HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-17 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting July 17, 2000
1. Study Session re Long Range Financial Plan..........................................................309
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................................310
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m...........................................................310
A. Presentation from Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group..........................................................311
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................................313
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................................314
1. Proposed Electric and Gas Sales Contract and Guidelines Amendments to Utilities Rules and Regulations Five, and Commercial and Industrial Fixed-Term Core Gas Commodity Service Rate..........................................................314
1A. Proposed Budget Amendment Ordinance and Resolution Adopting a Gas Rate Increase..........................................................314
2. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 1.04.072 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Expedited Judicial Review of Actions
07/17/00 90- 306
or Proceedings Related to Licenses or Permits for Activities Involving Expressive Conduct Protected Under the First Amendment”..........................................................315
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.79.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Newsrack Permits”..........................................................315
5. Resolution 7989 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire Department Personnel (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 7730 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7772, 7839, 7901 and 7964 to Change Certain Salaries and Classifications”..........................................................315
6. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the Mercury and Dioxin Elimination Policy as the first step towards achieving a long-term goal of eliminating mercury and dioxin releases to the environment...........................................................315
7. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Council-Appointed Boards and Commissions: Discussion of Communications, Roles and Responsibilities..........................................................315
8. Approval of Reciprocity Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company..........................................................316
9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and J.J.R. Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $589,814 for FY 2000-01 Phase 1 Sidewalk Replacement Project..........................................................316
9A. (Old Item No. 4) Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 in the Amount of $74,000 for Contract Amendment #2 with Ross/Drulis Architects and Planners for Additional Work Associated with the Continuation of Phase 1 of the Public Safety Building CIP Project Number..........................................................317
07/17/00 90- 307
10. Conference with Real Property Negotiator..........................................................321
11. PUBLIC HEARING: the Palo Alto City Council will consider a request of property owners of Tract 883 and Tract 909 (Desoto Drive) for consideration of single story overlay zoning for the Channing Park I and II Neighborhoods bordered generally by Newell Road, Channing Avenue, Alester Avenue, and Dana Avenue. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared..........................................................322
12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for Site and Design Review of demolition of an existing 1,426- square-foot building on a parcel in the C-S zoning district and construction of a new 35-foot high, three-story mixed-use building located at 2825 El Camino Real..........................................................328
13. Implementation of Streamlining Recommendation for Council Processes, Including Revisions to Policy and Procedure 1-10 Regarding Selection Procedures for Professional Consultants..........................................................331
14. Proposed Charter Amendment on Planning Appeal Authority in Conformance with Comprehensive Plan..........................................................331
15. Discussion of Charter Amendment re Council Composition and Districts..........................................................331
16. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..........................................................332
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m...........................................................332
07/17/00 90- 308
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Kniss, (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Lytle (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL MEETING 1. Study Session re Long Range Financial Plan Council Member Dena Mossar and City staff presented the City's Long Range Financial Plan. The Plan was reviewed by the Finance Committee and brought to the full Council for information and discussion purposes. One of the key issues identified in the Plan was that the City was expected to have a modest surplus of approximately $1-2 million per year. The surplus would not be sufficient to meet major new programmatic needs; to fund the remaining $21 million needed to rehabilitate existing infrastructure needs; or to fund new facilities such as library expansions, traffic calming on major roadways, and a new police building. Much of the discussion with the Council focused on the need to raise new revenue to meet the needs. Proposals regarding raising the Transient Occupancy Tax, extending the Utility Users Tax, and issuing General Obligation bonds through new ad valorem property taxes were discussed. Other funding mechanisms such as tax increment financing and development fees were explored. Staff's proposal to conduct a survey to determine voter project preferences and their willingness to pay for those projects was reviewed. Once a draft of the survey was completed, it would be brought to the Finance Committee for review. Questions and issues discussed at the Study session included: 1. There was an interest expressed in having staff research and propose development fees and further explore tax increment financing; 2. The question was asked whether it would be possible to increase the documentary transfer tax and eliminate the exemptions to this tax; 3. Questions were asked as to whether or not the full picture for infrastructure had been presented as Infrastructure Module 4:Parking Lots, and Bridges had not yet been undertaken; 4. There were questions asked regarding how the four citywide projects shown in a CMR attachment had become identified to be the City's "highest priority projects";
07/17/00 90- 309
5. Finally, a question was posed that if an ad valorem property tax were passed, what mechanisms could be developed to place a deferred lien on property for lower income taxpayers. The City Manager stated staff would work to prioritize new projects and work with a consultant to present a list of potential projects for the voter survey. The work and responses to the questions and issues above would be presented to the Finance Committee in the fall. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
07/17/00 90- 310
Regular Meeting July 17, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. Presentation from Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Council Member Lytle did not participate due to a conflict of interest. Carl Guardino, President and CEO, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (Manufacturing Group), 132 Holly Court, Mountain View, explained why the Manufacturing Group and other private citizens throughout the county believed Santa Clara County (the County) needed to move forward in November 2000 to deliver additional traffic relief improvements. The County risked losing $1 billion in state matching funds if it did not proceed. A few months prior, Governor Gray Davis unveiled a $5 billion statewide transportation plan. Twenty percent of the funds were allocated for improvements to serve county residents. He was encouraged that the Governor recognized the critical importance of Santa Clara County to the economic health and quality of life of not only California but to the nation as well. The state matching funds required a local match to make the improvements a reality. Moving forward was important. Thirty-three of the 58 counties in California did not receive any funds from the $5.3 billion allocation of transportation funds. Securing the $1 billion in funds was difficult for the legislative delegation and would be even more difficult to retain the funds. Nearly every member of the County’s legislative delegation signed letters urging the County Board of Supervisors to move forward in November 2000. Governor Davis supported the measure and urged the County to move forward. For the first time in 40 years, the County had the opportunity to link to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in Alameda County. Many private and public citizens worked together to pass Measures A and B in 1996. The County was sued and held in court for 21 months and, according to the County, lost $150 million in taxpayer dollars in increased land and construction costs. If the County waited four years, it could lose $300-400 million in increased land and construction costs shifting away buying power to deliver traffic relief. County Bond Council stated in public session that it did not jeopardize the County’s bond rating. The County had an unprecedented level of consumer confidence. If the County waited, the opportunity would be lost because the year 2000 was a presidential election year. In the County, presidential general
07/17/00 90- 311
elections had a 10 percent higher voter turnout. The 1996 measure passed by 1.8 percent, the 1992 measure by 4 percent, and the 1984 measure by 6 percent. The County could not give up a 10 percent voter turnout in a presidential general election. For the past 16 months the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) was engaged in the VTA Plan 20/20. The 16-month process ended in an 11-1 vote urging the County Board of Supervisors to place an initiative on the November 2000 ballot with a specific list of transportation improvements that resulted from the 16-month planning process. Mike Evanhoe, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), said if the City supported the Downtown East Valley Light Rail Line, in the next two years, Congress would reauthorize T-21. If the VTA had its financial plan together, it could approach Congress and say it had the funds. There were 14-16 metropolitan areas in the country that wanted new rail starts. If the County went to Congress with a sales tax in place, the County would compete better in the new rail starts arena. Council Member Mossar had the opportunity to take the BART from Union City to Oakland for a meeting. The system appeared run down. She asked what the long-range maintenance plan was for funding an operational system rather than the up-front capital cost to build it. Mr. Guardino said no system was perfect. Each BART ridership survey by the BART’s current patrons gave it high marks. The BART was well used and appreciated by its patrons. The BART had a fair box return of approximately 65 percent. The light-rail line had a 12 or 13 percent fair box return, and CalTrain had a 40 percent fair box return. There were two outstanding issues that needed to be addressed in the future. Some thought the County should “buy in” to be a part of BART. A “buy in” was a negotiable point that needed to be considered, yet was not a point that was decided. The history was that San Mateo County in 1988, working locally and not mandated by the state, negotiated with the BART district and donated a considerable amount of money to be a part of the BART system. The decision was a business decision made because San Mateo County believed the donation was in the best interest of the taxpayers. BART cost approximately $20 million per year to maintain and operate which needed to be addressed in the process. Maintenance and operation costs needed to be addressed every time a light-rail line was built or to upgrade CalTrain. Usually the measures historically passed did not have operating funds. Vice Mayor Eakins reiterated that the projects were not a last minute consideration. No one was aware that the Governor would decide to package a great deal of money, call it transportation money, and then bypass the 16-month procedures. Many changes happened rapidly; and the 16-month process was the touchstone and the City could use the results of the process to be prepared for action. She urged the Council to remain open-minded and listen for
07/17/00 90- 312
answers. The County functioned in an exemplary way partly because the VTA was put together. Palo Alto was a small city at the northern edge of the County; however, it had a voting seat on the VTA Board for four years out of eight and an alternate seat for two years. The City’s population of 60,000 people had representation in a County of approximately two million people. She hoped the Council kept in mind the VTA was the City’s system and built the roads, ran the rails, established bike lanes, and funded pedestrian improvements. She hoped the BART and heavy-rail debate could be kept in perspective. Mayor Kniss said a meeting would be scheduled on July 26 or 27, 2000, for the Council to hear from members of the public. Vice Mayor Eakins said the Transportation, Sales Tax Summit would take place Wednesday, August 7, 2000, at the Santa Clara Convention Center at 2 p.m. Mr. Guardino said a measure placed on the ballot would be an advisory measure and not legally binding. He was disappointed that members of the environmental community did not support the County’s efforts. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative. Shelley S. Williams, Jr., 11951 Brook Ridge Drive, Saratoga, spoke regarding the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative. David Coale, 766 Josina Avenue, spoke regarding the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative. Toby Williams, 270 Kellogg Avenue, spoke regarding the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative. Stanley Duke, 760 Moreno Avenue, spoke regarding the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative. Ed Powers, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding money and politics. Wayne M. Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, spoke regarding land use reneration and sales tax initiative. Martin Liberman, 145 Lundy Lane, spoke regarding Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative.
07/17/00 90- 313
Griff Derryberry, 4250 El Camino Real, #A204, spoke regarding Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative, Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Avenue, spoke regarding Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative. Joe Webb, 245 Huckleberry Trail, Woodside, spoke regarding the eruv and first amendment rights. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, #126, spoke regarding the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group presentation and Los Gatos pay to park. Andy Chow, 1137 Fairview Avenue, Redwood City, spoke regarding the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sales tax initiative. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding redwood trees near Lowell and Emerson Streets. Toni Tuzzo, Manuela Avenue, spoke regarding harassment and the first amendment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of May 22, 2000, and May 30, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison stated a correction to Item No. 7 on page 15 of the Policy and Services Committee June 20, 2000, minutes should reflect the recommendation that 3A and 3B should state verbatim minutes. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3 and 5-9, with Item No. 4 removed by Council Member Beecham to become Item No. 9A. 1. Proposed Electric and Gas Sales Contract and Guidelines Amendments to Utilities Rules and Regulations Five, and Commercial and Industrial Fixed-Term Core Gas Commodity Service Rate – Refer to Finance Committee 1A. Proposed Budget Amendment Ordinance and Resolution Adopting a Gas Rate Increase – Refer to Finance Committee 2. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 1.04.072 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Expedited Judicial Review of Actions or Proceedings Related to Licenses or Permits for Activities
07/17/00 90- 314
Involving Expressive Conduct Protected Under the First Amendment” 3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.79.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Newsrack Permits” 5. Resolution 7989 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire Department Personnel (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 7730 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7772, 7839, 7901 and 7964 to Change Certain Salaries and Classifications” Resolution 7990 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1501 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters” 6. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the Mercury and Dioxin Elimination Policy as the first step towards achieving a long-term goal of eliminating mercury and dioxin releases to the environment. 7. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Council-Appointed Boards and Commissions: Discussion of Communications, Roles and Responsibilities as follows: 1. Direct staff to: a) Work with boards and commissions to develop annual work plans to transmit to the Council so that the Council can provide input and promote coordination with Council’s priorities as may be appropriate b) Regularly transmit through the City Manager issues identified by the boards and commissions c) Work with boards and commissions to seek Council clarification and direction regarding the scope of Council assignments and board and commission tasks as necessary 2. Approve the following guidelines regarding the role of Council liaisons: a) Council liaisons need to establish relationships with the chairs and members of the boards and commissions so they can serve as a resource to them, providing a sounding board, advice, and communication back to Council as requested.
07/17/00 90- 315
b) To develop these relationships, Council liaisons should attend board and commission meetings, either on a regular basis or when requested by the board or commission members in order to address particular issues. In addition, Council liaisons can remain in contact and involved with the work of boards and commissions through such avenues as informal meetings with the groups’ chairs and/or other members. c) Council liaisons will review their role and anticipated attendance at meetings so that the expectations of board and commission members and Council liaisons are aligned. 3. Approve the following guidelines for the preparation of board and commission minutes: a) Planning and Transportation Commission minutes will continue to be prepared as verbatim minutes. b) Architectural Review Board minutes will be prepared as verbatim minutes. c) Staff liaisons for other boards and commissions will prepare summary sense minutes with the flexibility to develop more detailed minutes as necessary. d) Board and commission members may request that their comments on a particular item be reflected in the minutes. e) In tandem with implementing changes to the minutes, staff will explore opportunities to use the City’s web site and current and emerging technology to make video or audio records of meetings more accessible and user-friendly to the public and City staff. 8. Approval of Reciprocity Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company 9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and J.J.R. Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $589,814 for FY 2000-01 Phase 1 Sidewalk Replacement Project MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1-3 and 5-9, with Item No. 7 as corrected. 9A. (Old Item No. 4) Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 in the Amount of $74,000 for Contract Amendment #2
07/17/00 90- 316
with Ross/Drulis Architects and Planners for Additional Work Associated with the Continuation of Phase 1 of the Public Safety Building CIP Project Number 19820 City Manager Frank Benest said at a session held six weeks prior, staff indicated it would return to the Council with a request for additional funds under the Phase 1 study to look at the Downtown Library site as one of several possible options. Staff wanted to look at the possibility of using City-owned land for the proposed Police Building because of escalating costs. The Downtown Library site, a City-owned property, was one of a few places where the Police Building could be located. Given the possibility of moving the Downtown Library to the Roth Building, staff believed it was appropriate to look at the option of creatively using the Downtown Library site in conjunction with the existing Police Building which would have minimal impact to the neighborhood. The Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) would allow staff to perform additional work under Phase 1 and help staff look at options which the Council could evaluate among other options. Mayor Kniss understood that the Council would not look at the project as characterized in the first review in 1999. Mr. Benest understood the proposal was to build a Police Building on the Roth site which would be a large and massive building. The Council decided not to consider the Roth site as an option because the Police Building would have an impact on the neighborhood. Staff proposed to look at an extension of the existing Police Building or another creative configuration that would not impact a neighborhood. Staff would like the Council to consider having the option explored with the other options. Mayor Kniss clarified that the police cars would remain parked under City Hall and the new Police Building would have a clerical and non-critical function. Mr. Benest said because there was underground parking in the existing City Hall structure that it made sense to have the police cars parked under City Hall and have secondary services moved to the new site. Council Member Mossar was glad the item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion because staff was not explicit in what the project would look like, and the Council did not take a vote to overturn its prior action which was to not consider the Library site. She asked how the Council could move forward to put into the record the Council’s explicit directions to staff. Mr. Benest said staff was interested in telling the architects that staff did not want police activity shifted across the street and a larger building built that would impact the neighborhood. He did
07/17/00 90- 317
not want to prohibit conceptual creativity of the architects. Staff could tell the architects what the City did not want, but he did not want to tell the architects what the City desired because that was an unknown and the City was paying the architects for their expertise. Council Member Mossar said creating a record of Council policy regarding the site was important. She suggested the discussion be held at another meeting if policy could not be discussed. She asked whether it was acceptable to discuss policy at that evening’s meeting. Mr. Benest said policy discussion was acceptable. Council Member Burch said the Council did not want to impact the neighborhoods. Mr. Benest suggested the Council give staff policy direction if it wanted to look at creative options that would not impact the adjacent neighborhoods. Joette Farrand, 724 Bryant Street, said in March 1997 the matter was brought before the Council. The Council withdrew consideration of the Downtown library site, which became policy. She suggested the Council notify the public if it intended to change policy. She noted Consent Calendar Item No. 4 of the Agenda was vague and did not mention that the Downtown library site would be discussed. The public needed to be informed so it could come forward and provide testimony. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, said the City Council Agendas were written in such general language that it was almost impossible to understand which items the Agenda was referring to. She suggested the City Council request that City Council Agendas be more explicit. She understood the Police Department required 50,000 square feet. She did not know how a building of that size could be made unobtrusive. She suggested the Council add the Downtown library site to the South of Forest Area II (SOFA) discussions so that the public could have more input. Mary Jean Place, 801 Northhampton, said the Library Commission was not included or informed about the meetings taking place. She urged the Council to keep the lines of communication open. Everyone needed to work together; however, the people needed reassurance that if a site would be lost that another feasible site would be found. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the appropriate thing to do would be to place the item on the agenda, appropriately described, for a future meeting so the public could be properly noticed. Thirty years prior, when the Council adopted a budget for the 1971 fiscal year, a policewoman, a new classification to the police department
07/17/00 90- 318
became the 96th sworn officer in the police department. Despite the fluctuation of members to the force, there were presently still 96 officers on the force. People wondered why the police department needed more space, and the Council needed to educated the public as to why more space was required for the police department. Council Member Mossar emphasized Ms. Farrand’s comments regarding the City Council Agenda. She noted that there was no indication that the Public Safety Building would be scheduled for a City Council Meeting before its summer break. She suggested the City be careful on how items were agendized. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $74,000 to cover the costs associated with the additional work needed for completion of Phase 1 of the Public Safety Building project; 2. Direct preparation of a revised scope of services for the contract with Ross/Drulis Architects & Planners, with the revised scope to be consistent with the Council's requests for Library Commission and neighborhood involvement in the process and no significant neighborhood intensification of use at the site; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to sign the contract amendment consistent with the revised scope of services and fees. Ordinance 4650 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 in the amount of $74,000 for Contract Amendment #2 with Ross/Drulis Architects and Planners for Additional Work Associated with the Continuation of Phase
1 of the Public Safety Building CIP Project Number 19820” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change recommendation #2, take out the word “intensification” and replace it with “intensity of use or impacts.” Council Member Beecham was concerned with the impact on the neighborhood. As the Council discussed the uses of the Roth Building, the possibility of the Downtown Library relocating, and reuse of the Downtown Library site, the Council gave a good faith indication to the neighborhood that it was not participating in any significant intensification of use. A two-story building might impact the neighborhood because of higher use; however, he was unsure a two-story building would have any impact at all.
07/17/00 90- 319
Council Member Lytle suggested the contract with Ross/Drulis Architects (Ross/Drulis) be coordinated with the SOFA II plan. She asked whether it was within the scope of the contract to have the architectural team visit the effort. Mr. Benest pointed out that the scope of work included funding for a community outreach effort and involvement of the neighborhood to inform and sensitize the process and to identify a variety of concerns and issues. The City would ensure the neighborhood had a significant role. Council Member Lytle suggested the Council direct architects to educate themselves with what was happening with SOFA I and II as they went about drawing plans for the police building as an alternative for the Council to consider. She asked whether the City would coordinate with the Library Commission on the future use of the Downtown Library. Mr. Benest said staff had a discussion the prior week regarding a land-use planning team meeting to decide whether or not moving the Downtown Library to the Roth Building was feasible. Staff would identify the process which should involve the Library Commission. Staff had to look at the interaction between a library at the Roth Building and the park. Even if the library were moved to the Roth Building, several opportunities besides the auxiliary police department for the existing site would open. Council Member Kleinberg said a letter from Ross/Drulis was included in the staff report (CMR:319:00) which addressed developing a stand-alone site plan and an assessment of the use of the library site with conceptual cost estimates for two options including a 52,000 square foot police building on the Downtown Library site. She suggested the Council limit the consultation product and the amount of money the City spent. Mr. Benest said staff revised the scope of work to reflect the actual work that would be done. Council Member Kleinberg supported a moderate use design. Mr. Benest said the Council could reject a plan that did not significantly impact the neighborhood and approve one of the other options. Staff was presenting the Downtown Library site as one option to be included for consideration with the other options. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the scope of work would consider tunneling under Forest Avenue. Mr. Benest said perhaps.
07/17/00 90- 320
Vice Mayor Eakins said the Forest Avenue area was not a good choice for expansion; however, tunneling should be explored if the site was chosen. Council Member Burch said a statement was made that the building would be 53,000 square feet. He believed that 53,000 square feet was the size of the stand-alone building proposed for California Avenue. Mr. Benest said the building might have to be downsized. The Police Department was re-evaluating its program and what would be placed on the site because there were suggestions about moving some department functions off-site. Council Member Burch said the number of police personnel had not changed; however, the department seemed to need more space. Mr. Benest said the number of personnel was not the main driver of the square footage. The kinds of new functions mandated on the police was the factor behind the square footage. Council Member Mossar said staff mentioned there were other potential uses for the Downtown Library besides being a part of the Public Safety building. She clarified the contract for Ross/Drulis for $74,000 was to evaluate only the feasibility of locating the Public Safety building at the Downtown Library site and did not include monies to evaluate other potential uses of the Downtown Library site. Mr. Benest said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian said the current police facility was not built for contemporary times and was lacking. The City spent much time discussing how certain sites would not work, and the City needed to find sites that would work. Council Member Fazzino believed the best site for a Public Safety building would be on Park Boulevard. The Council made a commitment several years prior to preserve the Downtown Library site. A full public hearing or set of hearings would have to be held if the Downtown Library site was considered. The Roth building belonged to the City. He was willing to look at the possibility of using the Roth building as a library. He supported the notion of assuring the public that there would be no additional intensification of the site. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 10. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
07/17/00 90- 321
Authority: Government Code section 56956.8 Property: 2440 Embarcadero Road (APN: 008-03-073) Negotiating Parties: Leeb & Cornell City Negotiator: City Attorney Subject of Potential Negotiation: Temporary Construction Easement PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: the Palo Alto City Council will consider a request of property owners of Tract 883 and Tract 909 (Desoto Drive) for consideration of single story overlay zoning for the Channing Park I and II Neighborhoods bordered generally by Newell Road, Channing Avenue, Alester Avenue, and Dana Avenue. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Chief Building Official Lisa Grote said the single-story overlay zone was created in 1992 and was applied seven times over the prior eight years. The zone did three things: 1) limited the height of structures to 17 feet; 2) limited the habitable floor to one floor; and 3) allowed a 40 percent lot coverage rather than 35 percent ordinarily allowed in an R-1 zone. Four guidelines that needed to be addressed prior to acting upon a single-story overlay: 1) evaluate the level of neighborhood support; 2) evaluate the discernable boundaries of the area; 3) evaluate the single-story character of the existing area; and 4) evaluate the lot size. Project Manager Chandler Lee, said staff had two revisions to the attachments contained in the staff report (CMR:314:00). Attachment A should be revised to reflect that the Planning and Transportation Commission took action to recommend denial of the overlay, and Attachment D should be revised to reflect that two owners withdrew support. Staff recommended approval of the negative declaration and the rezoning of all 57 lots within the boundary. Planning Commissioner Bonnie Packer said the Planning and Transportation Commission voted for denial because a committee was looking into the future design for single-story, and better solutions for residents might result from the recommendations of the committee. Another issue discussed by the Planning and Transportation Commission was the fact that the area was in a flood zone. Any extensive remodeling would require a reduced area within which to remodel since the foundation would have to be raised. The Planning and Transportation Commission voted to deny the application.
07/17/00 90- 322
Council Member Beecham clarified the Planning and Transportation Commission stated the applicants had met guidelines. Ms. Packer said the applicants met the guidelines. BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL Item Nos. 13 and 14 were continued to a date uncertain. Council Member Mossar believed the Agenda title for Item No. 14 was vague and made no mention of the Charter changes to allow the Council to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) in order to facilitate the zoning ordinance update. Mayor Kniss asked whether the Council visited the sites on Tracts 883 or 909 or spoke with any of the residents. Council Member Burch visited the site and spoke with the residents. Council Member Lytle visited the site and spoke with the residents. Council Member Beecham visited the site and spoke with the residents. Vice Mayor Eakins visited the site and spoke with the residents. Council Member Fazzino visited the site and spoke with the residents. Council Member Kleinberg visited the site and spoke with the residents. Council Member Ojakian visited the site and spoke with the residents. Council Member Mossar visited the site and spoke with the residents. Mayor Kniss visited the site and spoke with the residents. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. John Schaefer, 742 De Soto Drive, thanked everyone who visited the neighborhood. The homes were built in the early 1950s by Joseph Eichler. The homes were a typical Eichler design with post and beam construction. There was a covenant which ran with the property that stated no building should be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other than the one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed one-story in height and a private garage for not more than two cars. Many of the homes were already modified; however, the character of the neighborhood remained single-story with only one exception which was done in the 1980s. Since the flood of 1998, which impacted many, five new families with a number
07/17/00 90- 323
of children moved into the neighborhood. All five families supported the single-story overlay. Some were concerned with the 17-foot height limit. Most of the homes were approximately 12-feet high at the maximum. In special cases the home improvement exception could be applied. A home improvement exception was an exception process that allowed relief from the strict provisions of the zoning ordinance for such site development regulations as setbacks, daylight planes, height, lot coverage, and incidental amounts of floor area. He did not know how well the home improvement exception was understood by the residents. The broader question with homes in the flood area did not have to be solved at that evening’s meeting. Some members of the Planning and Transportation Commission suggested that the request be deferred until the R-1 study was completed. Seventy-seven of the property owners had met the guidelines. The R-1 single-story overlay was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood was happy to participate to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. He urged the Council to approve the single-story overlay to help preserve the character of the neighborhood. Kevin Fisher, 728 Alester Avenue, was concerned with the 17-foot height limit, especially in the context to the flood zone restrictions. He understood if he rebuilt his home, the foundation would have to be raised three feet. He believed the height restrictions gave him little flexibility. He suggested a moratorium on two-story houses and then defer the moratorium into a planning mode that would give the community a chance to determine what made sense for a one-story neighborhood. He believed that many people who signed the petition would not have signed it if they thought about the implications of the 17-foot height limit and the flood zone restrictions. He understood the concerns of the people who were the proponents of the ordinance. He hoped the Council could come up with an alternative that met the requirement of both sides. Council Member Ojakian clarified that Mr. Fisher’s objection was not to the single-story overlay but that it was to the height restriction. Mr. Fisher said that was correct. Council Member Burch did not participate due to a conflict of interest. Dhrur Khanna, 742 Alester Avenue, agreed with Mr. Fisher. His wife signed the petition in favor of a one-story restriction; however, the 17-foot restriction was not disclosed. He did not support the ordinance. Dana Clark, 717 DeSoto Drive, said the original proposal included all the homes on Lewis Street and Newell Place which bordered the
07/17/00 90- 324
back of his property. He opposed the proposal because Lewis Street and Newell Place were not included. The usage of streets as boundaries or borders for single-story overlays made more sense than backyards as boundaries. His home was bordered by two homes not supported by the single-story overlay and, in fact, 37 percent of the homes in the proposal bordered homes not covered that were not covered by the single-story overlay. By imposing a single-story overlay in the area, the City might be restricting an individual who was not protected from homes outside the single-story overlay. He believed the single-story overlay did not maintain the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood. All the single-story overlay did was limit the height of the building. The neighbors had to work together to come up with architecture that worked to maintain privacy and aesthetics as homes were remodeled and redesigned. Alan Hallberg, 784 Alester Avenue, respected the views of the neighbors who requested the single-story overlay. He was concerned about the homes that were excluded from the single-story overlay and believed that excluding the homes from the single-story overlay was unfair and undemocratic. Excluding certain homes was unfair because there were both benefits and burdens. His burden was that he could not build a second story to his home. The benefit was that his neighbor could not build a second story. The benefit and burden could not be separated. The five excluded homes affected nine other homes. To give some the benefit of the overlay without the burden was unfair. He encouraged the Council to view the single-story overlay as a neighborhood-wide issue. Clifford Barnett, 733 DeSoto Drive, favored the single-story overlay. He believed the case was well made that the issue for many people was privacy and the Eichler architecture. He believed the neighbors met the requirements of the single-story overlay and that there was no reason not to pass the proposed ordinance. Kurt H. Taylor, 722 DeSoto Drive, was under the impression that the request for a single-story overlay would be granted if the guidelines were met. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the single-story overlay. Arthur Gerald Brady, 735 DeSoto Drive, supported the single-story overlay zoning. There were no second stories or peaked roofs in the neighborhood. The trees and shrubs hid almost everything. There was a chance to preserve the neighborhood for generations to come. He hoped with the single-story overlay in place, the neighborhood as it stood, would last. Jack Hill, 763 DeSoto Drive, presented an exhibit for the Council’s consideration. He requested staff comment on how much clearance from ground level to the first floor would be included in the 17-foot limit.
07/17/00 90- 325
Iris Kriegler, 1607 Channing Avenue, urged the Council to pass the single-story overlay and then deal with the 17-foot height restriction as individuals came forward who needed to remodel their homes. She was concerned about passing the single-story overlay for the neighborhood’s protection. Lillian Sequoian, Newell Place, supported the single-story overlay. Unfortunately Newell Place did not get its petition in to be part of the single-story overlay at that evening’s meeting; however, the neighbors expected to return. There were 17 Eichler homes in the Newell Place area. Mr. Schaefer requested the Council pass the single-story overlay. Ms. Grote said a speaker asked how staff measured height regarding the 17-foot height limit. Mayor Kniss clarified that the height would be 5 feet from the edge of the building from ground level to the peak of the roof. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Beecham found the Planning and Transportation Commission’s disapproval of the application inappropriate because the applicants met the guidelines. The largest issue was how to take care of the height issue when the property was in a flood plain. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration (see Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff report dated June 14, 2000,) finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and 2. Adopt the ordinance rezoning a total of 57 lots; 16 homes in Tract 883 and 41 in Tract 909 (Channing Park 1 and 2) from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ‘Channing Park Tract 883 and Tract 909’ From R-1 To R-1(S)” Further, to direct staff to return to the Council with a proposed ordinance to address the height issue when flood plain issues force increased building heights.
07/17/00 90- 326
Council Member Kleinberg appreciated the thoughtfulness of the Planning and Transportation Commission on the different issues. She was surprised at the manner with which the petition was handled. She supported the comments many of the residents made regarding the ambience of the neighborhood on DeSoto Drive and believed the residents followed the law and met the criteria. She emphasized that the Council was not creating a new law or policy, but enforcing an already established policy. She supported the motion. Vice Mayor Eakins said the Eichler homes on DeSoto Drive were well maintained. The Planning and Transportation Commission did not often deal with individual residential situations. The Planning and Transportation Commission had little understanding of the history and quality of Eichler homes and did not recognize a harmonious neighborhood with character. The harmony of the neighborhood was disrupted by distinctly different structures such as the ones on Gailen Avenue and Richardson Court. Privacy was an important issue as was the preservation of the character of the neighborhood. The Planning and Transportation Commission also incorporated individual beliefs about what kind of housing and land use the City should have to meet housing needs. She noted that the beliefs ignored existing conditions and the history of the neighborhoods. She noted the Planning and Transportation Commission could not ignore the Council’s guidelines because its philosophy was different. She respected the different philosophies and the dilemma the Planning and Transportation Commission faced; however, she was startled at the findings. She supported the single-story overlay as the best way to protect the character of the neighborhood. Council Member Lytle concurred with Vice Mayor Eakins. She said feedback received from the neighborhood was valuable for the Council to consider. The residents did much research and work to learn and understand the City’s adopted public policy. She would have understood the Planning and Transportation Commission challenging the City’s policy if there was something conflicting in the Comprehensive Plan because there were many things in the Comprehensive Plan that were not in agreement; however, the single-story overlay did not conflict with the Comp Plan. Council Member Ojakian said the majority of the neighbors demonstrated they wanted something done and it behooved the Council to give the public what it wanted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Burch “not participating.” RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION: 9:50 p.m. to 10:10 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Real Property Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No.10. Mayor Kniss announced that the City Council unanimously approved the acquisition of real property easements to settle claims arising
07/17/00 90- 327
out of the Amarillo relief sewer construction project. The Council approved a settlement agreement with Leeb and Cornell in the amount of $84,783. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for Site and Design Review of demolition of an existing 1,426- square-foot building on a parcel in the C-S zoning district and construction of a new 35-foot high, three-story mixed-use building located at 2825 El Camino Real, including three, two-bedroom residential units comprised of approximately 5,640 square feet on the third floor, office space comprised of approximately 4,500 square feet on the second floor, and a 15-vehicle parking area on the first floor. Related site improvements include six uncovered parking spaces in the rear yard, and a walled and landscaped front yard that includes landscaped area reserved for two deferred parking spaces. Since it includes residential units, the project is subject to the RM-30 District (Multiple Family Residential) development regulations, therefore: A Design Enhancement Exception is requested to allow (1) deferred parking area to be located within the required front setback, (2) the use of additional private open space in lieu of a portion of the required common usable residential open space area and (3) increased site coverage beyond the maximum permitted coverage area. A Variance is requested for (1) construction within required side setbacks and (2) encroachment into side daylight plane, Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the building was 10,150 square feet on an 11,000 square-foot lot. The application was mixed used and required Council action on the site and design application. Parking would be provided at grade, primarily under the building and behind the building. Office space would be on the second floor and residential units on the third floor. The minor variances and Design Enhancement Exceptions for side setbacks and daylight plane and lot coverage were needed to accommodate the housing on the site. Staff recommended approval of the variances and Design Enhancement Exceptions. Council Member Ojakian asked whether plantings along the El Camino Real medians were discussed with the applicant. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the application did not have an obligation to provide any trees in the median along El Camino Real. He discussed the issue with the applicant who volunteered to install trees in the median, assuming an agreement could be worked out with the State Highway Department on the type of trees to be planted.
07/17/00 90- 328
Council Member Beecham clarified the Planning and Transportation Commission struggled with a site coverage limitation. Mr. Gawf said the issue before the Planning and Transportation Commission had to do with whether a variance could be granted for the excess site coverage. Staff felt it did not meet the criteria for granting the variance and looked at other options. One option was the provision that allowed the Director of Planning and Community Environment to make certain variations. Council Member Beecham asked about the revision to the plan that indicated removal of a portion of the balcony. Ms. Grote said the applicant wanted to reduce the size of the balconies which would reduce lot coverage. The overall overage of about 900 square feet was determined to be eligible for a Design Enhancement Exception. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Jim Baer, applicant, was proud to present a mixed-use project along El Camino Real and proud of the work of staff. The challenges were complex, including dealing with technical, drainage, power, and noise issues. There were no members of the public present at the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) meetings. He was willing to provide trees in the median on El Camino Real and asked that he be allowed to post a reasonable bond prior to occupancy in case of a delay in obtaining State Highway Department approvals. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, applauded the project with its housing component which was a creative solution and needed elsewhere in the City. Problems with the code were highlighted and needed to be addressed. She was concerned about the walkability because of the underground parking which did not present a friendly façade to walk past. Landscaping would help, but store fronts, rather than the front end of cars, were more interesting to people walking by. The ordinance needed to be rewritten so future projects did not have the same problem. She was concerned about the impacts of blocking sunlight and the light emissions from the residential component on the top floor. The balconies were over the back gardens of single-floor houses. Parking was already a problem on Pepper Avenue, and any increase in excess parking needs for that site would no doubt spill on to Pepper and Olive Avenues, which was a concern of the residents. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve the staff, Planning and Transportation Commission, and Architectural Review Board recommendations in the staff report (CMR:320:00) to: 1) approve the proposed Mitigated Negative
07/17/00 90- 329
Declaration for the proposed project at 2825 El Camino Real (see Attachment 12); and 2) approve the proposed project, based upon Site and Design findings (Attachment 5); variance findings (Attachment 3) and Design Enhancement Exception findings (Attachment 4), and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 6). Further, to add a condition of approval to Attachment 6 of the staff report (CMR:320:00) as follows: 60. The applicant shall contribute trees for planting in the median of El Camino right-of-way across from the project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The applicant shall have to enter into a bond to cover the contribution prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Council Member Fazzino was concerned that the City was losing more places with character in the community. Putting residences on El Camino Real was a good idea. Council Member Lytle supported the motion; however, she was concerned with the projects compliance with L-49 of the Comprehensive Plan policy which asked that buildings be designed to revitalize the street. She believed the City was not in compliance when a building was built over surface parking. She understood why staff came to the conclusion it did because the project was on a small lot. If the design was applied along the El Camino Real, or applied to a larger project, the City would have a problem with compliance. Council Member Beecham agreed with Council Member Lytle’s comments. The City was struggling to find a good mixed-use project to work in Palo Alto. He supported the findings; however, he wanted to reaffirm that findings were relative to the property, not to the planned use of the property. Property rights did not include maximum development. Council Member Burch asked how many people would work in the office. Mr. Baer said there would be approximately 15 employees. Council Member Burch asked how many tenants were expected to occupy the space. Mr. Baer said there would be one tenant for the whole floor. Mayor Kniss said the willingness of the developer to include trees in the area was an important step. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
07/17/00 90- 330
ORDINANCES 13. Implementation of Streamlining Recommendation for Council Processes, Including Revisions to Policy and Procedure 1-10 Regarding Selection Procedures for Professional Consultants Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Reorganizing Chapter 2.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Council Organization and Procedure] to Establish New City Council Procedures Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Procedural Rules Governing the Conduct of Council Meetings Item continued. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 14. Proposed Charter Amendment on Planning Appeal Authority in Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Item continued. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Discussion of Charter Amendment re Council Composition and Districts Council Member Kleinberg said the matter required extreme care, much thought, tremendous public input, and was a situation that the Council should not rush to make decisions about. She was concerned about diversity in all levels of government and would support the item if it could be coupled with a diversity project. She was also concerned that with a reduction in the Council, parts of the community would lack representation. MOTION TO TABLE: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar, to table the item until the fall. MOTION TO TABLE PASSED 6-3, Beecham, Fazzino, Lytle “no.” Council Member Fazzino hoped when the item was returned to the Council that it could discuss the item as part of a broader restructuring reform discussion and that the Council would also discuss districts, designated seats, and election of the mayor. The City did not have a significant Charter reform effort within the community since 1950. He believed the Council should initiate a Charter reform effort and look at the whole issue of governance in the community.
07/17/00 90- 331
Council Member Mossar agreed with Council Member Fazzino. She supported forming an ad hoc committee appointed by the Mayor to frame the issues, describe what the problems were, what some of the solutions would be, and develop a process for public input. 16. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Burch spoke regarding the tree on Lowell Avenue and asked what could be done immediately to save the redwood trees. Mayor Kniss asked the City Manager to research the process for trees. Mayor Kniss announced there would be a meeting on transportation issues the week of July 24, 2000, and on Wednesday, July 19, 2000, there would be a joint meeting on the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor 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.
07/17/00 90- 332