permit would be required if the dimension of the opening remained the same. Mr. Gawf was unsure how the City handled such situations. Council Member Eakins said the situation could either be a loophole or misunderstanding. Someone might look at the HPO and think a building permit was not needed, yet the Secretary of the Interior standards might require one. Mr. Gawf said staff would look into the question. Council Member Ojakian said his goal was to preserve a home that the City wanted to remain on the NRHP. The definition of major alterations said several different things. Some homes in Palo Alto
went through the City=s process, had alterations, and then were no longer NRHP eligible. Under the HPO, Palo Alto residents would be allowed to make a major alteration to a home as long as the alteration fell within the guidelines. Staff would make a judgement based on the criteria to allow an alteration to a home and the home would still be eligible for the NRHP. Ms. Furth said that was the intention of the program. However, the keeper of the National Register was not bound to decisions made by the City and the Council. The City could not say that because it did its best it succeeded, but that was the intent. A person who was concerned about NRHP eligibility would probably investigate NRHP listings more carefully prior to proceeding with a change. Guidance could be obtained from the City, but to be sure, the individual would need to be in touch with the keeper of the NRHP.
Council Member Ojakian said the City=s intent was to do the best of its ability using the criteria in the HPO. In most cases, the City would meet the NRHP standards; however, it might slip every now and then. Ms. Furth said the issue could become very relevant if the bill passed to allow tax credits for restoration of historic homes that were NRHP eligible. If so, an extensive body of law would result with many to advise. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the HPO prevented an addition to a home on the register. He assumed the Secretary of the
Interior=s Standards would speak to the criteria. Ms. Furth said a prior Council packets included an article concerning the vocabulary of additions. The Council was familiar with the discussion about additions that were complimentary but distinct. The City would apply the same standards.
06/08/99 88-300
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the City=s historic architect had a particular perspective, such as whether it met particular standards for the architect to find it that way. Mr. Gawf said the goal of the City was to hire someone who would
apply the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards for rehabilitation to applications along with advice from the HRB. Council Member Ojakian said there was discussion that when an addition was put on a house, by making it distinct from the current structure, some distinct separation or walkway was required to make it a separate unit. Ms. Furth said that was not true. What Council Member Ojakian might be thinking about was the section of the standards that said one should not try to create a perfect imitation. The result should be a historic building where one could see that a suitable change was made. The classic example was slightly different shingling detail. Council Member Ojakian said the HPO was written in a way that made it sound like it should accommodate certain kinds of additions. Ms. Furth said that was true. Mayor Fazzino asked what practical impact would result if the number were changed to 30 percent. Ms. Furth said people might propose larger removal of walls and the presumption would change as to whether something was minor or major. If less than 30 percent but still inconsistent with the
Secretary of the Interior=s Standards, the application would still go through a major review. Mr. Gawf said either number was fine. It was important to have some threshold. Staff used the 20 percent figure and seemed to have worked. Ms. Furth said in August 1998, a minor project was limited to projects that were not more than 10 percent, so the figure was doubled. RECESS: 9:40 p.m. to 9:55 p.m.
Council Member Ojakian said the definition for Αminor alteration≅
on page 4 of the HPO, Section 16.49.020(m) said Αwhich the Director
determines is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior=s
Standards.≅ However, other parts of the HPO used the word
Αgenerally≅ where the Director would make a determination.
Ms. Furth thought the term Αgenerally≅ was used consistently 06/08/99 88-301
throughout the document; however, if the Council wanted to make the point the HPO was to be used as a guideline to be applied and interpreted appropriately, the wording would be changed to
Αsubstantial compliance.≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, regarding
Section 16.49.020 section (m) ΑMinor Alteration≅ to change the
words Αis consistent≅ in the second sentence to Αin substantial
compliance≅ and to keep the wording consistent throughout the ordinance. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Ojakian, that all members of the Historic Resource Board be residents of Palo Alto. Council Member Rosenbaum was unsure he wanted the HRB membership
limited and asked for Council Member Eakins= reasoning behind the motion.
Council Member Eakins said the HRB=s responsibilities was expanded to include quasi-judicial decisions, making it important that individuals who were part of the HRB lived in Palo Alto. The difference with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) was the requirement for all but one member to have professional expertise and practical knowledge of architecture. To allow latitude and to draw a sufficient number of interested and qualified individuals, some geographic or residential flexibility was necessary. Where there was a wider variety of requirements for membership on the HRB and the additional responsibility the Ordinance would give, it would be more appropriate to have all HRB members residents of the City. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian, to add the following language at the end of the first sentence in Section
16.49.030 (a), Αand demonstrate diverse points of views; and also that the HRB members should not hold leadership for any organization involved in lobbying for the historic preservation
ordinance.≅ Mayor Fazzino said HRB members were asked to take on additional responsibilities, making it a quasi-judicial group. Therefore, the HRB should be balanced in terms of points of view, background, and members of the HRB should not be otherwise involved with lobbying on historic preservation issues before the Council. The additional language would help guarantee that members of the HRB were as objective as possible. No HRB member should be involved in lobbying on behalf of an organization that had a strong point of
06/08/99 88-302
view on the issue. The individual would not be giving up the right to address the Council individually or be a member of an organization, but it was inappropriate to be in a leadership role
in an organization lobbying the City Council. ΑLeadership≅ was the
word that came to mind, but Αofficer≅ might be a better word. Council Member Mossar thought Mayor Fazzino wanted to separate the lobbying function from the quasi judicial responsibilities so someone on the HRB could not lobby the Council on issues related to historic preservation. She asked whether the position within an organization was as important as lobbying. Mayor Fazzino said one could assume someone in a leadership position for an organization was probably involved in decision making with respect to what positions to argue before the City Council. Council Member Mossar said the individual could be lobbying without being an officer. Mayor Fazzino agreed. However, officers were the ones most involved in decision making with respect to lobbying.
Council Member Mossar was uncomfortable with the Αofficer≅ aspect of the motion, although she had no problem specifying that lobbying on the issues was not an acceptable activity for an HRB member. Vice Mayor Wheeler was concerned about singling out HRB members. Planning Commissioners were not restricted from being active in an organization like the Committee for Green Foothills or the Sierra Club. A distinction was not easily drawn between members of the Planning Commission and its non-profit affiliations outside the Planning Commission and members of the HRB. Mayor Fazzino said the City had a limited set of responsibilities for the HRB. The HRB was given the responsibility to exercise great discretion with respect to what Palo Alto residents could or could not do with his or her home. Therefore, he wanted a group of individuals who were removed from ongoing lobbying regarding the
HPO or program. The Planning Commission=s responsibilities were much broader in nature. Similar actions were often taken at the State level, but at the State level it typically applied to people who lobbied. It was inappropriate and sent the wrong message to the community for members of the HRB to lobby for or against an HPO. Ms. Furth said if the Council wanted to pursue such changes regarding the diverse point of view as well as disciplines as a simple amendment, the Council might want to think about limiting the number of people who qualified for appointment or the activities of people once appointed. Clarity was important in
06/08/99 88-303
order to avoid discouraging public participation while at the same time having a process whereby people felt they received a fair hearing.
Council Member Mossar understood Mayor Fazzino=s interest in such language, but there was a great deal of concern about the composition of the HRB and concern expressed during public hearings that the HRB had a one-sided point of view. Mayor Fazzino wanted to make sure the City would not face that situation. However, it would be wrong to immortalize language in the HPO to address a specific concern as the City went through the process, separating out the HRB in a way that was not done in other bodies performing quasi-judicial duties. She was comfortable with the language that said the City wanted diversity in all ways on the HRB. The Council was responsible to ensure there was diversity and the public could always make comments about the performance of HRB members or comments in support of particular applicants to the HRB. The City had many checks and balances in place. Changing the language was not appropriate at the current time.
Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Member Mossar=s comments. Other board members and commissions were able to speak to their interests. He was not always sure what groups the individuals were with or whether they were officers. He would not want to restrict any particular commission in that way.
Council Member Eakins said Αdiverse points of view≅ should not include opposition to the intent of the HPO, since it would be contrary to the oath of office. Diverse points of view could mean diversity but not necessarily opposition. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER that the issue of lobbying will be set aside and to add language regarding diverse points of view to the first sentence and return to a later date with lobbying issue. Mayor Fazzino said there was a qualitative difference between the HRB and some of the other groups that might be an issue that could be addressed across the board rather than limited to the HRB. The
Αdiverse points of view≅ language was appropriate. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. Council Member Mossar asked whether Section 16.49.030(e)(1) on page
7 of the HPO, ΑRecommend to the council the designation of Historic
Resources for inclusion on the Palo Alto Register,≅ meant nomination by the owner or the HRB. She also asked who initiated
the process in Section 16.49.030(e)(2), ΑRecommend to the Director the designation of Historic Resources for inclusion on the Resource
List≅ which sounded like updates to the Resource List but the question of who initiated the process came to mind. Also, Section
06/08/99 88-304
16.49.030(e)(5), ΑWhen an application for demolition of a property on the Resource List is filed, advise the Director whether the property should be referred to the council for possible designation as a Heritage Property and, in cases where such referral is made, to advise the council whether the property should be designated as
a Heritage Property,≅ seemed to mean a process which determined that a property on the Resource List where demolition was proposed by the owner and was the process where the HRB made sure the property was not rightfully on the Resource List. Ms. Furth said the HRB might look at the property and realize it failed to qualify as a Resource List property and could be removed from the list. If the property were NRHP eligible, the property should be presented to the Council for addition to the Register. Council Member Mossar asked about the other two sections. Ms. Furth said the HRB could recommend that a property be considered for placement on the Resource List if it was of NRHP quality under the Ordinance as presented to the Council. Council Member Mossar asked how an HRB member would nominate a property for the Resource List. Ms. Furth said the HRB member had to place the property on the agenda and make a motion to do so. Such action would initiate the
process before it went far, an Architectural Historian=s report, and public hearing and notice to the property owner would follow. Council Member Mossar clarified the HRB could be the initiator of the action, not just the decision maker. Ms. Furth said yes. Council Member Mossar asked whether Section 16.49.030(e)(1) referred to nomination only by the owner. Ms. Furth said there were two possibilities. The common way was for a property owner to nominate his/her property for inclusion on the list by presenting it to the HRB first. The second possibility was if an NRHP-eligible property was on the Resource List and the property owner thought it should be elevated to the PA Register. The duties listed in the HPO would not give the HRB power to do things it would not otherwise do in the specific sections. If
sections of the HPO were altered, the HRB=s duties might need to be changed, but the duties were not grants of power. Mayor Fazzino thought there was some confusion since earlier the Council discussed the possibility of giving responsibilities to the Council alone.
06/08/99 88-305
Ms. Furth said any changes the Council made elsewhere in the HPO
would be reflected in the Αduties≅ section of the HPO for the HRB.
Council Member Mossar asked about Section 16.49.030(e)(11), ΑReview and comment on draft environmental impact reports and proposed
negative declarations involving historic resources.≅ Ms. Furth said Section 16.49.030(e)(11) most likely referred to a commercial project since EIRs were conducted on commercial projects involving a number of demolitions as well as other issues. The HRB would comment on the historic resources aspect of such projects. Council Member Mossar asked whether the reference to EIRs presented to the HRB was defined elsewhere in the HPO. Ms. Furth said the HRB would not handle EIRs for historic house remodelings. The reference was to the other range of project EIRs that would come before the HRB. Council Member Ojakian asked about the sentence in Section 16.49.040 on page 8 of the HPO that referred to guidelines and code
interpretations being Αpublished and made available to the public.≅ He asked how staff would communicate to people on the Register or Resource List about what the new HPO would mean and when changes occurred. If a change was made to the HPO in five years, it could impact the people on the Resource List and Register. Mr. Gawf said the idea was to create a publication or pamphlet about the HPO that was a short guide to the HPO. Something similar to the R-1 Guidelines would be published to walk people through every step. He had not considered how wide the publication would be applied. He wanted to think more about how to communicate to people on the Register. He wanted the Historic Preservation Officer to make personal contact with people to offer assistance and explain some of the procedures. The goal was for a combination of literature, written materials, and personal contact. As far as changes in the future, the City had a mailing list of the affected properties. It was important to keep people on the Register and Resource List informed about changes.
Council Member Ojakian asked what Mr. Gawf meant by Αpublication,≅ and whether it was restricted to a written pamphlet or could be included on the Internet. Mr. Gawf said any reference to publication meant every venue, including a web site and written document. Council Member Ojakian wanted to be clear about how the City was going to let people know who was on the Resource List and Register, along with what the HPO meant, including incentives that were involved.
06/08/99 88-306
Ms. Furth said Council Member Ojakian=s suggestion was something that would not typically be included in the HPO. Mr. Gawf clarified that was something the Council could direct. Council Member Ojakian said the phraseology in the HPO was not sufficient to assure people that they would be notified. Council Member Mossar thought the intent of Section 16.49.040 was the preparation of guidelines to make it clear to the public how the HPO would be implemented. However, she could also read the section to say it was a process to develop guidelines and had not referenced changes or further refinements to the HPO. The last
sentence, Αthe historic resources board shall review, and make recommendations to the Director on, proposed guidelines and code
interpretations before publication,≅ was not intended to indicate that over time the HRB or the Director could decide they wanted to change the guidelines. City Manager June Fleming said the HPO was the overarching policy document from which staff would work. Staff would base
implementation on Council=s policies. Such detail would not appear in the HPO. The Council made policies. Staff implemented the policies and would give information to the Council to either take action or make policy decisions or changes. The HPO was the policy document, not the manual for implementation. Some of the detail discussed by the Council would not be found in the HPO. Council Member Mossar said the HPO did not specify that the Director would develop guidelines to implement Council policy with the assistance of the HRB. It said the Director and the HRB would develop and write guidelines. Ms. Furth said similar procedures were found in other parts of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The notion of having the power to
make explicit the Director=s ability to make interpretations of the PAMC and make guidelines available was that any ordinance would not answer all questions. Staff could not anticipate every question that might arise and was not in the position to answer the questions. Over time, decisions would be made and practices developed. People who were making applications and the people at the counter trying to answer questions wanted to know what the
decisions were. The HPO made the Director=s abilities explicit. It was always necessary to interpret the PAMC. No one was given authorization to change anything the Council had placed in the PAMC. Mr. Gawf said the first sentence indicated the intent to
Αfacilitate implementation of [the] chapter≅ or policy adopted by the Council.
06/08/99 88-307
Council Member Mossar asked for clarification of Section
16.49.050(b) on page 9 of the HPO, ΑIf designation of a property listed on the Resource list as a Heritage Property is requested,
with or without the property owner=s consent, the city council
shall grant to request ifΨ≅ Ms. Furth said Section 16.49.050(b)(1) was the section by which the Council could take a property, list it on the Resource List and, if it met the NRHP criteria, place it on the Register with or without
the owner=s consent. Council Member Mossar thought properties could only be move from the Resource List to the Register with owner consent. Ms. Furth said no. If someone proposed to demolish a Resource List property, the Council would have the power to place the property on the Register and prevent demolition. Confusion probably arose because when the Council began studying the issue, the Resource List and Register contained different categories of property. The Register was essentially NRHP eligible properties, and the Resource List was CRHR eligible properties. Then, direction had been given to remove the CRHR properties from the process entirely. In terms of quality, both the Register and Resource List properties were comparable. For Resource List properties, documentation was not complete and individual hearings were not held; therefore, they remained on the Resource List. The Resource List contained approximately 800 significant properties in Palo Alto. Both groups were protected from demolition, damage, or alteration. Several methods of removal were available to properties on the Resource List. If a property owner thought a property should not be listed on the Resource List, an application could be submitted to the Director to make the finding. Staff was under obligation to make a decision within 90 days. A property might be removed from the Resource List if it were found the property should not be included. Some properties would be removed because of being elevated to the Register. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mossar, seconded by Wheeler, that
under Section 16.49.060 the wording to be changed per the staff=s recommendations to: 1. CHANGES TO CRITERIA DESCRIPTION. 16.49.060 Designation Criteria for Heritage Properties. (b) If designation of a property listed on the Resource List as a Heritage Property is requested, with or without the property
owner=s consent, the city council shall grant the request if:
(1) After considering National Register Bulletin 15, ΑHow
06/08/99 88-308
to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,≅ as it may be amended from time to time, it is the opinion of the city council that: I. The resource has an important association is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or ii. The resource is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past, whose activities are demonstrably important to the development of the community, state, or nation; or iii. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or iv. The resource has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history; and (2) The resource has achieved significance at least fifty years ago, and (3) The resource possesses integrity of those features necessary to convey its historic significance, taking into consideration its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association and other relevant factors; and (4) The council finds that designation of the Historical Resource as a Heritage Property would meet the intent of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Ojakian, that on Section 16.49.070 Designation Criteria for Historic Districts for the changes recommended by staff as follows: (c ) a majority of the property owners within the proposed Historic District to in a mailed-ballot procedure conducted by the Director, a majority of those property owners responding support the formation of the Historic District.
Council Member Mossar asked what the City=s current guideline was for single-story overlay. Mr. Gawf said staff was unsure since the people who dealt with the program were not present at the meeting. A two-thirds vote was a difficult test. He recommended staying with a majority or even a solid majority, such as a greater than 50 percent plus one, but two-thirds was an extremely high test. Council Member Mossar thought the last time the City considered a
06/08/99 88-309
single-story overlay, the Council found it difficult to construe that enough people in the neighborhood agreed with the petition for a single-story overlay. The Council trimmed the section that had
a high percentage of Αyes≅ votes and moving another section aside. The issue was discussed at great length. The section should be consistent in light of how the City handled single-story overlays. Council Member Eakins said the single-story overlay was a set of guidelines, not an ordinance. Although somewhat of an indicator, it was not something she was comfortable relying on. Furthermore, the high degree of discomfort had to do with the process, for example hand-carried petitions were used rather than a mail-in ballot from the City. The HPO was stronger and more sophisticated than the guidelines for a single-story overlay. Any number could
be chosen, but numbers tended to have a Αpulled-out-of-the-hat≅ quality. She preferred to leave it at a majority plus one because a good procedure was already outlined. Council Member Mossar said when the City held elections about Proposition 218 (Prop 218), the City was always a majority of the people responded. She asked how staff proposed to deal with that issue. Ms. Furth said the state and national procedures were that silence meant consent. If the majority of people involved protested, the HPO would not move forward. The Council could create something that required an absolute majority consent as well. The Ordinance was a proposal that the majority of those responding must be in support of. For people without an opinion one way or the other, it was assumed there was no direction.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said in response to Council Member Mossar=s question, part of the problem with the single-story overlay was
that the Council had not set a percentage. The phrase, Αa
substantial majority,≅ was where the argument. Although unsure what the number should be, she was convinced a number should be given, whether a majority or 60 percent or two-thirds. A specific threshold should be set so a future Council would not get into the
quandary of trying to define Αa substantial majority.≅ Mayor Fazzino supported the proposal. The creation of a historic district was an extraordinary event and should have substantial support. The need for a super majority was important for creation of a historic district. If the lines of a proposed district could be changed, political support could be gained and there might be better reasons in terms of the character and nature of the homes. As much discipline as possible should be brought into the process, demonstrating strong public support for creation of a historic district. A super-majority was an appropriate course of action as opposed to 50 percent plus one.
06/08/99 88-310
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER, to
change the wording from Αa majority≅ to Α60%.≅ Mayor Fazzino said the super-majority vote was important. No
matter how Αsubstantial majority≅ was interpreted for single-story overlay, he was sure it meant at least 60 percent. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed with the 60 percent. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. Ms. Furth suggested a conforming change to the definition of
ΑMajority of Property Owners≅ on page 4 under Section 16.49.020(l)
to say Αproperty owner support shall be on the basis ofΨ≅ and
removing the word Αmajority.≅
Council Member Mossar suggested clarifying the words Αat a public
hearing scheduled within forty-five (45) days≅ found in Section 16.49.080(d) on page 11. The public should be informed of the maximum time one would have to wait for the hearing, not the maximum time one would wait before the hearing was scheduled.
Ms. Furth said the language could be changed to Αa public hearing
held within 45 days≅ or Αa public hearing that commences within 45
days.≅ MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, that under Section 16.49.080 Designation Procedures for Heritage Properties (d), as follows: (d) Each proposal shall be considered by the historic resources board at a public hearing scheduled within to be held in 45 days of date when the Director has found the application for designation to be complete. The HRB may continue the hearing from time to time as it deems appropriate. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the last sentence in Section
16.49.080(g) should read, ΑA decision to designate a Historic
Resource as a heritage property shall be made by resolution.≅ Ms. Furth said yes. Council Member Mossar asked how the first sentence in Section
16.49.085(a), ΑAny individual or group, including but not limited to a property owner, the Director, city council or the historic resources board, may apply for designation of a group of Historic
Resources as a Historic District,≅ related to the 60 percent
06/08/99 88-311
majority. Ms. Furth said an application would not go far if it failed to obtain the 60 percent majority. The Director would determine the 60 percent majority after a ballot was mailed during the early stages of the application. Much fieldwork and documentation were necessary in the process. Anyone wanting to make application was required to identify every property in the district either as a contributing resource or not. The document was complicated and, in some cases, neighborhoods might want to initiate the process. However, the process would not get very far if the 60 percent majority support was lacking. Because the City believed it was important that a poll on support be conducted, it did not make sense to say the City would not accept the application until a sign-up list was provided, since the City faced many problems with that procedure. Staff decided an application could be brought in, with the appropriate documentation, after which the Director could send out the ballots. If a sufficient number of votes were not received, the application would fail. Council Member Mossar asked whether the application was a prescribed application so no one could capriciously send the Director off polling neighborhoods about districts. Ms. Furth said no. Mr. Gawf said there would be a prescribed application. Council Member Mossar suggested changing Section 16.49.085 (c),
which was faced the same issue, to Αa public hearing scheduled held
within sixty (60) days.≅ Mr. Gawf said wherever staff saw the phrase, the wording would be changed to conform. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the last sentence in both Sections 16.49.08
8 and (d) on page 12, ΑThe historic resources board may continue
the hearing from time to time as it deems appropriate,≅ both seemed to be speaking of the same hearing and should not appear in both. Ms. Furth agreed. Council Member Rosenbaum suggested the wording in Section 16.49.085(h) on page 13 of the HPO might create some confusion between two-thirds and 60 percent. Council Member Mossar said the difference was only 7 percent. The wording could be changed to indicate that as long as 60 percent voted in favor while the application was processed, no demolitions would be allowed. Mayor Fazzino said the wording suggested strong public support for
06/08/99 88-312
the concept of a historic district. Mr. Gawf said support needed to occur before any type of temporary restriction would be placed on the property. Staff wanted to make sure there was solid support. The decision between two-thirds or 60 percent needed to be made by the Council. Ms. Furth said the section was in response to a public comment. One of the reasons a neighborhood might want to pursue a historic district was because of damaging changes occurring in the neighborhood. Staff thought the Council wanted a substantial majority in support of such a proposal before any action was taken. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the restriction was more serious. Two-thirds of a majority of the property owners instead of two-thirds of the people responding was an absolute majority, which was the intent. Ms. Furth said the section suggested great neighborhood solidarity on the issue. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked about Section 16.49.100(a) on page 14 of
the HPO which referenced ΑSection 16.04.310 of this Code.≅ Ms. Furth said the intent was to make clear that the homeowners were entitled to make use of the State Historical Building Code, which allowed deviations from modern building standards if life and safety were protected. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked for a clarification of the last sentence
in Section 16.49.100(b) on page 14 of the HPO, ΑThe fact that a resource is not included on the Register shall not preclude the City from determining whether the resource may be a Historic Resource for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources code ∋ 21000, et seq.).≅ Ms. Furth said the sentence was a re-statement of CEQA law and would not be necessary in the HPO. CEQA law stated that a property on the CRHR, NRHP, or the local register was definitely a historic property. If already in a process that involved discretionary decisions and environmental review, the law said cities had registers and protective ordinances that were typically not updated constantly. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the first paragraph under Section
16.49.100(b) of the HPO on page 14, ΑThe Register shall be deemed to be the local register of historic resources for the purpose of application of Public Resources Code section 21084.1 concerning environmental assessment of substantial adverse change in the
significance of Historic Resources,≅ might be inconsistent with Section 16.49.210 on page 23 of the HPO.
06/08/99 88-313
Ms. Furth said Council Member Rosenbaum was correct. State law indicated that the State would respond within 30 days and must be given the opportunity to respond within 30 days after a disaster before the non-emergency demolition of a property on the NRHP, CRHR, or the local register. The Register qualified as a register under the law. One of the questions was whether the Resource List should be considered part of the law as well. When staff began writing the HPO, the Resource List contained a different category of properties and was not included. However, once the change was made in the categorization, the properties were of comparable quality as far as the City knew. Staff made the change to include both the Register and the Resource List. The HPO would be changed to be consistent in both places. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked about the first paragraph under Section
16.49.130(a), ΑNo person shall demolish or alter a Heritage Property, or cause or permit such demolition or alteration to be done, nor shall any permit for such work be issued unless the demolition or alteration has been approved by the City in
accordance with this chapter,≅ should not have struck out
Αdemolition≅ but should have been Αalteration.≅ Council Member Mossar asked whether the last phrase in Section
16.49.130(d), Αthere shall be no further appeal,≅ was correct since she thought Council appeal was added. Ms. Furth said any decision that the Director made was appealable to the Council. The HPO said that every decision was appealable with the one exception, which was the determination as to whether something was a major or minor alteration. The reason it had not
included an appeal was that one of the Council=s directions to staff was to provide a process where a person who was proceeding with what the City believed was a minor alteration could not be delayed by someone else appealing. Staff thought it was an appropriate place to say that the Director would make the final decision. Mayor Fazzino said the Council could make a decision to meet on June 14 or June 15 with a second reading on June 28, 1999. Ms. Fleming said if the Council met on June 15, ten days would be required between the first and second reading. Ms. Furth said the law indicated the second reading could not be held within 10 days of the first reading, so it could be the eleventh day. Mayor Fazzino proposed canceling the June 14 Council meeting, continue on June 15, and have the second reading on June 28.
06/08/99 88-314
MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to cancel the regularly scheduled Council Meeting of June 14, 1999, to set a Special City Council Meeting for June 15, 1999, at 6:00 p.m., and to continue Item No. 7 from the current meeting to that Special Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m., to Tuesday, June 15, 1999, at 6:00 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.
06/08/99 88-315