HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-07 City Council (4)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL i 5
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
DATE:June 7, 2004 CMR:289:04
SUBJECT:POLICY AND
RECOMMENDATION TO
INCENTIVES FOR
STRUCTURES
SERVICES COMMITTEE
IMPLEMENT PRESERVATION
CITY-OWNED HISTORIC
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Policy and Services Committee recommend that City Council make a
motion to initiate a change to the Zoning regulations to implement a Historic
Preservation Incentive Program for City-owned structures.
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
At its meeting on December 9, 2003, the Policy and Services Committee voted 4-0
to accept staff’s recommendation to implement a Historic Building Incentive
Program for City-owned buildings.
The Policy and Services Committee identified and discussed the following issues
to be addressed in developing the ordinance: whether receiver sites would be
limited to the Downtown; how Transfer Development Rights would be marketed;
enforcement of conservation easements; which City-owned buildings would be
potential sender sites and the amount of floor area that could be transferred; and
the pros and cons of identifying specific sender buildings as part of the ordinance,
or on a case-by-case basis. All of these issues will be explored and alternatives
presented to the Council when the draft ordinance is prepared.
CMR: 289:04 Page 1 of 2
PREPARED
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD::
E~QISLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
CMR:555:03, Preservation Incentives For City-Owned Historic
Structures, December 9, 2003
Memorandum from the Office of the City Attorney, Preservation
Incentives for City-owned Historic Structures, December 4, 2003.
Minutes of Policy and Services Committee meeting,
December 9, 2003
List of City-Owned Historic Structures
CMR: 289:04 Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
TO:HONORABLE CiTY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: POLICY AND SERVICES CO5~TTEE
FROM:CITY M~4~NAGER DEPARTMENT: PLAN~qNG AND
COM2k~NITY ENWIRON~ENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 9, 2003
PRESERVATION INCENTIVES
STRUCTL~S
FOR CITY-OWNED
CS~R: 555:03
I-~STORIC
RECONL~{E_NrDATION
Staff supports the implementation of a City-owned Historic Building Incentive Program,
as described by City Attorney in the attached memorandum.
DISCUSSION
At the request of the Director of Planning and Community Envh’onment, Interim City
Attorney Wynne Furth prepared the attached memorandum outlining the legal issues
related to the implementation of a historic preservation incentive pro~am for City-owned
structures. The lega! analysis concludes that the City can convey development potential
inherent in City-owned historic structures. Staff recommends that the Policy and
Services Committee members consider the following issues:
Creating a Historic Preservation Incentive Prouam for City--owned structures is
the fh-st step in implementing a citywide progam. Initiating the prouam
specifically for City-owned structures wi!l assist in issue identification that could
streamline the implementation of the citywide pro~am in the future.
Transferring development potential should be limited to the Downtown .area and
should remain within the floor area ratio cap. Downtown has the development
pattern and infrastructure to accommodate development credit from outlying sites.
Particularly with the recent increase in available public parking, transferring
CMR:555:03 Page 1 of 2
development potential may ensure full utilization of
Downtown infrastructure.
the City’s investment in its
o While the much of the City’s character rests in its historic buildings, the publicly-
owned structures are especially valuable to the community as a whole.
Levera~ng resources to stabilize and enhance public historic buildings ensures
that these structures remain as permanent fixtures in the City’s character. An
incentive progam, as suggested, is a creative means to increasing the City’s
commitment to maintaining its infrastructure without sacrificing other necessary
infrastructure improvements.
ATTACH!~;NTS
Attachment 1"Memo from Wynne Furth, Inte~m City Attorney, dated December 4,
2003
Prepared by:
/
~phen t~slie, Di}ector of Planning and Community Environment
Department Approval:/..’// [ ) ~
STEPHEN EM.SmrE
Director of PMmJng and Community Environment
City Manager Approval:
I-L~.RRIS ON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:555:03 Page 2. of 2
O-ff ce emo.randum
Office of the t~Ky ic~orney
City of P~o ~3to
Attachment B
90:
FROH:
December 4, 2003
Steve E~slie, Director of and
Community Enviro,n_ment
W!~ne Furth, intermm City Attorneyp~$~
Vnc=ntives for o{ev-o~med H{storic
Struczures
~.~ resoonse to {n.su{ ~-; e= from the mub!ic you have asked
our office to look into possible ex_nsansion of the City’s existing
historic and seismic .n ........ --~ ~n "~=n=~ e-~ bonus" ~sromra~m on a
limited basis to @i~y-o~_m_ed his:oric struc:ures,:~-~-÷~-~-~~-~u~=--~_; those
:ha: are =~ ~ ~-’.b~ = for iis~ing on Z~e National Reo-ister of Historic
Places. We have examined the City’s e::isting density bonus
program, and the associated transfer ("TDR") progr-s_m, relevant
Comorehensive Plan policies, t~e South of Forest Area Coordinated
Area .... ~ a~, and other City ao~m~__,_s" "~, =~ in order to make some
,~reiiminarv~’-=~o~rn~-.=.n~-~a~ions~ to you._ We have also consulted with
menders of the C:~v~’ ~l-’ s _miar-’~-ing sta:z-- a__~n ~" deve!omers_ who have made
use of the City’s exis:ing progra~m. Our goal was to suggest
:e._a,__.<re_,_~ simple to adopt a_n~ adm.~:nister,programs Zhat are legal, ~- ~ ~- ~’-"
and supportive of :he City’s adopted policy goals.
Background
Goal 7 of the 1998-20!0 Com_mrehensive Plan is the
’-~-~o ~to’s ~storic buildings"consel-\ration ane mreservation of := .......,
sites and districts. " _~mong t~e__ imm!ementing_ p~:~=~-~ ~ ~ =~ ~nd programs
are:
Encourage public and private upkeep and
mreservation of resources that-have historic merit.
... (Po!icv L-51)
E~m~,~m= the oreservation of ={~{ .---:cant historic
resources o%_~%ed by the City of Pa!o A!Zo. Allow
such resources to be altered to meet con:emporary
adopted by tl~e Ci:y Council are sat~srze.~. (Policy
L-52)
031204 s~-n 0091384
OFFICE MEMORANDUM, cont.
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
December 4, 2003
Page 2
RE :Preservation Incentives for
Structures
City-owned Historic
Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow transfer
of development rights from designated buildings of
historic significance in the Commercial Downtown
(CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites in the CD
zone. Planned Community (PC) zones properties in
the Downtown also qualify for this program.
(Program L-60)
Develop incentives for the retention and
rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in
all zones. (Program L-57)
Encourage and assist owners of historically
significant buildings in finding ways to adapt and
restore these buildings, including participation in
state and federa! tax relief programs. (Program
L-64)
Commercial Properties vs. City-0wned Properties
As recognized in Program L-57, both the state and federal
government have provided tax incentives which may cover a
significant percent of the costs of historic rehabilitation for
commercial structures. However, since the City pays neither income
taxes nor real property taxes,I City-owned historic buildings
cannot benefit from these programs. For example, the Mills Act,
which provides a reduction in annual property taxes in return for a
preservation covenant, is of no use when the properties are already
exempt from real property taxes. Furthermore, this program reduces
the genera! revenues of both the City and other local agencies,
most notably the Palo Alto Unified School District. The tax credit
programs sponsored by the federal government similarly are of
little or no use to the income tax-exempt City. In areas such as
the provision of low-income housing, public agencies can partner
with for profit "tax credit investors." We have not located any
comparable program for historic preservation. Even if it were
feasible to lobby for such a new tax break, the City may not wish
When City property is leased, the tenant’s leasehold may be
subject to real property taxes in some cases.
031204 syn 0091384
OFFICE MEMORANDtIM, cont.
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
December 4, 2003
Page 3
RE:Preservation Incentives for City-owned Historic
Structures
to do so at a some of significant budget shortfalls and deficit
spending at both the state and federal level. Therefore,
implementation of Program L-64 for City-owned historic buildings
requires a different approach.
Residential v. Non-Residential Buildings
The vast majority of buildings in Palo Alto are single-
family residences. Some of these are eligible for the Nationa!
Register of Historic Places and a larger group is eligible for the
California Register of Historic Resources. In 1999, after several
years of study and interim ordinances, the City Council passed a
comprehensive program for preservation of historic homes. This
ordinance established a number of incentives for voluntary
preservation of privately-owned historic buildings, including
floor-area allowances greater than similarly sized lots without
historic homes. However, the ordinance was rejected by the voters.
Council gave instructions to the Planning Division to return with a
program of voluntary preservation incentives. This memorandum does
not try to address that much larger issue, focusing instead on the
much smaller number of buildings owned by the City itself.
Transfer of Development Rights Program
In 1986, when rezoning the Commercial Downtown (CD) area, -
the City established a program to grant f!oor area bonuses to
encourage seismic and historic rehabilitation of buildings.
(Ordinance No. 3696). The size of the bonus was based on the size
of the building: the greater of 25% of the existing above-ground
floor area, or 2,500 square feet. In time, it became apparent
that for many historic buildings, it would be better not to use the
~bonus floor area" on site. A transferable development rights
ordinance was established in 1997 to permit buildings that were
eligible for a bonus to transfer it, providing an incentive for
rehabilitation of historic buildings that could not easily use a
bonus on the same site. Prior to that, a TDR program existed in
the Comprehensive Plan, but was not used frequently due to the
cumbersome process required to transfer bonuses. The current
program has been used several times. It permits bonuses to be
transferred within the Downtown district and restricts the floor
area ratio that may be achieved using bonuses to 2:1 in the CD-S
031204 syn 0091384
OFFICE MEMORANDUM, cont.
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
December 4, 2003
Page 4
RE:Preservation Incentives for City-owned Historic
Structures
and CD-N districts, and 3:1 in the CD-C district.
receiver sites are any Downtown non-historic site.
Adapting the TDR Program to Historic
Preservation of City-Owned Buildings
Eligible
If the City wishes to adopt a TDR program for
preservation of city-owned historic buildings, among the issues to
be decided are:
i.Which buildings should be eligible "senders?"
Any sender buildings must at a minimum be formally
identified as historic resources. The most widely recognized
method for doing this is listing a structure either on the National
Register of Historic Buildings or the California Register of
Historic Resources. Palo Alto also maintains its own inventory of
historic buildings. Some City-owned buildings have been previously
identified as eligible for listing through an environmental review
process. For example, the Children’s Library was identified as a
historic building during the Library Bond Measure planning process.
A sender building must also be one that the City Council
identifies as suitable for essentially permanent maintenance in a
manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines.
The fact that a building is listed on the National Register neither
requires nor guarantees its preservation. Selling TDRS would
change this. Therefore, the City Counci! must determine under what
circumstances this substantial limitation on the City’s right to
alter the building or use of the site in the future is appropriate.
We believe this determination could be made by the City Counci! on
a case-by-case basis, once the general program was adopted.
Alternatively, the eligible site or sites could be part of the
enabling ordinance.
2.What bonus formula is appropriate?
The City’s existing formula has the advantage of being
tested with previous use and generally understood in the
deve!opment-community. We favor extending existing formulas rather
than inventing new ones whenever appropriate. (See 2003 Auditor’s
031204 syn 0091384
OFFICE MEMORANDUM, cont.
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
December 4, 2003
Page 5
RE :Preservation Incentives for City-owned Historic
Structures
Report.) However, further study by your department is advisable.
The existing formula is intended to operate for private investors,
not a public agency. A complicating factor is the recent creation
of a new kind of TDR, the S0FA2 TDR, which can only be used to
create housing.
3.Which sites should be eligible "receiver" sites?
The City’s existing TDR program identifies eligible
receiver sites and will be amended to implement the provisions of
the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 2. A policy
issue will be whether the same definition of eligible receiver
sites is appropriate. Again, we favor simplicity. In the planning
analysis of this proposal, a basic question issue is how many new
TDRs should the City create so that it advances the goal of
preserving important City-owned public resources without
unintentionally jeopardizing its program for the preservation of
private property. A related issue is whether these TDRs should
carry parking exemption with them, be confined to certain areas, or
be limited to certain uses, e.g. housing but not office.
5.How should these TDRs be marketed?
Existing TDR transfers are private transactions and
often involve two sites owned by the same person. This permits
coordinated planning, since our rules require that the historic
restoration work be done before the development rights transfer.
However, this may not make sense for City-owned buildings. First,
the proceeds of the TDR would be intended to fund the preservation
or restoratio work and the City cannot borrow in the same manner as
a private investor. Second, the City is a regulator, with the
power to determine if TDRs can in fact be used on a particular
site.
The City’s existing TDR programs specify that the program
can go away at any future time; there is no guarantee that the TDR
can be used. This leads to the current practice of getting a
development approval before paying for TDRs. If the City is to
sell TDRs, it must be able to guarantee their future utility for
some period of time. To do this, it would need to execute a
development agreement with the TDR purchaser. In that case, it may
031204 syn 0091384
OFFICE MEMORANDUM, cont.
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and
Cbmmunity Environment
December 4, 2003
Page 6
RE :Preservation Incentives for City-owned Historic
Structures
be important to identify a future site where their use is
guaranteed.
How would the City guarantee preservation of its own
property as a historic resource?
The current City council cannot bind the hands of future
City Councils absent an agreement with a third-party. We require
privately-owned sender sites to grant the City a conservation
easement giving it the right to sue (and recover costs) if the
property is not maintained in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines. The City cannot grant a
conservation easement to itself. However, it can grant one to an
independent nonprofit dedicated to advancing historic preservaiton.
A similar approach is commonly used to ensure !ong-term
preservation of publicly-owned open spaces.
Next Steps
Although we, and others, have devoted a significant
amount of time to researching a City property TDR program, more
lega! research, as well as planing and fiscal analysis, is required
if the City Council wishes to proceed. We would do further
analysis of the fundamental legality of such a program as well as
operational details. Our work to date suggests that such a program
is feasible if the City Counci! wishes to proceed.
WSF:syn
031204 syn 0091384
Attachment C
Regular Meeting
December 9, 2003
1.Oral Communications .................................................................2
3.Preservation Incentives for City-Owned Historic Structures .............2
Ordinance Authorizing the Exchange of Minor Portions of Park Land for
Contiguous Lands in Order to Implement Article VIII of the Palo Alto City
Charter and Proposal for Walter Hays School/Rinconada Park - Property
Exchange with Palo Alto Unified School District and Amendment to Park
Boundary Lines ......................................................................... 7
4. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas ...................10
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m ...................................10
12/09/2003 P&S:l
Chairperson Butch called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Butch, Kleinberg, Lytle, Ojakian
1. Oral Communications
None.
BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL to move Item No. 3 forward ahead of
Item No. 2.
3. Preservation Incentives for City-Owned Historic Structures
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve-Emslie reviewed the
staff report (CMR:555:03), dated December 9, 2003. Staff believed the
preservation incentives were an exciting way to further enhance historic
preservation and enable the City to achieve broader cultural goals of preserving
City-owned buildings and supporting nonprofit groups that had an interest in
furthering the City’s cultural and historic nature. Timing was appropriate.
Communities such as Palo Alto had a great deal invested in its publicly-owned
historic buildings. Palo Alto had a transfer development rights (TDR) program
for approximately 10 years for historic preservation and for seismic upgrades.
Staff was excited to work on the City-owned Historic Building Incentive
Program.
Interim City Attorney Wynne Furth said the proposal was interesting. Staff
looked at many similar open space conservation. The sites from which rights
were transferred usually did not come into public ownership. Rights of the
owner were given up. If the City were to transfer development rights from one
of its sites and covenant it with a third property, the City gave up something
substantial.
Beth Bunnenberg, Historic Resources Board (HRB) Chair, 2351 Ramona Street,
said she was delighted to see the incentives going to the Policy and Services
(P&S) Committee. Several Downtown buildings were saved by the ability to
upgrade buildings with a financial incentive. The HRB encouraged the Council to
think about expanding incentives. The City had a unique opportunity toward
preserving a historic structure without making a direct appropriation of money.
The idea of a nonprofit group was an ideal type of public-private partnership.
The HRB supported the proposal.
12/09/2003 P&S: 2
Jim Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, said the 1986 Downtown Ordinance
established seismic and historic upgrade bonuses including a tagline that
suggested creating TDRs. Subsequently, there was implementation after the
new Varsity Theatre. The new Varsity Theatre did both historic and seismic
bonuses. Under former staff member, Nancy Lytle, the TDR Ordinance was
managed through the process with enormous constraint. The concern was not
to have receiver sites create impacts on neighbors. The consequence was that
only one project had a TDR accomplished. Staff needed to be given the
opportunity to create a workable, and with a potential for value, TDR. Staff
should be allowed to work on the pool of users and the appropriate controls for
maximum square footage.
Gail Woolley 1685 Mariposa, urged the P&S Committee to support the staff
recommendation. The TDR tool had been around for quite a while in the field of
historic preservation and was used several times in Palo Alto. The proposal was
a great public benefit.
Karen Holman said constraints were placed on City-owned properties. The City
had the opportunity to act as an example to private-party owners. The
opportunity existed to make the process open and public.
Council Member Kleinberg said the City Attorney’s Memorandum, dated
December 4, 2003, raised issues that the P&S Committee needed to discuss.
Referring to page 4, item no. 1, she noted the conclusion was the City Council
could make a determination on a case-by-case basis or the eligible site or sites
could be part of the enabling ordinance. The staff was asked to provide
information on the pros and cons of the two options.
Ms. Furth said it was good to have principles that applied to categories.
Designations could be made early if there were obvious examples that fit in,
and there could be a procedure for designating additional buildings later.
Mr. Emslie said designating an initial list was important. Value was gained by
broadcasting the buildings to be looked at. An ongoing oversight of the list was
important as well as a mechanism for review. The HRB would be a great trustee
of the list.
Ms. Furth assumed the list of City-owned buildings might be categorized as
historic for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Council Member Kleinberg said some buildings did not have rights to transfer.
She asked staff about a potential bonus density.
12/09/2003 P&S:3
Mr. Emslie said staff looked at parody with the existing program.
Ms. Furth said known City historic buildings could be ranked in terms of the
importance of their preservation.
Council Member Kleinberg said her preference was for a supplementary list
and, with assistance of the HRB, done on a case-by-case basis.
Council Member Ojakian asked why only the Downtown area was involved.
Mr. Emslie responded that the Downtown was the traditional receiver site that
did not tend to impact neighborhoods and where the infrastructure existed.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Mr. Emslie meant the sender site or
the receiver site.
Mr. Emslie said he meant the receiver site.
Ms. Furth said the Downtown had two maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs). One
FAR was allowed under the base zoning and another that was allowed with
transferable development credit. Receiving districts needed to be zoned. A
CEQA analysis would analyze the potential impact in terms of City buildings and
the transfer of development rights. Downtown was zoned to accommodate the
program.
Council Member Lytle said the only area allowed by the ordinance was the
Downtown district because it was considered to be the commercial of the City
and a good place to put mass, height, and bulk. The program could be
reevaluated to allow for higher density.
Council Member Ojakian said he did not see a good reason to limit the TDR if
there were an opportunity to use the TDR somewhere else.
Ms. Furth said the task of creating the program would be complicated because
rezoning in other sites was necessary.
Council Member Ojakian said it was helpful to know the list of buildings and
what the potential TDRs would be.
IVlr. Emslie said staff could look at areas, other than the Downtown, to see what
development potential existed under existing zoning.
Ms. Furth said upzoning was needed in order to accommodate TDRs.
12/09/2003 P&S:4
Council Member Kleinberg clarified if there were more flexibility in the receiver
site, the value of the TDRs was increased.
Ms. Furth responded if the number of eligible buyers were increased, the unit
cost increased. Pezoning in the receiver sites needed to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
Council Member Lytle asked which buildings were clearly high value historic
properties.
Ms. Bunnenberg responded the buildings included the Lucie Stern Community
Center and the Children’s Library, the Water Tower, the Williams House, the
Roth Building, the Sea Scout Base, and the Senior Center, the Main Library, and
the Gamble House.
Council Member Lytle asked whether there was a potential that the City might
demolish any of the historic buildings.
Ms. Furth said the action would tie the hands of future City Councils. The City
would enter into an agreement to put a historic preservation covenant on its
property, which would be covenanted to a third party.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to pages 4 and 5 of the City Attorney’s
Memorandum, dated December 4, 2003, and asked what guidance could be
given for the SOFA 2 TDR to insure more housing Downtown.
Mr. Baer said the Core CDC had the ability to add up to 1.0 FAR of housing
under existing zoning. The same was true in the CDS, SOFA zone.
Mr. Emslie said there were other disincentives. Densities were high enough to
promote having large units.
IVls. Furth said she and Mr. Emslie felt strongly that TDEs should not be
rezonings, but should be a way of implementing zoning in the receiver site.
Shaping was important in the zoning for the receiver sites.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to page 5, item no. 3 in the City Attorney’s
memorandum, dated December 4, 2003, regarding "which sites should be
eligible for ’receiver’ sites." Guidance from staff was requested regarding pros
or cons.
Mr. Emslie said expanding receiver sites required upzoning.
12/09/2003 P&S:5
Council Member Kleinberg said the Council might find places, through the
Zoning Ordinance update, where it wanted to promote more retail.
Mr. Emslie said the issue of overdevelopment would be raised.
Ms. Furth said the Council would get the best return from focusing on one or
two areas and developing the practice.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to page 5, item no. 5 in the City Attorney’s
memorandum, dated December 4, 2003, regarding "how should TDRs be
marketed." It occurred to her that part of creating the market was the timing
issue. The question was raised about the TDR not being used.
Ms. Furth said time needed to be provided over which the rights could be used.
Using the Children’s Library as an example, the City Council would first adopt a
TDR program, designating the Children’s Library as an eligible sender site. The
general outlines for the process of making the TDR available would have been
decided by an auction or request for proposals. The Council would select the
best proposal, and staff would be directed to negotiate a development
agreement.
Council Member Kleinberg said she was interested in enforcement, which was
the conservation easement would be transferred to a nonprofit organization
that then had the right to sue the City if it did not do what it said it would do.
The lack of stability of some of the nonprofits was a concern.
Ms. Furth said the development agreement would be assigned to another
501(c)(3) or a government agency if there were a problem with the nonprofit.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kleinberg, that the
Policy and Services Committee recommend to the City Council implementation
of a City-owned Historic Building Incentive Program
Council Member Ojakian said the City set a good example by preserving its own
buildings. A list of which buildings needed to be provided, including the transfer
amounts.
Council Member Kleinberg hoped the Council could build in flexibility in terms of
duration, the relationship and complimentary nature of it to the Zoning
Ordinance update, in terms of timing and implementation of some of the Zoning
Ordinance update issues. The list of sender sites should be supplementary to
the implementation ordinance that went to the Council.
12/09/2003 P&S: 6
IVls. Furth said that would be done as part of the CEQA analysis.
Council Member Kleinberg said the HRB should to be involved as an advisor.
Council Member Lytle reinforced that staff be given leeway on the bonus
formula and that the receiver sites be coordinated with the Zoning Ordinance
update. The program should not be entered into without a guarantee by some
entity and backed up by a permanent conservancy.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Ordinance Authorizing the Exchange of Minor Portions of Park Land for
Contiguous Lands in Order to ]:mplement Article V]:]::I: of the Palo Alto City
Charter and Proposal for Walter Hays School/Rinconada Park - Property
Exchange with Palo Alto Unified School District and Amendment to Park
Boundary Lines
Real Estate Manager Bill Fellman explained that the item before the Policy and
Services (P&S) Committee contained three items: (1) A recommendation to
Council to establish an enabling ordinance to allow exchanges of minor portions
of park land for contiguous lands in order to implement Article V]:]:]: of the Palo
Alto City Charter (Charter); (2) the District proposal to exchange Walter Hays
School land for Rinconada Park land; and (3) Amendment of a park boundary.
Staff requested that the P&S Committee approve the amendment to the park
boundary to correct an error in the meets and bounds description. The
exchange of lands was included to show what a minor exchange would be. The
enabling ordinance implemented the provisions of State law governing elections
and procedures for park dedication and abandonment, which was incorporated
into Article V]::[]: of the Charter. Staff recommended that "minor" be defined, and
that the definition be no more that four percent of the total park area or one
acre of land, whichever is less. Four alternatives were suggested: (!) that the
P&S Committee recommend the full Council adopt the enabling ordinance
allowing for the exchange of minor park land; (2) that the P&S Committee
recommend the full Council present the enabling ordinance to the voters for
their approval; (3) that the P&S Committee recommend the Council take only
the District’s proposal to exchange Walter Hays School property for Rinconada
Park land to the voters for the approval; and (4) that the P&S Committee
recommend the Council require the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to
remove the encroachments. The PAUSD verbally indicated it would participate
in the cost of the ballot measure if the measure were only for the Walter Hays
encroachment, and the PAUSD would not participate if the ballot measure was
for the enabling ordinance.
12/09/2003 P&S:7
Dr. Bob Golton, Deputy Superintendent, Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD), said the PAUSD was at fault because, while it did not correctly
understand the boundary, the portables and playground encroached on
parkland.
The PAUSD believed the trade was equitable and appealed to the City Council to
approve the trade.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, said once the mistake was made, the cost to
the PAUSD of correcting the mistake was the same. ]:f the City chose to relieve
the PAUSD of the cost, the City also absorbed some cost. The ordinance was
illegal, and .citizens in the City would fight it. The PAUSD should correct their
mistake. The trade was fair, but the procedure was not right. Article V[I]: of the
Charter was clear that no disposition of property could be made without a vote
of the people. Attachment A demonstrated procedures in case of an election.
The Charter specified, "Any election and related procedures under Article VIII:
shall conform to the provisions." There were :17 sections in Attachment A, of
which :14 were procedural. One of the remaining three was what former City
Attorney Ariel Calonne sought to build on for minor exchanges, which did not
apply to the Charter. There were four indicators to show why the section did not
apply: the testimony in the record of earlier proceedings by Enid Pearson; an
exchange was made at the airport in the early :1960s which was put to the vote
of the people; the proceedings of the 1968 Charter Review Committee, which
resulted in no exchanges of land without a vote of the people; and former City
Attorney Ariel Calonne gave the same advice to the Council in the early :1990s.
The matter needed to go to the voters.
Jennifer Hagan, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, 350 Cambridge Avenue,
said the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) extensively reviewed the
matter on November :12, 2003, and voted unanimously to reject the proposed
ordinance because the procedure for the enabling ordinance was not legal and
was a violation of the Charter. The PARC urged the P&S Committee to send the
message to the City Council, thereby honoring the PARC’s recommendation.
]:nterim City Attorney Wynne Furth said there were two survey errors on the
PAUSD site. The park, as it presently existed, did not close, and there were no
defined boundaries for the park. The PAUSD built, looking at improvements on
the ground. A survey was prepared when a fence was requested, at which point
the line in the records was realized. A school building was not an appropriate
park use. The Charter was amended twice to preserve and protect Palo Alto’s
parks to make sure they were used for park purposes. The question arose as to
whether a small boundary adjustment, swapping equal land value and area,
amounted to disposing of parkland. The responsibility landed on the Council.
12/09/2003 P&S :8
The Charter incorporated language about elections and other procedures. The
Chapter specified, "Lands owned or controlled by the City, which will be used
for park, playground, and recreation purposes, shall be dedicated by ordinance,
and land dedicated for those purposes, shall not be sold or otherwise disposed
of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority
vote of the electorate. Any election and related procedures under Article VIII
shall conform to provisions set forth in General Law as it existed _January 1,
1965." The General Law talked about not getting rid of or abandoning City
parks without following a set of procedures, including an election. The General
Law started out by accepting one type of removal of parkland for park
purposes, and that was an exchange, or land swap. There was no definitive
word until the matter went to a judge.
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to seek voter
approval of a Charter Amendment to exchange minor portions of parkland for
contiguous lands of an equal or greater area or value in order to implement
Article VIII of the Palo Alto City Charter, to include in next regular Municipal
Election in November 2005 for voter approval.
Council Member Kleinberg said the reality was a small land swap. Precedent
was created by not following the letter of the law. The history of the law was
that it was created out. of a lack of adherence by the community to park
preservation. There were many years of discussion and an evolution of value in
the community. The result was the park dedication ordinance. Concern was
expressed about the cost of a special election.
Council Member Lytle agreed with the approach to go to the voters. The Park
Charter Ordinance needed to be updated to reflect the current interpretation of
uses that were allowed on parkland as well as handling the minor exchange of
property issue in the way voters of the community intended when the Charter
was written.
Council Member Ojakian said he would not support the motion. Item number 3
needed to be dealt with separately. A decision should be made on the school
land without going to the voters.
Chairperson Burch said he did not believe the people who passed the law
dreamed the Council would face such a minor issue.
Council Member Kleinberg said former City Attorney Ariel Calonne was clear
that the City did not have the power, by ordinance, to alter the Charter. There
was nothing in the record that gave flexibility.
12/09/2003 P&S:9
Chairperson Burch said he supported the motion.
Council Member Lytle said the amendment gave the Council minor flexibility.
The public could be persuaded if the Council talked about it in terms of general
consistency with State law.
MOTION PASSED 3-1, Ojakian "no."
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Ojakian, that the
Policy and Services Committee recommend to the City Council to adopt an
ordinance clarifying the Rinconada Park boundary line near the Junior Museum
and Girl Scout House.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
4. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting.
The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular
office hours.
12/09/2003 P&S: 10
ATTACHMENT D
List of City-Owned Historic Structures
o
o
o
o
10.
11.
12.
Properties
Avenidas
440-450 Bryant Street
Children’ s Library
1275 Harriet Street
Children’s Theatre/Boy Scouts
1305 Middlefield Road
College Terrace Library/Childcare
2300 Wellesley Street
Cultural Center
1313 Newell Road
Gamble House
1431 Waverley Street
Harbor Master House - Baylands
2500 Embarcadero Road
Lucie Stern!Community Theatre
1305 Middlefield Road
Main Library
1213 Newell Road
Roth Building
300 Homer Avenue
Sea Scout Building
2560 Embarcadero Road
Williams House
351 Homer Avenue
Historic Stares
Historic Inventory
Historic Inventory
Historic Inventory
Historic Inventory
Nat’l Register Eligible
Historic Inventory
Historic Inventory
Historic Inventory
Nat’l Register Eligible
Historic Inventory
Historic Inventory
Historic Inventory