Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-08 City Council (11)City of Polo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:MARCH 8, 1999 CMR:171:99 SUBJECT:AMENDMENTS TO DAMES & MOORE CONTRACT FOR PHASE 2 OF THE HISTORIC SURVEY PROJECT This is an informational report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND In August 1998, the City Council approved work on the historic survey to continue in two phases, with the understanding that the Council, after receiving the deliverables associated with Phase 1, could decide not to proceed with Phase 2. (See excerpt minutes of the August 10, 1999 City Council meeting attached to this report.) Phase 1 was completed with the submittal of the Dames & Moore Report dated January 22, 1999. That report provides a preliminary assessment of eligibility for all of the 3,200 Study Priority 1 and 2 properties on all three criteria of eligibility (Events, People, Design/Construction). It identifies 287 properties potentially eligible for the National Register and 1,789 properties potentially eligible for the Califomia Register. An additional 1,111 properties were found not to be eligible for either the National or California Register and thus have been eliminated from further consideration. The tasks originally proposed to be addressed in Phase 2 were completion of final evaluations and State form DPR523A and B for the properties identified in Phase 1 as potentially eligible, either for the National Register or for the California Register. The completion in Phase 2 of the final evaluations and-documentation for these properties would thus bring to a close the historic survey project. DISCUSSION The staff will proceed With Phase 2 of the historic survey project unless directed otherwise by the City Council, but with an amended consultant contract that better reflects the current circumstances of the historic survey and historic ordinance projects. CMR:171:99 Page 1 of 4 In August 1998, when the scope of services for Phase 1 and 2 were prepared, staffand the consultants estimated that the Preliminary Assessment completed in Phase 1 would identify a total of approximately 1,000 properties that appeared to be eligible for either the National or California Registers, and final evaluations and documentation were to be completed for all these properties in Phase 2. In fact, while the number of potential National Register properties is approximately what was expected, the number of potential California Register properties is far higher than expected, resulting in a total of over 2,000 potentially eligible properties rather than the 1,000 anticipated. In response to this situation, the draft historic ordinance proposed by staff, and endorsed by the City Council on February 17, 1999 as the project description for the Environmental Impact Report, does not include regulation of the potential California Register properties. Consequently, preparation of final evaluations and documentation for all these properties is no longer desirable. On the other hand, questions that were not originally anticipated have arisen and need to be addressed by the consultant architectural historian, regarding applicability of the new historic ordinance to some of properties on the City’s existing Historic Inventory. These include the identification of noncontributing properties within the Professorville Historic District; and an assessment of Category 3 and 4 properties on the current historic inventory to determine if they continue to retain historic integrity. Staffwill work with the consultants to revise the consultant contract to address these changed circumstances. In the revised Dames & Moore contract, the primary tasks to be accomplished in Phase 2 would be as follows. For properties identified as potentially eligible for the National Register in the Dames & Moore historic survey: For these 287 properties, complete final evaluations and prepare DPR523A and B documentation. This includes completion of relevant historic context statements, to determine whether these properties are eligible for addition to the Palo Alto Register. Prepare final Historic Survey Report completing the historic survey project. 2.For properties on the City’s existing historic inventory: Review the statement of significance and period of significance for the Professorville Historic District in light of current professional standards, and identify the noncontributing properties within the boundaries of the District. CMR: 171:99 Page 2 of 4 Assess the integrity of Category 3 and 4 properties to determine if they are eligible for addition to the Palo Alto Register. Completion of the tasks related to Professorville and Category 3 and 4 properties would be first priority. This work, and completion of as many as possible of the final evaluations for potential National Register properties, could be completed before adoption of the historic ordinance in June 1999. The remainder of the evaluations and documentation of the National Register properties will be targeted for completion by late Fall 1999. RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for both Phases 1 and 2 in the amount of $437,400 was approved in a Budget Amendment Order by the City Council on August 10, 1998. The amount budgeted for Phase 1 was $175,800 ($134,800 for Dames & Moore contract services and $41,000 for research assistance and support for survey volunteer activities). The remaining balance for Phase 2 is $261,600. The revised Contract services as outlined above will require only a portion of the funds originally budgeted for Phase 2. ATTACHMENTS Excerpt minutes of August 10, 1998 City Council meeting PREPARED BY: Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~ G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Planning Commission Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage Palo Alto Historical Association CMR: 171:99 Page 3 of 4 Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto Board of Realtors Palo Alto Unified School District Barron Park Association College Terrace Residents Association Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Community Center Neighbors Association Downtown North Neighborhood Association Midtown Residents Association Palo Verde Neighborhood Association Ramona Homeowners Association University Park Association University South Neighborhoods Group Ventura Neighborhood Association John Paul Hanna Palo Alto Homeowners Association George Zimmerman Architectural Resources Group Origins Design Network Carroll Harrington Norman Beamer Monica Yeung-Arima Members, Historic Preservation Advisory Board CMR: 171:99 Page 4 of 4 EXCERPT of Palo Alto City Council Minutes of August 10, 1998. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the council Chambers at 7:10-p.m. PRESENT:Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider [CATION~ Richardson, P. O. Box 1035, spoke regarding new street corner ramps. Eleanor aft, spoke regarding St. Ann Chapel. Roger 4291 Wilkie Way, spoke regarding HRB update. Edmund Power, !254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government. William Mahrt, 6 ’eter Coutts Circle, Stanford, spoke regarding St. Ann Chapel. Herb Borock, P. O. Commission Retreat Ac 632, spoke regarding Human Relations - Brown Act Violation. Martin Bernstein, P. O.1739, spoke regarding St. Ann Chapel. Ann Lafargue Balin, 2385 Chapel. Street, spoke regarding St. Ann Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, s regarding Storm Drain Project. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION:Council Member Wheeler, approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. removed by a member of the public. , seconded by Huber, to and 8, with Item No. 7 Adoption of New Federal Emergency Insurance Rate Map for san Francisquito the City’s Flood Hazard Regulations - Services Committee .gement Agency Flood and Revisions to to Policy and Approval of Compensation Plan and Memorandum o~Agreement for Police Employees k Resolution 7788 entitled "Resolution of the CounCil of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for PRice Non- ~management Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 7~12"k ’ 08/I0/98 Council Member Ojakian liked the pre-screening concept to provi.~/ people the opportunity to understand without getting caught/~f in the process. The City could provide an overview on som/e/of~the various issues which would be a benefit to any applican~/.He liked the ombudsman idea. Staff had made a start with/~e notion of seven days to resolve an issue. The idea of/~hreamlining the process was good. In the future, other ways o~oing more could~be found. He agreed with Council Member Faz~o about fee reduction or zero fees. Incentives were impo~nt also. He would be interested to see what other ideas/~taff would come up with in September. ~ MOTION PASSED 7-0, HubS_participating," Schneider absent. RECESS TO CLOSED SES ON~ 9:~5 P.M. - 9:40 P.M._ The City C~u~c~~.met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing~gation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 9 and I0. Mayo/~osenbatun announced that no reportable action was taken on A~nda Item Nos. 9 and 10. ORDINANCES Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo theAlto Amending Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $437,400 for an Interim Historic Inventory Consultant~ Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Anne Cronin Moore thanked Virginia Warheit, Denise Bradley, staff, and Dames & Moore for the hard work put into developing the options. Staff had tried to focus on critical time frames within historic preservation in order to minimize uncertainty for homeowners by generating definitive information, particular points in time that would reasonably relate to some benchmarks on the interim historic ordinance and~regulations with the permanent ordinance. The table on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report (CMR:337:98) described and compared two major options. The far left column presented required tasks, work in process or what would be completed whether Option 1 or Option 2 was considered, e.g., completion of preliminary recommendations for Sthdy Priority 1 Properties as related to the Secretary of the Interior’s Criterion C, but the evaluation process would be incomplete. Some of the major differences between Options 1 and 2 included the fact Option 1 only dealt with study Priority List 1 properties. At the end of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Option I, at a cost of $380,000, recommendations and documentation for Priority List 1 only would be completed. To arrive at the end of Phases 1 and 2, Option 2 provided the same level of information for both Priority 1 and 2 Properties and the cost differential was less than $40,000. Because of the fairly minor cost differential, staff recommended the Council consider Option 2. Both options were expensive. Most communities involved in such work tended to phase the work in over many years.and typically spent five to ten years to complete. As was the Ease with interim program fees, an option for getting the work done was to put the cost back on individual property owners. The community benefit was great and the City’s approach for historic preservation programs had not been cost recovery in the past, e.g., generally 15 percent. Council Member Kniss asked about the abbreviations contained in the table on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report (CMR:337:98) and where the City was actually going with the particular inventory, particularly in Sight of separating the historic inventory from compatibility review. If the City only dompleted the $200,000 work, just Phase 1 versus the $380,000 versus the $419,000, she asked what house numbers the City would have at the end of the study. The usual criteria people thought about was architecture design and construction of property structure. Once history and other items were considered, .the number changed substantially. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said approximately 600 properties were on the Study Priority 1 list, which had been selected based on the properties’ apparent eligibility for the National Register b~sed on what could be seen, i.e., architecture without the other research being conducted. After further research, some properties would be found ineligible. The consultant would note that even when additional research was conducted on people and places, if the properties were eligibl% for the National Register based on Criteria C, they were already eligible. Essentially, the number of eligible properties would not change. Council Member Kniss was interested in knowing the number of eligible properties at the end of the study. Ms. Warheit said if the properties were eligible for the National Register, the properties would more than likely be recommended for inclusion on khe City’~s historic inventory. Council Member KniSs asked how many houses would be examined under Option 2. Ms. Warheit said Option 2 included an examination of both Priority 1 and Priority 2 properties. Council Member Kniss thought the number of properties on the Priority 2 list would be significant. Ms. Warheit said the consultant’s best estimate, without having conducted research, was that 80 percent of the Priority 2 properties would not be included. Several hundred properties would remain on the list; however, very few would reach the national criteria. The City’s standards would then determine what would be chosen for the local historic inventory. The methodology developed for handling the very large number was a backdoor approach and sought addresses which were associated with important people or events. If the addresses failed to show up and no architectural importance existed, the properties would be dismissed. Council Member Kniss asked how many more houses would be seen with the extra $40,000. Ms. Warheit said the result would be a decrease in the number of houses on the Priority 2 list; however, the City would have the ability to say definitively that a few of thousand were not historically important. Council Member Kniss asked whether it was important to have looked at the few thousand to begin with. Ms. Warheit said the uncertainty for the property owner was redhced because the property would no longer be included on a study .list. Council Member Kniss asked whether the extra money was worthwhile for the extra houses. Several hundred houses would still remain on the category. Ms. .Warheit said several hundred properties would have to be evaluated by the HRB and the Council, with recommendations, which would not be screened out at the earliest study stage. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Council was being asked to make a decision about whether or not to take in just one set of criteria and expanding it for the final evaluation of everything on Priority 2. The City might end up in the precarious situation of having an enormous number of houses which’had been examined and subject to some kind of a process before being allowed to remodel. She understood Ms. Warheit was saying there was a need to eliminate some of the houses, but she wanted to know whether the houses should have been selected in the first place. Council Member Eakins asked what made Phase 2 ineither option so expensive. Phase 1 was under $I00,000 in each option and Phase 2 was $140,000 in Option 1 and approximately $200,000 in Option 2. Ms. Warheit said the bulk of archival work was conducted in Phase 2 while much of Phase 1 work could be delegated to aides, assistants, and volunteers. The documentation, final write-ups, and most of the work conducted in Phase 2 would have to be done by the professiona! historic architect. Council Member Wheeler said the object of the process was to obtain an updated, local inventory. The staff report (CMR:337:98) was troublesome when she had tried to figure out at what stage the City was left with sufficient information upon the consultant’s retirement from the scene to have a body of properties go through the City’s process, e.g., staff, HRB, and the Council. She asked whether there was a place either after Phase 1 or in the middle of Phase 2, or whether the ~nd of Phase 2 was necessary before the Council would have a work product by which a local ordinance could be updated. Ms. Warheit said if the City only.completed Phase 1 or Part A of the State form, properties could be registered on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), but would be listed as "surveyed but not evaluated." Evaluation was the final step for potential historic significance in a period ofsignificance based on complete information about the property. Council Member Wheeler understood. However, she failed to understand the relationship, if any, between the process Ms. Warheit mentioned and listing on the City’s local inventory, i.e., whether having Form DPR523A submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation was a necessary precursor to the City listing a property on its own inventory or at what point along the scale of work the City could obtain sufficient information to do so. Ms. Warheit said the City could list whatever criteria it wanted on the local inventory. The Council’s only guide might be that the City was a certified local government, of which it was one of 52 in California. As such, the City would attempt to operate according to established professional standards using the criteria for National Register as an accepted standard for placing items on ah inventory. A city might not want to just strike off on its own and invent everything. Certainly any local inventory could set its own standards. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City could set the standards wherever it wanted. The Council had not taken any legislative action establishing standards. In the Spring, something of a "chicken-and-egg" problem had been identified relative to moving from Priority~lists 1 and 2 into the permanent ordinance, e.g., how the City would formally designate properties until a permanent ordinance was in ’place. However, the City had not wanted to complete the permanent ordinance until it had a good idea of which properties were subject. One of the dovetailing components Ms. Cronin had alluded to on-the prior agenda item was the issue of transition rules, which had a significantly different connotation than last spring. .In fall 1998, staff would present Council with proposed transition rules to legislatively define the categories into which the HRB and the Council would package the properties. At that point, the local standards could be set. The City had been operating under implicit direction to comply with the letter and spirit of the Certified Local Government status, i.e., using national standards for designation. The other important element was how the City had arrived there and whether it was something that had to be handled all at once or spread over time. Clearly, it could be spread over time. The regulatory focus would change from rules that applied to known historic resources to how proposals were handl~d to change potential historic resources. The program could be restructured as a holding pattern. Rather than having the general community or taxpayers finance the historic work up front, the cost could be imposed on the homeowner by a requirement to have the historic survey conducted to demonstrate whether or not the property was actually of historic significance. Staff had not pursued that approach. Ms. Moore said staff preferred Phase 1 of Option 2 because by the middle of January 1999, in advance of the interim ordinance which would sunset at the end of March 1999, the Council, the HRB, and property owners would know whether their list 1 and 2 properties were likely to be recommended. Phase 1 of Option 1 only addressed list I. List 2 had been established and a certain amount of work had already been completed, so it was a continuation of a direction staff had already taken. Phase 2 of Option 2 could be handled on a case-by-case basis whenever changes were proposed to any ~of the properties identified in Phase i. The property owner/applicant would be responsible to complete the work proposed for funding by the City in Phase 2, as another option. Council Member .Wheeler said the issue of incentive programs had been discussed as part of the City’s ordinance update because the City wanted the ordinance to contain rewards for people who complied with the ordinance. She asked whether any of the incentives would be adversely affected if the Council ~hose not to go all the way with the study. Ms.~ Moore Said Federal tax credits were only available for properties on the National Register or in a National Register district. If a property was not already on the National Register but had been identified as eligible, a project could be started and tax credits used while in the process of getting the property on the National Register. Leaving the question unanswered would make credits unavailable to people who otherwise would be eligible. Council Member Fazzino asked whether use of the Mills Act required any kind of listing, aside from’local. Ms. Warheit replied no. Council Member Fazzino asked how the City would go about eliminating as many homes as possible as quickly as possible. Ms. Warheit said Option 2 should be followed. Then by January 15, 1999, ineligible properties could be eliminated from all criteria. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff could possibly do a second "Windshield Survey." 08/10/98 87-130 Ms. Warheit thought staff had gotten as much out of the Windshield Survey as possible. Archival research and more specific evaluation of builders, designers, persons who might have lived at or used the properties, etc., had to be obtained. Council Member Fazzino said a number of homes, particularly in Midtown area neighborhoods, clearly had no historic architectural interest qualities which other neighborhoods might have. He heard from a number of people in the neighborhoods that the homes should not be on the list. Inclusion of such homes and neighborhpods in the study made the whole process less credible than it should be. Staff had indicated through the Windshield Study that certain homes had potential architectural integrity and, therefore, could not be eliminated from the list. He wanted to remove as many homes as possible from the list as quickly as possible based on a cursory review of the homes. He believed another level of homes could be removed from thelist without having to go through the process. Ms. Warheit asked whether Coincil Member Fazzino’s references were to tract homes, since the methodology being developed would treat such homes as a complete unit and not individually examined. Council Member Fazzino asked about the desire to remove a tract or home as part of a tract which in turn was viewed as a complete unit. Mr. Calonne said there was a sensitive balance between answering Council Member Fazzino’s question as a process, i.e., how to do it versus the substantive historic issues at stake. Council Member Fazzino wanted to apply basic common sense to the process. Most people would look at a number of the homes and feel it was absurd to have the house on the list, which spoke to the issue of the program’s credibility. He wanted to find a way of moving such homes off the list right away in order to concentrate on ho~es which had true potential historic value. Mr. Calonne said the problem was how to do so while delivering an inventory in time for March 31, 1999, plus the transitional period. Staff was not unsympathetic or unaware of the desire to trim the list.~ C6uncil Member Fazzino’s question was well-taken but vexing given the time and resources. The broad-brush alternative would be to Shift the responsibility for identifying the inventory from the City and general taxpayer to the homeowner. Then the issue would only be addressed when a homeowner proposed a change to the property, allowing the City to get out of the study process. Whether a property was actually historic was highly speculative. Such action woul~cause problems. In some ways the st£ategy was to get at the specific, final and complete list by fronting the cost and putting behind the community the anguish of not knowing what the rules would be. Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the transition. The Council had wanted to delay implementation of the permanent ordinance in May 1998 in order to be better able to complete the inventory and to eliminate an awkward transition periodo~ Ms. Moore said January 15, 1999, was an important date when preliminary information from the consultant would be released to owners of properties. The release of such information would trigger a great deal of contact with City staff and with people wanting more information. A certain proportion of the people would disagree and want to generate information. Staff expected the date, whether limited to list 1 or 2, to trigger additional work for staff. More work would be triggered under Option 2 since it involved both lists. The City had a study Priority 2 list for a long time and a fair amount of work had been completed in an attempt to ~move the product forward¯on January 15, 1999. Therefore, staff recommended Option 2. Mayor Rosenbaum asked what ~taff anticipated for the transition period. Mr. Calonne asked whether Mayor R0senbaum wanted to know why staff had recommended a transition period again. Mayor Rosenbaum said yes. He asked how the transition would work, assuming the interim ordinance ended on March 31, 1999, and how people would know whether they had one of the properties. Mr. Calonne said staff had brought the transition back because the time lines made it impossible to deliver the inventory products completely before the permanent ordinance needed to be in place. As a practical matter, and so the City would not face more surprises, it was inconceivable that the City could move several hundred homes into preservation status, giving individualized due process to all homeowners, without a transition period. The proces~ would take HRB action after public hearing and Council action after public hearing. The transition period was a dose of reality. It would’not be possible to move from interim day 31 to permanent day i; a transition was necessary to move smoothly. The last transition period involved a modified set of rules to stop people from doing adverse things to inventoried properties until the individualized due process could take place. Some of the process .was contained in the new transition period but, more importantly, well in advance of expiration of the interim ordinance, staff was putting into place the specific process and standards for HRB and Council hearings. In January, when staff had the book of evidence indicating whether or not a property should be designated, the rules would be enacted and in place to establish the process by which the book of evidence would be considered by the HRB and Council. The process advance would remove and replace the uncertainty of a process by which people could know for sure whether or not the property was proposed for designation. MayorRosenbaum thought the transition period for completion of the consultant’s work for Option 2 ran through December of 1999 and for Option 1 ran through September of 1999. Much interest had been expressed in terminating the process where the March 31~ date had come from, with the interim regulations continuing where the contributing properties were a big concern. He asked what was anticipated during the transition region. Mr. Calonne was unable to respond. In discussions, staff had proposed synchronizing the Council’s action on incentives with its action on developing and implementing the transition period. If the Council had a fully enacted book of incentives, itwould be in a better position to make policy choices about how it wanted to maintain the stock. The incentives might be sufficient for the .Council. He had focused on sequencing in terms of laying out al! the necessary legislative acts. Staff had contemplated the September timeframe for further revisions to the compatibility review regulations, November ’for completion. ~of the Planning Commission process on incentives, a concurrent November timeframe for establishing the transition rules including standards for designation, ending with enactment of the permanent ordinance and public hearing on the inventory. Mayor Rosenbaum asked what information the Council would have available with respect to the inventory when the Council considered the permanent ordinance. Ms. Moore said page 12 of the staff report (CMR:337:98) indicated. the timeline for how the information from Dames & Moore would fit in with the time schedule, working backwards from March 31. To have the interim ordinance sunset on March 31 and a new ordinance in place at the same time, the City would be into public hearings at the beginning of February. At the time of the first public hearing, people would know what the recommendation was on specific properties. However, the public would not have had much time to interact with staff. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether people would know about the Landmark and Significant Resource designations at the same time and what the Council would know about the number of properties in each of the categories. The information might be considered important in determining what the regulations should be for the categories. Ms. Warheit said the Council and the public would have information in the aggregate about how many properties were likely to be identified as Landmarks and Significant Resources, along with examples, such as a sample set of six properties recommended for landmarks and why; a sample set of six properties recommended for significant resource and why; and a sample set of six properties which failed to list on any inventory and why. An actual recommendation for every individual piece of property would not be available since the time, from when the recommended list was identified until March 31, 1999, to go to the HRB and have the question answered on a property-by-property basis was not sufficient. Council Member Eakins asked whether the Priority List 1 had originated from the Criterion C architectural distinction only, which reflected what had occurred 20 years prior when the current inventory was developed. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Council Member Eakins asked whether Priority List 2 represented structures of a certain age and integrity, without the distinction. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Council Member Eakins asked whether the question of people and events was the issue keeping the p~operties under study,~ i.e., Criteria A and B. Ms. Warheit replied yes. The consultants had insufficient information to eliminate the properties. Council Member Eakins asked whether the consultant knew the properties would not remain on the list for architectura! distinction. Ms. Warheit replied yes. Council Member Eakins asked about staff’s methodology for dealing with Priority List 2 properties. Ms. Warheit received the consultant’s draft report for the State Office of Historic Preservation outlining what was being proposed. The approach was novel for .Palo Alto’s situation of wanting to dispense with a very large project in a very short time. The method had been referred to as a "back door method," i.e., the consultant would search Who’s Who in local biographical files, the work of prominent architects and builders who had worked in Palo Alto, historic contexts, etc.The information would be searched for locations or .properties. Council Member Eakins asked whether the search was for a match with the individual properties already identified. Ms. Warheit replied yes. After a search, if no historic significance was found, the propertie§ would be eliminated from the lists. . Council Member Kniss thought the only way to cut down on the numbers was to go with Option I. 08/10/98 87-134 Ms. Warheit said Option 1 would cut down on the numbers in terms of stopping any further research. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, President Palo Alto Homeowners Association, responded to Council Member Wheeler’s question about the effect of the historic standard on.the availability of tax credits, e.g., Federal tax credits applied only to income-producing properties, not private properties. The Council should minimize the work with Dames & Moore and approve the least possible amount of work only after specific goals and objectives for the programs had been defined. The proposal implied policy directions that should be made clear to the community prior to an expenditure of $i million. Dames & Moore had been paid in excess~of several hundred thousand dollars for contracts to provide deliverables which had not actually been received and where some of the performance had been unacceptable. The staff recommendations in Option 2 proposed continuing historic evaluation based on significant events and historic people in addition to architectural merit. The basisand scope of work moved beyond what the Council had proposed. The Council was urged to approve Option 1 since so much was still unclear. Martin Bernstein, P. O. Box 1739, spoke about the need to focus on identifying historic resources. If properties had historic merit but had not been identified during the process, many houses might not be able to take advantage of the incentives being adopted, resulting in a loss to homeowners. The Council was urged to support Option 2 since the more houses evaluated the less the risk of losing historic resources. Historic preservation meant one could modify, make changes to, remodel, and add on to an historic home. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, spoke in support of staff and the Council’s responsiveness to the concerns raised by the public and for being the report regarding the Dames & Moo~e contract. She questioned the need to spend more money for a job that should already have been completed. She suggested funding a canopy-type organization to promote historic preservation and educate homeowners about how to do so. Murray Suid, IIII Greenwood, supported a self-evaluation program as a means of removing properties from the lists. Kathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding the current historic inventory of 500 homes, and the addition of Study List 1 of 650 homes and’Study List 2 of 2,700 homes, plus or minus 700. If 20 percent of Study List 2 was included on the inventory, the City would have 1,690 homes on its historic inventory. She questioned whether the issue was design review or historic preservation. Tom Wyman,~ 546. Washington Avenue, urged the Council to approve Option 2, since the incremental cost of $40,000 was worth the extra work. The point was to gain more information about the City’s historic resources. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. Council Member Mossar said the Council’s packet contained a BAO for ¯ an additional contract amount for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the development of the Los Altos Treatment Plant site that put into perspective the dollar amounts. The BAO had been approved without comment and without public notice, bringing the total price for the EIR to $724,348. The historic inventory had received much public comment and Council policy direction, and was a project long overdue for updating. Though the numbers were large, in the perspective of the expenditures the City made. for projects benefitting all or parts of the community, the proposal for historic preservation was not that large. ¯ MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to I) approve Option 2, assuming an adoption date of March 31, 1999, for the permanent Historic Ordinance, and requiring completion of the Historic Inventory by September 30, 1992; 2) adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance, not to exceed $437,400, to fund continued Historic Inventory work by Dames & Moore and to fund part-time, temporary workers and supplies to assist with the volunteer research effort; and 3) authorize the City Manager to sign the amendment to the Dames & Moore contract, with a scope of services to complete the Historic Inventory, consistent with the option selected. Ordinance 4518 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending.the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $437,400 for an Interim Historic Inventory Consultant" Council Member Wheeler understood in past situations, when the outcome of phase 1 of a multi-phased project was unknown, the Council had approved phase I, and, based on the results and performance of the contractor during phase i, either authorized extension of the contract for phase 2 or not. If information was insufficient or performance had not been up to expectations, the Council would have the ability to cease work. She asked whether that was a possibility for the historic project, since it was in phases. Ms. Moore replied yes. The staff would need to know whether the Council wanted to-approve Option 1 or Option 2 since the work and the costs were different. Council Member Wheeler wanted the Council to direct staff to either do Phase 1 of Option 1 or Phase 1 of Option 2 at the current meeting. She also wanted the review, which would have to take place very quickly since the desire was to move the project through quickly. She asked whether Phase 1 of Option 2 contained interim deliverables which would come back to the Council prior to January 15, 1999. Ms. Moore said in October 15, 1998, the Council would receive Siudy Priority List I, preliminary recommendations for Criteria C. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the information would be received publicly or internally. Ms. Moore said the information would be advertised through the public outreach consultant. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the Council approve Phase 1 of Option 2 with the understanding that the Council’may determine after receiving the deliverables associated with Phase 1 not to proceed further with Phase 2. Council Member Kniss asked about the total cost incorporated into the motion, based on the bottom of page 9 (page 2 of the chart) of the staff report (CMR:337:98). Ms. Moore said the amount was $48,500-for retired tas°k and $86,300, plus a $23,000 contingency in case volunteer work decreased. Council Member Kniss was unconvinced the recommendation could take the City where it wanted to go. She was still concerned about reducing the number of houses, although willing to give the work a try. She asked whether the motion included Criteria A, B, and C. Ms. Moore said yes. Council Member Eakins supported the motion and agreed with much of the previous discussion. Staff was asked to brainstorm ways to expedite reducing the uncertainty about the 2,700 homes which had been the most difficult problem. Council Member Fazzino thought money was not the driving issue. Regardless of where one stood on the issue, it was generally one of the most important and problematic issues, challenges, and programs to come before the City over’the past 20 years. The dollars proposed for the project werenot as troublesome as the issue of getting homes off the list as quickly as possible. He was convinced that if three individuals drove armund the community, agreement could b~ reached on removal of probably 1,400 homes from the list within hours. It was very frustrating that the City had to engage in a long, laborious, unpredictable process associated with many homes which could create obstacles to the implementation of the historic program the Council began a few years before. He was interested in a windshield survey or bicycle survey to remove homes from the list as quickly as possible. He understood staff would search for ways to get the homes off the-list as quickly as possible, but he proposed Study 2 homeowners had the right appeal to the City for exclusion from the list. Council Member Mossar said Council Member Fazzino’s proposal sounded easy, but she questioned the process. Council Member Fazzino thought the City should not wait for Dames & Moore to volhnteer to show up in front of someone’s house on December I0, 1998, with a final determination with respect to that home. If the homeowner wanted to force the issue, deal with it right away, and make it clear whether or not the home was historic, he wanted the issue resolved immediately. He wanted to give the homeowner as much standing as City staff on the issue. Council Member Mossar asked who would make the determination if a homeowner wanted his/her hom~ off the list immediately. Council Member Fazzino said staff could have the right to review the request at which point the request could either go to the HRB or the Council. Council Member Wheeler said a homeowner who currently came forward and wanted to do something with his/her property before the study, could apply for merit .screening. Council Member Fazzino said Council Member Wheeler was correct if there was potential historic value, but he would not want to force the person in to an extensive and expensive process for a property clearly not historic. Council Member Mossar thought Council Member Fazzino’s proposal was exactly what the motion indicated. She would accept Council Member Fazzino’s notion if it was a merit screening process. The City had been trying to make the process better, and the cost had been removed. If it were important for a homeowner to remove his/her house from the list prior to January 1999, that was fine. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified anyone could currently apply for historic screening and answer the question Council Member Fazzino proposed. A process other than merit screening should be made clear. Council Member Fazzino thought if there were a belief on the part of staff that a home was potentially historic, then the home could be considered through merit screening. However, what differentiated Study Group 1 from Study Group 2 was the large number of homes on the list which had no historic merit. Such individuals should not be forced into a bureaucratic process. If it were an easy call, the homeowner should not have to go through the merit screening process. property was not historic. A staff member could easily say the Mayor Rosenbaum said at one time, there was a provision for individuals who came in for merit screening without going to the HRB. Ms. Warheit said merit screening was not~ directly related to the two study lists. If an individual came in with a property on Study List 2 desiring removal’ from the list, staff had information available regarding Criteria C, windshield survey. Staff had no basis for a conclusion based on Criteria A or B until the additional work was completed. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff could summarily remove a property from the list if the homeowner could demonstrate to staff that the home would clearly not meet Criteria A or B, without going through any bureaucratic process or screening, etc. ~ Ms. warheit said currently when staff received calls from individuals with pertinent information in order to finish the study, the information was immediately passed on to the survey team. The study list, therefore, was not the same as it had been a few months prior because the properties were being removed from the list. For example, she received a call from an individual who indicated a home on the list was built in 1990. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff could make a decision on the spot if an individual owned a tract home in Midtown which was built in 1939 by an "unknown" individual, purchased in 1973, and had no value as an historic home. Ms. Moore said staff could definitely consider such information and would welcome property owners providing complete information such as chain of title and use of property. Mayor Rosenbaum said if Council Member Fazzino wanted to make a motion for a process other than what existed, he could do so. Council Member Kniss thought the only thing to simplify council Member Fazzino’s proposal was to eliminate Criteria A and B, leaving Criteria C, which was the archidectural piece. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, that a provision be made that the Priority Study 2 homeowners have the right to appeal to the City staff for exclusion from the list if they can demonstrate that the home does not meet the Criteria A, B, and C. " AMENDMENT PASSED 5-2., Ojakian, Rosenbaum "no," Huber, Schneider absent. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the City Council approve Phase 1 of Option I. Council Member Kniss said Criteria C was the one which determined whether a house had historic merit. Mayor Rosenbaum said the main point of Option 1 rather than Option 2 was the obtaining of an important deliverable, e.g., completion of the primary record DPR523 A for Study Priority 1 properties, which Phase 1 of Option 2 failed to include. He doubted that the work on Study Priority 2 would be completed for a mere $40,000. Council Member Eakins said commercial properties might have strong local importance to the history of Palo Alto and should not be excluded. She shared Mayor Rosenbaum’s concern about being able to handle 2,700 structures for a mere $40,000, but if the methodology were good or a cut-off date was changed, the problem could be handled more readily. She would not support the substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-4, Fazzino, Kniss, Rosenbaum "aye," Huber, Schneider absent. Council Member Kniss would not support the 2,700 homes. At the same time, she would not vote against the recommendation since the City needed to continue to deal with the inventory. ~ Council Member Ojakian asked what would be lost by dropping Phase 2 in Option 2, particularly since the paperwork mentioned in Option 1 would not be completed. Ms. Mobre said it would be more difficult to back up an appeai since that was the definitive type of record to establish a property’s eligibility or refute someone’s appeal to the potential eligibility. No insignificant information would be obtained through Option I. As appeals came up on a case-by-case basis, staff would examine how information was generated to consider the appeals on a case-by-case basis. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion. An inventory had not been conducted in the City for 20 years, and the City should move forward and do as extensive a job as possible. Once the homes on the inventory were defined between the two categories, the Council could apply the regulations appropriately. The issue before the Council was the inventory, which should be completed. Council Member Mossar’s comments about the cost were interesting, although there were probably several more comparisons that could be made. The cost was reasonable considering the work had not been done for 20 years. - MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent. .REPORTS OF QFFICIALS 08/10/98 87-140