HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-20 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 20, 2000
1. Grant by Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library............152
2. Resolution 80...............................................152
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................153
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................153
3. Proposed Gas Rate Increase – Refer to Finance Committee.....154
4. Approval of an Amendment to the 2000-01 Municipal Fee Schedule to Amend Golf Course Senior and Golf Course General Fees – Refer to Finance Committee...........................154
5. Ordinance 4666 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Accept a $59,000 Grant From the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $59,000 for the Community Services Department in Support of New Additions to Library Collections”................................................154
6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract C8103195 Between the City of Palo Alto and Dillingham Associates Increasing the Total Compensation by $66,015 for Professional Services to Develop Construction Designs and Provide Construction Management for Phase One of the Mitchell Park Improvement Plan.............154
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Tom Barron, a Consulting Engineer, in the Amount of $90,000 per year, for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Evaluation for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.................................154
9. Request for Authority to Participate in the Federal Communications Commission Notice of Inquiry Proceeding......154
10. Conference with Labor Negotiator............................155
11. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation.........155
11/20/00 91:150
11A. (Old Item No. 14) First Floor Retail and Neighborhood Serving Uses................................................155
11B. (Old Item No. 15) Council Members Fazzino and Ojakian re Downtown Ground Floor Retail Zones..........................170
12. Public Hearing: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a request by Hayes Group on behalf of Fred Barez for Site and Design review of a three-story building and site improvements to establish a mixed use project on irregularly-shaped lot zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN), located at 4131 El Camino Real. (File Nos. 00-D-2, 00-V-4, 00-EIA-6)...................................................170
13. The Policy and Services Committee re Streamlining Council Procedures and Facilitating Policy Dialogue.................171
16A. (Old Item No.8) Final Map for the Los Trancos Woods Road Subdivision, Located Southwest of 500 Los Trancos Woods Road (FILE NUMBER 00-PM-3): Application by Mark Thomas & Company, on Behalf of Property Owner John Arrillaga, for City Council Approval of a Final Map.....................................172
16. Council Discussion of Alternatives for Filling Council Vacancy.....................................................173
17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..............175
ADJOURNMENT......................................................175
FINAL ADJOURNMENT................................................175
11/20/00 91:151
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Beecham SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Grant by Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library Shelby Valentine, President, Friends of the Palo Alto Library Board, 3116 Stelling Drive, presented the Council with a check in the amount of $59,000 which the Friends Board unanimously voted to grant to the City to be added to the Library Services Budget. During the prior several years, the Friends gave the City $420,794. The funds were the result of many hours of work by dedicated volunteers who cared about libraries. The time spent in tasks that aided and supported the libraries, as well as the hands on fundraising with book sales, was the concerted effort of a large team of Palo Alto library lovers and patrons. Library services were vital to all segments of a community and offered an opportunity for all patrons to learn. No action required. 2. Resolution 8015 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Paul Johnston for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Utilities Advisory Commission” MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent. Mayor Kniss presented the resolution to Mr. Johnston. She was pleased and honored to have had Mr. Johnston serve as a member of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). Paul Johnston thanked the Council for the honor and for providing him with the opportunity to serve on the UAC. Former Director of Utilities Ed Mrizek and the current Director of Utilities John Ulrich were thanked. One of the most striking accomplishments was the conversion as a result of Assembly Bill (AB 1890) to a deregulated utility environment in which a reserve was built up to allow Palo Alto commercial customers the option to receive power from different sources. The electric utility was extremely healthy, and the Calaveras Reserve was a testament to that. The reserve might be greater than what was actually needed. A new
11/20/00 91:152
venture embarked on by the UAC was the fiber optic ring. He asked the Council to draw its attention to the status of the water utility, noting a unique opportunity for the City to act with other cities to get control and governance associated with where cities received water. Some needed changes in the governance process for the utilities were needed. In an energy-deregulated environment, greater latitude was necessary for the utility department to have with regard to pricing within strict bounds set by the Council. The City had rate increase issues from the gas utility due to increased gas prices, but it was important in moving forward that those be allowed to occur within specified bounds because the City competed with other electric utilities that did not need to go through as many steps in the process. He thanked the Council, staff and UAC members. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T.J. Watt apologized to persons who could have been harmed by her conceptualizations. Richard Dodds, 77 Santa Rosa Avenue, Pacifica, spoke regarding PERS rebate and SEIU petition. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto politics. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding CMR City Manager approval. Robert Pritchett, 1957 Cooley Avenue, East Palo Alto, spoke regarding death penalty moratorium. Aram B. James, 832 Los Robles Avenue, spoke regarding the death penalty abolishment. Edie Keating spoke regarding Stanford land use plan. Jennifer Hall, 2700 Ash Street, #110, spoke regarding Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) buses. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the minutes of September 18 and October 10, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent. CONSENT CALENDAR
11/20/00 91:153
Council Member Mossar requested Item No. 8 be removed from the Consent Calendar, noting the receipt of a set of issues from Herb Borock which she would like addressed. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to move Item No. 8 to the end of the agenda to become Item No. 16A. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 – 7 and 9. 3. Proposed Gas Rate Increase – Refer to Finance Committee 4. Approval of an Amendment to the 2000-01 Municipal Fee Schedule to Amend Golf Course Senior and Golf Course General Fees – Refer to Finance Committee 5. Ordinance 4666 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Accept a $59,000 Grant From the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $59,000 for the Community Services Department in Support of New Additions to Library Collections” 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract C8103195 Between the City of Palo Alto and Dillingham Associates Increasing the Total Compensation by $66,015 for Professional Services to Develop Construction Designs and Provide Construction Management for Phase One of the Mitchell Park Improvement Plan 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Tom Barron, a Consulting Engineer, in the Amount of $90,000 per year, for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Evaluation for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 9. Request for Authority to Participate in the Federal Communications Commission Notice of Inquiry Proceeding MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3 - 7, and 9, Beecham absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Lytle, to move Item Nos. 14 and 15 forward to become Item Nos. 11A and 11B. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
11/20/00 91:154
BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL Item No. 13 re Streamlining Council Procedures and Facilitating Policy Dialogue was removed from the agenda to return at another Council meeting. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 10. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designee pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Nick Marinaro, and Charles Perl) Represented Employees Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 11. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Services Employees International Union, Local 715 (RE: Danton Camm), SCC#CV773215; Danton v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV772633 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11A. (Old Item No. 14) First Floor Retail and Neighborhood Serving Uses City Manager Frank Benest said neighborhood-serving retail was critical to the quality of life in Palo Alto. Local neighborhood-serving businesses were being lost due to high rents, non-conforming uses of retail property, lack of available space, and city zoning that allows offices to use commercial zones. Staff recommended two amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and outreach to affected property owners. He asked the Council to direct Planning staff to meet with affected property owners. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said there was a difference between neighborhood-serving uses and retail. Retail was one of many neighborhood-serving uses for property. Other uses included lodging, personal care, restaurants, and neighborhood business services such as catering and furniture repair. Staff proposed changes to the neighborhood commercial zones and the ground floor and retail combining districts and recommended prohibiting office uses for ground-floor space in neighborhood commercial zones. When an existing non-conforming user, such as an office, vacated a ground-floor space, it should be replaced with a conforming neighborhood-serving user. That requirement would replace the existing condition that allowed a space vacated by a non-conforming user to be occupied by another non-conforming user. The same requirement should be applied to the Downtown ground
11/20/00 91:155
floor combining district and the California Avenue retail-combining district. The first Neighborhood Commercial (CN) district to be changed was bounded by Park Boulevard on the north Cambridge Avenue on the south, and Sherman and Sheraton Avenues on the east and west. The second district was the area between El Camino Way and El Camino Real, between West Charleston Road and Dinah’s Court. The third district was between Villa Vera Avenue and El Dorado Avenue. The Midtown shopping district and Charleston Center would be affected. No changes were recommended for Alma or Edgewood Plazas because they were regulated by planned community zones. Downtown neighborhood commercial and service commercial zones would not be affected, nor would South of Forest Area (SOFA) phase II area. Mayor Kniss asked about the part of the PAMC that defined retail uses. Ms. Grote said there was a definition in the existing zoning ordinance that defined the types of uses that could be considered retail. The definition gave examples of uses but not a comprehensive set of examples. Mayor Kniss asked when that definition was written. Ms. Grote said she thought the definition was reviewed in the late 1980s. Mayor Kniss asked whether the definition needed updating. Ms. Grote said Planning staff included the definition in a list that needed updating. Council Member Mossar asked why staff recommended the new requirement only for the ground-floor combining district (GF district) of Downtown. Ms. Grote said expanding zoning districts would be more appropriately handled with a zoning ordinance update. Economic Resources Planning Manager Susan Arpan said staff planned to conduct five property-owner outreach meetings in the affected areas. In December, staff would reach out to El Camino Real, Charleston and Midtown, and in January staff would reach out to the Downtown and California Avenue areas. In February staff would propose an interim ordinance to Council. If passed, the ordinance would be in effect for no longer than 45 days. Before the ordinance expired, and after public notice and hearing, another interim ordinance could be adopted for 22 months and 15 days. By the time the second interim ordinance expired, the zoning ordinance would be updated.
11/20/00 91:156
Council Member Burch said there was a difference between the property owners and the tenants occupying the space. The tenants were concerned with the loss of retail space. Ms. Arpan said that was true in most cases. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there was a way to preserve the variety of small businesses. For example, the building that housed Lee’s Comics and several other small businesses was being vacated. If those businesses were replaced by a larger, neighborhood-serving store such as a Gap store, the requirement would be fulfilled, but the neighborhood would lose the variety that came from having several small businesses in the building. She asked whether the City could put a square footage cap on permitted uses. Establishing a business over that square footage cap would require a conditional use permit. Ms. Grote said that was a possibility. Council Member Kleinberg said, for example, the City could require retail users over 5,000 square feet to have a conditional use permit. Ms. Grote said that was a possibility. There would need to be discussion on whether that requirement would keep the businesses locally owned. Council Member Kleinberg said the City could not control local ownership. She wanted protection for small stores that led to variety in retail business areas. Ms. Grote said that was possible. Council Member Kleinberg asked what square footages would be appropriate. Ms. Grote said staff should address that question in the following weeks. Council Member Kleinberg said the definition of neighborhood-serving businesses was vague. She asked whether a doctor’s office was a neighborhood-serving business, even though people made appointments and drove significant distances to get there. Ms. Grote said medical office uses were limited to 5,000 square feet. Requiring a use permit for medical offices was a possibility. The user would have to justify the office’s designation as neighborhood serving. Council Member Kleinberg clarified they were only talking about ground-floor activities.
11/20/00 91:157
Ms. Grote said the recommendation in the staff report (CMR:424:00) was that office uses, medical or otherwise, be prohibited on the ground floor. An alternative would be to require a use permit for offices on the ground floor. Each permit would require a public hearing and consideration by the Council. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there was additional protection between that meeting and February, when the interim ordinance would be effected. Ms. Grote said no. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether an interim ordinance protecting the El Camino Real, Charleston and Midtown areas could be addressed at the first Council meeting in January 2001, since the outreach to those areas was in December 2000. Those areas were most in jeopardy of being lost. Mr. Benest said scheduling the outreach meetings was an issue, and staff was busy. He said staff could try to prepare the proposal by mid-January, 2001. Council Member Kleinberg said some retailers were in jeopardy of disappearing by January 14, 2001. Council Member Lytle said financial institutions were the primary nonconforming users in the Downtown GF district. The buildings they occupied were not built to accommodate ground-floor retail uses. There would have to be significant building modifications if those buildings were to conform to staff’s proposed requirement. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Lytle said there were some neighborhood-serving businesses in Downtown outside of the GF district, which meant they were outside the areas affected by staff’s recommendation. They could be lost before the City modified the zoning ordinance. She asked how much time was necessary to survey those areas to discover which businesses needed interim protection. Ms. Grote said surveying those areas would make the outreach take longer. Staff estimated it would take approximately 220 hours to do outreach in the areas already identified. Looking at additional areas would probably double that time. Staff’s ability to conduct other business would be impacted. Council Member Lytle asked whether staff could include nearby property owners in the outreach meetings in the areas already identified. Town and Country Village and businesses outside the
11/20/00 91:158
Downtown GF district could be included in outreach to Downtown businesses. Ms. Grote said Town and Country Village was in a Community Commercial (CC) zone. Changes to that zone would affect Stanford Shopping Center. Council Member Lytle said she wanted to apply the requirement to certain areas within the zone. Ms. Grote said there was a quota in Town and Country Village that allowed only 15 percent of the space to be used for offices. Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, thanked Council Member Kleinberg and City Manager Benest for their immediate attention to the neighborhood retail crisis. She appreciated the time Council Members Kleinberg, Burch, and Beecham invested attending meetings of the citywide group formed to urge protection of the neighborhood-serving businesses. The response from the Council and staff to community needs was gratifying. Property owners might disagree with retaining zoning protection for several reasons, mostly economic. Land use in Palo Alto was governed by a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) whose chapter on Land Use and Community Design provided a constitution for the development of public and private property. The Comp Plan provided “the context in which local planning decisions are made, promising that neighborhoods will be strengthened and enhanced using under Policy B-1 a variety of planning and regulatory tools to ensure that business change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods.” Susan Arpan and Lisa Grote prepared a report that articulated that vision and offered an action plan for achieving it. The policy implications cited in the report formed a solid foundation for decisive action by the Council. An interim ordinance would answer the needs of citizens frustrated that the Zoning Ordinance for too long allowed business and financial offices to invade Midtown and other neighborhood centers, violating both the language and intent of the City’s land use constitution. Palo Alto’s neighborhoods would be strengthened and enhanced by the recommendations before the Council. Zoning tools called for by the Comp Plan were recommended to enhance the vitality of the neighborhood shopping areas and to protect them from economic forces that would spell their demise. She questioned whether a three-month delay in adopting an interim ordinance to protect ground floor retail would invite a flood of retail-to-office conversions. She urged the Council to unanimously approve the staff recommendations and move decisively to adopt an interim ordinance preserving the neighborhood centers as the shopping areas they were intended to be. Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, urged the Council’s unanimous support of the interim ordinance for ground floor retail only in neighborhood centers with nonconforming uses resorting to
11/20/00 91:159
conforming, with change of occupancy or ownership. The subject was brought forth by the residents and reflected the vision of the community. The prior week’s Council meeting addressed the “common” in community, the common-good. The responsibility of the Council was to protect the greater good. The goals of the Midtown Residents Association included retail variety, convenience, and pedestrian friendly. Council Member Kleinberg was thanked for her leadership in response to the citywide, resident-generated issue, and the staff, particularly Susan Arpan, were thanked. With the implementation of the ordinance, it was time to create a robust data base of properties, listing each businesses’ information on ownership, renters, phones, faxes, websites, number of employees, etc. She was concerned that the staff report (CMR:424:00) indicated staff might be reassigned from the project. She challenged the Council to find a creative way that the residential project not be impacted. Herbert Fischgrund, 750 Torreta Court, urged the Council to preserve the number and variety of retail services. Many senior citizens in the Midtown area did not have cars and needed to walk to stores. He was concerned that the Larry Wells Hair Salon would close and would be replaced by a dry cleaning plant. That was a dramatic loss of neighborhood-serving retail. The interim ordinance was fine, but an immediate solution was needed. The impact to the landowners should be minimal. Charles Osborne, 255 Edlee Avenue, thanked City Manager Frank Benest, Planning and Community Environment Director Ed Gawf, Lisa Grote, Susan Arpan, and Council Members Kleinberg and Burch for their concern in seeking a solution to preserve neighborhood-serving retail businesses. Lee Hester, Lee’s Comics, 3783 El Camino Real, was surprised by the outpouring of residents regarding his business dilemma. He hoped his landlord would give him adequate time to find a new location and that something could be done before other small retailers were lost. Jay Chesavage, 3833 Middlefield Road, created the website on the “Save Midtown.” The idea of the website was to document specific things that happened. He referred to a map that showed areas of conversions to office use. The Knowhere Store was a high tech training center that drew people from outside areas who were interested in computer training. Another conversion was the University Real Estate Investment which was formerly a video store. The Coldwell Banker Office moved into space formerly occupied by a shoe store. He reviewed the recommendations in the staff report (CMR:424:00) which appeared to adequately cover the area he was concerned with. His concern was that the lost businesses would be replaced by businesses with five-year to ten--year leases. The use of offices in the area was inconsistent with the layout. The striking feature was the wide, picture
11/20/00 91:160
windows covered by blinds. The small businesses should compete with small businesses rather than office uses. Cary Rosenzweig, 3349 Saint Michael Court, encouraged the Council’s support for protecting ground floor retail. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, thanked the staff and the Council for bringing the issue forward. The staff report (CMR:424:00) was good but not sufficient. He recommended the Council direct staff to return within two weeks with an emergency ordinance which applied the existing ground floor retail use to all the CN zones in the City and also required that any change from office use or nonconforming use must be to retail only. The ordinance would be in effect for 90 days during which time the outreach to the landlords would be accomplished. The community environment needed to be preserved. Ronna Devencenzi, President, California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA), 2600 El Camino Real, #100, said CAADA’s motto was “Small Town Shopping in the Heart of the City,” and CAADA wanted to preserve the identity of the area as a pedestrian-friendly, approachable, bustling business environment with a balanced mix of businesses. Action needed to be taken to preserve the area. The community would pay too high a price directly and indirectly if the identity were lost. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, said California Avenue and the stretch of El Camino between Page Mill Road and Stanford was the neighborhood retail area. She agreed with the previous speakers’ support of the issue. Council Member Kleinberg raised the issue about allowing neighborhood-serving offices in the area, and the answer came back from Ms. Grote about the alternative of using a conditional use permit approach. Her concern was that the conditional use permit route, while providing flexibility, required neighborhoods to have permanent vigilance about every application that came through. She would not want to defend every use in the California Avenue area. Council Members Kleinberg and Lytle talked about the fact that there were some areas that appeared to be attached to certain districts but were not part of those. The CN zone on El Camino Real near her neighborhood consisted of some CC zones that were not included but logically seemed to fit. One piece of the CC zone did not have the neighborhood overlay along El Camino Real on the side of California Avenue toward Page Mill Road. She was concerned about the benefit of leaving that area out. The issue of local retail needed serious attention. Carroll Harrington, Co-chair of the Future of Single Family Homes Neighborhood Advisory Group, 830 Melville Avenue, supported statements made regarding the reassigning of the Planning Department staff to the project. Finalizing the process was critical, and the project needed to continue to be high priority
11/20/00 91:161
for the Planning Staff and the volunteer advisory group. The group was close to bringing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. She urged the Council to define exactly what the problem was, noting a good start was in the staff report (CMR:424:00). Working with affected businesses and residents was critical, and developing an ordinance with clear criteria was important. Jim Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, said the circumstances surrounding retail preservation were similar to those surrounding the historic ordinance. In that policy decision, the Council wanted to address historic preservation and single-family residential character. The development of an ordinance that tried to address both problems turned out to be unsatisfactory to the community. Three trends needed to be recognized: 1) office development was becoming unacceptable in Palo Alto; 2) neighborhoods were experiencing a degradation of the retail character by virtue of office rents; and 3) pedestrian scale of two to three stories in a mixed-use environment was sought. The convergence of those three trends felt like an emergency. He owned 15 properties on El Camino Real. Staff had not contacted him, though he had information to contribute. He had 6 undeveloped properties in the CN zone, and many should be zoned retail. He rented one property to a retail user for ten years at $0.50 per square foot, which was less than the property taxes and the insurance, in an effort to preserve the property as retail. He rented the adjacent 5,000 square foot property to an office user. He could not finance the buildings if that office user became a different user. Vice Mayor Eakins asked Mr. Baer for further information on the Downtown changeover. Mr. Baer said in 1984 when the moratorium was put in place and in 1986 when the GF zone was put in place, the moratorium specifically provided that projects with Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval were exempt from the application of the moratorium. The Garden Court Hotel was one of the buildings that was able to develop during that moratorium period. The GF retail increased in the greater Downtown by 150,000 feet. Retail increased since 1986, and the GF offices decreased during that time. The Downtown only had two ground floor office uses that were not financial service. He participated on a quarterly basis in an economic outreach committee that found that Palo Alto had the most positive sales tax grasp from neighboring communities. He disagreed with staff’s proposed solution. The desire of the Council to better the Midtown retail environment was admirable, but the City did not have a retail problem. The problems were neighborhood specific, involving walkability, scale, character, and urban design. The City did not have the capacity for 4.5 million feet of retail. Creating a Midtown zone was appropriate.
11/20/00 91:162
Creating 5 or 6 blocks of retail on El Camino Real was appropriate, but not 4 miles. Council Member Burch asked what Mr. Baer would do if he sat on the Council and felt a responsibility to keep stores from closing. Mr. Baer said the process should be slowed down to look at appropriate applications for CN or Overlay GF retail zones. An ordinance that froze things while the Zoning Ordinance went forward was important. Council Member Burch asked whether a 90-day freeze was acceptable to Mr. Baer. Mr. Baer said the freeze would have a longer duration and was acceptable if staff were willing to gather empirical data and do outreach with people knowledgeable about development. A provision in the interim ordinance was needed to allow exceptions to the ordinance during its existence. The Council should not assume that the provisions in the interim ordinance were the best long-term solution. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, agreed with Ms. Graves. She said there were many buildings in College Terrace that contained office users as opposed to neighborhood-serving users. She opposed allowing non-conforming users to be replaced by other non-conforming users. She wanted the 2200 block of El Camino Real either rezoned to CN or that the ground-floor restriction on California Avenue be expanded to include that block. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, agreed with the previous residential speakers. He provided background on 2700 and 2799 Middlefield Road, noting that Feshbach Brothers, an investment company, occupied the 4,999 square feet previously occupied by Sherba’s. The property should revert back to retail use when Feshback Brothers vacated. Mayor Kniss said staff asked Council for direction on drafting an interim ordinance after providing community outreach. Prior to doing so, the Council needed to define the word “retail”. Council Member Mossar asked how a business would revert to retail after a change in ownership of the business. Ms. Grote said the City needed to begin tracking ownership. Mr. Benest said the Finance Committee directed staff to consider creating a business registry program. Council Member Mossar clarified that staff would bring an interim ordinance before the Council in February 2001. The ordinance
11/20/00 91:163
would expire in March 2001. She asked Ms. Arpan to clarify what would happen when the ordinance expired. Ms. Arpan said staff intended to ask Council to renew the ordinance. The 45-day interim ordinance gave staff more time to examine the issue. The second interim ordinance would be in effect for 22 months and 15 days, during which time the zoning ordinance would be updated. Council Member Mossar said the interim ordinances could have unintended consequences that the City would experience for over 22 months. Ms. Arpan said the time period could be shorter. Council Member Mossar asked about the dry cleaning plant previously mentioned. Ms. Arpan said Gate Cleaners planned to take over the Larry Well’s space. Part of Gate Cleaner’s operation was a dry cleaning plant. Council Member Mossar said the most polluting businesses in the Bay Area were dry cleaners. A dry cleaning plant was industrial and inappropriate for the area into which it was planning to move. With regard to Downtown, she heard residents complain about the high-end businesses in Downtown, which had little use to some residents. She asked whether there were ways to control the type of businesses that would move into other areas of the City under the ordinance. Ms. Arpan said the issue was offices moving into retail space. By doing so they inflated the cost of renting the space, making it difficult for retailers to rent. Council Member Mossar said she was concerned about the interim ordinance. The Council did not know the correct solution to the problem. Controlling the economy with zoning was difficult. The interim ordinance might not produce the intended result. The zoning in Downtown did not produce a retail environment that residents wanted. Preserving retail was important, but the City should be cautious about how much it expanded its services and control. She disagreed with the recommendation in front of the Council that evening. Council Member Kleinberg said balancing property rights with the needs of residents for neighborhood retail was difficult. Preserving neighborhood retail was important and required immediate action. The issue was important to residents. She asked staff whether it was possible to create an interim ordinance earlier than February 2001 for some areas of the City.
11/20/00 91:164
Mr. Benest said that was possible. Council Member Kleinberg referred to Mr. Baer’s comment about freezing development. She asked what the Council would be freezing and how that would be done. Mr. Benest said he did not understand Mr. Baer’s comment. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there were two aspects to a freeze. The first aspect was urgency. Staff decided to spend time examining the problem of losing retailers instead of creating an ordinance that would take effect immediately. The second aspect of a freeze was stopping a process. He could find a way to stop almost any process. He agreed with members of the public who said problem identification was a better first step than a freeze. Council Member Kleinberg clarified that the Council directed staff to return with a timely and effective ordinance. She was concerned that the proposed process would take too long. Mr. Calonne supported using the State Law Interim Zoning process, which would mean a public hearing would be held in 45 days with no second reading of the ordinance. The State Law Interim Zoning process had checkpoints and public hearing opportunities built in, along with a firm, statutory deadline. The staff recommendation included a structure for managing the interim aspect. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to return to the Council on January 8, 2001, with an interim ordinance to be effective immediately upon adoption that would apply to the Midtown District and Charleston Plaza District, with definitions of what “retail” and “neighborhood serving” mean and which would accomplish staff’s recommendations as follows: 1) Allow only retail and other neighborhood serving uses on the ground floor of buildings in neighborhood commercial (CN) areas of the Midtown Shopping District, and Charleston Center. New office uses would be prohibited on the ground floor. In addition, the nonconforming use section of the PAMC would be modified for the CN District so that when existing nonconforming office uses vacate a building or change ownership, they could only be replaced with permitted neighborhood-serving uses; and 2) Require nonconforming ground floor office uses in the Ground Floor (GF) and Retail (R) combining districts that change ownership or vacate a site to be replaced with permitted neighborhood-serving uses.
11/20/00 91:165
Mayor Kniss pointed out that the Council reorganization was scheduled for January 8 and suggested the item return to the Council on January 16. Council Member Mossar observed that Palo Alto’s custom was to have a “coronation” the first week of January, but it was not necessary to have a “coronation” and do no business. Most cities did business on the night they chose their new officers. Doing business at the first meeting in January would serve the City well. Mayor Kniss said the first meeting in January was when the Council honored people who were elected to office and visiting dignitaries. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the date from January 8 to January 16, 2001. Council Member Kleinberg appreciated the participation of the citizens of Palo Alto. The Council worked well with the residents. The nine policies outlined in the staff recommendations were supported by the suggested ordinance. The ordinance provided protection because it was not as expansive as others were. She emphasized the Council was not anti-offices but wanted to emphasize the value retail businesses and the importance of retail business to the financial underpinning of the community as well as serving the needs of the residents of the various shopping centers. Council Member Fazzino was enthusiastic about the motion because the ground floor retail zone in the Downtown area had a significant impact during the prior 15 years. He agreed with Council Member Mossar that some of the businesses were high-end, but that was better than an over-abundance of office workers on ground floor on University Avenue. The definition of “retail” could be changed. The ground floor retail had a significant impact in the 1980s and could continue to have an impact. He was pleased with the grassroots effort and supported the motion because it made the effort manageable. The crisis situations in several neighborhood shopping areas needed to be addressed. The Downtown area, California Avenue area, and parts of El Camino Real were more complicated than the shopping areas, and the Downtown and California Avenue areas had more protection. Moving ahead in addressing the neighborhood shopping centers during the next months was important. He emphasized the Council was not proposing an emergency ordinance. Reaching out to the owners and residents in a careful, reasoned discussion of the issue was essential. Vice Mayor Eakins said the Council could not manage all situations but could manage some of the effect of the economy through land use. She hoped there would be a 45-day check-in
11/20/00 91:166
after January 16 and enough time for good outreach to property owners as well as concerned residents and business owners. Council Member Lytle said the Council heard from residents, the Chamber of Commerce, property owners, and developers, and the Council needed to address the loss of retail in the community to office conversion. Council Member Burch suggested a possible refinement. He was familiar with Charleston Plaza, which was not under the same stress as Midtown. One owner controlled Charleston Plaza. He suggested eliminating Charleston Plaza in order to focus on Midtown and the area along El Camino Real and leave Charleston Plaza for a second go-around. Ms. Grote said including both Charleston Plaza and Midtown was not a problem. Mayor Kniss said the 1984-86 changes made an enormous difference in the Downtown. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to direct staff to return with a recommendation of the value of an ordinance and a timing for the ordinance which would require use permits in the CN neighborhood commercial zone for the use of commercial space which is larger than a recommended square footage which would be designed to protect small businesses. Council Member Lytle asked whether the 5,000 square foot number could be left open for staff to return with a different recommendation. Council Member Kleinberg agreed. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the motion would come back as part of the interim ordinance or would be better left to the zoning update. Council Member Kleinberg said she would not want to wait another two years for a zoning update. She wanted to protect the variety of uses, not necessarily locally owned. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Member Kleinberg would allow staff to come back and let the Council know what made sense in the interim. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the time period for staff to bring back a recommendation. Ms. Grote recommended a follow-up ordinance in the second phase.
11/20/00 91:167
Mr. Benest suggested staff would give its opinion in the second phase of the usefulness and difficulty. The Council could then decide what to do. Council Member Mossar would support the motion if it stated the problem and asked for a staff recommendation as to how to proceed. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Mossar “no,” Beecham absent. Council Member Lytle asked whether the motion could be amended to say “for staff to return with that type of solution or an alternative solution that would preserve smaller shops and a variety of shops to get at the pedestrian-scale issue. She agreed with Council Mossar’s concern that staff might come up with a better way. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to reconsider the motion. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to direct staff to return to Council when it brings back the interim ordinance in January 2001, with a recommendation and analysis of the value of an ordinance which would require use permits in the CN neighborhood commercial use zone for use of commercial space including alternatives such as square footage limitations and/or other recommended solutions in order to preserve and enhance a variety of retail uses in neighborhood centers. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to direct staff to develop a recommendation for an interim ordinance after conducting property owner outreach meetings which would potentially amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to apply to University Avenue, California Avenue, and the El Camino Real commercial areas as specified in the staff recommendation as follows: 1) Allow only retail and other neighborhood serving uses on the ground floor of buildings in neighborhood commercial (CN) areas. New office uses would be prohibited on the ground floor. In addition, the non-conforming use section of the PAMC would be modified so that when existing non-conforming office uses vacate a building or change ownership, they could only be replaced with permitted neighborhood-serving uses.
11/20/00 91:168
2) Require non-conforming ground floor office uses in the ground floor (GF) and Retail (R) combining districts that change ownership or vacate a site to be replace with permitted neighborhood-serving uses. Council Member Mossar said the staff report (CMR:424:00) included an acknowledgement that to do the work in the suggested timeframe might impinge upon the residential work. She was not willing to change the work schedule for the ongoing residential work. Ms. Grote said three items were listed as potentially being affected by the interim ordinance work: single-family residential, SOFA-Phase 2, and the South El Camino Real land use and circulation study. Council Member Mossar would not support the motion. There was no reason for the Council to overreach its understanding at the current meeting by including every possible district in the City. Changing the schedules would be a mistake. Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about the turnover in retail spaces such as Lee’s Comics. She asked staff what type of balancing could be achieved by bringing something back in the near future. Ms. Grote said it would be possible to bring something back after February. Planning staff had some assistance from the Economic Resources Management team. Council Member Lytle asked whether the motion included the recommendations from the staff report (CMR:424:00) and would boundary changes beyond what was discussed at the current meeting be considered to capture existing areas that currently had retail ground floor. Council Member Kleinberg said her motion covered the El Camino Real properties that were discussed. Vice Mayor Eakins supported the motion with the staff explanation that other projects such as South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) and residential would still be accomplished. Council Member Lytle asked that staff re-look at boundaries beyond what the current CN District included and only capture areas that currently had those uses. Council Member Kleinberg said she would like to keep the motion to the narrow area and leave the expanded discussion to the zoning update exercise. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Mossar “no,” Beecham, Fazzino absent.
11/20/00 91:169
11B. (Old Item No. 15) Council Members Fazzino and Ojakian re Downtown Ground Floor Retail Zones No action taken. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Public Hearing: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a request by Hayes Group on behalf of Fred Barez for Site and Design review of a three-story building and site improvements to establish a mixed use project on irregularly-shaped lot zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN), located at 4131 El Camino Real. (File Nos. 00-D-2, 00-V-4, 00-EIA-6) Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, said the site was a paved, vacant parcel of approximately 20,000 square feet, used primarily for parking of vehicles. The property faced El Camino Real which was commercially oriented and consisted of a mixed-use character, and the back area which was smaller and more pedestrian friendly. The owner’s goals were to: 1) create a quality mixed-use project intended for long-term ownership, consisting of residential for rent townhouses, office space, commercial and retail uses to integrate the neighborhood; 2) work within the basic CN zoning which had an RM-15 overlay for the residential component and develop a project of a size and scale that served the neighborhood and responded to comments that previously were received; and 3) work with the neighborhood associations. The concept was to divide the building into distinct public and private spaces. Because the plan was mixed-use, the residential component’s importance was to feel separate yet contiguous to the commercial component. Acknowledging the two distinct phases of El Camino Real and El Camino Way was important. Detailed circulation diagrams were done to find out what type of cross-site circulation existed, and pedestrian patterns were analyzed. The commercial building along El Camino Real was larger scale while the rear building block consisted of more residential type of character. The residential apartments were lifted above the grade to a private terrace level to provide a sense of community for the residents who lived there while overlooking El Camino Way and looking into the public plaza between the two building blocks along El Camino Real. Materials consisted of concrete, cement plaster, aluminum frame window systems with clear glass, and metal paneled components to fill the areas where there were no windows. The residential side of the building had varied color of the cement plaster, the roof forms were changed to be more residential in character, and the windows were operable. The site included underground parking and approximately ten parking spaces at grade. New street trees would be implemented along El Camino Real. The project was consistent with the General Plan policies for revitalizing the area. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation
11/20/00 91:170
Commission gave unanimous approval of the project. Council Member Burch asked whether the windows were double-paned. Mr. Hayes said the windows in the residential units were double-glazed. Council Member Burch asked whether there was an alternative to the three palm trees. Mr. Hayes said he would address the tree issue with his landscape architect. They felt the palm trees were more sculptural than providing foliage. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said page 1 of the staff report (CMR:421:00) mentioned a total of 40 parking spaces, and page 18 mentioned 46 spaces. The area along El Camino Real was quite congested and overparking on the street occurred. Adequate parking was important. The ten surface parking spaces would serve the people using the retail stores. Parking on the surface needed to be clearly identified, accessible, and well marked, and the access from El Camino Real needed to be clear. Ten spaces on the surface might not be adequate. The staff report indicated the property to the north was a two-story restaurant, but the restaurant closed in July and was to become a dot.com office. The palm trees did not fit in with the area and should be replaced with something more neighborhood-friendly. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the staff, Planning and Transportation Commission, and Architectural Review Board recommendations to approve: 1) the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project for the property located at 4131 El Camino Real (Attachment 2 of CMR:421:00), and 2) the proposed project, based upon Site and Design findings and Variance findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 3 of CMR:421:00). Council Member Ojakian said the project was a vast improvement over what was in the area. He thanked the applicant for submitting a project that should improve an area that needed improvements for many years. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 13. The Policy and Services Committee re Streamlining Council Procedures and Facilitating Policy Dialogue
11/20/00 91:171
16A. (Old Item No.8) Final Map for the Los Trancos Woods Road Subdivision, Located Southwest of 500 Los Trancos Woods Road (FILE NUMBER 00-PM-3): Application by Mark Thomas & Company, on Behalf of Property Owner John Arrillaga, for City Council Approval of a Final Map Council Member Mossar asked staff to clarify the issues raised in Mr. Borock’s memorandum to reassure the Council that approval of the subdivision map was appropriate. Chief Building Official Grote said Mr. Borock raised issues pertaining to conditions of approval. Several conditions of approval were on the Tentative Map, and some changed in minor ways between approval of the Tentative Map and the evening’s meeting. One change was that a retaining wall was to be constructed of cement that looked like wood. Another change was in condition timing such that the conditions, especially regarding landscaping and trees, could be implemented during construction rather than prior to the approval of the final map. The Planning Arborist worked closely with the applicant and his arborist to save additional existing trees. A concern was that the conditions reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were not reviewed by the Town of Portola Valley. The Town of Portola Valley was noticed and invited to the ARB’s public hearing, and significant comments were not made. The applicant paid for performance bonds and signed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement regarding the landscaping and other tree conditions, so there was an assurance that the conditions of approval would be met during construction. Mr. Borock raised concerns about the fact the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing agreement was negotiated by the Director of Planning and Community Environment at the time, and who was currently representing Mr. Arrillaga in his Final Map agreement. There was no prohibition in the person’s contract to prevent that from occurring, and there was nothing that would legally challenge the work that had been done to date. Staff recommended the Final Map be approved. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the Final Map. City Attorney Calonne said the Council’s obligation was ministerial, and the only discretion the Council had was to determine whether the conditions of approval were satisfied. The Tentative Map was approved over some objections. His suggestion to those who were in opposition in the past was twofold: the Council’s official duty was to determine whether the conditions satisfied the Tentative Map and, if so, the Council was enjoined to approve it. Council Members might choose not to participate, but substantive objections to the nature of the subdivision or issues that were decided at the Tentative Map were not appropriate at the current time.
11/20/00 91:172
MOTION PASSED 6-0-1, Ojakian “abstaining,” Beecham, Fazzino absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 16. Council Discussion of Alternatives for Filling Council Vacancy Vice Mayor Eakins reported that the prior week Council Members asked for a summary of options to fill a Council vacancy. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council had the power to make an appointment to fill a Council vacancy, which had to occur within 60 days of the vacancy. The Council also had the power to call a special election. Given the State Law time lines that the County followed, the option for election would be in June 2001. The Palo Alto Charter allowed the Council 60 days to make a decision to appoint or call a special election. If the full 60 days were used, the Council would be unable to meet all the State Law time lines in time for a June election. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Ojakian, to appoint to fill the Council vacancy, advertise, and direct the City Clerk to prepare the appointment process for the vacancy when it occurs. Council Member Burch said appointing someone was the most efficient and effective way to fill the vacancy. A special election would be a needless way for the City to spend money. Council Member Ojakian said historically, the Council appointed people when vacancies occurred. Council Member Mossar said the public’s opportunity to choose a Council Member was important but, given the timing for an election, the most efficient way to choose a candidate was for the Council to appoint and give the community an opportunity to think about who might want to run. Her goal was for the public to run an election to fill the seat according to the public’s needs. Council Member Lytle said the timing was awkward. She did not agree that appointment was the best way to select a replacement for the vacancy. The Council did not want to give the impression that it would pick “like-thinking” individuals through appointment. She was concerned about suggestions in a newspaper article that the Council select a Council Member who was recently term limited. Several interested people approached her. The selection process would tend to weed out applicants rather than give the Council a broad spectrum. The process would be tough for the Council.
11/20/00 91:173
Council Member Kleinberg said everyone would prefer an election. She asked what the cost would be for a special election. City Clerk Donna Rogers said she contacted the Santa Clara County Election Office. The election would be a “stand-alone” election and would cost approximately $100,000. Council Member Kleinberg said she could not support spending $100,000 for an election. She hoped the appointment could be made quickly and that the process would inspire people to come forward. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council needed to make the decision once the vacancy occurred. The formal call to make the appointment would be held at the first meeting after the vacancy occurred. Council Member Ojakian asked what preliminary work could be done in advance of the actual formal resignation. City Manager Frank Benest said the City Clerk could prepare procedures and timelines. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether everyone who applied had to be interviewed. Mr. Calonne said in 1996, the Council began the application process in advance of the vacancy, which was acceptable as long as the process extended after the vacancy occurred. The Council could come up with whatever mechanism it chose to reduce the number of people to be interviewed. The forms included in the Council packet were a good approach but not the only approach. If the Council wanted to get into more detail, a subcommittee could be assigned. Council Member Kleinberg clarified Mr. Calonne mentioned two strategies: 1) open applications immediately but guarantee that it not close prior to the vacancy; and 2) appoint a committee. Mr. Calonne said his memo of November 16, 2000, included the 1996 approach that had application materials that asked qualification questions. There were other forms of materials the Council could use. Vice Mayor Eakins said the 1996 process had a compressed timeline. The interviews were held on a Saturday, and the appointment was made on the following Monday. Council Member Mossar recalled the application process was during the holidays, and the deadline for applications was in early January.
11/20/00 91:174
Council Member Ojakian suggested a timeline could be set. Interested residents could be referred to the City Clerk for applications. Vice Mayor Eakins said the City Attorney’s Report of November 27, 1996, spelled out the process. The pro forma forms were attached. She suggested Council Members review the material and consider whether or not the Council wanted to appoint a subcommittee. Council Member Lytle did not want a subcommittee appointed. If an election was not held, she wanted all the Council Members involved in the decision. Council Member Mossar had no problem using the materials included in the City Attorney’s report of November 16, 2000. Council Member Burch agreed. MOTION PASSED 5-1, Lytle “no,” Beecham, Fazzino, Kniss absent. 17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar announced that winter Spare the Air time had “kicked off”. Council Member Ojakian mentioned that CDBG process has started and is a worthwhile process. He thanked the City Attorney for the residential rental report. Vice Mayor Eakins commented she received a thank you letter from Sharon Fender regarding the wood burning issue the Council had voted on, and she also received an anonymous letter about a Redwood tree. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to a Closed Session. City Attorney Ariel Calonne announced that Item No. 11 would not be heard that evening. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations and as described in Agenda Item No. 10. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 10. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
11/20/00 91:175
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.
11/20/00 91:176