HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-06 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
May 6, 2002
1. Interview of Candidates for the Public Art Commission ...... 66
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. ................. 66
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 67
1. Resolution 8153 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Promoting Sober Graduation Night” ..................................................... 67
2. Selection of Candidates to Interview for the Historic Resources Board ............................................ 68
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 68
3. Approval of Annexations for Four Areas along Sand Hill Road, Pasteur Drive, and Quarry Road ....................... 69
4. Resolution 8158 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of an
Application with the California Energy Commission for $77,250 Incentive Funding for Peak Load
Reduction/Energy Efficiency Program for Wastewater Facilities” ................................................ 70
5. Ordinance 4746 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.34 of Chapter 22.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Prevent the Use of Motorized Vehicles or Mopeds ‘Off-Road’ in Open Space Areas” ................................. 70
7. Approval of Fiber to the Home Trial Participant Fee ........ 70
8. Resolution 8160 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Tom
Merson Upon His Retirement” ................................ 70
05/06/02 94-63
9. Resolution 8161 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Don
Hartnett Upon His Retirement” .............................. 70
10. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C1126141 Between the City of Palo Alto and Underground Construction for the 2000-2001 Utility Trench and Substructure Installation in the Amount of $200,000 .................................. 71
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Uptown Services in the Amount of $119,000 for Fiber to the Home Business Case Development Services .................... 71
12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a recommendation from the Historic Resources
Board to designate the building at 2560 Embarcadero Road, known as the Sea Scout Base, to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory in Category 1, as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. ........................... 71
13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider modifications to fence height (Section 16.24.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) and lot area calculations within watercourse easements (Section 18.88.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) for residences impacted by the San Francisquito Creek
Joint Powers Authority Floodwall Replacement project. The residences include those on the north side of
Edgewood Drive abutting San Francisquito Creek, 1401 through 1941 Edgewood Drive and 475 Newell Road. ........... 86
13A. (Old Item No. 6) Ordinance 4747 entitled “Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of Certain Property Known as 535 Everett Avenue from PC Planned Community 2145 To PC Planned Community 4747 .......................... 93
13B. (Old Item No. 11A) 315 Homer Avenue: Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide a 0.82-Acre Parcel into 30 Air Space
Condominiums, 00-SUB-06 .................................... 94
13C. (Old Item No. 11B) 325 Channing Avenue: Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide a 1.18-Acre Parcel into 36 Air Space Condominiums, 00-SUB-07 ....................... 94
14. Approval of Employment Agreement with Director of
Administrative Services, Carl Yeats ........................ 96
05/06/02 94-64
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 96
15. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation ........ 98
16. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation ....... 98
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ................ 98
05/06/02 94-65
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Council Member Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar (arrived at 6:30 p.m.), Ojakian
ABSENT: Beecham, Lytle SPECIAL MEETING
1. Interview of Candidates for the Public Art Commission
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
05/06/02 94-66
Regular Meeting May 6, 2002
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle,
Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Beecham
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding Stanford Research Park Transportation Impact Fee. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding Preservation
Week. Kerry Yarkin, 135 Churchill Avenue, spoke regarding Churchill Traffic Calming Study.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics as usual.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 8153 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Promoting Sober Graduation Night”
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Council
Member Morton, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
Mayor Ojakian expressed his appreciation and acknowledged
Palo Alto Police Chief Pat Dwyer and Lieutenant Torin Fisher, and Lisa Hodges who represented Palo Alto High School. The Sober Graduation program was a nationwide Crime
Prevention program aimed at reducing alcohol abuse by teens during the graduation season. The program was funded by
the same grant to Santa Clara County (the County) as the “Avoid the 13” program. There was no cost to the City other than the staff time by the school resource officers. All cities in the County were asked by local coordinators
05/06/02 94-67
to pass a resolution for sober graduations in order to increase community awareness.
2. Selection of Candidates to Interview for the Historic Resources Board Council Member Burch, Council Liaison to the Historic
Resources Board, noted the four vacant three-year terms and the fact that only the four current members agreed to run again.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to
waive the interviews and appoint Martin Bernstein, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen, and Carol Murden to the four, three-year terms ending May 31, 2005. Council Member Burch had attended several of the Historic
Resources Board (HRB) meetings and watched the members in action. He appreciated the work conducted by the group that worked without pay. The HRB was thanked for all its hard work. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the HRB appointments would return to the Council on its May 13, 2002, Consent Calendar with a proper agenda title. He understood the sentiment of
the motion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by
Morton, to approve the Minutes of March 18 and 25, 2002, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in Item No. 3 due to a potential conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land
use matters.
Vice Mayor Mossar stated she would not participate in Item No. 3 due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University.
05/06/02 94-68
Council Member Freeman requested that Item No. 6 be removed. The item would become Item 13A.
Council Member Lytle requested that Item Nos. 11A and 11B be removed. The item would become Item 13B and 13C. Council Member Freeman asked whether the Council would act
on Item No. 6. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified that Item No. 6
reflected Council action at a previous meeting. When an ordinance was changed after first reading in response to
Council direction, staff’s practice was to repacket the item and place it on the Consent Calendar. Mayor Ojakian said the Council needed to move Item No. 6 along and would have an opportunity later in the evening to
ask questions of staff, Mr. Calonne indicated a typographical error in Item No. 3 that required correction on the fourth resolution to change “Pal” to Palo.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-5, 7-11.
LEGISLATIVE
3. Approval of Annexations for Four Areas along Sand Hill Road, Pasteur Drive, and Quarry Road
Resolution 8154 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and
Approving the Reorganization of Territory Designated "Sand Hill Road Right-of-Way 02-01", Property Located
on Sand Hill Road between San Francisquito Creek and Approximately 275 Feet West of Pasteur Drive; Approximately 3.192 Acres [Assessor Parcel Number 142-
05-019]”
Resolution 8155 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and Approving the Reorganization of Territory Designated
"Pasteur Drive Right-of-Way and Adjacent Land 02-02", Property Located on Sand Hill Road between Pasteur Drive and Welch Road; Approximately 1.973 Acres [Assessor Parcel Number 142-05-019]”
05/06/02 94-69
Resolution 8156 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and
Approving the Reorganization of Territory Designated "Quarry Road Right-of-Way 02-03", Property Located between Arboretum Road and the City of Palo Alto Electric Substation; Approximately 0.061 Acres [Assessor Parcel Number 142-04-014]”
Resolution 8157 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and
Approving the Reorganization of Territory Designated "Quarry Road Right-of-Way 02-04", Property Located on Quarry Road between Pal Road and El Camino Real; Approximately 0.250 Acres [Assessor Parcel Number 142-04-014]”
4. Resolution 8158 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of an Application with the California Energy Commission for $77,250 Incentive Funding for Peak Load
Reduction/Energy Efficiency Program for Wastewater Facilities” 5. Ordinance 4746 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.34 of
Chapter 22.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prevent the Use of Motorized Vehicles or Mopeds ‘Off-
Road’ in Open Space Areas” (1st Reading 4-22-02, Passed
8-0, Beecham absent)
7. Approval of Fiber to the Home Trial Participant Fee
Resolution 8159 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Utility Rate Schedule EFTH-T of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and
Charges Pertaining to Fiber to the Home Trial Program Services”
ADMINISTRATIVE
8. Resolution 8160 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Tom Merson Upon His Retirement”
9. Resolution 8161 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Don Hartnett Upon His Retirement”
05/06/02 94-70
10. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C1126141 Between the City of Palo Alto and Underground Construction for the
2000-2001 Utility Trench and Substructure Installation in the Amount of $200,000 11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Uptown Services in the Amount of $119,000 for Fiber to the
Home Business Case Development Services MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item No. 3, Kleinberg, Mossar “not
participating,” Beecham absent. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 4, 5, and 7-11, Beecham absent. Vice Mayor Mossar recognized Lieutenant Don Hartnett’s retirement, with whom she had worked on many issues related
to the Downtown area. She wished him great success and happiness in his retired life. Mayor Ojakian expressed his appreciation for both Captain Thomas Merson and Lieutenant Don Hartnett for their
incredible work over the last 11 years since his involvement in City issues.
Council Member Burch agreed with his colleagues in their commendations of two individuals who had exemplified the
Palo Alto Police Department and should be honored and respected.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a recommendation from the Historic Resources
Board to designate the building at 2560 Embarcadero Road, known as the Sea Scout Base, to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory in Category 1, as provided
in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie
said on November 15, 2000, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the application by Pria Graves and Beth Bunnenberg for the historic designation of the Sea Scout
Base. The HRB unanimously voted to recommend designation of the base as a Category 1 historic building. The HRB’s
recommendation was based on the historic architectural significance of the building and its high degree of
05/06/02 94-71
integrity. Both staff and the HRB concluded that the building met the definition of a Category 1 building and
all six local criteria for designation identified in the Historical Preservation Ordinance. The building was eligible for listing on the National Registry of Historic Places under two criteria. The building was an outstanding example of a nationally important style and a major example
of one of the most comprehensive Sea Scout facilities in the nation. The designation of the building would result in two additional regulatory requirements. The base would
be subject to a demolition delay of a minimum of 60 days and a maximum of one year at the Council’s discretion. Any
alterations or additions to the building would be subject to HRB review and approval. On December 11, 2000, the Council continued the hearing of the designation at the request of staff until the Lucie Stern Maritime Center completed preparation of a feasibility analysis on the
building’s proposed re-use, including a structural engineering report. According to the Maritime Center, it was anticipated that the feasibility analysis would be completed within a few months. On January 17, 2002, staff met with the representatives of the Maritime Center. The
feasibility analysis was still incomplete; however, a structural engineer had been hired by the Maritime Center
and advised the City of the preliminary estimate that the building had only a 50:50 percent chance of surviving any potential move. Since the building had to be moved for
either a new foundation at its present site or for relocation to a site on higher ground, staff considered the
designation at the current time to be premature until an engineering report was completed and it was determined that the building could be preserved.
Historic Resources Board Chairperson Martin Bernstein said
the Council’s direction to the HRB indicated that the existing condition of a structure had nothing to do with its designation regarding historic qualities. Minutes were quoted from the meeting of November 15, 2000, when he asked staff, “Does the existing condition of a structure have
anything to do with its eligibility to be on the local registry.” The answer from staff was “The condition of the building does not except insofar as the condition of
deterioration has led to the loss of significant elements of a building.” That was not the case with the structure.
Consequently, staff still held that Category 1 was appropriate for the Sea Scout site issue. The standard of not considering the condition of a structure was always the
05/06/02 94-72
standard by which the HRB had acted. The Council was wise to apply the same standard to the Sea Scout Base inasmuch
as the building was a Category 1 structure based on its architecture and significant history. There was no reason not to designate the structure as a Category 1 structure. Mayor Ojakian declared the public hearing open.
Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street, clarified that she was an applicant along with Pria Graves as a private individual
and not as an HRB member. The HRB had already voted on the item before she was appointed to the HRB. The Council was
urged to designate the Palo Alto Sea Scout Base as a Category 1 structure on the historic inventory. Some of the unique attributes of the building included the rarity of the Streamline Moderne style, very few of which existed on the West Coast. The building was particularly important
because of its nautical theme, nautical setting, and 60 years of nautical use. The staff report (CMR:234:02) compared the building with the San Francisco Maritime Museum, which was a massive structure of cement. The Sea Scout Base was a wooden structure that evoked a wooden
boat. When Dames & Moore studied over 6,000 structures in Palo Alto, the Sea Scout building ranked at the very top as
the only structure with State significance. In addition, in 1999, the building was awarded the Art Deco of California Societies Preservation Award. All six criteria
were met by the building. It was associated with local residents, had fine architecture, and had many things to
offer. The hazard was the flooding, which had become worse since the City raised the dam.
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke about the logistics of why the building should be preserved. The City had an
obligation to consider the merit and integrity without being swayed by the current dilapidated condition of the building. Both the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and the National Register Code that described why buildings were listed made no reference to the condition of the structure.
Funding was one of the best reasons to list the building. Private funding tended to be easier to obtain for historic restoration if a building was a listed structure. As a
listed structure, the building could be eligible for both County and State funds. Proposition 40, the bond act for
park funding passed in March 2002, contained $270 million for historic renovation. Without the listing, the building could not apply for the funding. On the issue of the Sea
05/06/02 94-73
Scout project of the Lucie Stern Maritime Center, while it was a worthwhile project and she would not want to see the
building used for other purposes, the Council needed to recall that there were other people interested in using and restoring the building. The San Francisco Bay Observatory wrote a letter to the Council on February 18, 2002 expressing continued interest. The organization had a
large membership and funding was available. The request had been in progress for over a year and a half and should not be continued. The Council was asked to designate the
building as a Category 1 resource.
Marten Litgenberg, representing the Sea Scouts, spoke in support of renovating the Sea Scout Base. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke in support of the historic designation of the Sea Scout Base, which was long
overdue. For over six years, the building had been before the HRB. Unfortunately, it was tangled in the Maritime Museum project, which might or might not move forward. The Sea Scouts had no lease on the building, so there was a stalemate. It was important to disassociate the issue of
structural integrity from historic merit. If the building had to be demolished for structural reasons, the City was
in control as to whether a moratorium should be issued on the demolition. She urged the Council to move forward with the historic designation and to consider following the PAMC
with respect to leasing public facilities.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said when the item was on the Council agenda two years prior, Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to reagendize the item in order
to allow staff to work with the Sea Scouts to find out what options were available to the City to preserve the
building, consider making the building an historic structure, and extend the lease to January 31, 2001. Incorporated into the motion was direction to consider preservation of the site as an historic structure with the preference that the project be accomplished through a
coalition of organizations with private funding. When the lease with the scout’s organization expired in 2001, the item should have returned to the Council. The most
important thing was for Council to separate whatever it did from the Lucie Stern Maritime Center. The Colleagues’ memo
dated March 22, 2000 clearly stated that the reason for extending the lease was to give the Lucie Stern Maritime Center one last chance. Council’s policy was that the last
05/06/02 94-74
chance ended on January 31, 2001. Staff needed clear direction both on what to do and to set clear dates on when
an item should return to the Council. The Council was urged to take control of the policy level decisions. Other responsible organizations should be given the opportunity to present the City with proposals.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke about the references in the staff report (CMR:234:02) to the harbor and the reason the harbor no longer existed. The statement that
dredging would ruin the wetlands, as stated in 1985, was untrue. The staff report indicated that Palo Alto owned the
property, thus giving it the power to decide whether or not to preserve the building. In 1985, the Sea Scouts were not given any compensation for turning ownership over to Palo Alto. The property should be returned to the Sea Scouts on the basis that it was fraudulently taken.
Kevin Murray, Director Lucie Stern Maritime Museum, 2091 Harvard Street, urged the Council to preserve what little legacy was left of the Palo Alto Harbor by preserving the Sea Scout Base. Lucie Stern touched many lives. The Lucie
Stern Maritime Center had four specific missions, the first of which was preservation of the facility as a Sea Scout
Base in perpetuity in concert with the wishes of Lucie Stern. The Pacific Skyline Council refused to renew the lease. The Stanford Area Council, 1941-1993, merged with
the San Mateo Council in 1993. The current Council had no emotional connection with Palo Alto or the Sea Scout Base.
Hence, a decision was made not to renew the lease. Unfortunately, there was tension between Stanford area division youth in the scouting program and the San Mateo
County-driven Council executives. However, he had reminded them of their responsibilities to serve the youth in the
most southern area in Palo Alto. The building was historically incredible. In a 60-year old film, which he transferred to video, there were pictures of Lucie Stern on the porch, President Stanford Wilbur at the dedication ceremony, and boys from the class of 1941 rowing a boat out
into the harbor to dedicate a wreath to the sinking of the HMS Hood by the Bismarck. It was a testimony to the greatest generation the County had ever seen and the men
and women who had lived since. The goal was for a maritime museum that would be open to the public.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, said the Sea Scout Base was more historic than 90 percent of the buildings that the
05/06/02 94-75
Council and HRB fought so diligently to preserve. Palo Alto owed the building historic status immediately. The
residents deserved to have the building. The building should be given the historic status it so greatly deserved. Mayor Ojakian declared the public hearing closed.
City Manager Frank Benest asked the City Attorney to comment on the appropriateness of having the state of the building considered prior to making an historic designation
and on the performance of the Maritime Center.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne agreed with the public comments that the condition of the building was irrelevant to its historic significance. Nothing in the Ordinance required the building to be in sound condition. However, the condition of the building was relevant. The application
requirements in the Ordinance clearly stated that the application must contain a description of the current condition of, and any known threats to, the structure and what restoration, if any, would be necessary to return the structure to its original appearance. The condition of the
building was clearly relevant. It was not required that the Council find that the building be sound or preservable.
There was no requirement that the property owner consent to a historic designation. However, the Council would still want to listen to a property owner who indicated that
historic preservation requirements on a certain property would have certain ramifications. The context was simply
the “property owner,” or the City Manager, requesting the Council to pay attention to the structural condition before taking the designation action.
Mr. Benest expressed concern that the Council had always
anticipated having the building preserved by an outside group because it was not possible for the City to fund a restoration project. If the City designated the building before it knew the structural problems, it would be put into a politically difficult situation. It would be
difficult to demolish the building if it was found to be impossible to move, and was designated an historic facility. Staff wanted to send the matter of the Maritime
Center, particularly given what had been directed by the Council, to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee where a
full assessment of what had transpired, performance to date, and whether the City needed to continue the current
05/06/02 94-76
nonprofit involvement or seek Requests for Proposals (RFP) in terms of preserving the building.
Council Member Burch said if the City designated the building as an historic building, he was concerned with the report that in moving it, there was a 50:50 chance that the building could structurally fall apart. He asked whether
the cost of moving the building would increase if it was moved or whether it cost more to move an historic building. He also asked what would happen if the building collapsed.
Mr. Calonne said once designated historic, the building
would be reviewed by the ARB and HRB. Alterations were involved in moving and relocating the building. Presumably, the clearance by the ARB and HRB would take into account the risk of destroying the building. Outside of the Downtown area, there was no requirement to maintain
historic structures, only to refrain from demolishing them. The City would not incur an obligation to spend money to keep the building up by designating it historic. He assumed the clearance to relocate the building, fix the foundation, and return it to the original location would include the
risk of damage.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether Mr. Bernstein could address the issue.
Historic Resources Board Chairperson Martin Bernstein was amazed to hear the City Manager consider applying a
Historic Structure Report, which could mean that any structure that came before the HRB, including all residences, would have to apply to the same standard.
Mayor Ojakian said Mr. Bernstein was asked to speak to the
question at hand; otherwise the discussion would have to be opened to the public again. Council Member Burch clarified the question was whether it would cost more to move an historic building and what
happened if the building fell apart in the process. Mr. Bernstein said the cost to move an historic structure
was not more than any other structure since it required the same amount of timber, plaster, glass, etc.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was any issue surrounding the collapse of an historic structure during a move.
05/06/02 94-77
Mr. Bernstein said if the building collapsed, the resource could be considered lost or a determination made if it was
repairable. In his professional work, countless buildings were moved. Regardless of the condition of the building, there was a way to structurally secure the building before moving, which was part of the cost.
Council Member Burch clarified there were no additional requirements to move an historic structure as any other structure.
Mr. Bernstein said no.
Mr. Calonne said an alteration permit was required in order to move a structure. Designating the building historic would subject the building to ARB and HRB review. There was no physical difference in designating a building
historic, but there would be additional processes. The issues were workable and there was no direct additional cost. Mr. Bernstein agreed the process would not incur an
additional cost to the owner.
Council Member Morton said Lucie Stern had gifted the City with a children’s library, a community center, and a scout facility, and he was distressed that the City would tinker
around with a building that had historical significance to the majority of people in the community.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, to
approve the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommendation
to designate the building known as the Sea Scout Base, located at 2560 Embarcadero Road, as a significant Category
1 building and all six local criteria for historic designation as set forth in Chapter 16.49, proceed with the structural engineering report, and return with a structure that was viable to the community.
Council Member Morton said he was willing to expand the usage of the building so it would not necessarily have to be exclusively designated to the Sea Scouts; however, that
was what the building was created for and should be its central use. If the building was designated historic,
other people could begin to start raising funds. He would be pleased to see the Audubon people of the South Bay use the facility.
05/06/02 94-78
Council Member Lytle agreed with Council Member Morton’s direction, which was consistent with past Council action.
The condition of the building, as intended as part of application in the PAMC, had been documented many times through the years and continued to degenerate and deteriorate as time passed. In the meantime, the City was not taking responsibility for ownership of the historic
significance of the building. The criteria for significance made no mention of structural condition. She queried whether the City could open an RFP process and refer it to
the P&S Committee, with direction that the Sea Scouts be part of the criteria but also allow other organizations to
partner. The second question was one raised by Mr. Powers about the claim that the City owed retribution to the Sea Scouts. Mayor Ojakian asked whether Council Member Lytle wanted her
suggestion to refer the item to the P&S Committee for a more open RFP process to be part of the original motion. Council Member Lytle said the motion would be accepted as stated; however, if there was support, she wanted the
motion expanded to include the referral.
Council Member Morton asked to defer the issue of referral to the P&S Committee until after staff had received a report on the structural issue.
Mr. Benest would not recommend that the City spend money to
prepare a structural report. He recommended that either the current nonprofit or another nonprofit take the building as a responsibility. The issue of when the report
returned to Council was enmeshed in the current performance and who would be involved.
Mayor Ojakian asked the maker of the motion whether Council Member Lytle’s comments were part of the motion. Council Member Morton asked the City Manager for
clarification. Mr. Benest said staff proposed going to the P&S Committee
with an overview of the history, including the issue of performance of the current nonprofit involvement, Maritime
Center, and a recommendation about how to proceed in terms of either continuing to work with the group or going out with an RFP so that other nonprofits could be involved. As
05/06/02 94-79
part of the process, staff would provide the Council with a recommendation on how to ensure that whatever groups were
involved provided key data that included an engineer’s report on the building. Real Property Manager Bill Fellman said typically when a lease expired, the tenant was asked to issue a quitclaim
deed to any right, title, and interest to the property, which was what happened in 1985.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the Sea Scouts were entitled to any compensation or retribution as a result.
Mr. Fellman said no, the lease ended. Council Member Lytle clarified the answer was appropriate to the concerns raised by Mr. Powers.
Mr. Fellman said the same thing happened with the MacArthur Park Restaurant and the Veterans organization. Mayor Ojakian asked whether the City had always owned the
building.
Mr. Fellman said the City had always owned the land. When Lucie Stern created the building, it was on City land. When the lease expired, ownership of the building returned
to the City. In each such instance, a quitclaim deed was signed so there was no question as to ownership.
Mr. Calonne said the staff report (CMR:234:02) addressed the Baylands Master Plan. Any action that reflected future
use would likely implicate the master plan. Council would probably want to initiate amendments to the Baylands Master
Plan consistent with any motions. The implementation would require a report back to the Council in order to accomplish it. Vice Mayor Mossar expressed confusion since during the
Summerhill discussions there was a great deal of upset that historic homes were being moved. The City was being asked to designate a structure as historic that, in all
likelihood, would need to be moved. She asked why it was an issue in one project but not in another.
05/06/02 94-80
Council Member Lytle said moving was always the second to the last resort strategy for preservation, demolition being
the last resort. Vice Mayor Mossar thought the motion was confusing. The historic designation was an action in and of itself. The motion was confusing on the very serious, working issues
before the Council. One issue was how it affected the Baylands Master Plan. Another was the funding mechanism. In the past the Council had said no money would be put into
the project and funds should be sought from private sources. That was why staff had, over the years, continued
to work with the present sponsor, who was interested in renovating and handling the funding for the upgrade of the facility. There was also the issue of how to proceed, the kind of RFP process that should be used, whether the current applicant was performing adequately, or whether the
process should be open to other applicants who were interested in the structure. The issues were significant. The City Manager made a request that the Council defer the historic designation until an engineering report was conducted, which he assumed would be paid for by the
applicant. The City Manager also asked the Council to forward the item to the P&S Committee with a report from
the City Manager that evaluated the performance of the current applicant and made recommendations about how to proceed with an RFP, which was the critical decision. If
the motion could be divided into two pieces, with the second piece clearly supporting the City Manager’s
recommendation, she would be more supportive. Council Member Kishimoto strongly supported the motion.
The arguments were compelling. Dames & Moore’s designation of the building as the best example of an historic
structure out of 6,000 was compelling. Action was long overdue. She would lean in favor of an RFP process. Ms. Bunnenberg and Ms. Graves were thanked for all their hard work in preparing the application and for bringing the building forward.
Council Member Kleinberg was pleased to see the item on the Council agenda because she was committed to the historic
preservation of the building. Appreciation was voiced for the photographs detailing the architectural treatment. She
agreed with all of the comments from both the public and her colleagues about the importance of the building to Palo Alto’s heritage and legacy for future generations. As to
05/06/02 94-81
the use of the building, a combination of organizations through an RFP process might be a consideration. The Lucie
Stern Maritime organization should be given a chance following the designation of the building as an historic building. There might be a great deal of movement if the building was designated historic. She could not imagine that the City would ever allow the building to be
demolished. Council Member Freeman expressed confusion in terms of the
timing. She asked whether it was the responsibility of the applicant to provide determination of the structural
integrity. Mr. Calonne said the City Manager was requesting that the applicant provide the structural integrity report. The PAMC only called for a “description of the current
condition and any known threats and what restoration, if any, would be necessary to return the site to its original condition.” Council Member Freeman thought the City Manager indicated
the City would not and did not have the funds to provide that information; therefore, she asked whom the City
thought would provide the information. Mr. Benest said that from the outset, the Council clearly
indicated that the nonprofit proceeding with the project would be responsible for the costs, including the
engineer’s report. He supported that direction because of the City’s budget shortfall.
Council Member Freeman assumed the Sea Scouts had not produced an engineering report and the City had not
received a timeframe as to when one would be provided. Mr. Benest said the Sea Scouts had not performed according to the timetable and milestones; therefore, the City needed to take the item to the P&S Committee, and have a
thoughtful discussion about how to proceed. Council Member Freeman asked about the disadvantages to
categorizing the building as a Category 1 before receiving a structural report.
Mr. Benest said some were of the opinion that the City should proceed and designate the building as historic,
05/06/02 94-82
regardless of whether it had to be moved or demolished. He felt that designating the building prior to receiving the
engineer’s report was impractical. It was a good idea to have the engineer’s report in hand prior to making the designation. Council Member Freeman had not heard a disadvantage voiced.
Mr. Benest said the disadvantage was that in three to five years, the staff might return to the Council with a report
indicating that the Baylands Master Plan prohibited the building from being located in the Baylands, it was
immovable, it was uninhabitable, and should be demolished. He felt at least 50 people would show up to oppose demolition because the building was designated as an historical gem.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the P&S Committee would have any additional information on which to make the decision other than what the Council had already been presented.
Mr. Benest said in terms of the issue of performance and what had happened and how the organization was assessed,
the P&S Committee would not only have more information, but would be a better environment in which to have a thoughtful discussion to brainstorm about how to proceed.
Council Member Freeman expressed concern about waiting for
the structural integrity report of the building. She agreed with the motion that the Council should move forward with the RFP process.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff required a
structural report about the Roth Building. Mr. Benest said yes. Council Member Lytle said the condition report required by
the HRB application requirements was paid for by a previous City Manager and completed six years prior. If the structure was further damaged, staff should not hold up the
nomination in order to update things.
Vice Mayor Mossar opposed the motion. In order to obtain an engineering report an applicant was needed, and that mechanism was not there. She was in favor of preserving the
05/06/02 94-83
building as a historical structure, but was reluctant to support the motion in its present form.
Council Member Burch asked what the length of time was between the building being designated as a Category I historical structure and the State making it official.
Mr. Calonne said there was nothing compelling the City to send it to the state. It would not create a state landmark. Mayor Ojakian agreed with the public comment that it was
special building and it would be a shame if the City lost it. He also expressed concern because during his years on
the Council he had seen several pieces of property where the City had to pay for them.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommendation to designate the building known as the Sea Scout Base, located at 2560 Embarcadero Road, to the Historic Inventory as a significant Category 1 building
pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance). MOTION PASSED 7-1, Mossar “no,” Beecham absent.
MOTION: Council Member Morton, seconded by Lytle, to request staff to obtain a Structural Engineering Report
funded by a community organization or organizations, and that staff will actively assist them to find funding, if necessary, through grant applications.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether Council Member Morton was
intending that City funds pay for the Structural Engineering Report if there were no other source.
Council Member Morton said the City owned the building; however, he fully expected that community advocates would
form a committee to help find ways to fund the report. MOTION PASSED 5-3, Burch, Mossar, Ojakian “no,” Beecham
absent. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, that staff provide outlines for a procedure in which this unique building will become a viable element in the Baylands to be used by the Sea Scouts and other
05/06/02 94-84
organizations committed to preserving the building for youth and other community activities.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burch, seconded by
Mossar, to refer to the Policy and Services Committee to explore how this unique building could become a viable element in the Baylands to be used by the Sea Scouts and
other organizations committed to preserving the building for youth and other community activities.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the advantage of the substitute motion was that it did not designate who the tenants of the
building would be. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the Council had the ability to vote on intended users of the building.
Mr. Calonne said no. The City policy called for open and fair access to leasing public facilities. Council Member Freeman asked whether it was correctly stated that Lucie Stern had originally designated the use
of the building to the Sea Scouts.
Mr. Calonne said staff had found a non-binding letter of intent for the Scouts.
Council Member Morton said the Sea Scouts had a 70-year use of the building and he would like to see them become a
component of the facility in the future. Council Member Lytle said that because the building was now
being designated as an historic building, an RFP could be issued to identify what the uses would be. She asked what
was the significance of bringing the item before the P&S Committee versus returning it back to the Council. Vice Mayor Mossar said there was an issue of delay from the Sea Scouts in moving the item forward. She suggested
finding an applicant to get it moved forward. Council Member Burch said the lease was extended to January
31, 2001. It was now May 2002, and not much had happened.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the motion could incorporate that the P&S Committee would consider this by August 31, 2002.
05/06/02 94-85
Council Member Kleinberg said the next P&S meeting would involve prioritizing subject matters between now and the
Council’s vacation in August. Vice Mayor Mossar said she was comfortable including in the substitute motion that P&S should move the item forward as quickly as possible. However, she was not comfortable
saying the item should take precedence over all the other items important to the Council. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the Policy and Services
Committee will review as expeditiously as possible issuing a Request For Proposal (RFP) so other nonprofit organizations would be encouraged to participate. Council Member Morton clarified that he was willing to
modify the language of his motion so that the Sea Scouts were not the preferred applicant, but respected their historical use of the facility. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether it was possible to
have an RFP process with the intent expressed without it going to P&S for approval.
Ms. Harrison said the Council procedures required that the RFP go to the Council and the public hearing to be
reviewed.
Mr. Benest said the P&S Committee was a more appropriate forum for discussions. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-2, Lytle, Morton “no,” Beecham
absent.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider modifications to fence height (Section 16.24.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) and lot area calculations within watercourse easements
(Section 18.88.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) for residences impacted by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Floodwall Replacement project.
The residences include those on the north side of Edgewood Drive abutting San Francisquito Creek, 1401
through 1941 Edgewood Drive and 475 Newell Road.
05/06/02 94-86
City Attorney Ariel Calonne the amendment would affect Edgewood Drive only.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said the purpose of amending the ordinance was to narrowly deal with a specific and exceptional impact on the special properties because of the flood control project. The idea
was to compensate owners for the loss of privacy due to the loss of mature vegetation as a result of constructing the floodwall along San Francisquito Creek. At the request of
the property owners and negotiations with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the project, the City
agreed to process the narrowly defined zoning amendment. The amendment allowed property owners to maintain the same level of privacy through an increased wall height, as well as not suffer any negative consequences as a result of the change in the easement.
Mayor Ojakian declared the public hearing open. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding letter submitted by Mr. Borock specifying the properties.
Edgewood Drive was only seven or eight blocks, but the affected properties were only on two blocks. The City was
urged to specify which properties should receive compensation. The issue of counting watercourses was questioned so changes were not made to potential
development in the City, where the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would not be changed on any property except the properties
specifically along Edgewood Drive on the San Francisquito Creek. He also questioned the inclusion of setbacks.
Vice Mayor Mossar clarified the ordinance attached to the staff report (CMR:225:02) was incorrect and might be the
cause of much of Mr. Moss’ confusion. The issues raised by Mr. Moss had been raised before. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke about the changes made to the ordinance, which removed part of the properties not
along Edgewood Drive; however, some of the properties that were affected along Edgewood Drive were not included on the map or in the staff report. Considering the legislative
history, the specific addresses should be stated. He agreed with Mr. Moss about the issue of the setback, and disagreed
with Mr. Emslie’s comment that the amendment would compensate owners. Rather, by passing the ordinance, purchasing the easements would be cheaper, since there
05/06/02 94-87
would no longer be development rights for the land that was being taken in the easement.
Jeff Shore, 1905 Edgewood Drive, spoke in appreciation of the solution. He urged the Council to approve the staff recommendation.
Karl Robe, 1833 Edgewood Drive, spoke as one of the residents who would be affected by the Council’s action. His issue was one of the gates in the back fences. He
stated property owners would not be allowed to have gates in their back fences at the conclusion of the project.
Before signing over their rights, they wanted documentation that guaranteed residents the right to have gates. Gerald H. Smith, 1823 Edgewood Drive, spoke as an affected resident. He understood what the change in the FAR would
have on his ability to build. The SCVWD easement made the land unavailable for any purpose except to walk upon the land. It amounted to a removal of land for which any development was possible.
Mayor Ojakian declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommendation to adopt the proposed
amendments to Title 16 (Section 16.24.020) and Title 18 (Section 18.88.070) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
to modify fence height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Regulations for residents impacted by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Floodwall Replacement Project.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.24.020 [Standard Fences - Height and Location Regulations] of Title 16 and Chapter 18.88.070 [Watercourse or Channel] of Title 18 of the Municipal Code to Modify Fence and Easement Regulations Along a
Portion of San Francisquito Creek” Vice Mayor Mossar said the proposal was not one City staff
had brought forward, but the residents in the area brought forward after several meetings with the SCVWD. Staff
examined the advisability of the proposals. She appreciated the work staff put into the research. The issue of gates
05/06/02 94-88
on the back fences was a SCVWD issue and not a prohibition by the City. There was an issue of liability.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said Vice Mayor Mossar was correct; the issue was between the property owners and the SCVWD. Council Member Morton asked whether the City could put
something into the motion that the City, on its part, was willing to grant residents the right to have gates. It might help in negotiations for the residents to have the
City’s approval.
Mr. Roberts was unsure whether such language in the ordinance would help or hurt. The SCVWD had certain policies. Council Member Morton asked whether staff would object to
the specification of addresses in the ordinance. Mr. Calonne thought the definition was sufficiently narrow. The people who were south of the section of the San Francisquito Creek that crossed the freeway did not have
SCVWD easements. The qualifier was not only Edgewood Drive, but also subject to a permanent easement. He suggested the
amendment include an uncodified statement of intent that it was intended to only affect the properties subject to the expansion project, which would help future planners and
lawyers know how to apply the ordinance. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include an uncodified statement of intent,
“that this is intended to affect only those properties that
are subject to the expansion project.”
Council Member Morton wanted to include language in the motion specifying that residents could have a gate in their back fence. He admitted the City did not have the ultimate authority, but since the proposed changes to the ordinance were designed by the residents who historically had gates
and wanted to keep them, there was no harm in including the language in the motion since the ultimate decision was the SCVWD’s.
Council Member Lytle asked whether there was a downside to
including language about gates. She agreed with Council Member Morton that including such language demonstrated support for the residents.
05/06/02 94-89
Mr. Roberts was unsure there were any major issues. There
were a couple of intangibles. Staff had not had the opportunity to study the issue, so he was caught in the position of reacting. The gates currently accessed the top of a bank. Under the final design that was being proposed, the wall and fence on top of the wall would be at the top
of the bank, so the useable area was questionable. Where the gate would lead to would be different. The project had gotten to the point where the easements were the remaining
hurdle to allowing the project to move forward during the summer.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by
Lytle, to approve the staff recommendation with additional language that the intent was that it be limited to the addresses that were directly affected by the project and
that the City had no objection to the residents having gates in their back fences. Vice Mayor Mossar stated suddenly she had to vote against something she strongly supported. The only issue on the
table was the gates. It would have been more appropriate to vote on an amendment. Nevertheless, she would not support
the motion. The Council needed to deal with issues that were within its jurisdiction. It was not a friendly act to take action on an issue that legitimately belonged to
another agency. East Palo Alto was interested in moving the project forward in the spring. There was a small
window in which to construct the project and the SCVWD had to be able to complete its negotiations with Palo Alto residents quickly or the project would not move forward.
It was inadvisable for the City to take an action which was not within its jurisdiction, and which had the potential
for delaying the project for another year. The Council had an obligation to all the member agencies of the JPA to be a responsible party, honor the needs of the other communities, and not stand in the way of projects that had been agreed upon by all the agencies. She understood that
her colleagues, for the best reasons, had tried to do something that represented Palo Alto residents in having gates; however, it was inappropriate. She would not
support the motion.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified that property owners currently had access to the creek area if they had a gate.
05/06/02 94-90
Mr. Roberts said the residents had access to the top of a bank along the creek at some locations.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the City faced any liability because residents had access to the bank at the current time.
Mr. Calonne asked liability for what. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the City was liable
for anything that might happen to a resident who went to the creek edge and something happened to them.
Mr. Calonne said no. The City did not control the property. There could be dangerous liability conditions if the City owned the property. There were some cases when gates induced people to cross creeks dangerously.
Council Member Kleinberg said that passing a resolution stating that if it were feasible for the SCVWD to allow gates, the City would support it, and then the liability would not change. She clarified that just taking that step
would in no way place the City in any liability.
Mr. Calonne thought not, but he might have misunderstood. He thought the issue was that adding the gate amendment at the current time was effectively going to gum up the works
for the SCVWD. However, it would not create a liability for the City. He did not want to see a change. His
credibility in dealing with people at other agencies was important to the effective, efficient administration of what he had to do.
Council Member Kleinberg understood the intent and hoped
that the residents could have the gates if they wanted them. In addition to the points made by City Attorney Calonne and Vice Mayor Mossar, it bothered her to have a gratuitous amendment or resolution over which the City had no control, which had not been studied, and about which the
Council did not know the issues. With that kind of vague approach, she was not even comfortable with a resolution voicing the hopes that the other agency would agree. The
City was not taking a definitive stand based on real information. Most of the residents, according to Mr.
Shore, were quite happy with the way things were going forward. She would not support that portion of the motion.
05/06/02 94-91
SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN
Council Member Morton hoped the City Attorney’s interaction with the other agency was able to communicate that the City had no objection to the gates. The residents were losing access they currently had.
Council Member Lytle agreed to the withdrawal of the substitute motion.
Council Member Lytle said a City policy allowed for access, which was an issue that was not addressed in the staff
report. The Council just wanted to have discussions about City policy and how it affected issues before it. Creek access was a strong Comprehensive Plan policy. It was germane, but obviously not something that could be addressed at the current meeting.
Council Member Freeman said she was concerned and wondered whether the Council had to make a motion to request that, if at all possible, the issue of retaining existing gates could happen in interagency discussions.
Mr. Calonne stated he would prefer to know that it was the
will of the entire Council. AMENDMENT: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by
Kishimoto, that when the interagencies have discussions regarding the fences and the easements in this part of the
San Francisquito Creek, that staff would relay the message that the Council would support gates that are currently in existing fences, if they fit in with the plans and legal
requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Council Member Freeman said her intention was to show support for the people who had spoken about their gates and the desire to access the creek. If it was possible to do something that did not cause consternation between agencies and would not affect the process that Vice Mayor Mossar had
instigated, then she wanted to do something to show support for the residents.
Council Member Kishimoto appreciated the complex interagency negotiations, but there was a legitimate place
for the local agency to speak for the preferences of its residents and the Comprehensive Plan policies in a way that did not hold up the process.
05/06/02 94-92
Vice Mayor Mossar said the Council should be legitimately concerned about flood control, which was decidedly absent
from her colleagues’ comments. The purpose of the project was flood control to protect residents from flooding. The JPA had coordinated the project and the SCVWD was the lead agency. The SCVWD’s regulations dictated what happened in the location. To the best of her recollection, the
Comprehensive Plan policies about creek access had to do with public recreational access to creeks. The issue of gates was a different matter. The JPA was very focused on
public access to creeks. She would not support the amendment, but not because the FAR should not be granted to
help the residents. Council Member Burch was concerned that the Council was having a lengthy discussion based on a comment by a single resident. The issue had been fought through for months and
was finally coming to culmination with a project with a deadline that was being held up by a comment by one resident. It was out of proportion to where the Council should be looking, which was the larger issue and taking the bigger picture into consideration.
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Burch, Mossar, Ojakian “no,” Beecham
absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
Council Member Kleinberg said the Council received an email
from a resident who commented in support of what the Council had done that evening. The point made in the email was worth mentioning as a footnote to the action. The SCVWD
was also proposing to raise flood wall heights along other creeks that were in Palo Alto’s jurisdiction, and the same
kind of action might be necessary in the future to residents who would have the same visual issues for their property. She wanted to make sure it was acknowledged and assure them that at the appropriate time, the City staff would work with the SCVWD in the same manner.
13A. (Old Item No. 6) Ordinance 4747 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Certain
Property Known as 535 Everett Avenue from PC Planned Community 2145 To PC Planned Community 4747 (1st Reading 4-08-02, Passed 9-0.)
05/06/02 94-93
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the ordinance in the packet revealed the additions and deletions that conformed
the ordinance to the Council’s previous action. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve the second reading of the ordinance amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The
Zoning Map) to change the classification of certain property known as 535 Everett Avenue from PC Planned Community 2145 to PC Planned Community 4746.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
Mayor Ojakian announced that Item Nos. 13B and 13C would be discussed concurrently. 13B. (Old Item No. 11A) 315 Homer Avenue: Final
Subdivision Map to Subdivide a 0.82-Acre Parcel into 30 Air Space Condominiums, 00-SUB-06 13C. (Old Item No. 11B) 325 Channing Avenue: Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide a 1.18-Acre Parcel into
36 Air Space Condominiums, 00-SUB-07
Council Member Lytle said when the City approved a final map, they were responsible for determining compliance with the conditions of the tentative map. It was helpful to
have the kind of documentation that was provided at places as part of the staff report that went to the Council so the
questions could be answered beforehand. She requested that the staff provide the material as part of the Council’s packet ahead of time as a regular practice. She was
primarily concerned about Provision 3 in both maps. She thought the access issue was handled strictly through the
tentative map and was not yet constructed. She asked how the City was able to assure it when something about a restoration from the Rhona Williams driveway was supposed to have been given. How was the City assured the developer would make the improvements without a bond.
Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said essentially the developer under good faith with respect to the final
map being approved started the construction on the driveway. Because of weather conditions and use of the
Rhona Williams house, the final construction of the driveway was postponed. The license that was required and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conditions of the
05/06/02 94-94
project, which were referenced in the map approval, required the developer to build the driveway to suitable
standards for the Fire Department for emergency vehicle access and to build it in a way that was historically compatible with the Williams House. Council Member Lytle confirmed the City’s enforcement was
the ARB signoff. Mr. Lusardi said yes. Typically, final maps came relatively
soon after the tentative map. Given the time that it took to negotiate so many issues and go through it, staff
typically would not add the final conditions to the map because there was so much time between the two. Essentially, the conditions in the final map were the same as the tentative map. One of the conditions was that the subdivider comply with all the conditions of the ARB that
the Council approved, including the driveway. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Subdivision Map Act was intended to govern how land was divided. That State law was enacted to prevent what was called “blue sky
subdivisions,” where land would be purchased in the everglades or the middle of the bay. The City was given
control over the design and improvement of subdivisions. Typically the control was exercised by conditions that addressed curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved driveways for
fire access, fire hydrants, etc. All of the conditions had to be complied with before the final approval of the
subdivision. The reality was that because land was sold many times the improvements could not be completed before the final subdivision. The law, therefore, allowed a
subdivider to post security instead of actually doing the work. Council Member Lytle was asking about security for
the condition that required the driveway improvement. Mr. Lusardi explained that there were other sources of authority beyond the Map Act that were layered on top that gave the City enforcement authority. It was not strictly speaking a bond or security, but was a fair answer. The
developer had already started to do the work, so there was a good faith move.
Mr. Lusardi said there was a subdivision agreement on both of the maps. The subdivision agreement required the
developer to build the driveway and bond for it.
05/06/02 94-95
Council Member Lytle asked whether the same was true of Condition 3 of the map for construction and maintenance.
Mr. Lusardi said yes. The work was part of a construction agreement and a separate maintenance agreement. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve the final subdivision map to subdivide a 0.82-acre parcel at 315 Homer Avenue into 30 air space condominiums, 00-SUB-06; and to approve the final subdivision map to
subdivide a 1.18 acre parcel at 325 Channing Avenue into 36 air space condominiums, 00-SUB-07.
Council Member Freeman said it was especially important to document all 22 of the conditions, not seven or eight, especially in the cases of new Council Members who had never seen the tentative agreement or had any information
at all. She felt uninformed to be able to vote. She agreed with Council Member Lytle’s suggestion. Mr. Emslie agreed there was the need to change the format of the information and provide the Council with an
affirmative statement about each condition that applied and how it was complied with. Staff would do so in the future.
Council Member Kishimoto said the request was not designed to make more work for staff, but was a respect for due
process. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
14. Approval of Employment Agreement with Director of
Administrative Services, Carl Yeats
Item removed at the request of staff.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Mayor Mossar announced that on May 7, 2002, from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Lucie Stern Community Center, the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) is holding an open house regarding their fiscal budget for 2002-03. Also, on May 2,
2002, the VTA Board approved service cuts and fare increases for light rail and buses in Santa Clara County.
05/06/02 94-96
Council Member Kishimoto requested that the information report on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
thresholds for significance for environmental review be agendized for full Council discussion or referred to the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member Freeman noted she would be attending the
Working Group meeting on May 8, 2002, to review and interpret the Police Department’s full year of data on demographic collecting and profiling.
Council Member Morton acknowledged an award from the
Government Finance Officers Association to the City of Palo Alto’s Administrative Services Department for distinguished budget presentation. Mayor Ojakian said on May 3, 2002, the Blue Ribbon
Committee on Storm Drains had their first meeting, and he had asked Council Member Freeman to be liaison to that committee. Council Member Beecham had asked to be liaison to the Library Bond Committee, which the Mayor accepted. He noted that there could be more than one Council Member on
committee. He announced that on May 11, 2002, he would be participating as the Mobile Mayor at the opening of
Farmer’s Market, and Council Member Freeman would also be attending the event. He also announced that he would be giving the opening speech for the Opening Day of Babe Ruth
on March 11, 2002.
Council Member Burch congratulated staff on the May Fete Parade and Midtown dedication of a mural.
Council Member Kleinberg asked for clarification from the City Attorney on the extent of Council Member involvement
in the Library Bond Measure. Council Member Freeman congratulated Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison for receiving a Kiwanis award.
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Ojakian noted that the two Closed Session items would
not be heard that evening. 15. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation
05/06/02 94-97
Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
case No.: 01-30923DM Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 16. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Jaim Nulman, Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo
Alto, SCC #CV779831 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are
made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
05/06/02 94-98