October 06, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Historic preservation, the sequel?

by Bill D'Agostino

For many other cities, getting 13 people to discuss a topic before the City Council meeting is a high accomplishment of public participation.

For Palo Alto, it was evidence Monday night that city staff failed to adequately notify its politically active residents about important changes to the laws regulating the construction of single-family homes.

In a rough-and-tumble meeting filled with numerous procedural hiccups, the Palo Alto City Council decided to hold off from voting on new zoning regulations -- which would have impacted more than 70 percent of the properties in town -- until new public workshops were held for city planners to explain the ramifications of the proposed new rules.

The regulations would have changed, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the ability of Palo Alto homeowners to modify their houses or build new ones.

For instance, one rule would have given homeowners with "substandard" lots new rights to build a second-story addition. Another would have prevented homeowners from combining lots into one larger than 9,999 square feet

Many of the 13 speakers -- including numerous city watchdogs who regularly follow such minutiae -- said the city had not given them the opportunity to stay up-to-speed on the process.

"Only until the public has the opportunity to fully understand the implications on their private property am I personally willing to consider this," Councilwoman Dena Mossar said, while asking her colleagues to hold the new workshops. "These are very important issues for the public that the public clearly hasn't yet had an opportunity to understand. I certainly can't tell you how these regulations affect my life as a property owner."

Mossar compared the long meeting's sparse attendance and the new rules' potential impact with the beginning of the city's bitter debate over historic preservation in the late 1990s.

"In the beginning, there were very few people in the chambers," Mossar recalled. "It seemed uncontroversial. But as the public came to understand that they couldn't or could build second stories, that they couldn't or could combine lots, that they couldn't or could do one thing or another, they became very engaged. Anyone who was around at that time remembers it as a very tumultuous time."

The council voted 8-1 to hold the workshops before voting on the regulations. Vice Mayor Jim Burch voted no, without explanation.

Also on Monday night, the council also decided to hold off voting on a new transportation plan. The plan was devised to give staff direction on which transit and traffic projects are most important, and to set benchmarks to monitor progress.

However, at the last minute, the City Council and new City Attorney Gary Baum realized that the plan affected land owned by Stanford University, and that two council members -- Councilwoman LaDoris Cordell, a Stanford vice provost, and Mossar, whose husband works for Stanford -- thus may not be able to vote on the plan.

After hearing that Baum could not give assurances the two could vote, Mossar grabbed her purse, left the meeting in protest and did not return for other discussions. Before she left, she noted that she had voted on the plan during a Finance Committee meeting earlier in the year.

"I leave, but I leave strongly in protest," she said.

"I should have picked it up and I didn't," Cordell said. "I take responsibility."

"I certainly take responsibility as well," Mossar added. But she noted that "the issue of the Stanford conflict has been before staff for the entire time I've been on the council, for six years. It's an issue I bring up as an important issue and ask for their cooperation. Y'know, help?"

The city attorney will determine if Mossar and Cordell can vote on the plan, and then it will be returned to the City Council for approval.

Staff Writer Bill D'Agostino can be e-mailed at bdagostino@paweekly.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.