HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-15 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of June 14, 1999, to Tuesday, June 15, 1999 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................88-317 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Assessments for University Avenue and California Avenue Parking Bonds Plan G - Fiscal Year 1999-2000......................................................88-317 2. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........88-320 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.............88-320 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................88-321
1. Resolution 7860 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Requesting the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to Designate the North Route 85/Highway 101
Interchange Improvement Project as ΑHigh Priority≅ in
Measures A & B and to Fund the Interchange Adequately≅ 88-321 2. Construction Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and K. J. Woods Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $670,934 for Storm Drain System Rehabilitation - Phase 2, CIP #47713.....88-321 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Shimada Landscape, Inc. in the Amount of $350,000 for a Three-Year Tree and Stump Removal Project.......................................88-321
4. Ordinance 4569 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $32,475 for Services Associated with the Cable Franchising Renewal Proceedings and
for the Transfer of Ownership of the Cable Franchise≅ .88-321 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ..................88-322 4A. (Old Item No. 6) The Enforcement of Ordinance No. 4424, Which Established a Voluntary Campaign Expenditure Ceiling for Election to City Offices..............................88-322
06/15/99 88-315
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council Will Consider and Take Action on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Associated Environmental Impact Report, and Related Findings.....88-323 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........88-351 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m............88-351
06/15/99 88-316
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, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Conrad A. Lamond, 330 Bryant Street, protested proposed increase for senior golf fee. Walter Scott, 564 Santa Rita Avenue, protested proposed increase for senior golf fee. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding citizenship. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Assessments for University Avenue and California Avenue Parking Bonds Plan G - Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Mayor Fazzino read the opening remarks for the public hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the Council to hear from persons who had an interest in real property within the parking assessment districts. He asked whether the City Clerk received any written communications from interested persons. City Clerk Donna Rogers said the City received communications from Ellis L. Jacobs, William E. Long, and Annette Z. Long regarding an adverse ruling from Planning on parking spaces at 433 through 447 Cambridge Avenue, and from Terry Schuchat regarding the property of Ellis Jacobs. Senior Engineer Jim Harrington said addendums were included in the packet which represented changes that occurred since the original filing of the report with the City Clerk. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the space in question was used as a parking space for a number of years but was not counted as a credit for the assessment district. He visited the site a few months prior to determine whether or not the space would meet the requirement of a new parking space. The space did not meet the requirement for several reasons including the fact that it blocked the access for the dumpster, was on a slope, and the dimensions were off. The key issue was that the space was used as a parking space for years, but the question was whether or not it met the requirement for a parking space.
06/15/99 88-317
Associate Planner Will Kettler said one of the requirements for whether or not a parking space was conforming to the ordinance was the size. He measured the site and found the space did not conform to the requirements of the ordinance. Mayor Fazzino asked whether there were other similar spaces in the California Avenue area. Mr. Gawf was unaware of other examples of nonstandard parking spaces. Mayor Fazzino clarified the space was a legal parking space. Mr. Gawf said the space was not a legal parking space, but it was not unlawful to park in the space. Council Member Kniss said there was a large parking area on California Avenue with small, compact spaces. She believed the spaces were acceptable in length but not width. Mr. Gawf said in some cases, parking spaces were narrow. The spaces were legal and met the requirements for width and back up space. Council Member Kniss asked whether the size of a car could be designated for parking spaces.
Mr. Kettler said the ordinance indicated that Αcompact, standard,
or uniclass when located parallel to a wall be 10' x 20' in size.≅ Council Member Mossar said if the Council had the original documents for approval of the project, the curb would have been cut in order to have access to the trash can. No one intended for the space to be considered a parking space. As parking became more difficult in the California Avenue area, the owners used the space for parking. Mr. Gawf had not seen the original document but agreed with Council
Member Mossar=s analysis. Council Member Mossar asked whether the City would approve such a parking space in that location at the current time. Mr. Gawf said the City would not approve such a parking space because the space did not meet the parking dimensions and the space was the access for the dumpster. Mayor Fazzino opened the Public Hearing. Ellis Jacobs, 433-447 Cambridge Avenue, designed the building addition in 1959 or 1960 with a parking space. He considered the
06/15/99 88-318
space adequate for parking. In a map he presented to the Council,
City parking on Cambridge Avenue was 6 2' wide by 20' long. The net space on his property was 10' from the wall to the alley, with 18" of planting along the building. The net of 8'6" was two feet wider than the City parking on the street. Mayor Fazzino closed the Public Hearing. He asked what was the cost of the assessment. Mr. Gawf said the cost was approximately $168. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked if the Council took action to relieve the property owner of a $168 obligation, would that amount be reapportioned out to all the members of the assessment district. Mr. Gawf said yes, the debt stayed the same, but the assessment changed. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council adopt the
resolutions confirming the Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll and approve an amendment in favor of the appeal of Ellis Jacobs:
Resolution 7855 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll, California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (For Fiscal
Year 1999-2000)≅
Resolution 7856 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll, California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking Project No. 86-
01 (For Fiscal Year 1999-2000)≅
Resolution 7857 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll, University Avenue Parking Projects (Lot J Refunding and 250 University Avenue Acquisition) (For Fiscal Year 1999-
2000)≅
Resolution 7858 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll, California Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 71-63
(For Fiscal Year 1999-2000)≅
Resolution 7859 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll, University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63
(For Fiscal Year 1999-2000)≅
06/15/99 88-319
Council Member Rosenbaum said with respect to the appeal, the parking space worked well and should be recognized in determining the assessment. Mayor Fazzino agreed that the space was a functioning parking space for 40 years. City Attorney Ariel Calonne suggested the motion include direction
to staff to correct the engineer=s report to be consistent with the finding made regarding the protest from Mr. Jacobs. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER to
include direction to staff to correct the engineer=s report to be consistent with finding approving the protest. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 2. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. in memory of Arnold Soforenko, a long-time Palo Alto resident, founder of the Palo Alto Tree Task Force, and Treasurer of Canopy who passed away the prior week.
06/15/99 88-320
Special Meeting June 15, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:50 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Schneider APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the minutes of May 10, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4.
1. Resolution 7860 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Requesting the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to Designate the North Route 85/Highway 101
Interchange Improvement Project as ΑHigh Priority≅ in
Measures A & B and to Fund the Interchange Adequately≅ 2. Construction Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and K. J. Woods Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $670,934 for Storm Drain System Rehabilitation - Phase 2, CIP #47713 Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Contract No. C7090020 Between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. for Storm Drain System Rehabilitation - Phase 2, CIP #47713 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Shimada Landscape, Inc. in the Amount of $350,000 for a Three-Year Tree and Stump Removal Project
4. Ordinance 4569 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $32,475 for Services Associated with the Cable Franchising Renewal Proceedings and
for the Transfer of Ownership of the Cable Franchise≅ Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Buske Group for Consulting Services in the Amount of $102,250
06/15/99 88-321
for Cable Refranchising Renewal Proceedings and for the Transfer of Ownership of the Cable Franchise MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to move Item No. 6 forward ahead of Item No. 5. City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 6 would become Item No. 4A. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4A. (Old Item No. 6) The Enforcement of Ordinance No. 4424, Which Established a Voluntary Campaign Expenditure Ceiling for Election to City Offices City Clerk Donna Rogers said in November 1996, the voters passed Proposition 208 (Prop 208), a statewide campaign financing initiative which established contribution limits for state and local candidates and committees that made contributions to candidates. Included were incentives to encourage candidates to voluntarily limit campaign spending. Since that time, five lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of Prop 208. An injunction was put into effect until further notice. On June 23, 1997, the City of Palo Alto approved Ordinance 4424 amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to establish a $14,000 voluntary expenditure ceiling for city elective offices. While the expenditure ceiling was voluntary, it provided a higher expenditure ceiling which enabled a candidate to accept contribution limits of $250 instead of $100. Ordinance 4424 was based on Prop 208 and written in a way that penalties would be enforced by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Due to the litigation, the FPPC would not be the enforcement agency. The City Attorney reviewed the matter and advised that she seek Council direction to suspend enforcement of the ordinance pending the resolution of the court. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City Clerk identified one rationale for suspension of the ordinance, namely there was no one in the state to enforce. The constitutional defect in the contribution limits applied equally to the policy call the City Council made. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance without reference to Prop 208 to include limits on contributions based on acceptance of an expenditure limit. If the City Attorney felt that was a bad idea,
06/15/99 88-322
the City Council might want to let the Board of Supervisors know. Prior to that time, the Board of Supervisors had a flat limit on the amount of contribution. The City Council could put a limit on individual contributions independent of whether there was any expenditure limit for campaigns. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, said the entire campaign reform issue hinged on the cost of buying television time. She asked that the Council buy Cable Co-op and keep it because people whose ideas threatened good profits had difficulty being heard on private television. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council direct staff to suspend the enforcement of Ordinance No. 4424, which established a voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling for election to city offices pending the resolution of the Court regarding Proposition 208. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the voluntary limits set by the City Council for the prior election worked well and sent a positive message. She hoped that whoever the candidates were for the next election would, in the spirit of prior Palo Alto elections, agree to a limit. Mayor Fazzino was disappointed that Prop 208 was not upheld by the courts. He was willing to explore what Santa Clara County did and determine whether or not the City had flexibility to enact limits. The appropriate action was to eliminate the current ordinance
based on the courts= action with respect to Prop 208. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. 5. 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 6/8/99) Council Member Kniss noted that she would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted that he would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Fazzino said the Council was considering the report from the City Attorney dated June 3, 1999. The Council would review the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), take any actions deemed appropriate by the Council, and consider the resolution certifying the adequacy of the environmental impact report (EIR) and the resolution with respect to the Historic Register List. The Council
06/15/99 88-323
began with page 17, Section 16.49.135, Findings Required for Approval of Major Alterations of Heritage Properties. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth noted that the wording
Α(3) The alterations≅ in Section 16.49.135 (b) (3) of the HPO
should not have been crossed out. Item (3) read, ΑThe alterations
are in substantial compliance with the Secretary of the Interior=s
Standards for Rehabilitation.≅
Mayor Fazzino said the use of Αsubstantial compliance≅ gave the local Planning Director and Historic Resources Board (HRB) more flexibility. Council Member Mossar asked whether language was changed relative to demolition in Section 16.49.140, Demolition of Heritage Properties. Ms. Furth said the change was made with respect to contributing properties in historic districts. A contributing structure in a historic district might not be as special individually as a heritage property. If a heritage property was picked on its individual merit, contributing structures in historic districts
were historically significant as a group. The Council=s colleagues memo expressed a concern that demolition of contributing structures in historic districts would be appropriate in some circumstances. It would be appropriate when that particular structure was a good candidate for replacement because of inherent problems with maintaining the structure as a viable residential structure. As a safeguard, the Council included the finding that the structure could not be demolished if it would damage the integrity of the district. Her understanding was that the Council thought there should be more flexibility for the Council to permit the demolition and replacement. Council Member Mossar asked about Section 16.49.150 (e) Major Alteration Delay, whether it was an issue after November, assuming by November the Council completed the study of historic resources and would know who was on the list of historic properties. Ms. Furth said Section 16.49.150 (e) meant that if a property owner wanted to make a change to a property on the resource list, the City should decide whether to place the property on the Palo Alto Register (the Register) first. The Council might delay issuing the permit for the change while the process took place. The City should have heard in November from consultants on the integrity of structures on the resource list and would have a list of houses on the Resource List that did not need to be on the list. A property owner could ask that his/her property be removed. The Council might want to modify the procedure so the Planning Director could suggest the property be removed. That would leave on the resource
06/15/99 88-324
list a smaller number of properties, all of which appeared to qualify to be of National Register quality. Staff did not propose moving all the homes to the Register. There was no reason to do that unless the property owner wished to take advantage of the incentives that were available if a home was on the Register. Council Member Mossar asked about timing and what reasonable expectation the homeowner had for the delay. Ms. Furth said a homeowner on the Resource List or the Register could ask the City for a prompt determination that his/her property did not belong on the List or the Register. Council Member Mossar noted that a state statute required completion of the review process within 90 days. Ms. Furth said anyone who came in for a discretionary approval on a building permit would be subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). Once an application was determined to be complete and that no environmental review was required, the project was deemed approved. Council Member Rosenbaum said the staff report (CMR:259:99) indicated 517 homes were on the Resource List. He expected Major Alterations would be the primary regulated activity under the HPO as opposed to demolition. Paragraphs (d) and (e) in Section 16.49.150, Major Alteration of Resource List Properties, were in direct conflict. Mr. Gawf said the primary goal for property on the Resource List was not to lose the historic resource without an opportunity for review. The demolition was clear; it went to the Council after the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommendation for a decision as to the addition to the Register. With regard to major alterations, one of the assumptions of staff was that most major alterations were done appropriately which was why there was emphasis on mandatory review with staff. Staff explained to the property owner the right thing to do. There were cases where the property might
not be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards but the changes did not destroy the historic resource. Staff wanted to provide greater flexibility in those cases. The review was mandatory with voluntary compliance. There might be properties that were significant as historic resources and the changes were so significantly adverse the staff wanted to bring it to the Council for determination as to whether or not it should be added to the Register. Three options were identified: one was to eliminate paragraph (e); the second dealt with significant circumstances where flexibility would be retained; and the third would signify
mandatory compliance with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards. Recommendation by the HRB was required in order to make
06/15/99 88-325
a determination as to whether or not the significant action should go to City Council for consideration about placement on the Register. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the Planning Director would make a determination as to whether or not the alteration was acceptable, and if the Planning Director found it unacceptable, the alteration would be referred to the HRB to decide whether there should be a delay. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. He would take the recommendation from the HRB to the City Council. Council Member Mossar said the Council chose not to put properties on the Register that were newly designated as potential historic resources. The Resource List was a holding place for those properties. She clarified if the Council did its job well, the benefits and incentives from moving a house from the Resource List onto the Register would convert over time many of the houses to recognized historic properties. Council Member Ojakian understood that with Section 16.49.150 (e), there might be a delay up to six months. Mr. Gawf said the delay was no longer than six months. Ms. Furth said the importance of paragraph (e) was the opportunity
to say, at the Council=s discretion, that a property should be on the Register. Council Member Ojakian clarified that once the decision was made that an alternation could be made, it had to meet the Secretary of
the Interior=s Standards. Ms. Furth said the Council would look at the property when the
structure=s status as a historic resource was jeopardized. Council Member Ojakian said he would vote against deletion of paragraph (e) because it provided a safeguard for a piece of property that could end up on the Register. Council Member Eakins said most people were reasonable and wanted to do the best they could with their properties, but there were people who were unreasonable. Council Member Rosenbaum suggested eliminating paragraph (e) or make it mandatory that major alterations satisfied the Secretary of
the Interior=s Standards.
06/15/99 88-326
Council Member Mossar clarified that review was mandatory and compliance was voluntary unless what one chose to do was so detrimental to the historic resource that review was required by the HRB and City Council. Ms. Furth said key was for more flexibility for owners of Resource List properties in making modifications to their properties. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether, since compliance was voluntary, someone could bring to the Planning Department plans that the Director signed off on and then apply for a building permit for different plans. Ms. Furth said no, because the project would then become a new project. Mr. Gawf said in both cases the Planning Department reviewed the plans. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Mossar, to add language under Section 16.49.150(e): 16.49.150 Major Alteration of Resource List Properties. (e) Major Alteration Delay. If the Director determines that the proposed alterations may result in significant adverse change in the historic integrity of the resource to the point that the altered property would no longer be eligible for inclusion on the Palo Alto Register under Section 16.40.060(b), issuance of the
director=s review certification for Major Alteration of a Historic Resource included on the Resource List will be delayed to permit the city to determine whether the Historic Resource should be designated as a Heritage Property. The delay may be up to six months in length, but shall be no longer than is necessary to complete the determination. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent.
Mayor Fazzino noted that section 16.49.150 (c) read, ΑThe Director shall provide suggestions and recommendations in no more than two
reviews...≅ He questioned whether it made sense to have time
limits for Director=s review, noting that there were time limits for HRB review. He suggested two months. Mr. Gawf said time lines were appropriate, and 60 days was a reasonable time frame. The second review would be a submission of
the applicant=s response to the first review. He suggested stating that each review would be accomplished within a 30-day time period. 06/15/99 88-327
Mayor Fazzino said the Council wanted a limited review period and to make sure the staff had necessary information to provide an adequate review. Ms. Furth said the action was subject to the Permit Streamlining Act which meant the City operated under the 60-day limit unless the applicant requested an extension. Council Member Mossar asked whether the Permit Streamlining Act could be referenced.
Ms. Furth suggested wording Αprovided that the review shall be
completed in a time that does not impair the City=s ability to comply with the California Permit Streamlining Act, Government Code
Section 65920.≅ Mayor Fazzino asked that the wording be as clear as possible and include the specific references to the reviews. Ms. Furth said staff would write a set of guidelines. Council Member Eakins asked whether the guidelines would have introductory explanations on each topic regarding the intent. Mr. Gawf said the guidelines would be written in a way that was understandable to the lay person. Council Member Eakins said the statement of intent helped with the understanding. City Manager Fleming said staff was reluctant to make a commitment to the exact format at the current meeting. The Council would review the guidelines prior to finalization. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, that Section 16.49.150 (c) be amended by adding language at the end
as follows: ΑEach review shall be completed within thirty days of the submittal or resubmittal, unless the applicant requests
additional time.≅ MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent.
Ms. Furth said the June 7, 1999, Colleagues= memo recommended a change to Section 16.49.165(d)(3). MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to change the language under Section 16.49.165(d)(3) as follows:
06/15/99 88-328
16.49.165 Demolition and Replacement of Contributing Resources in Historic Districts. (d) A Contributing Resource may be demolished if: (3) The city council finds, after review and recommendation from the historic resources board, that: (i) the property proposed for demolition is a single-family or two-family residence, modest in scale compared to the size of the lot on which it is located, cannot readily be enlarged in a way that preserves its historic significance, and because of its age, maintenance, or original construction is not well-suited to contemporary residential use, and; (ii) demolition of the Contributing Resource will not have a substantial adverse impact on the historic significance or integrity of the district. Council Member Ojakian said the intent of the wording was to allow for flexibility in the event of unusual circumstances where a
property owner=s ability to adjust his/her property was taken into consideration, including the concerns about keeping a historic district and contributing resources in place. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Council Member Mossar said Section 16.49.170 referred to the compatibility criteria which included scale, size, material, color and texture. The Council made decisions not to include color. She found the criteria to be extreme and incompatible with the rest of the HPO. Mr. Gawf said the concern was that a replacement building created no greater incompatibility with the historic district. The criteria, other than color, were the basic factors to consider whether or not a building was compatible. Council Member Mossar did not believe the color of heritage properties on the Register was regulated. She questioned whether a distinction needed to be made between commercial and residential. Mr. Gawf said yes. Deleting color was a policy question for the Council to consider as a factor for compatibility of single-family and two-family homes. Staff decided to delete color from the historic properties. Ms. Furth said the purpose of Section 16.49.170 was to keep a new house from being the dominant feature of the block, streetscape or
06/15/99 88-329
corner. Staff listed factors the Council might want to make decisions about. Council Member Mossar said it was important to make sure the replacement structure for a noncontributing structure was not the defining feature of an entire block in a historic district. She was not comfortable with the list of criteria and did not want the criteria to apply to residential properties.
Ms. Furth suggested saying Αcolor (except in case of single or two
family dwellings).≅ MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to add language under Section 16.49.170(d) as follows: 16.49.170 Major Alteration or Replacement of Non-contributing Resources in Historic Districts. (d) Historic resources board review of a Demolition and replacement shall be for the purpose of determining whether the proposed replacement structure or structures are compatible with the Historic District and do not have an adverse affect on other properties in the vicinity. The new structure need not imitate the architecture of the district but shall be designed to be compatible with the District in terms of scale, size, material, color (except in case of single and two family dwelling), and texture. If the proposed replacement structures meet these standards, the historic resources board shall recommend to the Director approval of the project. If either standard is not met, the historic resources board shall recommend to the Director either denial, or approval with conditions and modifications that will permit the project to meet these standards. Compliance with conditions and modifications is mandatory. Council Member Rosenbaum opposed the motion, noting that when the color of a registered house was changed by the owner or responsible person but he did not have confidence in who might build a new house. Mayor Fazzino did not believe color was a critical issue. MOTION PASSED 5-0-1, Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent.
Council Member Eakins referred to Council Member Rosenbaum=s
reasoning about a house not being a homeowner=s building. She said massing was missing from Section 16.49.170. She would add placement of garage under massing. She thought that a commercial builder would be more likely to put a two-car garage in the front of the property.
06/15/99 88-330
MOTION: Council Member Eakins, seconded by Wheeler, to add language under Section 16.49.170 as follows: 16.49.170 Major Alteration or Replacement of Non-contributing Resources in Historic Districts. (d) Historic resources board review of a Demolition and replacement shall be for the purpose of determining whether the proposed replacement structure or structures are compatible with the Historic District and do not have an adverse affect on other properties in the vicinity. The new structure need not imitate the architecture of the district but shall be designed to be compatible with the District in terms of massing, scale, size, material, color except in case of single and two family dwelling, and texture. If the proposed replacement structures meet these standards, the historic resources board shall recommend to the Director approval of the project. If either standard is not met, the historic resources board shall recommend to the Director either denial, or approval with conditions and modifications that will permit the project to meet these standards. Compliance with conditions and modifications is mandatory. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Council Member Ojakian asked whether major alterations or replacement of non-contributing structures in historic districts was appealable to the City Council.
Ms. Furth said all Director=s decisions were appealable to the
Council with the exception of the Director=s initial sorting into Major and Minor.
Council Member Mossar said Section 16.49.180(a) ΑThe historic
resources board may continue the hearing as it deems appropriate≅ raised the time certain issue. She asked staff what certainty would be offered. Mr. Gawf said the certainty would be the Permit Streamlining language. Council Member Mossar asked whether the 30 days would apply.
Ms. Furth suggested the language Αmay continue the hearing for not more than 30 days without the consent of the applicant. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, to add language under Section 16.49.180 as follows:
06/15/99 88-331
(a) Each application for a Major Alteration or Demolition of a Heritage Property or any property within a Historic District shall be considered by the historic resources board at a public hearing. The historic resources board shall continue the hearing for no more than thirty (30) days without the consent of the applicant. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Mr. Gawf suggested a change to Section 16.49.130 (d) to include
posting the Director=s decision. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to change the language under Section 16.49.130 as follows: 16.49.130 Alteration of Heritage Properties. (d) Within ten (10) days of determining that an application is complete, the Director shall I) determine if the proposed project qualifies as maintenance or repair exempt from review under this chapter, a Major Alteration, a Minor Alteration, or a demolition; and ii) send notice to the applicant of the determination. The
Director=s decision to classify a project as a minor alteration shall be listed on the agenda of the next available historic resources board following the decision. If the Director determines that the proposed alteration is a demolition, it shall be reviewed as provided in section 15.49.140. Within ten (10) days after notice is sent, the applicant may request historic resources board
review of the Director=s determination. If the Director does not alter the decision after historic resources board review, there shall be no further appeal. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent.
Council Member Ojakian said Section 16.49.200(a) ΑAn appeal of an action on a minor project shall be filed no later than four working
days...≅ appeared to be a short period of time. He suggested the
section be changed to Αeight working days.≅ MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, that Section 16.49.200(a) is amended to read: (a) Except as provided in Section 16.49.130(d), any person aggrieved by the action of the director or historic resources board may file an appeal with the city council. An appeal shall be filed no later than eight working days after the effective date of the
director=s decision or action on the project. Any such appeal shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.93.
06/15/99 88-332
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Council Member Mossar said the Council heard concerns from the public regarding the misuse of power that was possible by the Director or the HRB in implementing the HPO. It appeared that the applicant had a number of opportunities to rectify perceived wrongs. It was an unusual situation to not require a fee from an applicant who wished to appeal a project. Mr. Gawf said staff tried to address the issue of decisions made without larger accountability and exposure of what the decisions were. Ms. Furth said there were provisions for applicants to work with staff or the HRB. Mr. Gawf said that Section 16.49.210(a) needed a correction with
the deletion of the wording Αor Resource List.≅ Council Member Mossar clarified the language only addressed demolition. Mr. Gawf said yes. Mayor Fazzino said it seemed logical to demolish a house that was damaged significantly by flood or earthquake. It appeared the language would prohibit people from demolishing homes even if there were significant damage, viewed from an economic and viability perceptive. Ms. Furth said from a legal point of view, state law had 30 days to say a property on the National Register, California Register or any local register was so damaged from a flood or earthquake that it should cease to be subject to historic preservation regulations. Properties on the register were subject to that rule after a
disaster. If the Council believed that the state=s criteria was
inappropriate, the City=s remedy was to have a procedure to get the properties off the register post disaster. Council Member Mossar understood Section 16.49.210 as protection for the homeowner, preventing a city inspector from telling the homeowner to tear the home down after an earthquake without giving the homeowner an opportunity to assess what was appropriate. Mr. Gawf suggested if the homeowner needed assurance that if a house was significantly damaged and could not be repaired in such a way to maintain its historic integrity, the homeowner would not be put through a long, arduous review process before the homeowner could restore the home.
06/15/99 88-333
Mayor Fazzino preferred 1) a provision which protected the homeowner from vigilant building inspectors, 2) a provision which allowed homeowners to be in the wake of an emergency with an economically and historically unviable structure to secure quick action from the City with respect to demolishing or changing the structure, and 3) the economic issue if there was significant damage to a home and it was economically difficult for the homeowner to repair or replace. Vice Mayor Wheeler said if the property was damaged to the point that it could not retain its historic integrity, the structure would no longer be a resource. Ms. Furth said the City needed flexibility to address concerns of the citizens as to lost significant features on a house. Mayor Fazzino asked about the issues of the over-vigilant building inspector and concerns on the part of the homeowner about not receiving a quick decision from the City regarding historic viability of a home. Ms. Fleming said the ability to act quickly needed perimeters and priorities. Ms. Furth said the state gave cities 30 days to comment on a registered property which might not be enough time after a disaster. The Council might want to consider what were major alterations and give the City authority to take into consideration economic circumstances and difficulties following a disaster and have greater freedom to approve rebuilding of seriously damaged features of a building. There could be a provision for a case where the state deemed a property not be destroyed and the City disagreed. An additional provision could indicate that a property could be removed from the Register following a post-disaster appraisal when the state concluded a property be restored, but the finding of the Council was that it should be removed from the Register.
Vice Mayor Wheeler found Ms. Furth=s suggestions appropriate which addressed one of the major concerns heard from the public in terms of the City creating the ability to make a decision after the state inspection took place. The action was fair from a preservation standpoint and to the homeowner. Council Member Eakins recalled state law was based on the prompt destruction of a commercial property in Santa Cruz. The Public Resources Code 5028, referenced in the HPO, could make sense with respect to residential properties, but she did not believe it was written with that in mind. The 30 days was a reasonable guideline. Ms. Furth said the issue was isolated. In noncommercial properties on the Register which the state said should not be demolished, she
suggested adding (b) to 16.49.210, ΑIf the state determined that a
06/15/99 88-334
single-family or two-family property should not be destroyed, demolished, or significantly altered except in compliance with the
Secretary of the Interior=s Guidelines, the Director or property owner may apply to the City Council for a determination that taking into consideration economic and other circumstances, it is an undue hardship to keep the property on the Palo Alto Register, the Council may direct that the property be removed from the Register
immediately.≅ The section would let the City deal as quickly as possible with constraints. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to change the language under Section 16.49.210 as follows: (a) No structure that is listed on the Palo Alto Register and that has been damaged by a natural disaster as defined in California Public Resources Code section 5028 may be demolished, destroyed, or significantly altered, except in accordance with the requirements of that section and this chapter. (b) If within the thirty-day review period required under Public Resources Code Section 5028, the state determines that a single-family or two-family structure should not be demolished, destroyed, or significantly altered except in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior=s Standards, the director or the property owner may apply to the city council for removal of the property from the Palo Alto Register. The Council may grant such request if, after taking into consideration the condition of the property and the economic and other circumstances of the owner, it finds that continued listing of the property on the Palo Alto Register would an undue hardship. If the council makes such a finding, the property shall be removed from the Palo Alto Register immediately.
Council Member Mossar said Ms. Furth suggested removing Αor
Resource List.≅ She clarified that the suggested language referred to the Palo Alto Register. Ms. Furth said that was correct. Council Member Mossar asked for staff comment on what, if any, action was appropriate in the event of a natural disaster for properties on the Resource List. Ms. Furth said the owners of the properties would apply for removal from the Resource List, unless the owner wanted to take advantage of special funding available for historic resources from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler noted that several sentences on page 25 of the draft HPO, under Section 16.49.240, were crossed out. She assumed
06/15/99 88-335
the reason was they were the standard phrases used elsewhere for all buildings. She confirmed the City was not trying to do anything that was stricter than or different from standards for other structures in the community. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Section 16.49.240 focused on demolition by neglect. Ms. Furth said Section 16.49.250 was the civil penalty section. The Council discussed at a prior meeting why a court would order civil penalties and why penalties should be set at a level so a rational person would obey it. The Section referred to people who did damaging alterations to a historic structure or demolished the structure. Richard Alexander suggested the Council make it clear that the punishment fit the crime, and if a historic resource were demolished, the payment would be the value of what was demolished.
The language suggested was Α(ii) Any person or entity who demolishes or substantially alters or causes the demolition or substantial alteration of the structure in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be liable civilly in a sum equal in the case of a demolition to the replacement cost of the demolished building or in the case of an alteration the case of restoration of the altered portion of the building in substantial
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards.≅ The last section was added to avoid debates about the type of alterations or restorations. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to add language under Section 16.49.250 as follows: 16.49.250 Enforcement. (a) Unlawful Alteration or Demolition. (2) Civil Penalty. (i) Any person or entity who demolishes or causes the demolition of a structure in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be liable civilly in a sum equal to the replacement cost of the building. (ii) Any person or entity who alters or causes the alteration of a structure in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be liable for the cost of restoring the alteration in
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Ms. Furth referred to Section 16.49.200(a) which addressed appeals
and said, except for the director=s initial sort of a project of an
06/15/99 88-336
application into major or minor, everything was appealable by an aggrieved person. Case law said a council member was not an aggrieved person, so if council members wished to have the power to
appeal, the wording Αor a member of the city council≅ should be
added after Αhistoric resources board.≅ Mayor Fazzino clarified only the aggrieved party would have the right to appeal. Ms. Furth said the aggrieved person could be the property owner, a neighbor, or advocate of new architecture or old buildings. MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to add language
under Section 16.49.200 to add Αor any city council member≅ to those having right to appeal. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Council Member Ojakian referred to Section 16.49.250 (a) (4) and asked about typical mitigation measures. Council Member Mossar questioned the difference between Section 16.49.250 (a) (4) and (2). Ms. Furth said Section 16.49.250 (2) involved going to court. Mr. Gawf said changes could be made to the structure that might
bring it back into consistency with the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards, which might be the mitigation. Council Member Ojakian said once the mitigation measures were determined, what would be the recourse of the applicant or person who caused the situation and would it be appealable. Ms. Furth said the decision was appealable to Council and then the court. Mayor Fazzino asked whether 24 months was too long. Ms. Furth said the language was found in the HPO for many iterations, but staff would make a change if the Council desired. Council Member Ojakian said when the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee discussed flood hazard regulations, the Committee did not discuss was the relationship to historic structures. Section 16.49.100 (c) addressed the ability to view historic structures within the flood plain area. Ms. Furth said an amendment in Section 6 on page 30 of the HPO addressed the issue of making sure a structure was considered to be
06/15/99 88-337
historic but did not address his other concern about liberalizing restrictions on new basements in flood districts. Council Member Mossar clarified that for a California Register property in a flood plain, the process was to go through the City and request placement on the Palo Alto Register. Ms. Furth said placement was an incentive and a benefit. Mr. Gawf noted on page 10, Section 16.49.080, regarding properties not on the Resource List, the statement was clarified to include
only the owner or owner=s agent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to change the language under Section 16.49.080(b) as follows: 16.49.080 Designation Procedures for Heritage Properties. (b) For properties not on the Resource List, only the owner or
the owner=s authorized agent may apply for that property=s inclusion on the Palo Alto Register. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. RECESS: 8:30 p.m. - 9:15 p.m. Ms. Furth referred to page 30 of the HPO attached to the staff report (CMR:259:99), Section 18.18.030, Consistency with Secretary
of Interior=s Standards Required. The Council asked that the City
Attorney=s staff make conforming changes throughout, and the project currently complied substantially with the Secretary of
Interior=s Standards. She noted an error on page 28 of the HPO, Section 18.18.070(b), Historic Home Improvement Exceptions, fourth
line Αminimum site coverage≅ should be changed to Αmaximum site
coverage.≅ Mayor Fazzino questioned Section 7, Variance -- Findings and conditions, on page 30 of the HPO. Ms. Furth said there was no change in the law because the law
stated Αthe presence of historic buildings and the need to preserve
them is a basis for a variance.≅ The Planning Commission thought it was important to specify that in the variance findings. Mayor Fazzino clarified that one might be exempted from parking requirements as a result. Ms. Furth said yes. The variance finding required that no other property be damaged and it be essential to maintain the use of the
06/15/99 88-338
property. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) provided that at least one person on the HRB lived in or owned a historic property, and according to Section 10 on page 31 of the HPO, the Fair Political Practices Commission Regulations stated that when a person was appointed a member of a committee, he/she could continue to participate even though there might be a conflict of economic interest. That was why the section was included which meant when the appointments were made, the designated homeowner should be specified. Mr. Gawf referred to page 3 of the staff report (CMR:259:99) for the staff recommendation identifying the four proposed additional incentives. Recommendation No. 3 directed staff to return with identified amendments to the PAMC relating to the HPO: Changes to the zoning code relative to references to Category 1 and 2 properties, change to the Palo Alto Register; and Changes to the provision relating to nonconforming in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Furth said the second change was a request from the Planning Commission who was concerned that the time allowed for a nonconforming use to be in abeyance while a building was restored might have to be extended for historic structures. Staff thought the time limit should be looked at in more detail before returning with proposals. Mr. Gawf said Recommendation No. 4 dealt expansion of the Commercial Downtown (CD) floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of commercial buildings to Palo Alto Register properties outside the Downtown area; partial property tax rebate; fee exemption for building permits related to maintaining heritage properties; and refund of transfer tax for sale of a Palo Alto Register property. Mayor Fazzino asked that the financial impacts of the incentives be read from the staff report (CMR:259:99.) Mr. Gawf said with regard to the partial property tax rebate, staff made assumptions as to the level the Council might consider. Staff did some selective analysis or sampling of some properties on the proposed Register and tried to develop an average. That resulted in a median of approximately $3,000 and an average of approximately
$5,000. An estimate was done of the City=s portion of the annual property tax and using $5,000 worked out to approximately $500. Using $500 as a guide, given the 300 currently proposed properties for the Palo Alto Register, the annual cost to the City of lost revenue was approximately $150,000. Knowing what number was on the
Register, the City=s financial impact could be evaluated. The building permit fee exemption was more difficult because staff guessed at what might occur. If the building permit fee amounted to 1 to 1.5 percent of the cost of the project, using an example of a $5,000 improvement project, the savings amounted to approximately $50 to $75. More realistic, using an example of a project recently
06/15/99 88-339
finished, a $30,000 project would enjoy a savings of $300 to $500. Staff tried to do something that was significant enough to have some impact. The homeowner who used the program and maintained an historic house for a number of years, would realize significant savings over time. If the Council decided to go with the building permit process, it was full cost recovery which would have an impact on the General Fund. The City transfer tax at the time of sale refund was at a rate of $3.30 per thousand on the price of property transferred within Palo Alto. The estimated annual cost to the City in terms of lost revenue was approximately $75,000. Staff estimated the value and number of properties sold. Mayor Fazzino asked when staff would bring back to the Council a final plan to implement the incentives. Ms. Fleming said the transfer tax refund would have to be paid to Santa Clara County and refunded by the City once payment was received, because the county process could not be altered. After checking with staff, she figured the incentives would take approximately 60-90 days to implement. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the Council directed staff to proceed with the recommendations as part of the implementation, could the Council go back and add properties. Ms. Furth said the only limit was that a legitimate public purpose
had to be served, so there was no Αgift to public funds≅ problem. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that the Council could go back to the effective date of the ordinance and pick up any transactions that transpired.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff=s intention was to apply incentives equally to both commercial and residential properties.
Mr. Gawf said staff=s intent was for residential property because
that was what staff understood the Council=s focus to be. Council Member Ojakian said in terms of the Downtown properties, there was a program that allowed for additional square footage, and the City learned from the Varsity Theatre project that the incentive worked well. Mr. Gawf said the square footage floor area ratio (FAR) bonus was a financial incentive for commercial properties. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the property tax rebate, transfer fund, and fees were exclusive to R-1 and R-2 type projects.
06/15/99 88-340
Mr. Gawf said that was staff=s intent. He reminded the Council that there was access to federal tax credits and incentives for commercial or income producing property. Council Member Ojakian said concerns were raised about potential costs on the EIR for projects. He understood the costs might apply to a commercial-type project but probably not a residential home. Ms. Furth said that was correct. A single- or two-family home was an individual project, and there would not be further environmental review on the historic cultural resources. If someone bought a block of single-family ho and proposed to demolish them in order to build new ho, there would be environmental review. Council Member Ojakian confirmed there was no set of circumstances that would apply to additional costs on an EIR. Ms. Furth said that type of remodeling was why the City was doing a program EIR so there would be an environmental clearance. If an EIR were done on a case-by-case basis, the information or mitigation measures would not be meaningful. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff would object to the City offering to pay the cost of an EIR on R-1 and R-2 projects. Mr. Gawf said the Council set the direction, but the best solution was the staff recommendation which was that an EIR would not be required for single- or two-family homes. That was the purpose of a program EIR. Implying that might not be the case was not correct. Ms. Furth said the discussion should be deferred until the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) resolution. The resolution could be looked at with respect to the program EIR. Most of the changes made that evening involved clarifications or minor adjustments. Council Member Ojakian was comfortable with that. Since there seemed to be a concern with some people that there might be a cost on a residential project, he suggested the City agree to cover that cost and eliminate the concern. Mayor Fazzino said he raised the question the prior week, and felt the City Attorney gave a very definitive statement that the program EIR would obviate the need for anyone to have to prepare an individual EIR. The Council would defend that position legally. Ms. Furth said Council direction was important as to what was to be done when someone sued challenging a City decision. The indication from the Council was that the intent was to defend the ordinance and EIR, which was a significant commitment.
06/15/99 88-341
Mayor Fazzino said the issue was of concern to the people and should be addressed until the Council and the public were convinced that it was not a concern and the Council would stand behind the residents. Council Member Ojakian said that was his major intent. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the expansion of the Downtown commercial floor area bonus. With respect to the financial rebates, he looked for a nexus, and the most appealing was the fee exemption for building permits related to maintaining heritage properties. He would consider a partial property tax rebate in connection with expenditures associated with maintenance of a heritage house rather than a general rebate. Replacing wooden windows, was less expensive when newer products were used. Wooden windows with true divided lights were more historic but expensive and there would be an application for a property tax rebate. He could find no nexus on the transfer tax rebate and would not support it. Vice Mayor Wheeler questioned the commercial incentive, and although it was not directly related to Register properties, she believed there was also a floor area bonus for a seismic upgrade on an unreinforced masonry building. She asked whether the present ordinance was only in effect for the Downtown area or for other areas of community. Mr. Gawf said the ordinance applied to properties in the Downtown area. There was a bonus for seismic upgrade, but it only applied to commercial properties in the Downtown area. An older building of reinforced masonry did not necessarily mean the building was an historic resource. Vice Mayor Wheeler said there were some buildings that qualified on both counts and asked whether the notion was to extend the one bonus and whether the City should not extend the other in certain circumstances where the two met. Mr. Gawf said that could happen. He asked the Council to direct staff to that effect. Most unreinforced masonry buildings were Downtown, but there were unreinforced masonry buildings outside the Downtown area. The Council might want to provide some incentive for those buildings to become reinforced, specifically from a safety standpoint. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to return to the Council with changes to the zoning code relative to references to Category 1 and 2 properties, change to Palo Alto Register. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent.
06/15/99 88-342
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to return to the Council with the changes to the provision relating to nonconforming in the zoning ordinance. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to return to the Council additional information regarding the expansion of the Commercial Downtown (CD) floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of commercial buildings to Palo Alto Register properties outside of the downtown area and to consider extending the floor area bonus of historic unreinforced masonry buildings to go beyond the Downtown area. Council Member Eakins said the bonus was a potential 50 percent increase. Mr. Gawf was not sure staff was recommending the full 25 percent for buildings outside the Downtown area, but staff would put together some alternatives. Council Member Eakins was concerned with large additions which were hard to reinforce while still maintaining historic integrity. She concurred if that could be accomplished but understood those fell under the umbrella of the Standards. Mr. Gawf said the ordinance was set up so a property had to be on the Palo Alto Register in order to obtain the incentives. The bonus was currently 25 percent in the Downtown area, but with the new ordinance, the percentage would be expanded. There were approximately 23 Category 1 and 2 properties on the Register in the Downtown area that could take advantage of the incentive. There were also 75 buildings in the Downtown that were proposed for the Resource List. The California properties on the Register might also desire the City to add those properties. He felt the incentive was good. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Mr. Fazzino felt from the start of the discussions that what was proposed was a community-wide benefit: The City needed to provide meaningful financial incentives to those properties on the Register. The community should contribute toward the preservation and renovation of the homes. The financial incentives were meaningful and relevant and would have the effect of encouraging individuals to desire to be part of the program. He viewed the
06/15/99 88-343
incentives as an integral part of the effort and hoped the Council would support them. Council Member Mossar fundamentally agreed. She struggled with how the property tax rebate could be accomplished, taking into account that the rebate was not automatic and provided the City with a mechanism to flex with the economy. There could be $1,000 to $5,000 per year set aside for rebates on property taxes. Tying the amount of the rebate to a specific project or home maintenance was probably too narrow but opened up ways to tie the benefits to actual work needs. She preferred the homeowner apply to the City each year for the rebate without going through a cumbersome form in order to advise the City the home was still owned and maintained.
She felt more comfortable if the homeowner=s bill not be decreased each year. MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to return to Council with additional information and a tentative proposal for consideration of a partial property tax rebate. Council Member Ojakian supported the property tax reduction. It was important from the beginning of the process that the City offer legitimate incentives, and staff was creative in addressing what the public wanted in incentives. He agreed that the program should be important to the community and one in which the community should contribute. The property tax rebate also avoided the Mills Act and the use of Palo Alto Unified School District finances. Council Member Rosenbaum felt there should be an amendment to relate property tax reduction to property maintenance. Mr. Gawf said when staff returned to the Council, options to that effect could be provided. As he understood the concept, if certain actions were taken to maintain or basic improvements were made to the home, there would be eligibility for a refund of the
portion of the money spent on the work up to the City=s share of the property tax. Council Member Mossar said hypothetically one owned a historic home that was on the Palo Alto Register and did not plan to do much to the home. She asked whether there was a nexus that the City would give that money out each year. She asked if the home were maintained and/or improved each year, whether there would be more nexus in that case. She agreed it was important to have significant financial incentives for historic homes. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that the Council was not talking about a rebate of any portion or the property tax other than that which went directly to the City of Palo Alto.
06/15/99 88-344
Ms. Furth said when taxes were paid, the rebate was a payment by the City equal to an amount of taxes paid which did not touch
anybody else=s revenues. Vice Mayor Wheeler said there was a requirement in the HPO that owners of heritage properties maintain those properties. The City protected those owners against demolition by neglect. People would, on an ongoing basis, make improvements or efforts at maintenance. There was a presumption that if someone owned a heritage property they would be spending more money to keep it in a certain condition. She acknowledged that fact and was willing to help homeowners who owned historic property to keep up with the type of expenditures that had to be made. Council Member Mossar said there was a presumption that demolition of neglect would not happen to historic homes. Hypothetically, if that were happening and someone was getting a $1,000 a year rebate on their property taxes and neglecting their house, she did not want that homeowner to receive the property tax rebate. If everyone did their job, she was comfortable, but if not, she asked what the mechanism might be to prevent that situation. Mr. Gawf said staff needed to address that question when it returned to the Council. He felt staff could devise a system that identified those exceptions. When someone was not maintaining their property, they should not be rewarded. Ms. Furth said she assumed that could be done so 99 out of 100 properties would be routine. If in the course of normal code enforcement a house on the List was discovered not to be maintained to an extent where it violated the HPO, that could be a first step in code enforcement. Mayor Fazzino thought that would be the best approach. He did not want the Council or staff to get to a point of conducting a home by home annual analyses and determine whether or not the homes were maintained. If someone brought the Council an example of an egregious deterioration of a home, it could be dealt with at that point. If a property were on the Register, the assumption was that the homeowner would take steps to preserve that home and should have access to the incentives.
Ms. Fleming said from a staff=s point of view, it would be difficult to take an approach other than code enforcement. Staff would be put in a difficult position inspecting homes in order that the homeowner would receive the rebate. Council Member Mossar did not intend to imply such a situation and recognized there was potential for spending public monies for no public good. She wanted to know that type of situation could be dealt with.
06/15/99 88-345
Ms. Fleming said that was legitimate, and could be enforced. Council Member Eakins said the reasons for encouraging people to preserve the historic properties were discussed, for instance the character of the neighborhoods was maintained, and fewer neighbors were alarmed. Buying, living, and maintaining historic houses was expensive. In light of a real estate market professing the bare ground often being worth more than the ho, there needed to be some type of financial incentives. Council Member Rosenbaum said any work on historic ho would be done with a building permit and would be easy to keep track of. With an eventual 600 to 800 homes on the Register, at $1,000 each, he felt that money should go toward a public purpose with demonstrated maintenance of the historic homes. He opposed the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0-2, Rosenbaum, Mossar Αno,≅ Kniss Αnot
participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to return to the Council with additional information and a tentative schedule for consideration of a fee exemption for building permits related to maintaining heritage properties. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to return to Council with additional information and a tentative proposal for consideration of a refund of transfer tax for sale of a Palo Alto Register property. MOTION PASSED 5-0-1, Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Council Member Ojakian though it would be beneficial if the Mayor
sent correspondence through Palo Alto=s federal representative to encourage the Historic Rehab Tax Credit. Mayor Fazzino agreed with the idea.
Mr. Gawf said staff could draft a letter for the Mayor=s signature. Vice Mayor Wheeler said at a recent series of Santa Clara County Cities Association meetings, she learned that when the City of Santa Clara felt strongly about an issue, not only had the Mayor signed the correspondence, but the entire City Council. She thought that would make the correspondence more unusual and would reveal the commitment of the Council if the Council signed also.
06/15/99 88-346
Mayor Fazzino felt the Council should sign on major issues. Council Member Ojakian said the benefit was fairly significant if the tax credit worked out the way it was portrayed. Council Member Ojakian asked how the City could put emphasis on infrastructure in areas such as historic districts. Mr. Gawf said it was an important point that the City look at how the City could support the historic district and also in the infrastructure of the streets within those areas. The street system made up approximately 25 percent of the land area of the historic district. The City needed to respect the historic district in its public improvements. Ms. Furth understood the City had procedures to have alternative curb-cut standards for historic properties in Palo Alto. Ms. Fleming said the City did not pay sufficient attention to that point. She gave a few examples of situations where the City should have been more considerate of the way repairs were done to infrastructure in historic districts so as not to disrupt the historic value. She wanted to think about it and return to the Council with some suggestions on how the City could be more sensitive when possible. Council Member Ojakian said he would like to see how the City could place emphasis on those features. Ms. Furth referred to Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:259:99), Resolution Certifying the Final EIR and Making Certain Other Findings Required by CEQA, which was long and technical but designed to do fairly simple things such as articulating why the Council, having read and considered the environmental effects of the proposed project and various alternatives, felt it was the appropriate one. The resolution was
written prior to the Council=s deliberations and might not have
accurately reflected the Council=s thoughts. Council Member Rosenbaum said he raised the point of a possible back door way of properties on the California Register getting to
the City=s Register without owner consent by being placed on Resource List first. Staff indicated that if the Council wanted to eliminate that possibility, there was language that would be memorialized in the resolution. Ms. Furth said yes. It was not possible to put a property on the Resource List unless it was National Register quality which took care of the issue in the technical sense. On page 2 of the Resolution, Section 1(F), the Council proposed not to require
06/15/99 88-347
preservation of the 1,800 California Register-only properties, but
instead to provide a mix of incentives. The language read, ΑThese California Register properties, though not as historically significant as those selected for the Palo Alto Register and
Resource List, are an important part of the fabric of Palo Alto=s neighborhoods and commercial centers. They have been preserved to date largely through the efforts of private owners; these efforts
deserve the support of the City.≅ Language could be added stating
ΑThese properties are not eligible for listing on a Resource List
or the Register without the consent of the owners.≅ MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Eakins, to amend the Resolution certifying the adequacy of the environmental
impact report to add to the end of Section 1(F) ΑThese properties are not eligible for listing on the Palo Alto Register or Resource
List without the consent of the owners.≅ MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler said as part of Section 1(G), on page 3, fourth bullet point from the top, there was a reference to tourists which in an earlier version was determined that it was not the purpose of the resolution to attract tourists. Ms. Furth said that was language from the Comprehensive Plan, and staff would modify the language. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, that the following language be added to the Resolution at the end of
Section 3: ΑIt is the intention of the City Council that no homeowners acting in a manner consistent with the ordinance will incur additional expenses for environmental review because of the
listing of their homes on the Palo Alto Register or Resource List.≅ Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified there was a presumption that what the homeowner was trying to do was in furtherance of the ordinance. Ms. Furth said an EIR would not be done on illegal activities. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. Ms. Furth said Section 5 pointed out that even though the ordinance was better environmentally than present, it was expected that the City would lose cultural resources due to individuals choosing that option.
06/15/99 88-348
Mayor Fazzino clarified by not having a list of 1,800 or 3,000 properties or more stringent provisions, there would be loss of homes. Ms. Furth said yes. The issue was the 1,800 properties, 1,600 of which were homes. Ms Furth said Ms. Fleming advised there were three sections numbered Section 6 and advised those sections would be renumbered Sections 6, 7, and 8. Mayor Fazzino referred to the second Section 6 on page 8 and asked whether the narratives to each alternative include examples of experience of other cities. Ms. Furth advised that the second Section 6 on page 8 would be changed to Section 7, Alternative Analysis. She said reference to other cities was in the EIR. Mayor Fazzino was thinking in terms of bolstering the arguments based upon the experience of other cities. Ms. Furth said there was no additional material to suggest at present. Mr. Gawf said there was a previous staff report where a comparison was made with eight other cities which was part of EIR. There was no additional material needed to include in the Resolution. Ms. Furth said the third Section 6 would be changed to Section 8, Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Section was the broadest and most technical CEQA requirement. It was odd because the ordinance being adopting was environmentally beneficial, but because it was not the most environmentally beneficial alternative considered, a statement of overriding considerations explaining why the Council concluded it was the appropriate place to balance traditional expectations of what could be done with homes and historic preservation. Ms. Furth said Sections 7, 8, and 9 would be renumbered Sections 9, 10, and 11. Ms. Furth referred to Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:259:99), Resolution Establishing the Palo Alto Register, which was established by the Council by resolution, and every addition or deletion was done by Council resolution. The attachments listed the Palo Alto Register properties in groups: Exhibit A listed Individual Heritage Properties by address, year built, and parcel number; Exhibit B was the Ramona Street Historic District which were coded as Ramona Street Contributors (RC), five of which were Individual Heritage Category 1 or 2 Properties; and Exhibit C with similar coding which described the Professorville Historic District, which unlike Ramona Street, had some non-contributing structures. The Resolution was designed to take effect on the
06/15/99 88-349
effective date of the HPO. The HPO described the listings in categories, and the exhibits were individual categories and did not require individual determinations by the Council. Mayor Fazzino asked how many public inquiries the Planning Department received regarding the possibility of inaccurate information since the February meetings, and how many actions were taken as a result of inquiries. Mr. Gawf approximated 15 to 20 inquiries from the public. Since February, staff looked at Category 3 and 4 properties individually to determine whether they still had historic integrity, and looked at the Professorville Historic District to double check historic integrity, contributing and non-contributing. Staff was now going through the potential National Register property. The commitment
staff made was that by November 1999, the word Αpotential≅ would be eliminated and only the eligible properties that met the criteria for the Palo Alto Register would be listed. Priority was given to any property that made an inquiry. Staff reached out as much as time allowed during the past three months and would continue that effort during the next month. Mayor Fazzino clarified that when a member of the public contacted the Planning Department with a concern about inclusion of their property on the Resource List, staff would move the issue of that property toward the top of the list in terms of evaluation to determine whether or not it belonged on the Palo Alto Register. Mr. Gawf said staff tried to do that in a systematic way to balance both, but a priority was placed on people asking the status of their property. Council Member Mossar asked whether the property names listed on the exhibits were all that would be listed on the Palo Alto Register. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. He clarified he was talking about the Resource List. Mayor Fazzino clarified what was before the Council that evening were the Landmarks, the Districts, and the Register. Council Member Rosenbaum said Dames & Moore were hired as consultants to look at what was contributing and non-contributing in the Professorville Historic District, and there was some implication that contributing properties would be related to an era rather than 50 years old. He asked how many changes were made as a result of that work. Mr. Gawf said yes. He would provide a graphic on the subject to the Council.
06/15/99 88-350
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7861 entitled ΑResolution 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≅ MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to introduce the Ordinance and adopt the Resolution. 1st Reading - 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 on the Palo Alto Historic Register) and Amending Section 18.90.050 (Variances, Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits)
Resolution 7862 entitled ΑResolution 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≅ Mayor Fazzino announced that at the second reading, the Council could discuss policy issues, issues related to placing the measures on the ballot, etc. He recommended that the 2nd reading of the HPO be the first item of discussion on the Council Agenda for June 28, 1999. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ Huber, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
06/15/99 88-351
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.
06/15/99 88-352