HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-29 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY CO[~CIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE:
SUB,J-~CT:
February 29, 1996 CMR: 156:96
Future Policy Considerations for Historic
Ordinance Update
Resources Board
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that City Council conduct a joint study session with the Historic
Resources Board (HRB) to consider the issues associated with an assignment to update the
Historic Ordinance. At the conclusion of the study session, Council, if it so desires, should
direct staff to return with a revised scope of services and Budget Amendment Ordinance for
Planning Division Work Program Item 19, "Update of Historic Ordinance," on a regular
Council agenda.
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 1995, the City Council reviewed and endorsed a Work Program for Fiscal
Year 1995-96 for the Planning Division. In their consideration of the Work Program,
Council initiated a discussion of Item 19, a proposed update of the Historic Resources
Ordinance. Members of the HRB attended the meeting to support their recommendation that
the current ordinance provides inadequate protection for historic landmarks and resources
in Palo Alto and that an update is urgently needed to prevent the deterioration ofPalo Alto’s
historic heritage. In addition to updating the ordinance, a significant, related assignment
would be needed to substantially revise the accompanying inventory of historic landmarks
and Structures.
A motion to direct staffto undertake the HRB ordinance assignment was deferred, and a
motion was adopted to hold a joint meeting of the Council and HR. The purpose of the
meeting, as described by Council Members in their discussion of the issue (refer to minutes
of the September 26, 1995 City Council meeting), isto decide whether or not an update is
warranted, to understand and discuss some of the broad policy options that would or would
not be explored in the ordinance update if initiated, and to review some sample ordinances
CMR:156:96 Page 1 of 7
from other communities. Council Member Fazzino requested that Council be in the position
to evaluate some of the policy alternatives and move forward with the deferred motion. This
report attempts to provide a broad framework for discussion to assist Council in deciding
whether or not to assign Work Program Item 19.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The HRB has requested that the City Council consider updating the Historic Resources
Ordinance in order to accomplish a number of objectives, primarily related to
"strengthening" the ordinance, so that it contains tools for requiring protection of historic
landmarks and districts. The purpose of this report is to outline some of the major policy
considerations that would need to be addressed prior to preparing the ordinance, and to set
out a framework for discussion at a joint City Council/HRB meeting scheduled on
February 26, 1995.
DISCUSSION
The following topics outline some of the broad policy issues which need to be considered in
the development of any new Historic Ordinance or settled by the City Council in advance of
the assignment.
A. Terms of Historic Preservation
As background for the joint City Council/HRB discussion, a definition of the terms used to
describe various treatments of historic resources is warranted. The following definitions are
the four primary treatments identified in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment
of Historic Properties.
1. Preservation - the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the
existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including
preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the
ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than
extensive replacement and new construction. New additions are not within the scope
of this treatment," however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical and plumbing systems and other code-related work to make properties
functional is appropriate within a preservation project.
2. Rehabilitation - the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a
property through repair, alterations and additions, while preserving those portions
or features which convey its historical or cultural values.
3. Restoration - the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and
character of a property, as it appeared at a particular period of time, by means of the
removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing
CMR: 156:96 Page 2 of 7
features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of
mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make
properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.
4. Reconstruction - the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction,
the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building,
structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period
of time and in its historic location.
B. Problems with the Existing Ordinance
The Historic Resources Board and staff have identified a variety of problems with the current
ordinance.
The ordinance is twenty years old and does not contain strong provisions to
require preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or reconstruc-tion of
historic property. The only requirement in the ordinance for resources outside the
downtown is the optional one-year delay of demolition of these landmarks, which is
not a very strong "protection" incentive.. The code provision goveming significant
buildings in the downtown (PAMC 16.49.060) does limit a property owner’s ability
to totally demolish such a resource.
The ordinance does not contain standards for reviewing and approving historic
projects. While the Architectural Review Board (~XA~d3) ordinance allows
discretionary review of commercial and multi-family properties, thereby triggering
CEQA compliance, the ARB ordinance does not contain standards for protection of
historic resources. The recommendations of the HRB are not binding, and the ARB
ordinance does not require the ARB to possess any expertise in the field of historic
preservation. Single-family projects are subject to review only by the HRB,
compliance with which is voluntary.
The ordinance does not clearly include protection of historic sites, but
emphasizes only "buildings," which is inconsistent with the National Standards.
"Sites" are places of importance, like E1 Palo Alto Park.
The ordinance does not address historic landmarks of cultural value, but
classifies only those with architectural merit.
°The category 1, 2, 3 and 4 classification system is out of date and not in keeping
with modern ordinances and National Standards. The HRB often finds that
buildings on the inventory with Category 3 and 4 ratings are of high historic value
and integrity, such as the Rhona Williams Estate.
CMR: 156:96 Page 3 of 7
C.Parameters of an Ordinance
The HRB has been discussing and studying ordinances of other communities and developing
recommendations for Council consideration over the past several years. Sample ordinances
of other communities are enclosed for Council consideration, and the HRB intends to present
a summary overview at the joint meeting. To date, the HRB conceptual recommendations
contain a variety of elements.
The following outline represents staff’s understanding of the current proposal under
discussion by the HRB.
Demolition - Revise the ordinance to prevent demolition of designated historic
landmarks and contributing buildings/sites, except as necessary for legally protecting
the property rights of the owner.
Modify the classification of categories. The classification system needs
modification to better represent National Standards and contemporary ordinances in
other communities with historic preservation policies. The category system is
tentatively recommended to be structured according to the following outline:
Category 1 - Landmark or Exceptional Status buildings/sites- This would
likely include all category 1 and 2 on the existing inventory, plus additional
sites to be designated, and would involve measures for treatment of these
historic resources, consistent with National Standards.
Category II -Historic, Contributing Buildings/Sites - This would likely
include all other buildings/sites on the existing inventory, plus additional
properties yet to be identified. The ordinance would also include measures for
treatment of these assets, less stringent than for Category 1 resources, but
consistent with National Standards and other modem historic ordinances.
Category Ill - Historic District - This category would apply to an entire
district, such as Professorville and Ramona Street. Properties within the
district would be subject to revised zoning requirements, and those of non-
historic status would not necessarily be subject to discretionary review.
Category IV - Conservation District - This is a ceremonial classification and
would not include the level of regulation applied to the other categories. This
classification is not fully conceptually developed by the HRB, but was
apparently used by the City recently in the celebration of the Centennial to
declare "Centennial Lane" an important historic asset.
CMR: 156:96 Page 4 of 7
Establish Discretionary Review Process - The HRB has concluded that the best way
for the ordinance to be implemented is through a discretionary review process. This
recommendation raises many questions that would need to be examined in the
preparation of the ordinance. A few questions which arise are: Which approval body
would make the decision on applications for historic treatment? Since this is a
significant shift in policy for single-family properties, what are the ramifications for
those homeowners? What are the staffmg impacts and costs to the City?
Provide Economic Incentives for Single-Family Homeowners - The HRB has
come to a preliminary conclusion that, while a new discretionary review process with
more stringent Standards for historic properties will impose new burdens on historic
homeowners, these burdens can be offset through a relaxation of the R-1 regulations
as applied to historic properties. Since the regulations were designed to "fit" the
majority of housing in Palo Alto, built after World War II, the regulations do not work
particularly well for historic properties. Many historic homeowners need to apply for
a Home Improvement Exception prior to remodeling. Therefore, the HRB argues that
the burden of a new discretionary review process would not necessarily be additive,
but shifted.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council has requested a joint study session with the HRB to consider whether or not to
initiate an assignment to update the City’s Historic Ordinance. The alternatives available to
Council are: 1) make the assignment; 2) defer the assignment; 3) decide not to undertake it
at all, and 4) continue to consider the matter further.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should the Council direct the HRB Ordinance Update, staff will return with a Budget
Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for $47,500.00, which allows for the hiring of a contract
planner, with historic preservation expertise, to work with the HRB, community and City
Attorney’s Office in preparing the necessary documents for Council consideration. The City
Attorney’s Office has indicated that if the assignment is given, funding will be sought for
contract services either to directly work on this project or to offset in-house resources
reassigned from other work.
The follow-up assignment to inventory all historic buildings/structures, etc., identified as
Item 1 in the 1995-96 Planning Division Work Program, would require BAO’s for $95,000.
New R-1 regulations for Professorville or other historic districts would likely require
additional funding, the scope of which will be easier to estimate once the conceptual changes
are made clearer to staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CMR: 156:96 Page 5 of 7
This report is not a project under CEQA, but environmental review will need to be conducted
as part of the ordinance preparation, should it be assigned.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The process of preparing an ordinance would be further defined by staff in a scope of
services and would include community outreach and preliminary direction from Council at
an intermediate point in the update process. After completing an ordinance, the next step
would be a significant effort, professionally supported, to fully inventory the City’s historic
landmarks, buildings, sites, districts and other resources and to classify them according to the
new ordinance. This task was identified as Item 1 in the 1995-96 Planning Division Work
Program. Notification to all property owners, a public hearing, and designation of the sites
would follow, and precede enforcement of any new ordinance provisions.. The current
inventory is a starting point for this effort, but it is considered very out-of-date according to
the HR.
It also appears that the HRB desires to wrap into the HRB Ordinance assignment a follow-up
recormnendation to revise the zoning regulations within historic districts. This assignment
was not within staff’s original estimate for work associated with Work Program Item 19, but
appears to partially replace another anticipated Work Program item, Item 25, Professorville
Design Guidelines.
ATTACHlVIENTS
Work Program Items 1, 19 and 25.
Excerpt Minutes of the September 26, 1995 City Council meeting
Historic Ordinance Samples from Carmel, Portland, and San Diego (Council Members only)
Note: In addition, the Historic Preservation Element of the Oakland General Plan will be
available for review by Council Members at the meeting.
CC:
Planning Commission
ARB
PREPARED BY: Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CMR: 156:96 Page 6 of 7
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City
CMR: 156:96 Page 7 of 7
I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Historic Inventory is one of the most extensively used documents in the City regarding
historic preservation. It was completed in 1979 and has not undergone a comprehensive update
since that time. Many of the buildings on the Inventory have undergone additions or
modifications and the descriptions need to be amended to reflect the changes.
Supporting information has also changed over the years, especially with regard to surrounding
environment, condition of the building, and potential threats to the site. This results in a
perception by HRB members that many buildings on the inventory are classified as less
significant than they actually are.
Additionally, the HRB is not satisfied that the classification system used is consistent with
national Standards for Historic Preservation and have discussed changing the ordinance
definition of Categories 1, 2 and 3 (see related Work program item titled "Historic Preservation
Ordinance Update").
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
To maintain usefulness of the Inventory, it is necessary to keep it current. This is important to
further the City’s objectives regarding historic preservation, but it is also an important customer
service objective. Currently, property owners often find the HRB taking issue with the
classification of their buildings and the result is poor customer service. The first phase of the
Inventory update would be to update those structures already on the Inventory. The second
phase would be to identify additional structures that might qualify under any new definitions of
categories.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........175
Contract ..............1,000
Historic Resources Board . YES
Manager’s Office ........ YES
Public Works Dept ......YES
Attomey’s Office .......YES
Administrative Services.. YES
The 1,000 hours of a consultant’s time would be spent conducting a site visit to each of the 500
properties currently on the inventory, assessing the structure on the site and assessing the
surrounding area. The information collected in the field would then be compared to the
information on file with the Cit?i. Planning and Building files would be researched for planning
entitlement and building pen . It is anticipated that each site would
hours to visit, assess and research.
ire approximately two
The 175 hours of staff time would be spent reviewing the consultant’s data and managing the
consultant contract (55 hours), preparing a staff report explaining the update process and the
criteria used to evaluate sites and surrounding areas (40 hours), 15 hours of Planning staff time to
coordinate review conducted primarily the City Attorney’s Office, R~al Estate Division and
Public Works,.10 hours of public and staff contact meetings to discuss inventory and 15 hours of
revisions to the draft report after initial staff review. 40 hours are allowed for HRB and City
Council hearings as well as any special meetings needed with historic groups, property owners or
the community organizations.
Significant hours of v~lunteer HRB time would be spent reviewing the consultant’s work and
draft recommendations for changing the existing categorization of specific buildings.
COST
$95,000 consultant contract - not within current budget
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~Recommended for 95/96
vt Consider again in 96/97
~Possible for 95/96 wYoudget amendment
Not recommended
While Staff finds this to be a high priority work program item, Staff does not recommend that
this item be undertaken until the categories in the ordinance are updated and the definitions
refined. Staff also recommends that a consultant with expertise in historic preservation be hired
to complete the field work and research for each of the structures.
No.: 1
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: N/A
Origin of Issue: Staff and Historic Resources Board
Planning StaffLead: Lisa Grote
10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Historic Resources Board has identified the following areas to.be included in the update:
a)Authority of the Board. Currently the Board is a recommending body. Although HRB
review is mandatory, compliance with Board actions is voluntary. There is a belief that the
Board’s effectiveness could be improved if compliance with HRB decisions is required. If
this change is enacted, the HRB’s relationship with the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
could change. Corresponding sections of the ARB Ordinance (Chapter 16.48 of the
PAMC) would also need to be amended. Additional city staff resources would be required
to support another decision - making function.
b)Category definitions. There are currently four categories of historic structures specified in
the ordinance: 1,2,3, & 4. These categories range in significance from 1, which are
exceptional buildings to 3 or 4, which are contributing buildings. While the
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value of the structures that are either architecturally or
culturally significant, the categories in the ordinance place importance on only those with
architectural merit.The HRB is not convinced that the categories provide useful
distinctions when evaluating the impact of proposed modifications on historic structures.
This part of the HRB Ordinance amendment would look at different ways of categorizing
buildings and the possibility of not using categories at all.
c)Moratorium on demolition of significant historic structures in areas other than downtown.
There is currently a 60 day automatic moratorium on the demolition of significant historic
buildings outside of the downtown area. The HRB can recommend to the City Council
that the moratorium be extended for up to one year to provide the applicant additional time
to develop alternatives to demolishing the building. The Board would evaluate the benefits
of implementing an automatic six month moratorium with an option for the Board to
recommend an additional six months if needed for the applicant to continue exploring
additional alternatives to demolition.
d)There is neither consistency nor reference between our Historic Ordinance and the
National Standards. This effort would examine the value of incorporating standards into
the ordinance.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) was
45
enacted in 1974. It has not t rgone a comprehensive update since tl" ":me. The role historic
preservation plays in Palo Alto has evolved over the last 20 ye~s and tlae Ordinance needs to be
updated to reflect current commitment to historic preservation.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division .........6tl
Contract "500
Manager’s Office ........YES
Attomey’s Office YES
Historic Resources Board YES
COST
500 hours contract assistance would require $47,500.00 not within budget
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~Recommended for 95/96
~Consider again in 96/97
~_ff_Possible for 95/96 w/budget amendment
_.___Not recommended
Staff recommends that this item be undertaken as soon as possible. Many other future HRB
actions depend upon the ordinance being up-to-date and reflective of the City’s commitment to
historic preservation.
No.: 19
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin of Issue: Historic Resources Board
Planning Staff lead: Lisa Grote
46
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This item would result in design guidelines for the Professorville Historic District, which would
provide text and illustrations explaining the various styles of houses in the district and how
architecturally compatible additions can be designed.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The houses in Professorville have special historical significance to the City o~’Palo Alto.
Homeowners are not always aware of the historical value of their house and do not necessarily
understand how to design an addition that would be sensitive to the original character of the
structure. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) often gives detailed advice to property owners in
the district about how to design an addition. An applicant would be much better served if this
information is made available to him!her prior to beginning an addition or remodel. The
applicant will save time and money if fewer changes to proposed designs need to be made.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........180
Contract ................400
Attorney’s Office .......YES
Manager’s Office .......YES
,COST
$38,000 would be required in consultant contract services.
$850.00 for 500 copies of a handbook similar to those currently used by the Planning Division
for HIE’s, ARB and HRB explanation. There would be an additional 80 hours of stafftime
needed in the subsequent year’s work program, to desk-top-publish the document.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~Recornmended for 95/96
v¢ Consider again in 96/97
No.: 25
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigned
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Date: NA
~Possible for 95/96 w/budget amendment
___Not recommended
57
Origin of Issue: HRB
Plamling Staff lead: Lisa Gloria Humble (96/97)
58
analyses in that area and the City was moving in that direction in
a lot of fronts but that should not be confused with the proposal
the that evening. He supported the staff recommendation.
Council Schneider commended Ms. Jansen for moving the
project al(It had been two years in the making and it was good
to see the ~hip that had developed between the retailers,
the residents, and ~y. It was the beginning of the revital-
ization of Midtown wil ryone working together~
Council Member Fazzino thanked Wolf for his participation. The
revitalization was not going to a reality without the full
and complete participation of the residents. It was
obvious that the residents took the issues seriously and were
working constructively with the other ~as quickly .as
possible to redevelop a very important shopping
center.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
14. Review of Planning Division Work Program
Council Member Fazzino said the Director of Planning and Environ-
mental Development Ken Schreiber had suggested in the report that
the budget process was the proper way to deal with Planning
Division Work Program (Work Program), but after reading the
document, he questioned whether it was a classic case of
micromanagement.
City Manager June Fleming reminded the Council that it was not the
first time in recent history that the Planning Division staff had
brought before the Council work plan. In the report, staff
indicated that in the future the Work Program would be a part of
the budget. Staff had hoped it could have been done in the current
year but the work was not completed in time. The Work Program was
being brought to Council because the Planning Division got involved
in so many things that frequently staff was asked when X, Y and Z
was going to be done and what the .priority was. Staff needed tc
know what the Counci!’s priorities were so that staff could
respond.
Council Member Fazzino asked if it was staff’s intention to engage
in the same kind of priority analysis for each department during
the budget process.
Ms. Fleming said other departments did not need to go into that
sort of detail. Given the public involvement, the Comprehensive
Plan (the Plan) review, and the kinds of requests and demands there
were for the Planning Division, staff felt it was necessary in
order to let the Council know what was being done in more detail
that could be presented in the Mission Driven Budget format in the
future.
CITY COI CIL N rUTES
09/26/95 77-55
Council Member Andersen said there seemed to be a considerable
amount of work being carried out through contract employment and
asked if staff were at a point where there were considerable
demands being placed on the Planning Division over and above what
was normal., with the exception of the Comprehensive Plan.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
over the last-10 to 15 years, since the completion of the Plan work
in the 1980s, the Planning staff had responded to searches in
development review activity by swinging the long-range planners who
were the people that did the Plan, special studies, etc. into
development monitoring, such as the Sand Hill Corridor work in the
mid-1980s. Currently, the Planning staff had a very intense high
level of development review work, major Environmental Impact
Report’s (EIR) in progress for the Palo Alto Hyatt Hotel site, the
Palo Alto Medica! Foundation (PAHC)/Urban Lane site, and the Sand
Hill Corridor which were all major undertakings. Because the work
was beyond staff’s assigned development monitqring and because of
the Plan, contract planners werebeing used as much as possible to
cover it and other excessive workloads in the development area.
Also, because of the Plan, the resources available for other
specia! studies were quite limited. Noted in the Work Program were
a variety of assignments which could only be undertaken in the next
year either by bumping another project off the priority list or by
bringing in some contract people to supplement staff. There were
not enough hours available within the existing staffing to do the
Plan work, other special assignments, and the development review.
In the !ong-term future, he hoped that level of development
monitoring activity was not going to continue, but he could not
forecast where staff would be in two to three years. Once the Plan
was completed, the priority questions that would face the Council
were what did the Council want to implement and how fast.
Council Member Andersen noticed that all of the items listed in the
Work Program needed review by the City Attorney.He asked aboutcontract dollars for the City Attorney’s Office.
City Attorney Ariel Ca!onne said there was a contract budget built
into the City Attorney’s Office for the outside counsel budget and
his office was able to absorb the costs; and the City Attorney’s
Office had moved slower to hire contract staff and had spread the
work amongst themselves, but the Council could expect to see the
need for the City Attorney’s Office to hire contract staff. Over
the short term, the City Attorney’s Office would spend the money it
had, but over the longer term, the application fees would be
adjusted to reflect those costs.
Council Member Kniss requested feedback on how long it took to
prepare the Work Program. The Council seemed to be spending more
time on the Comprehensive Plan and less time on other items the
Counci! had spent time on over the last two to three years.
Council Member McCown said there seemed to be a difference between
issues that were far less or nondiscretionary issues and those
which the Council really did have some choices about prioritization
in terms of prioritization. She said in the Work Program al! of
o912~195 ~-56
the descriptions were very dispationate, careful, factual statement
of the issues and what they involved, but did not express a sense
that maybe some were more urgent than others. She did not get a
comparative feeling from the Work Program in terms of what order or
priority was being suggested.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said when she became aware that there were plans
for the Planning Division Work Program, she asked if there were
plans to incorporate into the Work Program "wiggle room" so that
staff could address items which arose during the year or that
Council was indeed going to get involved with in a priority setting
process, and that the Counci! not only agree with the priorities
that were identified in the Work Program, but also agree that there
were additional priorities that needed to be moved up. She asked
whether there would be sufficient flexibility for staff or some
combination of staff and contract-assistance to accommodate that in
the current fiscal year. The numbers that were shown on page 7 of
the staff report (CMR:424:95) indicated that there was only 5
percent "wiggle room." It had be@n suggested in a couple of areas
where if the Council determined to move some of the potent~a!
studies up to the current year, it would be done by approval of a
Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) by the Council, and it seemed to
her it would take more than that. She asked staff to address some
of her concerns.
Ms. Fleming said the Planning Division had unique legal require-
ments and working patterns that other departments did not have, as
well as working with an audience of which they had no contgo!. She
would have liked to have been able to tell Council there was enough
staff to do extra things that the Council wanted done, but staff
was at its capacity. Staff wanted to serve the Council well and
that was why the staff shared with Council what was being done.
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the document before the
Counci! that evening was a growth-of several significant efforts to
examine overall organization and management of the Planning
Division, primarily the Hughes Heiss & Associates (HHA) Organiza-
tional Review and the MDB. Out of those efforts, the Division and
the Department worked on the current management structure which was
exhibited in the staff report. Staff developed the Work Program
tool at the suggestion of both the HHA’s review and the Plannina
Division’s organization sessions with the boards and commissions a~
a method of prioritizing and tracking assignments. The Work
Program was first used by the Planning Division the prior year as
an internal working draft. In reference to how many hours went
into the Work Program, if the organizational audits and sessions
were included it would total many hours of time. The number of
hours it would take to keep the Work Program up-to-date in the
future was described in the appendix under Management Time which
was primarily her and Mr. Schreiber’s time devoted to keeping the
Program current. Staff had tracked available hours for assignments
to allow for it. Staff learned a lot about timekeeping as it was
used internally the previous year, about scoping and assigning time
to various assignments, and about the impact of unexpected assign-
ments that came about. Staff felt that pressure for assignments to
the Planning Division came from many different points of origin
through the Council and the City Manager. It would be helpful if
the Council, the City Manager, boards and commissions, other
departments, developers, and the general public had full knowledge
of: i) the tasks assigned for the fiscal year; 2) the outstanding
assignments requested by all parties; and 3) the amount of staff
time needed to accomplish those tasks. The question was raised
that the assignments were raised in a dispationate format and was
there a sense of urgency. The urgency came from whomever was asked
depending on that person or group’s highest priority, i.e., the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) or the Historic ~esources Board
(HRB), each having a different highest priority. With the support
of the Director of Planning and Environmental Development and the
City Manager, staff developed the final version of the Work Program
tied in with as much as possible the format of the budget° The
City Manager’s intent was that it would be worked into that format,
but that was impossible to do the previous year because the MDB was
very complex in and of itself and to introduce a new item was
impractical. Shaff hoped the Work Program tool would provide a
framework for setting priorities and making trade-off decisions
during the year when new unexpected tasks arose and staff felt the
Work Program allowed for that flexibility. It allowed full
accountability of time and task and hopefully would serve as a
coordination and positive motivational tool. Finally, the Work
Program allowed for tracking deferred items into subsequent budget
cycles that was part of her and Mr. Schreiber’s job descriptions
which was to keep a Work Program for their respective responsibili-
ty.
Mr. Schreiber felt Council Member Kniss’s comment regarding fewer
staff originated items over the last couple of years was true. The
Comprehensive Plan had taken up a substantial amount of time and
energy in 1993 and 1994, and that waswhere staff’s energy had gone
in terms of originating items. Staff had not brought forward the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments in the last couple of years because
there was simply not enough staff time to devote to it. There was
a list to be done but there was nobody to assign it to. In answer
to Council Member McCown’s question regarding urgency, he wanted to
underscore that urgency came in different ways and there were many
different constituencies. Staff ranked the secondary priorities
and the other items in staff’s particular priority but good
arguments could be made as to all sorts of priority rankings
depending on what particular issue was important to what person or
group. One of staff’s dilemmas was that there was a great sense of
urgency on a great number of items the Work Program provided a tool
that would give staff a much better sense of that. Vice Mayor
Wheeler was correct that there was not very much "wiggle room". He
would like to have deleted some of the items, but he did not know
what to delete from the list of secondary priorities. Staff felt
it had the management capacity left to take on a number of
additional assignments with contract assistance which were
identified in the staff report. At the same time, other.things
would present themselves in the future which might cause the list
to be revised. The Work Program was not intended to be a static
document.
Council Member McCown appreciated that people with different
agendas would place things higher up on the list. She was
interested in the Planning Division’s perspective, given that it
had the whole picture, knew what the problem areas were, and knew
what really needed to be worked on first. She asked what were the
Planning Division’s urgent priorities.
Mr. Schreiber said the highest priority items were things that
either legally had to be done or were of high priority for the
Council, e.g. the tree ordinance.
Council Member McCown said the tree ordinance was a good example.
staff could say from the Planning Division’s perspective that the
tree ordinance was lower down the list than some other item. The
Council could overrule staff but she was concerned that the Council
was not getting staff’s perspective as to what needed to be done.
Mr. Schreiber said that Deputy Director of Public Works Mike Miller
could confirm to the Council that the planner~ had been prodding
the tree issue for a number of years and if staff did not think it
was a very high priority, it would not be under the highest
priority listing, just as the Transfer of Rights Development (TDR)
ordinance, sign ordinance, HRB ordinance, and Coordinated Area Plan
was lower on the list. Of those four, staff had to pick one which
was the Coordinated Area Plan and ~not just defer off the other
three items.
Mayor Simitian asked to what extent it put the Council in a
position where if it asked staff what they wanted to work on, they
would indicate things that were fun and professionally challenging,
and to what extent did staff really have to figure out what was
important to do for the City. He felt if one went through the
office and asked staff members to rank their highest priorities,
the intractable problems would get put at the bottom and the things
that would obtain some sense of accomplishment would be pushed to
the top.He was curious if staff had run into that during the
process.
Ms. Lytle said there were people in the Planning Division who
valued all of the assignments and there were few assignments that
people did not have fun doing. The problem was finding the time to
do the assignments and by developing a structure like ~the Work
Program and letting the people tackle the assignments in a reason-
able amount of time, motivatiqn would improve I00 percent.
Mr. Schreiber said one of the problems in managing the Planning
Division staff over the past few years was that there was a large
number of interesting and exciting topics. People were stretching
themselves and stressing themselves in terms of wanting to do more
than they had time to do. Staff really wanted to tackle the items
and the Work Program was an attempt to bring some order and
priority to the issues, from the standpoint of the public, the
Council, and other City departments, as well as for City staff.
Mayor.Simitian asked whether the priorities on page 9 and i0 of the
staff report could be grouped into five categories: highest
priority, secondary priority, possible for 1995-96, consider again
in 1996-97, and not recommended. At the bottom of the list for
possible for 1995-96, was No. 50, the issue of the TDR ordinance
which he thought the City wanted to encourage people to do for
earthquake safety. Staff had told him why the City needed to
require people to do earthquake safety in addition to doing
historic preservation which was a compelling discussion.~ If the
goal of TDR’s were to get people to do earthquake safety, why was
it not at the top of the list because it had to do with public
safety. Public safety was more important than another sign. In
the Planning Division, the obvious priority had to be public
safety. If staff wanted to make the argument that TDR’s were a
tenuous connection to an eventual public safety improvement, he
might disagree with that argument but at least he would know that
was the argument.
Mr. Schreiber said that was the type of feedback that was impor-
tant. The four items under possible for 1995-96 all needed
additional resources and that was why they were in that particular
column. With those particular items, the Coordinated Area Plan was
clearly the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real railroad track/Lambert
Avenue area. Staff knew there was a lot of items upcoming in that
area and the Coordinated Area Plan would be a way of getting on top
of the issues that were emerging, both the Hewlett-Packard site
which was being publicly discussed for redevelopment and a variety
of other problems. The HRB and sign ordinances were existing
ordinances that did not work very well. The HRB ordinance was a
higher priority than the sign ordinance, primarily because there
were more members of the Palo Alto population angered with that
ordinance than the sign ordinance. People were getting caught in
situations where the historic resource listing communicated one
thing, and the HRB communicated something different in terms of the
ranking of the project. There had been a variety of procedura!
problems with the HRB ordinance which staff saw as a customer
~service problem component that ranked it higher than the sign~
ordinance which was not in good shape either. It was an.existing
regulation that was outdated and in need of major repair, and the
longer it went without repair, there was a greater risk for having
some real problems. TDR’s were not presently in existence and
would encourage some seismic upgrading, but seismic upgrading ha/
occurred over the course of the years but not as fast as staff
wanted. In the grand scheme of things, it was fourth out of the
four items for the reasons he had previously indicated.
Council Member Fazzino was still confused by the priorities and
felt he would have understood the priorities if staff had not used
a category-based system for developing the priorities. He asked
about the Planning Commission’s reaction that indicated more time
should be set aside in the Division for general planning. Frankly,
if all of assignments were accomplished, staff would have done
everything imaginable associated with planning for the City for the
next i00 years. He asked what the Planning Commission meant by
that statement and was that incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan work.
Ms. Lytle said the Planning Commission’s comment was that there
should be some time budgeted for non-ass.ignments for taking stock
and evaluating overall what was going on and what should be
recommended coactively to the Council and the City Manager.
Mr. Schreiber said staff had tried to think about long-term issues
but that was not built into the Work Program. Ms. Lytle had
indicated, the specific ordinance t~sk assignments tended to
overwhelm everything else and made it hard to justify time for
staff members to focus on longer-term thinking issues when they
were under the pressures of staff report deadlines, environmental
review deadlines, etc.
Council Member Kniss asked whether staff was looking for an
endorsement o{ the Work Program. She still was interested in the
time it took to put the Work Program together.
Ms. Lytle said the work had been done by the entire Division.
Council Member Kniss asked whether there was a software program
staff had used tracking the hours per task.
Ms. Lytle said it was not a data base program, but staff had
tracked their time last year on items; and with MDB, would have a
much better official record of how much time was spent on the
items. Staff wanted to have a database so that the calculations
would become automatic.
Council Member Kniss asked approximately how much time had it taken
to put the Work Program together.
Mr. Schreiber could not give her an educated estimated because it
had been intertwined with the amount of time that the staff had put
in on the MDB. The way MDB had been approached in the Planning
Division was that as many staff members as possible were involved
at various steps a!ong the way so the Division would not end up
with a product that no one had ownership of. The Work Program had
a series of two-hour and half day working sessions that identified
what the division was doing, how much time projects would take,
etc. A considerable amount of time was also spent on the HHA
Organizational Review.
Ms. Fleming said a lot of staff time was spent, in addition to her
review.
Council Member Kniss asked how the staff would track the items.
She asked Whether it would lessen the number of agenda items that
previously originated from the Planning Division to Council and
whether staff thought it was because of the Plan.
Mr. Schreiber said it was the Plan in two ways: i) a great bulk of
staff time had gone into the Plan over the past couple of years;
and 2) assignments that went through the system in the past couple
of years had tended to be folded into the Plan process.
Mayor Simitian clarified the Work Program was put before the
Council that evening with the expectation that Council would
"endorse the Work Program." Alternatively, if someone thought that
one of the items were worthy of a BAO, direction to staff to return
to Council with a request along those lines was also appropriate.
He asked whether that was staff’s intent.
Ms. Fleming said that wa~ correct.
Mr. Calonne said if it were the Council’s plan to endorse the Work
Program document, the Council needed to come to an understanding
with the City Manager about how the Work Program should be revised.
Council Member Kniss said the City Manager had indicated that as
the Counci! went through the MDB process and discussed the budget
there were trade-offs. She asked how the Counci! indicate if it
did or did not want an item.
Ms. Fleming said staff would keep track of the things that the
Council would like to have changed or deleted and reissue a revised
Work Program showing the trade-offs. In the document before the
Council that evening she thought it was clear, but evidently not,
that if the Council endorsed the Work Program that evening with any
changes, those changes would return to the Council in the form of
a Revised Work Program which she had the authority to approve.
Council Member Kniss asked whether it was correct to presume that
staff had divided the amount allocated for the Planning Division.
Ms. Fleming replied not exactly. If the Council wanted to approve
those items and they cost a certain amount of additional dollars,
there were two ways to accommodate that: I) to shift priorities so
that the equivalent amount would be taken out of other items; or 2)
staff would indicate that the items could~be accommodated via
contract staff and staff would then return with a BAO.
Mayor Simitian asked where would the BAO monies come from.
Ms. Fleming said the BAO monies would come from Reserves.
Council Member Kniss thought that the purpose of MDB was that the
City would stay within a certain budgeted amount and then barter
within that amount. She now heard that if the Counci! did not want
to barter within that amount, it could simply be taken out of
Reserves.
Ms. Fleming clarified that the Council had two options; either to
barter or to approve a BAO.
Mayor Simitian felt that staff was recommending that the Council
spend more money than had already been allocated for the Planning
process. His understanding was that staff was proposing to the
Council that there was a certain dollar amount planned in the
budget, staff thought it should be spent on certain projects during
the year, and Council needed to approve that. If Council did not
approve of what staff thought it should be spent on, the Council
09/26/95 77-62
could save the money and spend it on something else or if Council
thought everything were essential and still wanted to do more, it
had the option to use the Reserves.
Ms. Fleming said that was correct.
Council Member Andersen was concerned about the newsrack, sign, and
tree ord’_~nances which were all City Attorney driven. He noted that
the hours for the Planning Division for the sign and newsrack
ordinances were fairly minimal, yet by putting the sign ordinance
at a low priority, it sent a message to the City Attorney’s Office.
Personally, he was concerned about some of the legal ramifications
the City might be faced with, and he did not want to see the
ordinance slighted as a result of it being put on a lower priority
by the Planning Division. He asked what kind of priority the item
had with regard to the City Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Calonne said it would be easier for the Council if it had a
matching list of time estimates from the City Attorney’s Office.
His staff had done something similar but not in the same format,
but he could not tell the Council that evening how many hours of
his staff’s time those lists would consume and whether it consumed
more than what staff currently had. In terms of priorities, the
Planning Division worked with the City Attorney’s Office to get
feedback on the different issues, but it did not mean that he
agreed with all of the priorities. He felt there was a danger
anytime there was a compromised list. The City Attorney’s Office
did not take it as a message that the Planning Division did not
believe the tasks were important, it was taken as a best guess for
Counci! consideration of an overall priority. He could give the
Council separate legal advice on the relative risks associated with
those ordinances, but staff did not feel it was necessary at that
stage.
Council Member Andersen asked Mr. Calonne whether he was placing
those items for 1995-96 or he saw them returning later.
Mr. Calonne appreciated that the sign ordinance would involve a lot
of his staff’s time, and his staff would not write a sign ordinance
without have involvement from the planners and the business
community. He would defer the credit for doing the work on the
sign ordinance, it was more than just a City Attorney’s project.
Council Member Andersen clarified it was a lower priority for the
City Attorney’s Office as well; and unless there was a direction
from Council, it would affect the City Attorney’s priority.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. From his staff’s perspective,
the list was very valuable. Whether the Council dealt with the
Work Program that evening or not, the approach was very helpful for
the staff people that were in a supporting role to the Planning
Division because it was a way to budget City Attorney staff time
rather than being totally reactive. It also reminded the Planning
staff of their priorities at the start of the year and gave them a
mechanism for handling changes. As unstated priorities came and
went during the year, it caused a ripple effect through the
supporting organizations like the City Attorney’s Office. He
personally~ was pleased to see that approach from the Planning
Division.
Ms. Lytle said with regard to the tree and newsrack ordinances, a
great deal~of citizen process had already occurred which led to the
fruition of being able to make an ordinance assignment which staff
had not yet done. There had not been a committee formed or study
undertaken, although there had been a request from the Architectur-
al Review Board (ARB) to start the process.
Council Member Andersen referred to the Fry’s Electronics.recommen-
dation that came from the Council as to whether or not an area plan
was needed. There had been some changes in circumstances and asked
when that item would be returning to Council.
Mr. Schreiber said the item would be on the November 13, 1995, City
Council agenda.
Council Member Andersen asked whether at that time it was appropri-
ate to go ahead with an area plan; whether it would be a contract
person, and if so, whether it would be covered by the cost of some
developer or some of the property owners; or whether it would be a
BAO.
Mr. Schreiber said that staff indicated initially that area plans
were a possibility and could cost in the range of $200,000 to
$250,000 which was stated in a November 1994 staff report at the
beginning of the Comprehensive Plan review process. Subsequent to
that, several Council Members placed a Council Matter item on the
agenda regarding giving staff direction to return to Council with
a Work Program or to investigate the possibility of doing an area
plan for the California Avenue/Ventura Avenue area or Page Mill
Road/Lambert Avenue area. After that item, staff recommending an
area plan be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process.
Staff was in the process of fully costing it out. Also under
discussion, was what the City would pay versus the property owners.
He assumed that the City would not pay all of the cost but whether
the City would need to take some of the cost had not been deter-
mined yet. There would be additional information for the Council
by November 13, 1995.
Council Member Huber said recently the Council dealt with a Planned
Community (PC) and there was some discussion about review and
revamping of the PC ordinance which was nowhere in the document
before the Council that evening, He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct.
Mr. Huber asked whether any consideration had been given to that
issue or whether staff need Council direction for that to happen.
Mr. Schreiber said the concern had been with the Downtown. If that
process were to be changed such as eliminate the PC zone or take
away the public benefits, etc., that would be a significant change
in terms of the long-standing policies for the Downtown and staff
would need Council direction to pursue it. With everything that
was currently on the table, staff did not have the resources or the
inclination to get into it. He shared some of the concerns, but it
was a complex issue.
Council Member Huber said that staff indicated in the staff report
that the document was organized into MDB function areas and would
from that point on be reviewed during the budget process. He asked
whether it would go to the Finance Committee and Council in the
same format as the numbered items attached to the staff report.
Mr. Schreiber said staff’s intent was to use that format which was
patterned after the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) format that
Administrative Services used which was clearly linked with MDB and
would be reviewed as part of the budget by the Finance Committee.
Council Member Huber asked as the yearly quest proceeded under MDB,
if the Council would get back an actual hour and cost count so as
to have some sense as to whether or not some of the estimates that
were done that evening, were met or exceeded two years later.
Mr. Schreiber could not guarantee that every item would have that,
but staff could obtain that information and report back to the
Council.
Council Member Huber said that would be helpful becausehe wanted
to know how many hours it would take.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said assuming the Council wanted to go in the
direction that former Mayor Cobb previously referred to as the
"puts and takes" of the budget, i.e., if a Council Member wished to
propose adding an item to the budget, the Council Member would also
have to propose removing an item that had been presented instead of
dipping in the Reserves. If the expectation were that the Council
might approach the Work Program in that way, she asked staff what
the urgency was with the Los Altos Treatment Plant study.
Ms. Lytle understood that the City’s infrastructure emphasis over
thepast several years in replacing infrastructure had the need for
a new site for corporation equipment storage and the Los Altos
Treatment Plant was one of the potential sites. Because there were
few sites, the City had no place to stage construction activities.
The Los Altos Treatment Plant was a potentially appropriate site
and if the City were going to continue the investment, it needed to
be investigated.
Mr. Schreiber said just as the Planning impacted the City
Attorney’s Office, other departments impacted the Planning
Division. The Los~ Altos Treatment Plant study was a major
assignment in the Public Works Department. The Planning component
of it was a small amount of staff time, some contact time which
would be paid for by the Public Works Department, and it was part
of the Planning Division’s responsibility to respond to other
departments with their projects as they went through the City
process, whether that be environmental review, site and design,
etc. The Planning Division was reacting to the Public Works
Department in that the Los Altos Treatment Plant study was a very
high priority for the Public Works Department and it wanted to make
sure that there was some planning time available to help it through
the process.
Ms. Fleming said the Los Altos Treatment Plant study not only
affected the Planning Division but also included some unoffici~l
contacts on a peer-to-peer relationship that she had had with the
City of Los Altos about that particular site and future planning
for it.
Vice Mayor Wheeler confirmed that in staff’s opinion the Los Altos
Treatment Plant study was a mandatory 1995-96 assignment that could
not be put off until 1996-97.
Ms. Fleming said there would be some consequences that would need
to be considered seriously if it were put off, given what staff
already knew about refuse needs.
Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the zoning ordinance update which in
her time on the Planning Commission had been an annual exercise
which started to happen less frequently as the Planning staff work
load escalated and staffing numbers did not. The Council was now
being asked not to dea! with the zoning ordinance update in 1995,
and she could not remember when the Council had last dealt with it.
Instead staff was suggesting that any of the items that might
appear under that topic be melded in with the overall look at the
zoning ordinance as a result of the adoption of the Plan. She
recalled the items that the Planning Commission dealt with in those
annual sessions were quick items and did not take a good deal of
Planning staff time. They were the type of things that addressed
more neighborhood-oriented problems. She was concerned that the
smaller items would get totally lost if staff waited for the "big
picture" Comprehensive Plan revision. She asked how those small
items would be dealt with and if some of the 5 percent "wiggle
room" could be used. She felt the smaller items could be dealt
with on a more timely basis and wanted some type of assurance from
staff that those items could be dealt with quicker than two years.
Mr. $chreiber said the traditional zoning ordinance cleanup process
was neither small nor simple from staff’s standpoint. Any one
individual part of it might be fairly easy to hand!ebut what would
tend to happen to the process was a lot of people had a lot of
ideas and started raising questions and it mushroomed. It was also
difficult in the sense that the staff people that would normally
work on the zoning ordinance were heavily involved in development
monitoring work .and had been committed over the past few years.
Between the work load, the fact that the zoning ordinance cleanup
was not a small process and that some issues had been resolved
internally in terms of interpretation or the need went away over
time, the zoning ordinance cleanup had not risen to a high enough
priority in the past couple of years. If there were one particular
item, it would still not be simple, but it would be more simple
than opening up for whatever cleanup amendments people had in mind
which had a tendency to be a process that was hard to control in
o9/26/95 77-66
terms of the amount of staff time for the Planning Division and the
City Attorney’s Office. If it were a confined issue, there might
be a way to take care of it, but it would still take some staff
time that would have to be taken out of contingency.
Mr. Calonne said not having 18 in the queue, the compilation of
those issues continued and he took comfort in the f~ct that he now
had a list to argue over. He had a means of trying to get
something into the queue which was not the case at present. He saw
the list as a means of assuring that those cleanups that compiled
over time working with the zoning ordinance did not get lost but
would wind up in a queue.
Ms. Lytle said the Planning Division had a file of cleanup items
from staff from their contact with the customers which was an
ongoing assemblage. Those suggestions had not been lost, and the
suggestions made that evening would be added to the file. There
was a notation to check again in 1996-97. She recommended that
staff could outline what was in the file for the Council; and as
the items for 1996-97 were being considered, it could be decided
that certain customer service items should not wait, i.e., the i00
hours should not be folded into a major effort the next year but
instead should be taken up in the current year.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said there were some fairly global items
presented in the staff report and there might be parts of those
items that people perceived as being of higher priority than the
rest. She asked if it were conceivable that those items could be
taken out of order or did the whole project have to be embarked
upon.
Ms. Lytle confirmed that Vice Mayor Wheeler was referring to the
zoning ordinance cleanup. ..
Vice Mayor Wheeler said no. She asked whether a piece of, for
instance, the HRB ordinance or any project would be started in
1995-96 year while the whole project waited until 1996-97.
Ms. Lytle said it was possible to phase projects over several
years, but staff was reluctant to do so without some type of
defined work program in steps of phasing. Staff had had that
experience with the Urban Design Plan where it was not clear how
long it would take, and it cOnsumed a large amount of time with an
endless staff budget.
Historic Resources Board member Ann Barbee, Ii0 Waverley Oaks,
said there was an urgency to move ahead with the HRB ordinance
revision which was No. 19 on the Work Program list. Time passed,
confusion reigned, old houses disappeared throughout the City. The
members of the HRB did not always agree on policy issues; but in
the case of the HRB ordinance, the HRB was unanimous and felt
strongly that staff help was needed in revising the ordinance so
that items that were contingent upon the ordinance such as design
guidelines and inventory update could continue. The item was
listed in the Work Program under "Possible for 1995-96" with a BAO.
She also quoted from the staff report "Staff recommends that this
09/26/95 77-~7
item be undertaken as soon as possible," and she asked the Council-
to-make "as soon as possible" immediate. She asked Council not
only to make the HRB-ordinance a top priority but also to make it
an immediate priority.
Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos, representing Affordable Housing
Action (AHA), said the A HA felt there was an urgent need to revise
the Below Market Rate (BMR) guidelines. The BMR rental program was
not working to achieve the goal of the BMR program in general which
was to provide affordable housing to a large number of people in
the Palo Alto. The BMR program was aimed at families with incomes
of 80 percent of the median. In Palo Alto, families making 80
percent of the median .could afford market rate rents, so the
program was not serving anyone who could not otherwise afford
rental housing in Palo Alto. She suggested a simple solution which
was t~ target the renta! guidelines to a !ower median income
family. It was a discreet program and did not involve much study.
Staff had a good handle on how the program ope[ated in the current
projects which were few, and the A HA would like to see the program
pulled out of the review of the overall program proposed so it
would not get lost and somehow not happen in a timely fashion.
Council Member McCown asked whether Item No. 17, Mitigation/
~Condition Monitoring Ordinance, could be folded into Item No. 2,
CEQA Guidelines Update, because the two were interrelated. When
she looked at most of the ordinance revision items, the sign
ordinance or the HRB ordinance, which.consisted of big hour numbers
such as 300, 500, etc., as she read each description, she wondered
if staff was not reinventing the wheel. She knew the sign
ordinance was very outdated, but she believed that there had to be
some examples in the State of California of good modern up-to-date
sign ordinances or noise ordinances that would give staff a faster
start. When reading through the Work Program items, it left the
impression that Palo Alto was so unique that items had to be
invented from scratch every time something was updated. Those were
not items at the top of the list currently, but she wondered if
some of those changes could be done more expeditiously if Palo Alto
used a.blueprint from another community and adapted ~it. For
example, the HRB had done a fair amount of research on other
ordinances which gave them a starting point for the tree ordinance.
She felt that type of research should be pursued to keep the time
commitment on the items down. She felt the whole package should be
put on the table as presented and recommended by the Planning
Division; and if individua! Council Members wanted to make a case
that an item should be moved up, that case should be articulated.
She appreciated Mr. Schreiber’s discussion With the Mayor debating
the merits of density transfer because that was the kind of
discussion that needed to happen. The Planning Division needed to
give the Council its best planning advice regardless of whether the
Council thought it was a good idea or not. The Council had said
that about one-third of the items on the list. The newsrack
ordinance was a recent topic, and it had suddenly jumped up to the
top of the list which might be fine but she felt the Planning
Division needed to give feedback to the Counci! from a planning
perspective of its own prioritization of the items. Staff needed
to tell the Council in the global scale of things maybe some of the-
things the Council thought were good ideas should be lower down on
the list. She would appreciate~a tougher response to the Council
and then the Council could decide what it wanted to do in relation
to staff’s best planning advice. Everyone could have an item they
wanted higher up on the list, and she felt one would have to make
a strong case to make a change to the list.
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to endorse
the Planning Division Work Program and delete Item No. 22, Public
Art Ordinance.
Council Member Kniss was hesitant with regard to Item No. 19, the
HRB ordinance~ because the HRB had continued to struggle with not
having enough support. Since the HRB had 60 hours of Planning
Division time, she preferred to wait until the start of budget
hearings. It would be better to leave the HRB ordinance where it
was currently on the Work Program list given that the Planning
Division had spent a lot of time and energy, deciding where the
items should be on the list.
Council Member Schneider complimented staff for its work on the
Work Program. She would keep the document because all of the
information over the past two years was contained in one document
which gave her an idea as to where things were and where things
were going.
Council Member Rosenbaum said with respect to Ellen Christensen’s
remark regarding the BMR program, the Council had received a number
of letters stating concern that if the Stanford West housing
project were approved, it would generate meaningful market rate
units. He asked staff to address that concern and to also indicate
whether the BMR review was likely to have an impact on that
question.
Mr. Schreiber said the BMR review slated to begin in 1995-96 was
one of the phased efforts which was allocated at 500 staff hours
for the year. There were numerous issues and concerns that needed
to be addressed within the BMR program. From staff’s standpoint,
the rental housing guidelines could well be the highest priority.
Staff had severa! meetings scheduled to discuss what the BMR
program and the Stanford West project. Time was allocated for the
work that Ms. Christensen was concerned about and emphasis would be
put on the work in the very near future.
Council Member Rosenbaum said for the BMR program, a date of August
1996 was listed for the completion date. He asked if the comple-
tion date were satisfied, would it be applicable to the Stanford
West project should it come to fruition.
Mr. Schreiber did not think it needed to, the project had to be
completed as one package of recommendations. There could be a
splitting off of certain things, and the Stanford West process
might dictate that in terms of the timing. Staff would address the
BMR rental issues before the Council took up the issue of the
Stanford West project.
o9/~6/9s
Council Member Huber appreciated the staff’s efforts on the Work
Program. He felt the document was extremely helpful and something
the Counci! would be referring to during the budget hearings.
During the Finance Committee budget hearings, he felt the Council
would have been pressed for priorities which Counci! Member McCown
had mentioned. He felt it was appropriate that when Planning staff
went to the budget hearing that those priorities be there so the
Counc~’l would have some sense of what staff felt should be Item No
50, etc. He wanted to include the HRB ordinance changes and
corrections. Historic preservation had been discussed for years;
it had been implied by all of the HRB candidates that had been
interviewed that the HRB ordinance needed tO be strengthened but as
yet nothing had been done to accomplish that. The pressure was on
again in the market; housing prices were going up, demolition
problems were starting to revive again, and that was something the
City did not want to have happen. If the structures were to be
saved, the Council was going to have to go with a BAO and get it
done.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
include the Historic Resources Board Ordinance in the Planning
Division Work Program for 1995-96 which would allow staff and the
Historic Resources Board to provide for a phased work plan.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said having worked with the HRB, she knew a
tremendous amount of time and energy had been spent by the HRB
working with Planning staff investigating both the strengths and
weaknesses not only of Palo Alto’s ordinance but also comparative
ordinances of cities across the country. She felt that at least
during the year of 1995-96, if staff could not go forward with the
entire HRB ordinance, that Planning staff be al!owed, along with
~the HRB, to return to the Council with a phased work Program so the
Council would have a clear picture of what the Council would study
and at what point in 1995-96. She thought it was a shame to lose
all momentum on the item which was so central to the HRB’s
existence and the work the HRB had been doing over the past few
years. In discussions w±th Counci! Member Kniss, it had been
pointed out that homes in her neighborhood that could or should
have been included on the historic inventory had been demolished at
a fairly alarming rate. That type of thing was going to continue
to escalate until the Council decided whether it wanted to have a
meaningful Historic Preservation ordinance or whether that was not
the direction the Council wanted to go and stop the process for an
ordinance that would lead to the goal of preserving the finest of
the oldest structures in Palo Alto.
Council Member Rosenbaum said it seemed that the Council was not
sure what it wanted to do on the HRB ordinance issue. He compared
it to the TDR which the Council had argued with reqard to the money
staff had said it would take to do what the Counci~ wanted. He did
not feel the Council was in the same position with the HRB
ordinance issue; and although staff was saying it consisted of only
50 or 60 hours of staff time and 500 hours of consultant time, he
did not know what those people would do without clear direction
from the staff. He felt it was a problem for the Counci! and not
something the staff was prepared to jump into.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said Council Member Rosenbaum had raised a valid
point, but something had to be brought to Council that was more
concrete that would give the Council the opportunity for discus-
sion. The HRB was a volunteer organization and not in a position
to write a staff report. If staff prepared a staff report for the
Council to take a policy look at, then the Council could determine
whether it warranted 500 hours of contract time. The Council might
be one step ahead of itself, but there had to be staff participa-
tion and maybe a direction to staff to return to Council with a
policy document on the issue would be appropriate.
Mr. Schreiber said one of the realities of trying to deal with a
new HRB ordinance was that members of the HRB and the public had a
wide variety of ideas of what should and should not be in the
ordinance, so the amount of contract time spent was not necessarily
to write the ordinance. Staff envisioned a substantial interactive
process of helping the HRB refine and distill its ideas, arrive at
some type of an agreement as to what the HRB recommended, return to
the Council with that direction, and then return to Counci! with an
ordinance. The first step was important, very time consuming, and
extremely hard for staff-to undertake without taking a number of
other items off. It was compounded by the fact that the staff that
was dealing with the HRB on a regular basis were the developing
monitoring staff who did not have the time to do it. Someone else
would have to start at base zero and work their way up.
Council Member Fazzino supported the amendment. With respect to
Council Member Rosenbaum’s question, he concurred with Vice Mayor
Wheeler that the Council could not exhibit sufficient leadership on
the issue unless it received some policy alternatives and a
comprehensive analysis from staff. The Counci! needed to under-
stand exactly what the experience of other cities was. As far as
the proposal was concerned, after all discussions regarding the
Counci!’s appreciation for historic buildings during the City’s
Centennia! ye{r, Palo A!to’s Historic Preservation ordinance was
woefully inadequate when compared with other cities across the
country. There was no teeth in the ordinance, and there was a real
possibility that Pa!o Alto was going to lose many more wonderful
historic homes unless the Council acted soon. The demolition
moratorium needed to be extended to other areas of town. Some of
the City’s Eichler homes were approaching historic status as were
some of the homes that were built on Lawrence Lane right after
World War II. Staff needed to investigate the experience of other
cities with strict ordinances and the HRB ordinance needed to be
moved ahead as quickly as possible.
Council Member McCown said Council Member Rosenbaum’s caution was
wel! taken. She reminded staff about the Percent for Art ordinance
and the amount of time invested in the ordinance, and it was
finally taken off the list. There really was not policy concur-
rence at the beginning on the Counci!’s part, but a lot of effort
had been invested and it was very disappointing to everyone. She
felt Vice Mayor Wheeler’s comment was the right direction to take.
There needed to be a good plan of attack for the Work Program from
the Planning Division and a fairly early policy discussion between
staff, HRB, and the Council on what direction the City needed to
go. There also needed to be some charter for the philosophy and
the vision of the direction of the Work Program was going, and she
did not believe it should slow it up but it did have to happen at
the beginning or the 500 hours might get spent in a direction that
would not bring the City what it needed.
Council Member Kniss said being the liaison to the HRB, she knew
how much the HRB had struggled with the ordinance and how easy it
might be to approve the money for it. It was a troubling time and
as dismayed as she was with the number of houses that were being
demolished in her neighborhood, some of the houses would probably
not get on the historic inventory depending on how the ordinance
was defined. If the Council decided that the 50-year Eichlers
would go onto the inventory list, that was a substantial number.
She asked if the Council voted in favor of the amendment, how could
the amount be divided up so the money was spent by making policy.
first without the Council getting to a point where there was such
urgency that there was insufficient time to develop the policy.
Mr. $chreiber said staff would approach the assignment if directed
by Council, to identify the policy issues, work with the HRB to
define the HRB’s views about what should or should not be in the
ordinance, structure it in the form of a policy discussion and
return to the Council for direction as to what the key elements of
an ordinance would be. Staff would then write the ordinance which
was the last one-third of the work. The tough part was the policy
part; pulling it together and putting it into a format that Council
could deal with.
Council Member Kniss thought it was a very difficult issue.
Spending the last eight or nine months with the HRB, she knew what
~he struggles were and the HRB members did not all concur on
exactly how the ordinance should be brought together, which made it
very difficult. If there were more concurrence, she would vote
more enthusiastically, but since there was not, she would reluc-
tantly support the amendment.
Council Member Andersen said he would like to see three or four
ordinances in front of him from three or four cities that the HRB
thought were good, give the HRB those ordinances with the things
included that the Council desired, and direct the HRB without a
consultant or money to return to Council with recommendations for
the Council’s approval. He would not support the amendment.
Mayor Simitian agreed with Council Member McCown’s comment
regarding the Percent for Art ordinance. The threshold question
was, not withstanding the discussion about histori~ preservation,
whether the Council was going to tel! people what they could not do
with their property. Some Council Members might say "yes," some
might say "no," and some might need to think about it. It might
vary from historic district to nonhistoric district and from one
category to another. What he heard Council Member McCown saying
was that the Council needed to take a first pass at that threshold
question to find out whether there were at least five votes
interest in taking the next step. It was a pretty significant step
as had been articulated. He would ask staff if there was some way
to take that step whether it be as Council Member Andersen
suggested to look at some ordinances to seeif there were anything
to support or to simply have a study session with the HRB on that
limited topic as had been done with the Public Art Commission (PAC)
to discuss the Percent for Art ordinance. He asked how that
discussion could come about to see if there were enough interest to
move ahead. He felt all of the Council was asking what was reall~y
necessary to get to that threshold question.
Mr. Schreiber suggested a study session be scheduled between the
Council and the HRB to allow interaction between both bodies rather
than staff preparing a policy document. He felt that was the way
the process should begin if the Council wished to go that way.
Council Member McCown said it made much more sense to have a study
session and defer the addition of the HRB ordinance on the Planning
Division’s Work Program. The Council and the HRB could have a
preliminary discussion to see whether there was consensus on the
general direction that item should go.
MOTION TO DEFER THE AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved,
seconded by Rosenbaum, to defer the discussion of the Historic
Resources Board ordinance with respect to the Planning Division
Work Program until after a joint study session of the City Council
and the Historic Resources~Board.
Council Member Fazzino wanted the Council to be in a position of
evaluating some real policy alternatives as a result of the study
session and move forward. The difference between the HRB ordinance
issues and the Public Art ordinance was that the Public Art
ordinance was initiated by PAC. Another difference in the HRB
ordinance was that at least two or three Council Members had
expressed strong support for strengthening the ordinance. He would
support the motion, but he wanted the result of the study session
to be some clear policy alternatives which would result in possible
action by the Council.
MOTION TO DEFER THE AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Andersen had struggled with the HRB ordinance item.
The City did needed a plan, but he was reminded of Samue! Gomper’s
statement "We want more, more, more, and we want it now." He felt
there was a little of that in the Council’s role and he appreciated
the effort to give the Council some sense of the costs associated,
both in time and resource. He was missing the "vision." Some of
the issues he felt the Council had strong interest in such as the
Dream Team issue had been put low on the list. He was very
concerned about the "wiggle room" issue that had been raised and
Council Member Huber commented about the PC process which was not
on the list. He said that the Council priorities needed to be
reflected as much as the other items on the list.
Mayor Simitian said the Work Program document was difficult to work
through by Council. He believed the document was important and
that the assignments in the Planning Division had been out of
control for some time. The reason for part of that was the fact
that there had not been a Work Program and everyone had tried to
make the world’s most community involved Comprehensive Plan process
work. There was an item called advanced planning which was
redundant, that was what planning was suppose to be. He believed
that the Comprehensive Plan was suppose to be the place where the
vision of the community was articulated and he was optimistic
enough to believe that when it was done, it would~be. The bottom
line was that every year there was work to do, and the Counci! got
approached by people in the community who said when was the City
going to do "x" and why had "y" not been done. The answer would
now be that the Council had reviewed the Work Program and signed
off on it. The Council Members would then be in a position to give
people a date when a particular issue would be done. The Work
Program document finally allowed the Council to hold the staff
accountable and to know when something was suppose to be done. If
the Counci! did not like it, the Counci! could say so. He was
concerned that the staff tried to determine where the Council’s
votes were and then come to the Council with something that staff
thought would be approved. He believed the Council should be more
enthusiastic about the process than it had been that evening. He
believed it was an important first step, but the document could
have been more user-friendly. The staff had brought the program to
the Counci! in a way that made it very hard for the Counci! to
amend. He wanted to be certain when the Work Program came to the
Council in the future that it allowed choices. He did not mind
having the staff disagree with him as long as staff gave him a way
to exercise his disagreement by obtaining the necessary Council
Member five votes. He believed the TDR issue needed to move
forward sooner rather than later.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to include
Item No. 15, "Transfer of Development Rights in the Downtown Area,"
in the Planning Division Work Program under the Secondary Priority
Category for 1995-96 with staff to return with a Budget Amendment
Ordinance.
AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Andersen wanted to make sure that former Planning
Commissioner Ellen Christensen’s concerns were adequately addressed
by staff and asked if any further action needed to be taken.
Mr. Schreiber said no. There was time allocated for the project in
the Work Program and it would be structured so the BMR issue did
happen first.
M~AMENDED PASSED 9-0.
15. C~n~.i~ Comments, ~u~Announcements
M~ the City ~ad ~wards for excellencei ver of theCfi-cate of Excellence for the brochure and public outreach con