Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-16 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting January 16, 2001 1. Interview of Public Art Commission Candidates...............280 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m..................280 Regular Meeting January 16, 2001 1. Resolution 8028 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bill Turnell Upon His Retirement”........................................281 2. Oral Presentation on the Winter Preparedness Plan...........281 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................283 APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................283 3. Approval of International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF, Local 1319) Memorandum of Agreement and Compensation Plan........................................................283 4. Resolution 8031 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Donating Surplus Fire Equipment to Oaxaca, Mexico”.....................................................283 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, acceptance of the external auditor’s report from Maze & Associates regarding of the City’s Financial Statements and Management Letter as contained within the Memorandum on Internal Control Structure for the Year Ended June 20, 2000.............................................................283 6. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, approval to close the 1999-00 Budget and its authorization to reappropriate 1999-00 funds into the 2000-01 Budget, 01/16/01 91-278 close completed Capital Improvement Projects and transfer remaining balances to the appropriate reserves..............284 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Darcy and Harty Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $1,575,642 for Project 11 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Program Projects 37812 and 37815....................................284 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and J.J.R. Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $539,263 for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Phase 2 Sidewalk Replacement Project..............284 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS.........................284 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider adoption of interim zoning regulations to preserve and encourage neighborhood-serving uses in ground floor locations in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District at Charleston Center (portions of the 3900 block of Middlefield Road) and the Midtown District (portions of the 2600, 2700, and 2800 blocks of Middlefield Road and the 700 block of Colorado Avenue)............................................284 10. Planning and Transportation recommendation re Neighborhood Calming Program.............................................309 11. Mayor Eakins and Council Member Mossar re Shoreline Noise Monitoring..................................................310 12. Mayor Eakins and Council Members Beecham and Burch (Council/CAO Ad Hoc Committee) re Contract for Interim Audit Services....................................................310 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..............310 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in memory of Bill Hewlett, Senator Alan Cranston, Ralph White, and Frank Seeley......................................................311 01/16/01 91-279 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:40 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle (arrived at 6:50 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interview of Public Art Commission Candidates No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. 01/16/01 91-280 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution 8028 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bill Turnell Upon His Retirement” Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy said the Library Staff had an advantage because of their opportunity to meet and know the people of Palo Alto. She often heard compliments from the public about Bill Turnell. Mr. Turnell worked the past several years in the College Terrace Library. The neighborhood had a bond with the Library staff. Mr. Turnell helped people locate technical materials, plans, and directions before there was internet access. His sense of humor would be missed. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. 2. Oral Presentation on the Winter Preparedness Plan City Manager Frank Benest said in December 1999, the City Manager appointed a ten-member Blue Ribbon Task Force to review, further develop and make recommendations regarding the City’s Emergency Management Plan. The Task Force was established to receive input directly from community members regarding non-infrastructure issues of preparedness, emergency response, and community self help. The goal was to complement other efforts, local and regional, and address disaster responses in Palo Alto. The Task Force was selected from community volunteers to provide expertise and community input with a specific emphasis on addressing issues from a community perspective. The Task Force met on a monthly basis for over a year and completed the first addendum to the Emergency Management Plan focusing on winter preparedness. He approved the Task Force’s recommendations, and implementation was nearly complete. 01/16/01 91-281 Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva said the Task Force spent many hours developing recommendations. Key elements included creating and maintaining a database of volunteer response resources and making registration available on the website, creating a means of linking persons with disabilities to volunteer response resources, sending flyers in the October utilities bills, issuing press releases to provide the public with tips and contacts for storm preparation, and keeping current information including creek monitoring information, on the emergency website, Cable TV Channel 16 and radio. The emergency website was accessible at all times. By October of every year, creeks and storm drains were to be cleared by the Public Works Department and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to prevent stream clogging. By November 2000, an automatic sandbagger was purchased. Other key elements included providing public education to train residents to help themselves and their neighbors during the first 72 hours following a disaster. The Palo Alto Neighborhood Disaster Activities Program (PANDA) trained more than 80 community members to help during disasters. The PANDA members received training in first aid, fire suppression, mechanical advantage, and other areas of training. The weather station was in place in Foothills Park and measured wind temperature, wind speed, and rainfall by the hour. Procedures were employed to notify residents and businesses of potential flooding via a community alerting system and radio broadcasts. The emergency notification systems included the emergency alerting system which utilized local media channels and Cable TV interrupt. The teleminder community alerting system was upgraded to have 48 phone lines and was capable of calling 1,000 phone numbers in 30 minutes. A plan for contingency call routing to handle the potentially high volume of calls the City might receive in the event of further flooding would be implemented during the remodel of the Emergency Operations Center located on Level A of the City Hall building. Additional key elements included restocking sandbag stations, patroling neighborhoods, providing evacuation notification and assistance, providing security into evacuated areas, establishing shelter assistance, maintaining road safety, coordinating with other jurisdictions, coordinating post-incident debriefings and counseling, delivering door-to-door information to notify residents about flooding information, scheduling outreach meetings for recovery, providing space for small business administration, and hiring consultants to help residents with the Federal flood assistance application process. City staff would participate in a variety of meetings with the public to disseminate information and hear people’s comments and concerns about flooding. Members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force were thanked and presented with Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Benest said no other City in California had a winter preparedness program as aggressive as Palo Alto’s. He commended the Task Force and Ruben Grijalva for his leadership. 01/16/01 91-282 No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding more useless cruelty from Paddy’s piddlecops. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the tennis project. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the Minutes of November 13, 20, and 27, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 – 8. 3. Approval of International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF, Local 1319) Memorandum of Agreement and Compensation Plan Resolution 8029 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” Resolution 8030 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Fire Department Personnel and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 7730, 7772, 7839, 7901, 7964, and 7989” 4. Resolution 8031 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Donating Surplus Fire Equipment to Oaxaca, Mexico” 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, acceptance of the external auditor’s report from Maze & Associates regarding of the City’s Financial Statements and Management Letter as contained within the Memorandum on Internal Control Structure for the Year Ended June 20, 2000. 6. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, approval to close the 1999-00 Budget and its authorization 01/16/01 91-283 to reappropriate 1999-00 funds into the 2000-01 Budget, close completed Capital Improvement Projects and transfer remaining balances to the appropriate reserves. Ordinance 4674 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Closing of the Budget for Fiscal Year 1999-00” 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Darcy and Harty Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $1,575,642 for Project 11 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Program Projects 37812 and 37815 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and J.J.R. Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $539,263 for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Phase 2 Sidewalk Replacement Project Council Member Burch noted that the late Joe Carleton was important in making the donation of surplus fire equipment to Oaxaca, Mexico possible. City Manager Frank Benest highlighted Item No. 5 noting it was the annual external audit prepared by a third party certified public accountant (CPA). For the tenth year in a decade, the City of Palo Alto received an unqualified clean audit. He commended the Administrative Services Department. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Eakins announced that Item No. 10 incorrectly stated that the public testimony was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider adoption of interim zoning regulations to preserve and encourage neighborhood-serving uses in ground floor locations in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District at Charleston Center (portions of the 3900 block of Middlefield Road) and the Midtown District (portions of the 2600, 2700, and 2800 blocks of Middlefield Road and the 700 block of Colorado Avenue). City Manager Frank Benest said neighborhoods were the essential building blocks of the community, and many residents, as well as the Chamber of Commerce and City officials, were concerned with preserving neighborhood-serving retail and other neighborhood-serving uses. The issue of preserving neighborhood-serving areas was a key issue in the Comprehensive Plan. In response to a 01/16/01 91-284 request by the City Council to study the issue, staff presented on November 20, 2000, a recommendation to the City Council that staff develop an interim ordinance that protected retail businesses in certain neighborhood retail areas. Those areas included Midtown, Charleston Avenue, Downtown, California Avenue, and the El Camino Real commercial neighborhood districts. Staff was directed to return to the Council to recommend an interim ordinance focused solely on Midtown and Charleston Center. Property and business owner outreach meetings were held on December 13, 2000 for Charleston and December 14, 2000 for Midtown. The comments and input provided from the meetings were integrated into the recommendations for staff in the staff report (CMR:107:01). An interim ordinance for the remaining business districts would be recommended to the City Council on April 2, 2001. The business and property owner meetings for those areas were scheduled on January 23, 2001 for El Camino, January 26, 2001 for the Downtown, and January 30, 2001 for California Avenue. The City’s efforts were to keep the recommendations as simple as possible while acknowledging that the upcoming Zoning Ordinance update would have the opportunity to reflect in more detail on the nuances of the Zoning Ordinance; for instance, square footage limitations, size restrictions, and vacancy rates. The main goal of the recommendation to the Council was the desire to protect retail space in the areas in which high office rents and encroachment threatened the viability of local retail businesses. He thanked Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote, (Economic Resources Planning Manager) Susan Arpan, and Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth for their work in developing the ordinance and meeting with neighborhood groups, property owners, and merchants. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the issue was first discussed by the Council on November 20, 2000. Staff did well in a short period of time. If the Council endorsed the plan at the present meeting, the interim ordinance would be brought back to the Council within 45 days for a second approval or continuation. That would allow additional time to meet with property owners at Charleston Center and the Midtown area. The goals were to 1) retain existing retail personal services; 2) preserve the concept of neighborhood-serving uses; and 3) expand the existing retail personal service neighborhood-serving base that existed. Staff proposed to take the existing Charleston Center which was owned by one person and develop a concept of retaining 85 percent of the center as non-office use which allowed the remaining 15 percent to be used for offices. The 15 percent translated into a 7,500-square-foot cap for office square footage. Of that amount, 2,500 square feet could be used by individual office uses. If an office needed more than 2,500 square feet, a conditional use permit (CUP) was required. Offices with a CUP would be restricted to neighborhood-serving offices. Within the Zoning Ordinance, the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District had three office uses: medical, professional, and a 01/16/01 91-285 general business. Staff proposed focusing on the medical office and the professional office as neighborhood-serving, and taking the travel and insurance uses out of the general business and including those as neighborhood-serving. In Midtown, the consideration was for ground floor only. Retail, personal services, daycare, restaurants, and neighborhood business services were allowed to occur on the ground floor without City review of the use. All new offices needed to be neighborhood-serving and required a CUP with three exceptions: medical offices if replaced with another medical office, a change of ownership only, and offices on side streets. All of the uses presently allowed within the zoning district would continue to be allowed without any review except for offices. Offices were defined as neighborhood-serving, and any change on a side street from a retail use to an office use or an office use to another office use required a CUP. Staff spent considerable time discussing neighborhood-serving uses because that was part of the purpose of the ordinance change. Staff defined neighborhood-serving uses as uses primarily designed to serve individual customers, and households rather than businesses. Neighborhood-serving offices included medical, professional, and general business offices. General business offices included travel and insurance that were demonstrated to be neighborhood-serving. Real estate, property management, title, and investment companies would not be recommended under the new ordinance. Staff added a special finding for ground floor conditional use permits. Part of the review process was intended to determine whether or not the proposed use would serve the neighborhood. The additional findings for ground floor CUPs included whether it would be neighborhood-serving, conducted in a manner that would enhance and strengthen Charleston Center or Midtown as a neighborhood resource, and diminish the retail strength of the center. Council Member Mossar asked staff to verify the outreach process. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said two property owner and business owner outreach meetings had been held. The first meeting was with the Charleston Center. Comments were received from the business owners about the different types of approaches staff could take. The business owners were comfortable with the square footage maximum and felt that it would contribute to the vitality of the Center by allowing certain types of offices. The Midtown meeting raised the concern that a percentage might not work since the area was not managed by one property manager. Staff discussed the modified “main street” approach where Middlefield Road would be treated differently than the side streets. Council Member Mossar asked how the reaction of the business and property owners in both areas would be characterized. 01/16/01 91-286 Ms. Grote said there was more concern in Midtown about possible long-term ramifications and cautious support of using CUPs to allow some existing offices to continue to be in office use, especially on the side street. Council Member Mossar said newspaper articles mentioned “preventing mom and pop operators from being squeezed out.” She asked whether the ordinance gave the City the ability to determine who owned the business. Ms. Grote said the ordinance would allow staff to make a determination as to whether or not the business was neighborhood-serving. Staff would look at customer base and ask for clarification of customer base. Design and pedestrian orientation would be reviewed. Council Member Mossar asked whether Starbucks Coffee would qualify as neighborhood-serving retail under the proposal. Ms. Grote said Starbucks would qualify as neighborhood-serving retail. Council Member Mossar asked about dry cleaners. Ms. Grote said dry cleaners would be part of a neighborhood-serving use. Mr. Gawf said there were two descriptions of dry cleaners: the traditional pickup and drop off facility, and the drop off, pick up, and cleaning of clothing on the site. Staff did not attempt to change the current zoning code in the area as retail related to non-office use. Council Member Mossar said the ordinance did not address the “mom and pop” issue but addressed the types of uses that would be allowed. Council Member Lytle understood the Council’s conceptual direction to emphasize the preservation of existing ground floor retail more than what was proposed. She understood the Council asked to have the ground floor retail restrictions applied to the areas to as much retail as currently existed. She assumed existing buildings in the Midtown area would be grandfathered in. The amount of retail in Midtown was not a sufficient amount for the center of gravity needed to make the Midtown a thriving retail area. The ground floor overlay could be used to apply what was left of retail in Midtown in the interim period and grandfather in the non-retail uses that had established rights which would be difficult to convert. 01/16/01 91-287 Mr. Benest said staff made it a point to obtain input from property owners, and staff was given the goal of preserving neighborhood-serving uses. Staff wanted to be sensitive to the needs of property owners and tried to integrate the input without undercutting the goal of the Council. The determination would be up to the Council. Mr. Gawf said staff tried to recognize that some offices were neighborhood-serving and were valuable to a neighborhood center, such as insurance or medical offices. Council Member Lytle asked where staff thought the economic pressure would be and whether the ground floor uses in the Midtown area would be pushed toward office use. Mr. Gawf said staff tried to anticipate what might occur. There was always pressure to go for the higher economic return, but there were countervailing forces related to the fact that a review was required. Council Member Beecham asked why the ordinance was urgent, and why it required a finding that it be necessary for the preservation of public health and safety. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said Council’s choice was to do an interim ordinance under Government Code Section 65858 which was a process set up specifically to deal with zoning changes or do the interim ordinance under a standard zoning ordinance which involved a different set of hearing processes such as a Planning and Transportation Commission hearing followed by a Council hearing. Section 65858 was designed to be used when a new type of zoning was considered and changes were likely to occur during consideration of the zoning that would frustrate carrying out the type of changes the Council had in mind to make. Council Member Beecham asked whether the rationale was the background for a determination that the Council’s current action was necessary for the preservation of public health and safety. Ms. Furth said the ordinance was within the range of ordinances that courts found to be a suitable use of zoning power and was based on the beliefs stated in the Comprehensive Plan that the neighborhood commercial centers were important and significant amounts of spaces were under pressure or were converted to uses that were not serving the neighborhood. Council Member Beecham asked about the 45-day validity. Ms. Furth said if the Council decided to adopt an interim measure, it would stay in effect for 45 days and then expire 01/16/01 91-288 unless another hearing was held. The interim ordinance could be extended to no longer than two years. Council Member Beecham asked whether another public hearing would be necessary in 45 days if the Council chose to extend the ordinance. Ms. Furth said that was correct. Council Member Beecham said that action would allow anyone who might not have had the time to come to the present hearing to attend the next hearing. Ms. Furth said the ordinance could be modified at the second hearing. Council Member Beecham clarified similar ordinances designed to protect retail use had vacancy clauses. Ms. Furth said the current ordinance included CUPs which required a finding that the proposed use was neighborhood-serving and strengthened the Center. If the Council believed at the present that there was little retail and vacancy, the CUP findings would be difficult to make. Ms. Grote said the vacancy question was something staff wanted to explore further during the time the interim ordinance was in place and return with more developed recommendations. Council Member Beecham said page three of the staff report (CMR:107:01) defined neighborhood-serving uses as “uses of moderate size.” He asked whether that was inclusive of grocery and drug stores. Ms. Grote said moderate size would not extend to 15,000 or 20,000 square feet which were the upper limits for grocery stores and retail offices in a neighborhood center. Staff developed the definition to be used when considering a CUP for uses of 2,500 to 5,000 square feet. Ms. Furth said the CN district had a complicated history, but the CN district as it presently existed was for moderate sized uses. It anticipated that retail uses would be larger than office uses. Council Member Beecham said the definition also mentioned “generally, pedestrian-oriented in design.” He expected that most customers drove to the shopping areas. Ms. Grote said staff wanted to emphasize pedestrian-oriented designs which meant people got out of their cars and the Center had a street presence, was open, and had a pedestrian scale. 01/16/01 91-289 Council Member Beecham asked how the Nowhere Store fell into the definitions. Ms. Grote said the Nowhere Store came into the City as a retail use on the ground floor. The owners of the Nowhere Store maintained that items were for sale in the store and it was retail in nature. The upper level included offices and training facilities which were allowed to remain. The Nowhere Store would meet a retail definition. Council Member Beecham said page six of the staff report (CMR:107:01) mentioned applicants would be required to provide written verification that the use met the definition of neighborhood-serving. He questioned how one would provide written verification. Ms. Grote said the written verification would be part of a project description and added that staff currently requested project descriptions of all applicants in which they explained the nature of the physical changes they wanted to make and the nature of the business. The business owner would provide written documentation, and staff would take the business owner’s word that the business was described accurately. Ms. Furth said the ordinance was built on the framework of categories that the City had. Types such as architecture and design engineering were defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) as professional offices. Mr. Gawf said the definition of professional office is, “a use providing professional or consulting services in the fields of law, architecture, design, engineering, accounting, and similar professions.” Council Member Beecham said even though law, architecture, and accounting were allowed, they must be neighborhood-serving. He asked how that was shown. For example, local architects served people throughout the community but were not likely to be focused around their office. He asked whether that would be neighborhood-serving. Ms. Grote said the business could be neighborhood-serving. Staff would rely on a written description that would address the definition of neighborhood-serving as it was proposed by staff. The business would show that most people traveled to them rather than the business traveling offsite, the business was pedestrian-oriented in design, and the business served households rather than businesses. 01/16/01 91-290 Council Member Beecham said neighborhood-serving in the staff report (CMR:107:01) was defined as “a professional office ... that is neighborhood-serving.” He suggested staff might want to find another way to define “neighborhood-serving.” Referring to the map in the staff report (CMR:107:01), he noted there were offices at 711, 719, and 721 Colorado Avenue that were not designed for retail and had not been retail. He asked how appropriate their inclusion was. Mr. Gawf said there were several approaches that could be taken. Included in the staff report (CMR:107:01) was the approach that identified side streets and tried to move those into a category that allowed change of uses to occur. The option of exempting the businesses was looked at. The exemption cleaned up the ordinance because the same regulations could be used for the entire area. Mayor Eakins said Council Member Beecham asked whether neighborhood-serving was to be interpreted as extremely literal, and Ms. Grote said the term was general and did not need to be narrowly interpreted to mean neighborhood-serving. Ms. Grote emphasized that neighborhood office uses would be evaluated as a part of a CUP. Retail was considered neighborhood-serving. Offices would be focused on. An important element was that the office uses served individuals and households. Ms. Furth said the distinction about the nature of the customers or clients was the way retail was presently defined as such goods and services intended for individual consumers and households rather than businesses that provided services and goods to other businesses. Council Member Burch clarified the offices on the north side of Colorado Avenue would be grandfathered. Mr. Gawf said that was a policy decision on the part of the Council. Staff discussed the proposal before the Council that said the change could be from office to office as long as it was neighborhood-serving. Rather than grandfathering, office buildings that continued to be office buildings in the CN zone would be exempt. Ms. Furth said one of the things the Council discussed with staff in November 2000 was the concern that some spaces that were suitable for retail were currently used for office purposes. With regard to those, the ordinance as presented did encourage the conversion of those spaces back to retail uses. Economic Resources Planning Manager, Susan Arpan said one dilemma faced by staff involved the buildings where retail was lost, such as the old Sherba’s building where the video store was, and 01/16/01 91-291 Harmony Bakery. Staff wanted to revert those buildings back to retail. Council Member Burch said a property owner commented to him that to the extent the ordinance was applicable to a multi-tenant office building, it should not be applied on a suite-by-suite basis but only to the building as a whole. Mr. Gawf said the concept depended upon the building configuration. A partial conversion would be difficult, but it would depend on the building. Council Member Kleinberg questioned, with respect to the definition of neighborhood-servings uses, she questioned whether nonprofit, health, social, and human services were discussed. Ms. Grote said the Zoning Ordinance did not include a definition for that type of office, although they could be neighborhood-serving. Staff had not differentiated in the past between for profit and not for profit use, and would not recommend that at the current time. Some service provisions could be considered neighborhood-serving, whether or not for profit. Council Member Kleinberg said her understanding was that nonprofit was not included. Ms. Grote was unsure whether the issue was presented very often. Council Member Kleinberg asked why medical offices were always considered to be neighborhood-serving. Ms. Grote said that had to do with the way medical offices were currently defined, for instance, medical services on a personal basis was an individually oriented definition. Doctors providing services to individuals would be neighborhood-serving. Ms. Furth said medical offices, as defined in the code, would not permit the administrative headquarters of Kaiser Hospital but would allow offices where medical services were provided. Staff wanted to minimize City review of as many businesses as possible. Council Member Kleinberg understood that veterinary care was regulated with respect to kennels and boarding, internal and external. She clarified the definition of kennels and boarding did not exclude the temporary care of an animal that required constant veterinary care. Ms. Furth said the definition excluded straight boarding and kennel facilities from CN districts at the current time. The particular exclusions that were specific to the Charleston Center 01/16/01 91-292 and Midtown were prohibitions on single-family and multi-family residential. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the definition excluded a straight kennel not connected to veterinary care. Ms. Grote said that was correct. The definition included veterinary services, animal hospitals, and overnight or short-term boarding ancillary to veterinary care. Council Member Kleinberg asked what percentage of existing offices would, under the ordinance, be impacted in the change the Council might vote for. Ms. Grote said 90 percent of the offices in the Charleston Center would be neighborhood-serving, and several of the office in Midtown would not be considered neighborhood-serving. Staff had not asked property owners for verification as to the nature of their businesses. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff had specifically contacted the business owners. Ms. Grote said comments were received from some of the business owners. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the business owners had ample opportunity to offer input. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified the ordinance allowed for the ability to have second floor office space in Midtown. Ms. Grote said that was correct. The second floor was not regulated in terms of office use or space. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the possibility of having second floor office space in Midtown. Ms. Grote said there were some existing two-story buildings where office space could be located. Adding stories to existing buildings would be difficult because of the required parking. Additional office proposals would require an onsite parking requirement. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what the ideal mix would be between neighborhood-serving retail and office. Ms. Arpan said the mix worked well in the Downtown with upper story office uses and the ground floor restaurants and retail 01/16/01 91-293 establishments. Midtown was more difficult. She heard that some of the office uses contributed greatly to the economic base of the restaurants and other businesses. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was a way to make a determination of the correct mix. Ms. Arpan’s comment was accurate that retail would feed partly off of the available office space. The unprecedented demand on space by offices was addressed in the Charleston Center ordinance but was not as visible in the Midtown ordinance. He asked whether there were requests from people looking at different office operations who wanted to relocate to the Midtown area. Ms. Arpan said there was a strong reaction from residents in the Midtown area because the office vacancy rate was less than one percent in the City. Requests were often received from people looking for office space in areas with nearby restaurants and retail. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the number of Council Members required to vote on the interim ordinance. Ms. Furth stated the ordinance required four-fifths of the votes of the Council Members present, which meant six Council Members. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open. Steve Schaper, 3001 El Camino Real, said he owned a car dealership on a street zoned CS and flanked by two areas zoned CN. He and his neighboring business owners were concerned about the encroachment of offices that made retail business not practical. The Council was congratulated on addressing the issue. He wanted to make sure the business owners in his area were included since many of the business owners had leases that would expire within the following two years. Conversations with landlords were not encouraging. Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, concurred with Mr. Schaper and congratulated the Council for its courage in addressing the issue. Interim ordinances had a bad name but had some advantages in that the City had a chance for a dry run at something that would ultimately become an important part of the land use policy. Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, urged the Council to support the ordinance. The ordinance reflected key elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and was a good first step in the update process. The Planning Department staff was commended for its responsiveness in listening to both the residents and business owners. The certification for neighborhood-serving businesses was a good first, needed step on the way to business 01/16/01 91-294 licenses and a robust data registry for Palo Alto businesses. The ordinance would meet the goals stated by Mr. Gawf, preserve the retail, protect the offices, and allow for moving forward. With the changing economy, the ordinance might unintentionally favor medical offices moving to Midtown. The ordinance for Midtown should be amended to read exactly like the ordinance for the Charleston Center, “Medical offices not exceeding 2,500 square feet in total floor office.” That change would protect Midtown from becoming a haven for medical offices. The ordinance would protect neighborhood retail while protecting current office space. She looked forward to working with staff to create and adopt a similar ordinance for other districts identified by the Council and staff. Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, said in asking staff to prepare an interim Zoning Ordinance to preserve and encourage ground floor retail uses in neighborhood centers, the Council took an important step in implementing Palo Alto’s Comp Plan. She urged unanimous support for both ordinances and looked forward to similar protections for identified areas along El Camino Real in the California Avenue District and other areas similarly at risk for inappropriate creation of offices. She asked that the Larry Wells, Victoria Emmons building and the entire ground floor of the Nowhere building be added to the ground floor Midtown spaces protected for retail rather than being excluded from protections from the proposed ordinance. She asked that medical offices be included as a conditional use rather than a permitted use. Mark Kousnetz, 2475 South Court, said he had 2750 Middlefield Road, the former Harmony Bakery, in escrow and was due to close on the property at the end of the month and had no idea about those issues. As a Midtown resident, he would like to see more retail services. He intended to expand the former Harmony Bakery building to accommodate a second floor office use while maintaining the ground floor as a retail use. He had discussions with a successful, local restaurant operator about the building. If the restaurant use did not prevail and no other retail use stepped up, other options might be considered. If the Council passed the ordinance, he asked that he be given the ability to respond if his initial plan did not work. Council Member Burch asked Mr. Kousnetz if the second floor was already leased. Mr. Kousnetz said no, he had not received any calls from retail users. Council Member Mossar asked if the ordinance were in place, whether the purchase price would have been different. Mr. Kousnetz said that was correct. 01/16/01 91-295 Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, stated that the Comp Plan called for years prior. Returning to the Comp Plan was essential. The Comp Plan defined neighborhood centers as “small retail centers with a primary trade limited to the immediate area and may include offices oriented toward the everyday needs of surrounding residents.” The draft ordinance used the term, “neighborhood-serving offices” which would include “professional offices, travel agencies and insurance agencies.” The term “professional offices” would arguably include lawyers, architects, builders, business and financial consultants. Those services, including insurance agencies, did not appear to him to serve the everyday needs of the surrounding residents. A permitted use was a personal service which might be defined to include barber shops, beauty salons, family counselors, and medical services. He suggested incorporating in the ordinance the Comp Plan wording as it applied to neighborhood centers; for instance, neighborhood-serving offices were those serving the everyday residents. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said the neighborhood centers were important. She looked at the uses in Midtown and noticed eight offices of considerable size. Retail needed to be strengthened. The CUP did not feel like protection. If the offices in Midtown were allowed to continue, it should be inherent in the ordinance that they not be permitted to expand. She urged the Council to adopt the ordinance. Ron Wolf, 745 San Carlos Court, said the Midtown Residents Association was formed five or six years prior in response to a drastic loss of retail in the area. The residents’ concern was where to shop. The former Sherba store was converted into a non-neighborhood oriented use. As the shopping center achieved a certain percentage of office use, the retail vitality would disappear. The ordinance was not perfect but was a good first step. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said the original request was to protect retail. He saw the ordinance as a protection of office uses and would support CUP’s. CUP’s would not prevent current neighborhood-serving uses from being phased out. He proposed inserting in Section 18.410.50, “In the Midtown Shopping District, all new uses after January 16, 2001, fronting on Middlefield Road with less than 3,000 square feet, must be permitted retail uses as defined in Section 18.410 (a) through (k).” That would retain the retail. Council Member Beecham clarified that CUP’s required public hearings. Ms. Grote said that was correct. 01/16/01 91-296 Jon Schink, 170 Lowell Avenue, said the Council should overturn the staff recommendation because the proposed ordinance needed more planning process. He did not believe the Council could make the findings necessary to conclude there was a threat to the health of the community. The people who had worked to revitalize Midtown wanted strong retail. Looking back over the previous four of five years, Midtown would not be where it was at the current time with the ordinance. The proposed ordinance contained good ideas but he felt the staff, Planning and Transportation Commission, and community could work further to develop a better ordinance. The ordinance was complicated and deserved more public process. Mike Cobb, 3863 Dixon Place, requested a modification to the ordinance. He noted that the general office buildings at 711, 719, and 721 Colorado Avenue were specifically configured for multi-tenant general office use and were not appropriate for any type of retail use. Those buildings were not part of the problem and were not associated with the conversion of retail to office uses. The small offices in part of the buildings provided a healthy mix of professional offices that served the retail businesses. The people in the buildings created minimal traffic impact. The side street locations of the buildings made them weak candidates for retail use. Preserving the buildings in their current uses was consistent with the goals and objectives the City tried to achieve. All the issues raised by property owners were not addressed. He recommended grandfathering out the few buildings that were long standing office uses. Council Member Mossar asked about the broad issues that Mr. Cobb felt were not addressed. Mr. Cobb said six years prior, there was a 30 percent vacancy rate. During that time, Midtown was fixed up. The economy could change quickly. There were businesses in Midtown, such as the bicycle shop, that he was surprised to see succeed. Stores such as Longs Drugs provided the items that small retailers used to provide in neighborhood shopping centers. He asked the Council to take the three buildings on Colorado Avenue and separate them out from the ordinance. Russ White, 181 Bryant Street, said since 1998 he was part of the management team at the Nowhere Store and had seen and participated in the rejuvenation of Midtown. Some businesses succeeded while others failed. His concern was that the ordinance might place economic constraints on Midtown’s continued growth. A legal situation should not be constructed that would make it impossible to adjust to future economic forces. Referring to materials presented to the Council by Herb Borock, he said Mr. Borock stated “It appears that 14,000 square feet is being used 01/16/01 91-297 as office space at the Nowhere Store.” To the contrary, the downstairs showroom was mostly retail space with office spaces located on the second floor. To his knowledge, the Nowhere store was the only book store/toy store/furniture store in the Midtown area. Neighborhood-serving businesses such as video stores, activity centers, banks, bakeries, auto parts, and environmental advocates closed due to economic conditions and lack of patronage by the surrounding community. During the following 45-day period, the ordinance would affect only two or three locations. The ordinance during the following two years would have little impact on existing businesses until long-term leases expired or economic conditions caused businesses in Midtown to fail. He urged the Council to continue to allow neighborhoods to vote economically on what they considered to be neighborhood-serving. Vice Mayor Ojakian said many businesses tracked their customers base on zip code and asked whether Mr. White had an idea where his customer base was from. Mr. White said little customer base was from Midtown. Patronage of the neighborhood community was essential. Tracking customer base was difficult to estimate, but it was significantly Palo Alto customers. Alex Edelstein, 355 Santa Rita Avenue, said the point made about the rapid flow and difficulty in planning of economic trends needed to be counter-balanced by the fact that the retail versus office debate in Palo Alto went on for decades. His father told him in the 1970s that retail would not bring in as much money as office space. He encouraged the Council to act on the street level retail because the natural response of a landlord was to lock down the best possible long-term lease. He encouraged the Council to look at the professional services designation. The text of the ordinance said existing offices could only be replaced with another office. He would be cautious about subleasing and long-term leases where one store was asked by the landlord to sublease to another business. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was concerned about page three of both ordinances. She suggested an amendment that would combine items five and six on page three, “medical offices, neighborhood-serving offices will not exceed 2,500 square feet” both in Midtown and Charleston. The large, 5,000-square-foot offices created the current problem in Midtown, whether the offices were real estate, professional offices, or medical offices. The definition in the Palo Alto Municipal Code of medical services included services related to medical research, medical testing, and analysis. Those were not businesses that served patients or customers. On page five of both ordinances, under “Certification of New Neighborhood-serving Office Uses,” she suggested “other than a medical office” should be deleted and 01/16/01 91-298 review should be required to make sure the medical office was actually serving patients rather than conducting research or testing. A problem existed with the Midtown area ordinance’s reference to other frontages that specifically allowed the office buildings that removed parking or had no parking. The public parking lot was filled with employee cars and conflicted with customer parking. The offices needed to address the problem they created in Midtown. Herb Borock was concerned with page six of the Midtown ordinance which referred to the definition of “neighborhood-serving uses,” and he felt staff might interpret that to mean the first sentence could be used as a criterion and eliminate the second or vice-versa. His idea was to put an “and” between the two sentences and delete the first few words of the second sentence. Mayor Eakins announced that speaker cards would no longer be accepted. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to continue agenda Item No. 10 to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. RECESS: 9:55 p.m to 10:05 p.m. Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, said interim ordinances had pitfalls. The buildings on Colorado Avenue had always been offices and were built to conform to the current Zoning Ordinance at the time. His business was neighborhood-serving because most of his clients were Palo Alto residents. He asked the Council to exempt the buildings on Colorado Avenue because they had always been offices. Neighborhood-serving businesses opened up many issues regarding what was appropriate. At the meeting with homeowners and business owners with staff, it was pointed out that the Midtown Bicycle shop left because it was not selling enough bikes. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, supported the concept and goals of the interim ordinance; however, she was confused about the grandfathering that was proposed. Page four of the ordinance read, “Uses lawfully existing on January 16, 2001, may be continued as nonconforming uses but may only be replaced with uses permitted or conditionally permitted under this Section 18.41.037.” She could not find a definition for “use” in the Zoning Ordinance but found a definition for “change in use.” The definition appeared to make distinctions among broad uses. Her concern was if the grandfathering remained and was included in any future interim ordinance the Council might consider, the long-term ordinance should address grandfathering. There were other areas that were not being considered for the interim ordinance protection. 01/16/01 91-299 Lee I. Lippert, 580 Hawthorne Avenue, said parking in the Midtown area was a challenge and even more of a challenge when the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed architectural projects, specifically landscaping, and figured out how to include enough parking. Longs Drugs and Starbucks Coffee were approved but did not have adequate parking. Attention was drawn to commercial businesses, specifically ground floor offices, that turned their back on the community. That could be illustrated with a few projects along University Avenue such as the Wells Fargo Bank Private Client Services which had its windows closed up. He pleaded with the Council to not allow any ground floor office spaces. He suggested classifying “mom and pop” operations as owner-occupied businesses of a certain prescribed number of square feet. Licensed professionals had built in neighborhood services through pro bono services to the community. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, said there was an office on Ramona Street, open by appointment, in a retail district. If that situation satisfied the definition of “retail,” she questioned what findings would be sought in an applicant’s demonstration of meeting retail standards. She asked whether a certain percentage of the floor space had to be dedicated to items that were for sale. She asked whether there was a cap on offices in either of the subject areas. Comments were made that the ordinance might not solve the problem of losing retail to offices. One way to address that might be to put a cap on the amount of any kind of office in either of the subject areas to allow for a healthy mix of retail and office. Retail stores and City sales taxes were being lost. A working group was working on the Coordinated Area Plan for the South of Forest Area (SOFA) which some people felt safeguarded the area from loss of retail and services. That was not the case. Many people on the working group were frustrated by the process because of many conversions from retail into office. She hoped the Council would do something to protect the purpose of a coordinated area process for that area as well. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to adopt the staff recommendation with two changes to the Midtown Ordinance: 1) to delete the buildings located at 711, 719, and 721 Colorado Avenue; and 2) to modify the definition of medical offices as it pertains to Midtown so they shall not exceed 2,500 square feet. Recommendations for Charleston Center Ground Floor Spaces: 1) Limit office use to 7,500 square feet (approximately 15 percent) of the total built square footage of the Center; 01/16/01 91-300 2) Limit an individual office to 2,500 square feet per office space, with allowances for larger offices with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), but in no event allow the total percentage of office space to exceed 7,500 square feet; 3) Limit office use to medical offices and neighborhood- serving professional offices, travel agencies and insurance agencies; 4) Clarify the existing prohibition on residential uses, and maintain all other permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the district as currently regulated; and 5) Require new ground floor office use to verify that it is neighborhood-serving. Recommendations for Midtown Shopping District Ground Floor Spaces: 1) Create ground floor restrictions for the entire area that is zoned CN to regulate existing and new office uses; 2) Limit ground floor office use to medical offices and neighborhood-serving professional offices, travel agencies and insurance agencies; 3) Regulate ground floor office use by location, hich requires all new offices to obtain Conditional Use Permits except for existing office conversions on side streets (Moreno, Bryson, and Colorado); 4) Clarify the existing prohibition on residential uses and maintain all other permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the district as currently regulated; and 5) Require new ground floor office use to verify that it is neighborhood-serving. Council Member Beecham was impressed with the staff recommendations but found it difficult to get through some of the explanations. A main concern was whether or not the Council had the grounds to do an interim ordinance, and he believed an interim ordinance was appropriate. One aspect of an interim ordinance was it returned to the Council in 45 days. He believed the ordinance was imperfect and more input from the public, property owners, and others was needed. More fine tuning could be accomplished during the 45-day period. Concern was expressed for the former Harmony Bakery whose new owner came into a process where the ground rules were changing. He urged staff to work with the new owner during the 45-day period to help ensure that whatever went into that building became financially successful. Comments were made about why businesses failed in the past because of lack of patronage. It is up to the residents to ensure businesses are successful. The definition of “neighborhood- 01/16/01 91-301 serving” in the ordinance was not perfect and could be improved upon during the 45-day period. He was sympathetic for the Nissan Dealership on El Camino Real but did not see it as part of the issue before the Council. Council Member Burch agreed he would not want to see the owner of the former Harmony Bakery unable to use his building because the City forced the business to be retail. He would like to see the Council expand the issue beyond the two areas. Council Member Mossar was well aware of family businesses that operated in the Downtown for long periods of time. She watched the almost total conversion in the SOFA area from what was small, neighborhood-serving businesses to offices. She acknowledged seeing what the economy was doing but did not like what was happening. Her concern was that everyone had their own vision of the perfect mix of retail neighborhood-serving services. The ordinance could not deliver everyone’s perfect mixes. She wanted to protect the Below Market Rate (BMR) facilities for neighborhood-serving retail but felt uncomfortable about the product. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove the language that makes medical offices always deemed neighborhood-serving, exclude them as permitted use and make them subject to the same certification of the service criteria that other uses are required to meet. Council Member Kleinberg said she received calls from doctors on Welch Road who asked about office space at Midtown and other locations in the City. The City was forewarned that there would be a push by medical services to locate in what might be more affordable offices. Her concern was with the explicit, expansive language of what a medical office was. For instance, it could be research and testing. That was not what the Council hoped to have. She would like to see a variety of services, including doctors and chiropractors. Council Member Beecham asked whether one use could be allowed as a conditionally permitted use without allowing an identical use. Ms. Furth said different decisions could be made about different offices because the findings specifically required that the uses not damage the retail vitality of the area. Council Member Kleinberg understood there would not be a review process because the businesses were already deemed neighborhood-serving. Mr. Furth said that was correct. As the ordinance presently stood, there was no review process. 01/16/01 91-302 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the wording in the second sentence of Section 18.41.037(h) on page 6 of Attachment B of CMR:107:01 to read “A neighborhood-serving use is also one to which a significant number of customers and clients travel, including neighborhood residents, rather than the provider of the goods of services traveling off-site”. Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about first floor retail which purported to be a retail neighborhood use but the percentage of the use that was neighborhood-serving was in the minority of the total package. For example, 10 or 15 percent of the retail occupancy could apply toward a neighborhood use and the rest could be a non-retail use such as storage or industrial. She questioned whether there could be a specification that addressed that issue. Suggested wording was that first floor retail use should be the majority or some specific percentage of the retail in relation to any non-retail or industrial uses. Mayor Eakins asked whether that could wait for the review of the interim ordinance or the permanent ordinance. Council Member Kleinberg was willing to wait until after the main motion was voted on. Council Member Lytle understood the Council could apply a simple ground floor overlay using all the clauses the overlay currently possessed which included a vacancy provision that would handle some of the concerns heard from property owners in mid-process. The ordinance placed friction on the conversion of retail to office uses and did not protect the ground floor retail uses in Midtown. She was pleased that the motion grandfathered existing buildings in Midtown that were constructed and used for office buildings but was worried about the complexity. A new set of definitions and circumstances were introduced that were not well studied. She was assured by staff early in the process that the Council was not entertaining an emergency ordinance with findings of safety, but the ordinance was to be one that followed the normal process. What she saw before her was a complex urgency measure. She felt bad that the Council was at the point of the deadline that was set without a simple, straightforward and tested tool. The Midtown Center needed a gravity of retail at the ground floor. The Comp Plan referred to neighborhood centers as places to shop. The definition of a retail center in the Comp Plan included shopping centers and other uses such as supermarkets, bakeries, drug stores, variety stores, barbershops, restaurants, self-service laundries, and hardware stores. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Mossar, to apply the ground floor retail overlay in Midtown to 01/16/01 91-303 all areas which are now existing retail, with the exception of Colorado Avenue properties, and to allow for the vacancy provision that is in the ground floor overlay so that properties that are vacant for a period of time can be converted to office use. Council Member Beecham asked staff whether the Council could take action on an ordinance that was not agendized at the current meeting. Ms. Furth said the Council needed a written ordinance in order to adopt one. Mr. Gawf said the Downtown Overlay Zone required first floor retail and personal service outlets only. Existing offices could remain and could change to another office. For example, if the Harmony Bakery building had a ground floor overlay on it, he assumed the building would have to be filled as a retail use. Ms. Grote said the building needed to go to restaurant or hotel, personal services, retail services, theater, travel agencies, and entrances for a second story area. Council Member Burch asked whether offices would be permitted on the second floor of the Harmony Bakery building. Ms. Grote said yes, and there would be restrictions on the ground floor. There would not be an allowance for offices through a CUP. Mr. Gawf said under the existing ground floor combining district, there was no requirement that the use be neighborhood-serving. Council Member Burch asked if the neighborhood-serving would be lost. Mr. Gawf said the critical difference was the lack of flexibility of changing to an office use. Council Member Mossar agreed with Council Member Lytle that many of the complexities included in the staff report (CMR:107:01) were better dealt with after more conversation. The Council’s conversation was interesting and reinforced her feeling that the Council was taking on more than it understood. Council Member Beecham said there were two options: 1) to accept what was before the Council at the current meeting; or 2) say there will be no interim ordinance. 01/16/01 91-304 Council Member Lytle asked whether action had to be taken at the current meeting or whether another written ordinance could be returned to the Council. Mayor Eakins said the City Attorney informed the Council they could not vote for an ordinance that was not before the Council that evening. Council Member Lytle asked how much time it would take staff to return with an ordinance that was simpler, using the ground floor overlay in Midtown. Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Member Lytle expected the same outreach to be repeated. Council Member Lytle assumed the ordinance would be written in response to what was heard at the current meeting. Mayor Eakins asked whether there was any way to incorporate the neighborhood-serving concept in the ground floor overlay zone. Council Member Lytle said the ground floor overlay did not need the neighborhood-serving concept, because that concept only applied if neighborhood-serving offices were allowed. Mayor Eakins asked staff about a timeline. Mr. Gawf said he preferred to go back and meet with the property owners again. Communication was critical. The timeline would be approximately six weeks. Ms. Furth said the Council had two ordinances before them that evening, and could act on them separately. Staff could write another ordinance after outreach, with the public. The suggested proposal was to apply ground floor retail to existing retail spaces, and that would not apply to existing office spaces. One of the reasons staff did not use the ground floor retail was that it was specifically designed in terms of permitted uses for Downtown. The City’s existing methods for amortizing out specific businesses or particular spaces or uses caused frustration and interpretive issues in other parts of the City. Staff was asked to return to the Council with definitions and discussion of neighborhood-serving, and that was central to what staff heard. Staff could write another ordinance, but it would not be a quick drafting job. Council Member Beecham said what was before the Council was complex because staff worked with the people involved to fine tune the ordinance for the location discussed. The alternative proposal was to take an ordinance designed for another location, meet with the business owners, and fine tune the ordinance for 01/16/01 91-305 that location. The Council would not have anything substantially better by using a quicker process, and the Council would end up with something that was essentially the same. Council Member Kleinberg said the sense of the importance of what the Council tried to do was dulled because of the holidays. She agreed with Council Member Beecham that the issue was complicated because Midtown was a complicated area. She felt confident that the complexity presented by staff was making the stretch to meet the complexities of that particular retail area. The interim ordinance gave the Council something to work with to come up with a more perfect ordinance. The Council needed to take a risk on behalf of a goal that was outlined and memorialized in the Comp Plan. The Council wanted to make an unequivocal statement backed up by the interim ordinance, which would strike a blow for preserving and enhancing the neighborhoods. Staff was asked to define neighborhood-serving. The Council had 45 days to do something better. Council Member Burch said it was time to respond to the wishes of the residents. Staff did what the Council asked them to do, and he hoped the Council would support the ordinance. Council Member Mossar withdrew her second and suggested the Council take Council Member Beecham’s motion and split it between Charleston and Midtown. SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN ORIGINAL MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING Mayor Eakins said she struggled with the staff report (CMR:107:01) which Mr. Cobb called the dual test: neighborhood-serving and professional; neighborhood-serving or professional; and neighborhood-serving professional which was too confusing. She was comfortable deleting the properties on Colorado Avenue during the 45-day period. 1st PART OF MOTION re Staff Recommendations for Charleston Center Ground Floor Spaces with a change that medical offices be treated the same as other professional offices and that Section 18.41.035(g) be modified to read “A neighborhood-serving use is also one to which a significant number of customers and clients travel, including neighborhood residents, rather than the provider of the goods of services traveling off-site”, and to include the two incorporations. Ordinance 4675 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Preserving and Supporting Neighborhood-Serving Uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District at Charleston Center (Portions of the 3900 Block of Middlefield Road) on an Interim 01/16/01 91-306 Basis Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 by Adding Section 18.41.035 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Take Effect Immediately” MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. 2ND PART OF MOTION re Staff Recommendations for Midtown Shopping District Ground Floor Spaces including the two changes from the original motion and the two incorporations. Council Member Burch said if the Council did not vote for the motion, Midtown would be left unprotected for a good period of time. Council Member Lytle did not believe Midtown would be unprotected for long and that an ordinance would be brought back to the Council in a short period of time. Ms. Furth said the language staff proposed to exempt the buildings on Colorado Avenue was that “711, 719, 721, and 729 Colorado Avenue, buildings not fronting on Middlefield Avenue, designed and used for office purposes and were not well suited for other uses are exempt from the provision of this Section 18.41.03.” MOTION FAILED 3-4, Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, “yes,” Fazzino absent. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Ojakian, to direct staff to return with an interim ordinance that would apply the ground floor overlay restriction to the existing retail in Midtown with all the provisions for vacancy, leasing to office, and office grandfathering. Council Member Ojakian said three words came to mind: 1) maintain, meaning to maintain what was there; 2) revert, where there might be a way to get a business such as Sherba’s back; and 3) hold harmless, which would not affect property owners in their current state. Council Member Beecham asked whether the intent was to bring back another interim ordinance as soon as possible or a regular ordinance. Council Member Lytle thought the first set of recommendations would have gone through a regular process, and she was taken back by the fact the Planning and Transportation Commission was skipped. She asked what would be lost if the process went through the Planning and Transportation Commission before the Council in terms of existing retail that might not be protected. She had trouble with writing the ordinance when it was a section of the 01/16/01 91-307 Code that already existed and was applied to a map where the Council knew the retail existed. Mr. Benest said given what he had heard from the community and majority of the Council, he believed the Council was in a situation where it wanted to apply protection as soon as possible. Staff could return with an interim ordinance that reflected basically the same concepts as the Downtown. Council Member Mossar hoped the Council was talking about an interim ordinance and was prepared to say the City would end up with something different than the Downtown retail overlay. She preferred on an interim basis to use a mechanism that was already in place. It was clear from comments heard from the community that there were concerns about the ordinance. Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about leaving Midtown unprotected and pointed out that testimony was received at the current meeting about how the Downtown overlay did not work either. She did not know if anything would be solved by having the Downtown ordinance, which was not designed to protect neighborhood retail or pedestrian friendly shopping. She was not sure she would be more comfortable with a “one-size fits all” overlay such as what was Downtown. Staff was requested to create an interim ordinance that was passed through the filter of what was originally asked, which was to preserve neighborhood-serving retail. She did not want to see a Downtown at Midtown. Council Member Burch wanted to know whether the Council did take action that evening was there anything to prevent another Sherba’s from happening, for example, anyone of the local ground floor retail could sell out and be replaced by office. He wanted to know whether the Council would accept an interim ordinance prior to asking staff to do more work. Council Member Mossar said it was important that the interim ordinance the Council voted for would give an opportunity for success. Protection was important, but success was the mark of good work. Council Member Lytle did not understand whether the Council redefined “retail” in the ordinance. She thought the intent was to protect Midtown from office use. Ms. Grote said staff did not recommend changes to retail definitions but did recommend changes to the “offices” portion. In the ground floor restrictions as currently written, an existing nonconforming office was not restricted from continuing. Changing to another type of nonconforming office would be allowed under the ground floor restrictions. 01/16/01 91-308 Council Member Ojakian wanted to see an ordinance that was simple and covered most things. Critical dialogue could be left until later as part of the zoning process. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-4, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian “yes,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to direct staff to return to the Council with a written report showing how the ground floor ordinance would apply to the Midtown as soon as possible. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL, the 2ND re Staff Recommendations for Midtown Shopping District Ground Floor Spaces including the two changes from the original motion and the two incorporations to be reconsidered. MOTION FAILED 2-5, Lytle, Ojakian "yes,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the 2ND part of the original motion re Staff Recommendations for Midtown Shopping District Ground Floor Spaces including the two changes from the original motion and the two incorporations for 45 days, and further, to direct staff to return to the Council with information on a ground floor overlay restriction. Ordinance 4676 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Preserving and Supporting Ground-Floor Neighborhood-Serving Uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District at Midtown Shopping District (Portions of the 2600, 2700 and 2800 Blocks of Middlefield Road, 700 Blocks of Colorado Avenue, Moreno Avenue, and San Carlos Court and the 600 Block of Bryson Avenue) on an Interim Basis Pursuant to Government Code Section 56858 by Adding Section 18.41.037 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Take Effect Immediately MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 10. Planning and Transportation recommendation re Neighborhood Calming Program Continued to a date uncertain. COUNCIL MATTERS 01/16/01 91-309 11. Mayor Eakins and Council Member Mossar re Shoreline Noise Monitoring Council Member Mossar said she, Mayor Eakins, and Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison met with representatives of Shoreline Amphitheater during the past year. The noise from Shoreline was tame during the past four years. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to direct the Public Works Department to discontinue the sound recording at the Main Library which would save the City $5,500 a year. The Police Department will continue to monitor complaints from Palo Alto residents about concert noise, and staff and the Council subcommittee will continue to meet regularly with Shoreline representatives to oversee compliance with the settlement agreement. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. 12. Mayor Eakins and Council Members Beecham and Burch (Council/CAO Ad Hoc Committee) re Contract for Interim Audit Services Council Member Beecham said the CAO Committee interviewed and selected an interim auditor. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to ask Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation (HMR) to do the following: 1. Assess the status of the City Auditor Office’s two open audits, regarding vehicle maintenance and payroll procedures. Following assessment and approval of the work necessary to complete these two audits, we expect to direct the interim auditor to work with our audit staff to complete them. Completion of these audits is the priority task for HMR under this contract. 2. Evaluate the current role of the City Auditor Office. The city charter assigns some specific responsibilities to this office. We have tasked HMR to evaluate additional duties, which may serve to strengthen the City Auditor Office and improve its effectiveness. 3. Prepare a management audit risk assessment model for the City. Having this model in hand will enable the Council and the new City Auditor to more quickly assess top audit priorities and to set the annual work plan for the City Auditor. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements 01/16/01 91-310 Vice Mayor Ojakian asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Bill Hewlett of Hewlett and Packard. Mayor Eakins asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Senator Alan Cranston, Ralph White from Neighbors Abroad, and Frank Seeley, former principal of Cubberley and Gunn High Schools. Vice Mayor Ojakian announced the birth of Mayor Eakins’ new grandchild, Thomas Austin. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in memory of Bill Hewlett, Senator Alan Cranston, Ralph White, and Frank Seeley. 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. 01/16/01 91-311