HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-16 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting February 16, 1993 1. State of the University Report - Stanford President Gerhard Casper ........................................ 70-114 2. Asset Seizure - Expenditure of Funds .................. 70-117 3. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Council Members to Appear in Support of Council Refer-rals at Standing Committee Meetings ................... 70-117 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re adoption of the staff recommendations to modify the conditions of Conditional Use Permit 73-UP-36, granted to a previous restaurant use at 260 California Avenue, now occupied by The Edge (continued from 1/19/93) .... 70-117 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re extension of the termination dates of: (1) a nonprofit orthomolecular use (Linus Pauling Institute) at 440 Page Mill Road and a nonprofit molecular medical research use (Institute of Molecular Medical Sciences) at 460 Page Mill Road; and (2) a private dance studio operation (The Beaudoin Dance Studio) at 464 Colorado Avenue ................................................ 70-124 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.48.040, to increase the Floor Area Ratio limitation in the hotel overlay zone from 0.6:1 to 1:1 ........... 70-129 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a zone map amendment to apply the revised hotel (H) overlay zone to a portion of the Creekside Inn property at 3400, 3460 El Camino Real and 554, 556 Matadero Avenue ................................................ 70-130 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re Adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of an application to revise the configuration of properties at 620/640 Page Mill Road and 2650 El Camino Real .................................................. 70-131
02/16/93 70-112
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re Adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of an application for a Zone Map Amendment from the Commercial Downtown Service Subdistrict with a Pedestrian Overlay [CD-S(P)] to Public Facilities [PF] to facilitate the future expansion of the adjacent Alma Street Electric Substation and to allow use of the site for public construction project storage at 841 Alma Street ................................................ 70-134 11. Re-Advertisement of the Planning Commission Vacancy ... 70-136 11A. (Old Item No. 4) Confirmation of Appointments to the Centennial Board ...................................... 70-139
02/16/93 70-113
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:04 p.m. Mayor McCown announced that the City Council held a Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room for the purpose of a Closed Session to discuss Potential
Initiation of Litigation pursuant to Government Code ∋54956.9(c). PRESENT: Andersen, Cobb, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. State of the University Report - Stanford President Gerhard Casper Andy Doty, Director of Community Relations, Stanford University, introduced Stanford President Gerhard Casper. Stanford President Gerhard Casper recognized Professor Linus Pauling, a distinguished Stanford University faculty member and a two-time Nobel Prize winner. He spoke about the $123 million in earthquake damage which occurred to Stanford University buildings. With many uncertainties, including government support of higher education, research, and health care, Stanford had a long way to go before its budget was back in balance. Stanford needed to be prudent in looking at ways to increase revenues. He looked forward to working with the City during the challenging times ahead. He supported regional cooperation in keeping with Stanford's mission, and while the expectations of Stanford and other universities were very high, it was important to keep Stanford's mission of education and research. Many students volunteered in the community, and he was pleased that the people, programs, and facilities of Stanford formed an important asset for the region and the state. He was happy to report that a $25 million grant had been received from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, which would help Stanford recruit new faculty to advance knowledge in pediatrics and expand clinical services for children. It would also help Stanford University and the Packard Children's Hospital provide national leadership. Mayor McCown asked about the organization of the Stanford Medical Center Task Force and the current development issues with respect to Sand Hill Road and the Stanford Shopping Center. President Casper said there was no direct relationship between the task force and the Sand Hill Road issue. After many discussions with participants at the Medical Center, he concluded that planning was going forward with the Packard Hospital and the medical school, but he was concerned there was no clear way to coordinate the planning of those bodies. Medical education and research was in a very uncertain state. He hoped the task force would be able to come up with a plan to marshal the resources. Council Member Fazzino said approximately a year ago the City's
02/16/93 70-114
staff, with the help and support of Stanford personnel, developed a report relating to the Stanford Research Park. The report addressed several obstacles faced by the Research Park in terms of keeping its unique competitive advantage in contrast to other research parks across the country. One of the issues mentioned in that report had to do with the relationship between the firms in the Research Park and Stanford's academic departments, i.e., engineering. A concern had been raised that perhaps those relationships were not as strong as they were 15 or 20 years ago, and if the competitive advantage were being lost, that was the major reason. He asked whether that was a legitimate concern and whether Stanford University was taking any steps to work with the firms and whether Stanford intended to take any steps to change the current situation. President Casper said in the beginning Stanford University had been the trail blazer and role model for the rest of the country with the development of the Research Park which was the core in the Silicon Valley. There was no question the Research Park needed to be modernized so that the facilities would be attractive to users in the future. The question was whether that would help if the relationship between Stanford University and the firms in the Research Park were not intimate. The main problem in the United States, according to that version, was not that business was overregulated but that the universities failed to bring the knowledge and information to the businesses. He did not agree with that theory. He had never heard a complaint about lack of access to the knowledge and information generated at Stanford University and believed the process of knowledge transfer was as speedy and effective as it had been in the past. The companies complained that once the information had been received, it was difficult to develop and test the products and bring them to market. By the time those regulatory hurdles had been overcome, the Japanese had outdone the United States. The major universities in California were committed to making sure that interaction between industry and the universities would remain at its present level or possibly improve. Vice Mayor Kniss thought teachers would be interested in knowing how to avail themselves of the students that came into the community on a daily basis. Those kinds of contributions made a dramatic impact on the schools given the fact that California ranked close to the bottom in the teacher/student ratio. She asked how new revenue would be obtained through the use of land. President Casper said two thirds of Stanford's open land was dedicated to the academic preserve. Leland Stanford imposed a condition for the operation of Stanford University that Stanford would never sell its lands because it was Stanford's most valuable asset. For the long term, Stanford would have to make use of the resources it had with respect to the modernization of the Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, Sand Hill Road, and the Stanford West project. Council Member Cobb said the City and Stanford University had a mutual interest in the projects mentioned. In 1990 he made a
02/16/93 70-115
considerable effort to speak with the businesses in the Research Park about how the City interacted with the people who had an interest in improving the Research Park. Although progress had been made, he asked whether enough progress had been made in terms of the relationship between the City and Stanford University to make it possible to keep that kind of constructive environment and whether more progress was needed. President Casper thought the progress in the relationship between Stanford and the City had been very satisfactory. While there were still problems, the problems were not made by the City or by Stanford but rather by California regulations. The question was whether the State would ever learn to make effective use of its resources, and most of the changes had to be made at the State level. Council Member Andersen asked whether infrastructure needs were being met in the Research Park to maintain the area in an up-to-date, technologically responsive manner. President Casper said he had focused on the clean up issues of the Research Park and not the infrastructure development and was not prepared to elaborate at that time. Council Member Andersen said the City's desire was to make certain the Research Park was a viable facility for some of the state-of-the-art technology that was potentially available. He queried the extent to which Stanford University's faculty and students worked with the community of East Palo Alto. There were tremendous resources in both the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University, and he was uncertain whether those efforts were coordinated in a way that would bring about positive assistance. He asked whether Stanford would be willing to explore the possibility of a coordi-nated effort with Palo Alto and how that might be accomplished. President Casper said student volunteer services were a coordinated effort. He said the Medical Center was heavily involved with clinical services rendered to East Palo Alto, and the law school also had a program in that community. He emphasized the importance of legal services to the poor, and law schools were an obvious agent for rendering those kinds of services. As the exchanges of common problems and projects increased between the City and Stanford University, the coordination in East Palo could also be discussed. Council Member Rosenbaum said there was unlimited potential for expansion at the Medical Center, but the City worried about the interaction of the expansion at the Medical Center with traffic and housing. He asked how the City and Stanford University could reconcile their potentially different interests in that area. President Casper said Stanford University would grow ambitiously because it wanted to be the best in all fields, but the growth would probably be balanced by either not growing or shrinking in other areas. One of the most difficult problems at the Medical Center was facilities and space. There would be some growth but
02/16/93 70-116
it would be done prudently, and he hoped projects such as Sand Hill Road would help Stanford deal with traffic congestion. He could not say what projects would move forward in the next 20 years, but there would be a lot of consultation between the City and Stanford in the future regarding the additional facilities that needed to be built. He emphasized that the vitality of California depended on the preservation of assets such as Stanford University and its scientific accomplishments. Vice Mayor Kniss underscored the comments about the contribution that Stanford University had made to the scientific community. She said sometimes the community underestimated its dependency on Stanford University. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Elsie Parker, 135 Lois Lane, spoke regarding Palo Alto's responsi-bility to help East Palo Alto. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding legislative responsibility. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-3, with Huber voting "no" on Item No. 3 and Item No. 4 removed by Kniss. 2. Asset Seizure - Expenditure of Funds 3. Ordinance 4129 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Council Members to Appear in Support of Council Referrals at Standing Committee Meetings" (1st Reading 2/1/93 - Passed: 7-1, Huber "no," Cobb absent MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item No. 2. MOTION PASSED 8-1 for Item No. 3, Huber "no." AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 4 would become Item No. 11A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re Adoption of the staff recommendations to modify the conditions of Conditional Use Permit 73-UP-36, granted to a previous restaurant use at 260 California Avenue, now occupied by The Edge (continued from 1/19/93) This is a Quasi-Judicial Hearing and the procedural policy for the City Council will be followed
02/16/93 70-117
Planning Commission Chairperson Bern Beecham said the Planning Commission supported the closing time of 3:00 a.m. for The Edge because of the broad support from local business owners who welcomed the activity late at night in that area. The percent of telephone calls that came in between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. was so small the benefit of closing earlier would not reciprocate. There had been a lot of discussion about the trickle-out theory, i.e., whether it was better to close at one time so everybody left then or have people trickle out. The Planning Commission was convinced that there would be less disruption and conflict in the parking lot and the streets if there were not a more massive exodus at 2:00 a.m. The Planning Commission proposed a six-month review if the use permit were granted. Police Captain Tom Merson asked that the six-month review of the use permit include the summer months which would allow the Police Department an opportunity to review activities during peak times. Council Member Fazzino asked what the review would entail and whether the Council would have to go through the process again as a result of that review. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle hoped the six-month review would yield a positive result and that there would not be a need for as many meetings or hearings. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there would be formal Planning Commission and Council review as well as staff review. Ms. Lytle understood the issue would return to the Planning Commission for review. Council Member Fazzino clarified if there were no problems, it would stay at that level. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler asked for clarification about the original recommendation for a 2:00 a.m. closure and the Planning Commission recommendation for a 3:00 a.m. closure and whether staff was comfortable with the recommendation. Ms. Lytle said staff's goal was to impose additional conditions on the use permit so that it would become a more compatible use in that district. The 2:00 a.m. closure was a conclusion based on the testimony at the Zoning Administrator's hearing. Before the matter progressed to the Planning Commission level, the applicant was able to accomplish some further work so that neighbors were satisfied with the measures taken, e.g., security guards. When the matter reached the Planning Commission, staff was comfortable that a relaxation of the original decision was satisfactory. Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing open. Duf Sundheim, attorney for The Edge, 260 California Avenue, said
02/16/93 70-118
the applicant had tried to work with staff, the business community, the residents, and the young patrons to arrived at a solution that made sense for everybody. He believed the amendment should be approved because it had received broad-based support of those involved with the issue. The issues raised in the notice letter and the report had been alleviated to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the Police Department. The primary source of income for The Edge was not from the sale of alcohol but from the cover charges. The average patron only ordered l.5 drinks, and the Edge did not sell alcohol after 1:15 a.m. The club provided a facility for a person to spend an extended period of time which was why it was important to extend the hours to 3:00 a.m. The club would lose 25 percent of its patrons if it closed at 2:00 a.m. He was amazed by the support of the young adults in the community and felt the young people deserved to have the operation of the club extended. Council Member Huber confirmed there were two years left on the lease for The Edge and understood the applicant did not care about the closing times after that period. Mr. Sundheim said the applicant cared but wanted to survive during that two-year period. He believed it would be in everyone's best interest to retain the current 3:00 a.m. closing and urged the Council to allow the Edge to retain that closing during the balance of the current lease. Elizabeth Burg, 424 College Avenue, No. F, said things had improved to where she could now sleep through the night. She supported The Edge and hoped the Council would consider the young people's patronage of The Edge in its decision. David Wellerstein, 350 College Avenue, said after the security guards were placed at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and Birch Street, he could park outside of his home and the trash had been taken care of. He had never had any noise, traffic, or crime problems. The Edge was a multi-cultural, multi-generational club and was a good neighbor, and he encouraged the Council to let it stay. Dave Siegel, 2733 Ramona Street, formerly owned a business in the facility now occupied by The Edge. When he first operated his club, it closed at 2:00 a.m., but he found it made more sense to stay open until 4:00 a.m. because half of the patrons came to the club after midnight. He experienced that trickle-out effect when the closure time was changed which helped handle the crowd control more effectively. He believed the fact that if people could burn off steam in a non-alcoholic environment it had a positive impact. A 2:00 a.m. closure would cause a significant revenue impact and the crowd control issues would get worse. George Hanus, 110 Mission Drive, said he worked until 12 midnight and usually went to The Edge after work. He supported the 3:00 a.m. closure. He was pleased with the improvements, and The Edge had worked hard not to adversely impact the neighbors. The Edge offered a unique environment, and he was glad people under 21
02/16/93 70-119
years of age were welcome. Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Huber was satisfied with the Planning Commission's efforts but wanted the issue to return to the Council when the lease expired in order to make the closing time more consistent with everything else in the City. He asked how that direction could happen. Senior Assistant Attorney Sue Case suggested, as part of the proposed condition for a six-month review, a further condition for a two-year review be included. Council could either specify the purpose would be to consider a change in the closing hours or it could be written consistent with the six-month review. Council Member Andersen thanked the Planning Commission and staff for its outstanding effort on the issue. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to modify the conditions of Use Permit 73-UP-36, based on the following findings and modified conditions, and with a change to Condition No. 11 from six months to seven months. Findings 1. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that, through this amended use permit the existing eating and drinking facility has been conditioned to address complaints from adjacent business owners and residents, and to mitigate litter, vandalism, excessive noise, and parking problems related to the operation of the existing facility. In addition, the Council spe-cifically finds that a 3:00 a.m. closing time is appropriate for the following reasons: 1) the neigh-borhood would be assured that noise generated or associated with The Edge would terminate at a predeter-mined point each night; 2) a 3:00 a.m. closing time is relatively consistent with the closing time of other businesses providing similar services throughout the City; 3) although a closing time of 12:00 midnight would more significantly reduce the calls for service attributed to The Edge, the Council finds that a closing time earlier than 3:00 a.m. would significantly affect their business; and 4) although Police Department records show that only 15 percent of the total calls for service and disturbances between July and October 1992, occurred after 3:00 a.m., these numbers still exceeded any other single use in the City during the same time period.
02/16/93 70-120
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that the Retail Shopping Combining District of the Community Commercial zone, and the Regional Community Commercial land use designation specifically permit eating and drinking uses in conjunction with the on-site sale and consumption of liquor, beer and wine, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Conditions 1. There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. daily, except for cleaning the premises, or for compliance with the provisions of the litter removal plan established in condition 6. Patrons shall not be allowed to enter the building between 1:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The serving of all alcoholic beverages shall terminate at 1:30 a.m. daily, and shall not be allowed to commence until the reopening of business later that day, but in no event prior to 9:00 a.m. All patrons shall be vacated from the building by 3:00 a.m. at the end of every business day. 2. The business operator shall submit a plan which addresses line control, and the processing and dispersal of patrons waiting to enter the facility. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by both the Police Department and Zoning Administrator. The plan must identify methods for controlling and dispersing the crowd waiting to enter the establishment and will include quantitative objectives such as the maximum allowable length of an outdoor waiting line before and during events, and a time limit for achieving the objective once a crowd forms. The plan shall be submitted no later than 15 days after the issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified. 3. The business operator shall submit a plan for the utilization of security guards in directing patrons to designated public parking lots, for the purpose of reducing noise levels and vandalism in the California Avenue district. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by both the Police Department and Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify the number of guards necessary for specific event types and days of the week, the boundaries and specific areas the guards will patrol, specific public parking lots to which patrons will be directed, and the manner in which the guards are to approach and direct motorists. The Zoning Administrator may require the operator to make changes in the security plan, upon determination that the approved plan is not effective in reducing complaints. The Zoning Administrator may also require changes to the boundaries of the security area, and in the number, location and actions of the security guards, upon a determination that such changes are necessary to reduce complaints. All security guards used to implement this plan shall be licensed by the State of California and
02/16/93 70-121
uniformed in a manner that satisfies the Police Department and also clearly identifies them as guards for the facility and not Palo Alto Police Officers. The plan shall be submitted no later than 15 days after the issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified. 4. The business operator shall submit a temporary sign program for the California Avenue district that effectively directs patrons of the facility to the specific public parking lots identified in the approved security guard plan required by condition 3. The placement and wording of the signs, and events and/or days for which they will be utilized, shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Division. The plan shall be submitted no later than 15 days after the issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified. 5. The serving of alcoholic beverages shall only be allowed only in conjunction with the operation of a bona fide restaurant. The restaurant shall be in operation and easily accessible to and from the entertainment area during the times in which alcohol is sold and consumed on site. 6. The business shall remove all litter associated with its operation in the area patrolled by the security guards, as defined in condition 3. Litter removal shall commence no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and shall be completed by 10:00 a.m. the morning after every business day. 7. The business operator shall allow all patrons waiting in line to have full access and use of bathroom facilities within the building, whether or not that patron has paid the required cover charge. This service shall be advertized in conjunction with the education program specified in condition 8. 8. The business operator shall submit a plan to educate patrons that the use of the property is permitted only under certain conditions, particularly respect for the surrounding business and residential neighborhood. The education program shall direct patrons to park in designated public parking lots, to reduce noise in the California Avenue district, to eliminate litter and vandalism, and to be respectful of property and residents in the California Avenue district. The plan shall include wording for handbills, to be distributed upon entry to the facility, and signs within the building. The education program shall be reviewed and approved by both the Police Department and the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall be submitted no later than 15 days after the issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified. 9. Compliance shall be required with all applicable codes and ordinances, including Titles 9 (Peace, Morals and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
02/16/93 70-122
10. The sale of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, the owner, their heirs, successors and assigns to comply with all terms and conditions of this use permit. 11. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing within seven months of the approval of this permit for the purpose of determining the conditions' effectiveness in reducing noise and other nuisances caused by the operation of the business. In determining whether to extend the permit without changes or to recommend that the City Council modify the conditions, the Planning Commission shall consider the findings set forth in section 18.90.080 (a) and (b), of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. Council Member Andersen said the trickle-out period made sense, and he was delighted that young people came out to speak on the issue. The Edge should be commended for its desire to be a good neighbor and for the work done with the Zoning Administrator, with the community, and the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Kniss planned to visit the site at a later date. AMENDMENT: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to add Condition No. 12 to review the matter when the current lease expired. Council Member Fazzino opposed the amendment because the City had been through a very long protracted process to come up with a compromise solution. The Edge had worked very hard with the neighbors and the City to accommodate the concerns. If the compromise did not work, the City could revisit the issue in seven months and he did not think much would change between seven months and two years. He was concerned about the Council's increased propensity to review use permits and believed staff had higher priorities over the next few years than conducting ongoing reviews of use permits granted by the City. Two years was an arbitrary number, and he encouraged his colleagues to vote against the amendment. Ms. Case recommended the Council set a specific date of January 1, 1995, for the review. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE AMENDMENT that the date of the review would be January 1, 1995. Council Member Huber clarified the intent of the review would be to have the area be consistent with the rest of the City, which was a 2:00 a.m. closure, without penalizing the people who currently operated the business. Council Member Simitian said his office was two blocks from The Edge and he had occasionally circled the parking lot after 12 midnight. He concluded The Edge was capable of solving the problem, but the question was whether it would continue to have
02/16/93 70-123
the same attentiveness regarding the problem over a longer period of time. He had observed the improvement, and given the attention currently done by the operators, it could work. The City had experienced that once the hearings were over, property owners or operators tended to grow a little lax as time went on in terms of adhering to the provisions. He would support the amendment to review the matter in two years to ensure that the conditions were still being adhered to. If the conditions were working on January 1, 1995, he saw no reason to "conform" the hours to others in that area. The purpose of an after-hours club was to have a place that people could go later in the evening. Council Member Wheeler agreed with the comments of Council Member Simitian. The applicant spoke about renegotiating the lease in two years and having some certainty that the business could be operated in a certain manner. The applicant could be afforded that certainty if the matter returned to the Council for consideration before lease negotiations on the property commenced. Council Member Andersen said when the lease expired, there might be a new owner. The intent of the review in two years was not to reduce the time of closing. Vice Mayor Kniss would oppose the amendment if it was aimed toward a conforming use of a 2:00 a.m. closure. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-1, Fazzino "no." MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. Mayor McCown associated with the comments of Council Member Andersen and said the work of the staff, Police Department, Planning Commission, members of the public, and the applicant was an example of how a lot of energy was well spent to achieve some important solutions to a difficult set of problems. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re Extension of the termination dates of: (1) a nonprofit orthomolecular use (Linus Pauling Institute) at 440 Page Mill Road and a nonprofit molecular medical research use (Institute of Molecular Medical Sciences) at 460 Page Mill Road; and (2) a private dance studio operation (The Beaudoin Dance Studio) at 464 Colorado Avenue Mayor McCown explained the Planning Commission recommended an extension of the termination date of the Linus Pauling Institute (LPI) for 5 years from July 20, 1993, to July 20, 1998, and also recommended an extension of the termination date of The Beaudoin Dance Studio for 5 years from July 20, 1993, to July 20, 1998. Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman reaffirmed staff's original recommendation that The Beaudoin Dance Studio at 464 Colorado Avenue be extended for l0 years which had also been requested by the owners of the dance studio, Flo and Heston
02/16/93 70-124
Beaudoin. Mayor McCown explained there was a differing recommendation between the City staff with respect to the dance studio and that of the Planning Commission. Council Member Simitian asked how Council should proceed since there were two very different issues before it. Mayor McCown recommended the public testimony be heard on both issues, and then the Council could discuss and take action on the items separately. Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing open. Stephen Lawson, Executive Officer of the Linus Pauling Institute, 189 Oak Court, Menlo Park, said Linus Pauling was the only person to have won two unshared Nobel Prizes, one for Chemistry and one for Peace. He was presented the Presidential Medal for Merit by President Truman, the National Medal of Science, and had been honored with numerous other scientific and humanitarian awards throughout his career (letter on file in the Clerk's Office). He quoted from a chapter in the book The Chemical Bond. Linus Pauling was one of founders of molecular biology and should be saluted for the wonderful things he had done for chemistry and also his seminal role in getting molecular biology started. Linus Pauling founded the non-profit and independent Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine (LPI) in 1973 in order to carry out some exceptionally promising research in orthomolecular prevention and treatment of disease, particularly cancer. At LPI research was being conducted on the value of Vitamin C and other natural compounds in preventing and treating AIDS-related diseases. It did not intend to expand or intensify the activities at the current location and the impact of the LPI on traffic in the area was minimal. The benefits of the LPI to the community were large enough to justify the approval of its request for a one time, five-year extension. LPI had within the last year contracted its research projects and staff in order to align revenues and expenditures, and it intended to capitalize on its twentieth anniversary in 1993 and mount a capital campaign designed to procure a new home hopefully with the help of the City of Palo Alto. Council Member Simitian asked the total budget for the LPI and the Institute of Molecular Medical Sciences (IMS). Mr. Lawson said the budget varied from year to year, and the budget for the LPI was approximately $2.5 million. He could not address the budget for the IMS. Council Member Simitian understood that the IMS was affiliated with the LPI. Mr. Lawson said each facility was a separate non-profit research entity. The IMS could be considered a spin off from the LPI. In 1992, in order to align revenues and expenditures, it was decided
02/16/93 70-125
to narrow the research focus on the original theme of the LPI which was the orthomolecular prevention and treatment of disease so some of the other research programs were spun off into a separate organization with separate funding. Council Member Simitian understood that the IMS moved into the space in 1992. Mr. Lawson said that was correct. Linus Pauling, Director of Research of the Linus Pauling Institute, 440 Page Mill Road, liked being in Palo Alto. He was grateful to the City, its agencies, who had been helpful over the years, and to the people of Palo Alto who had supported and worked as volunteers for the LPI. He said 40 percent of the American people now took large quantities of Vitamin C and vitamin supplements for his/her health. He spoke about the success of the LPI and believed the discoveries made in the last three years would have great value in controlling the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. He looked forward to continuing his work in Palo Alto during the next five years. Jessica Shambora, 236 Tennyson, had been taking dance lessons at The Beaudoin Dance Studio for five years. She bicycled to the studio because the location was very convenient and safe. The Beaudoin's were like family to everyone in the neighborhood and she hoped the Council took that into consideration. Jeremy Gore, 1200 Harriet Street, spoke on behalf of the students and parents of students of Flo and Heston Beaudoin who believed when the Beaudoins were no longer teaching at the studio on Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto would lose something it would never get back--a piece of its spirit. The Beaudoins had over the past 61 years brought social graces to high school students, along with excellent ballroom instruction. The Beaudoins shared what they had with the community by giving performances at nursing homes and community events. He urged the Council to grant a l0-year extension. Regina Pustan, P.O. Box 60724, Palo Alto, referred to an article in the Peninsula Times Tribune dated February 15, 1993, which stated the Council would help the LPI find another home. She was not in favor of the LPI being located in any place other than Palo Alto. She urged the Council to help keep the LPI in Palo Alto and said there were vacant buildings close to Stanford University that could be used. She believed there should be a token rent of $l per year since the LPI had worked for nothing for many years and had not cost the City any money. Flo Beaudoin, 454 Colorado, thanked the people for their support. The Council was concerned that the studio might be sold to another studio but that would not happen. She clarified the studio was open all day but did not have students all day. She said the business had never been subsidized by the City during all the years of operation. Her only request was that the business be allowed a l0-year extension, and she hoped the Council would favor
02/16/93 70-126
that request. Council Member Cobb asked whether l0 years would be enough. Ms. Beaudoin said yes. Mayor McCown acknowledged there were a lot of supporters of the LPI and The Beaudoin Dance Studio at the Council meeting that evening. Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor McCown suggested the issue of The Beaudoin Dance Studio be considered first. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the following: 1. The negative declaration, and 2. The following provision be added to the Nonconforming Use Termination section of the zoning ordinance (Section 18.94.0-70) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code a) Termination extension from July 20, 1993, to July 20, 2003, for a dance studio operation at 464 Colorado Avenue. Council Member Cobb complimented the young people that spoke in support of The Beaudoin Dance Studio. He endorsed the comments of Mr. Gore. Vice Mayor Kniss said the location of a dance studio in a residen-tial area was important and she supported the motion. Council Member Andersen supported the motion and appreciated the contributions the Beaudoin's had made to the community. He hoped 10 years would be enough time. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: 1. The negative declaration, and 2. The following added provision to the Nonconforming Use Termination section of the zoning ordinance (Section 18.94.0-70) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code a) Termination extension from July 20, 1993, to July 20, 1998, for nonprofit orthomolecular and molecular medical research functions conducted at 440-460 Page Mill Road. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of
02/16/93 70-127
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.94.070 (Nonconform-ing Use - Required Termination) to Change the Required Termination Dates for Uses at Specified Properties" Council Member Wheeler clarified the area had been rezoned for housing and for the long-term interests of the City that conversion should take place. The portion of the property where the LPI was located was important to the development of a larger area for housing. She appreciated the amount of time, energy, and effort needed for a non-profit to be able to raise funds sufficient enough to make a move such as would be required of the LPI. She believed a five-year extension would be a minimal amount of time needed. She associated with the comments of Vice Mayor Kniss that the City would use its offices to help the LPI relocate in an area that was mutually agreeable. Council Member Fazzino supported the Planning Commission recommen-dation and had long felt it was foolhardy for the Council to push the LPI out of its current location given the extraordinary contribution that the LPI made to society. There was no question housing was extremely important, but he would argue on balance the work that the LPI did with respect to identifying much needed cures for diseases was far more important to the community and society than adding a few more housing units in a problematic location. He hoped the Council would support the Planning Commission recommendation. While housing could be accommodated on that site at the present time, there were some environmental issues that had not been resolved. Vice Mayor Kniss concurred with the comments of Council Member Wheeler that the City hoped to keep the LPI in Palo Alto and would work with the LPI to find a suitable site. The reason the issue was brought forward at the beginning of 1993 was that the LPI had not previously applied for an extension. Having a person of Dr. Pauling's stature present at the Council meeting reminded everyone how special the Palo Alto community was. Council Member Simitian could not support the motion and believed there should be a correction to the misimpression that housing would not be feasible on the site. Staff had stated there was no impediment to housing development on the site at that time. The City had a lot to say about the economics of housing, and one way to make housing happen was to implement the amortization expiration so that when the site became designated solely for housing that would push the market to turn it into housing. The extension of five years would only delay that conversion in the marketplace. Council was deferring for an additional 5 years the decision that the Council made 15 years ago to convert to housing. It was a land use decision and not a decision that had anything to do with the stature of Linus Pauling or the good work done by the LPI. It was a decision about whether the Council respected a decision that was made 15 years ago to move forward with housing or whether that should be put aside because there was now some difficulty. The Council recently dealt with approximately 20 small property owners along El Camino Real who pleaded his/her case as well in terms of the amortization period. Those
02/16/93 70-128
businesses provided services and tax revenue to the community and depended on the location on El Camino Real for the viability of his/her business. The LPI could conduct business somewhere else in the vicinity and was not dependent on that location. The LPI had 13 years to plan for the eventuality and knew of the amortization when it moved into that location 13 years ago. He could not approve a 5-year extension based on a failure to organize. He was puzzled the IMS would move into a space a year and a half ago. Given the time frame involved, he would not be opposed to a 1- or 2-year extension to allow a reasonable time to vacate the premises but could not support a 5-year extension. Mayor McCown supported the motion but agreed with the observation by Council Member Simitian that it was a land use issue. Most requests for extensions of amortization in the El Camino Real area had been grandfathered indefinitely rather than face a change in the use of the property. The LPI would have probably come to the Council 13 years ago to ask for a reasonable additional period if it could have foreseen what would happen. She supported the long-term land use planning decision that was made when that site and a number of other sites in the immediate vicinity were designated for housing. As Council Member Simitian had indicated previously, there were not many sites left in the City for the development of housing. She hoped the Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (CPCAC) for the Comprehensive Plan update would look at areas that were part of the City's housing strategy and think about whether there were new ways to encourage and facilitate the provision of housing on those sites. She did not believe a 5-year extension would interfere with that long-term goal and was comfortable allowing that final period of time so the LPI could locate a new home. She hoped its next home would be in Palo Alto. Council Member Simitian said there was a surplus of commercial space on the market with reasonable rates, and he urged the LPI to be mindful of the fact that the market might not be as advanta-geous at a later date. Council Member Fazzino hoped the City would help the LPI any way it could to identify another site. Several Council Members did support a motion to allow other small businesses along El Camino Real to have an opportunity to be heard by the Council, but unfortunately that motion was defeated. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Simitian "no." 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re Adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.48.040, to increase the Floor Area Ratio limitation in the hotel overlay zone from 0.6:1 to 1:1 Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to
02/16/93 70-129
approve the staff recommendation to continue consideration of the proposed text amendment to the hotel overlay zone to the Council meeting of April 19, 1993, in order to allow revision and re-noticing of the environmental assessment, based on testimony and concern raised by members of the public at the Planning Commission hearing of January 27, 1993. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS: 9:30 TO 9:45 P.M. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re Adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a zone map amendment to apply the revised hotel (H) overlay zone to a portion of the Creekside Inn property at 3400, 3460 El Camino Real and 554, 556 Matadero Avenue Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber introduced Robert Schubert who was a contract planner working on a variety of development monitoring applications. The application was for the addition of hotel (H) overlay to a portion of the site. The (H) overlay involved a 0.6:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The preceding item which was continued because of a need to modify and re-notice the environmental assessment, could change the FAR for the (H) overlay. The Planning Commission discussed an increase to 1:1 FAR (maximum) and staff had even recommended a 2:1 FAR. Since the item was continued, there was no change to the (H) overlay, so the (H) overlay, as it now existed, was at 0.6:1 FAR. Staff talked to the applicant about the situation and the applicant's desire was to have a FAR higher than 0.6:1 to facilitate remodeling and renovation of the facility. In the interim, the applicant wanted to move forward with the application and realized the application of the (H) overlay at the present time would only allow the 0.6:1 FAR. Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation, based on the findings below, adopt the negative declaration and approve the requested zone change to apply the revised hotel overlay zone to a portion of the Creekside Inn site: Findings 1. The proposed zone change is in the public interest, because without the increased FAR, it is likely that rehabilitation of the aging facility will be precluded. 2. The proposed zone change would create no significant adverse environmental effect, in that there would not be significant traffic impacts; and effects related to aesthetics, noise, light and glare would be mitigated through the use permit and site and design process.
02/16/93 70-130
3. The proposed zone change is consistent with Policies 5, 6 and 7 of the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of the Property known as 3400-3460 El Camino Real and 554-556 Matadero Avenue (Creekside Inn) from CS to CS(H)" Council Member Wheeler understood the staff report (CMR:158:93) spoke in terms of the 0.6:1 FAR current (H) overlay but the environmental assessment stated the text change amendment and zone change would increase the maximum allowable FAR from 0.4:1 to 2:1 on the Creekside Inn Property. Mr. Schreiber said the environmental assessment was done when the (H) overlay was in process. Because the environmental assessment looked at a more intense level of potential development that the current (H) overlay, the environmental assessment was still valid. It would overstate any impacts of the (H) overlay. Council Member Wheeler clarified the environmental assessment was done on the basis of the worse scenario the Council's approval might render. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler clarified the only changes being proposed as part of the application would be for Parcels 84, 83, and 72. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler clarified none of the property that abutted the residential zone behind the subject property would be affected. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re Adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of an application to revise the configuration of properties at 620/640 Page Mill Road and 2650 El Camino Real Vice Mayor Kniss and Council Members Cobb and Fazzino indicated he/she would not participate in Item No. 9 due to a conflict of interest. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said at the Planning Commission meeting there was confusion over exactly what was involved with the application. Mayor McCown asked whether the existing property zoned for housing
02/16/93 70-131
was one legal parcel or whether it was separate parcels. Mr. Schubert said it was separate parcels. Mayor McCown clarified the piece of property involved in the exchange was not the Mayfield School site. Mr. Schubert said the portion of the residential property affected would be at the rear of the Mayfield School site. Mayor McCown understood a portion of the property would be taken away and would be added to Mayfield School site parcel. Mr. Schubert said both the residential and LM zone properties would be rectangular in shape after the property boundaries were adjusted. Mayor McCown asked whether the Mayfield School site was a separate parcel. Mr. Schreiber said yes. There were a variety of leaseholds--the Mayfield School site, the BP gas station, and a vacant site which were all separate. Mayor McCown said as a technical matter, the new parcel that would be created by the addition of the former Page Mill frontage was actually an L-shaped parcel and would wrap around the corner. Ms. Lytle said if the corner piece was not considered which was also under Stanford University ownership, then that was correct. Mr. Schubert said there was an approved application for a new building on the LM property by Hewlett-Packard. The proposed application would allow Hewlett-Packard to keep the building in its approved location and the surface parking lot would be reconfigured to conform with the new property boundaries. Council Member Wheeler said there was some discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about the toxic plume under those properties, and staff pointed out it would not impede the develop-ment of the office building and associated parking on the Page Mill Road site. She asked whether that statement held true for the possible construction of housing on the portion being traded off into the Mayfield site. Mr. Schreiber said the application before the Council did not change the actual description of the development in relation to the toxic plume. The building that Hewlett-Packard was constructing had been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The potential use of some or all of the corner site for housing was a distinct possibility. Any specific proposal would have to consider the environmental impacts of the existing plume. Staff did not believe housing was a viable use for that site at the present time, and the exchange of land did not detract from potential housing.
02/16/93 70-132
Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing open. Diane Healey, representing the Stanford Management Company, 203 Bryant Street, reiterated the application was a technical adjust-ment to accommodate Hewlett-Packard's redevelopment of its site. Stanford University was mindful of the history and sensitivity of the Mayfield site and as such would not decrease the total land available for redevelopment of any future use. It was important for the Council to realize Stanford University did not presently have any particular redevelopment plan for the Mayfield site. Stanford University recognized the importance of the housing issue and remained committed to working with the City to find creative solutions to the broader housing challenges that faced both the community and Stanford University. Stanford University was eager to work with the City on the application for the Stanford West housing development in keeping with that commitment. Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation, based on the findings below, adopt the negative declaration and approve the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change. Findings 1. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change are in the public interest, in that there would not be a net decrease in the amount of land available for housing or in the number of housing units which could be constructed. Furthermore, potential redevelopment of the site as an urban gateway is improved. Parking and circulation for the office building would also be improved. 2. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change would create no significant adverse environmental effects (see the attached Environmental Impact Assessment). Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of the Property known as 2650 El Camino Real from RM-40 (D) to LM and to Change the Classifi-cation of a Portion of the Property known as 620/640 Page Mill Road from LM to RM-40 (D)" Resolution 7173 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for Portions of Properties at 2650 El Camino Real and 620/640 Page Mill Road" Council Member Simitian asked whether there was a downside. Ms. Lytle said staff saw it as a win-win situation, with no downside.
02/16/93 70-133
MOTION PASSED 6-0-3, Cobb, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation re Adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of an application for a Zone Map Amendment from the Commercial Downtown Service Subdistrict with a Pedestrian Overlay [CD-S(P)] to Public Facilities [PF] to facilitate the future expansion of the adjacent Alma Street Electric Substation and to allow immediate use of the site for public construction project storage at 841 Alma Street Mayor McCown indicated she would not participate in Item No. 10 due to a conflict of interest. Planner Robert Schubert clarified the Planning Commission on January 13, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Zone Map amendment for 841 Alma Street. The Planning Commission also recommended the Council direct the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to require a solid design for the temporary fence which would be constructed after the demolition of the automotive service building. Council Member Cobb asked for clarification on the substantive points made in the letter from Richard Klein, RKD Inc., dated February 15, 1993. City Manager June Fleming said staff needed an opportunity to review the specifics of the letter. The proposed use for the site was not a new proposal and had appeared in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) over the past few years. Staff had looked carefully over the years at the City's need to make an expansion of the substation to meet the needs in the Downtown area. While she was uncertain whether a specific party had been informed about the proposed expansion, it was in the public record each time staff had addressed the CIP. She assured the Council that staff had absolutely no plans to store any hazardous materials on the site. Construction projects were done in various areas of the City, and there was always a concern from people residing in the affected areas about the unsightliness of where the materials were kept while staff worked on the project. The proposal was to put materials at the site while staff worked in the Downtown area. When the project was finished, the materials would be removed. Council Member Cobb said the letter suggested RKD Inc. was misled by staff. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle suspected the applicant was probably informed of two separate efforts--the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) charette effort which yielded some ideas for the area that got several private property owners enthusiastic, and the Urban Design Plan which dealt with beautifying the Alma corridor in the SOFA area. She believed many of the improvements were underway. An undergrounding project was underway in the SOFA area, and the temporary storage for the site would help facilitate the undergrounding of the utility poles. The wall diagram from the SOFA charette which was published in the draft Urban Design
02/16/93 70-134
Plan was an improvement over what was there now, and the Utilities Department had expressed a willingness to incorporate a design similar to that in its upgrade project. Staff had worked very hard with the private property owner to accomplish, through the permitting process, the ACE Hardware store. She believed the term "romanced" was an explanation of those efforts and the pending improvements which would be good for everyone. Vice Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Andersen asked whether there was anything inconsis-tent with the plans presented by the Utilities Department and the charrette model that was presented. He understood it was a brainstorming approach. Ms. Lytle said there was no inconsistencies and the charrette might have led to thoughts about how a better facility could be constructed. Council Member Andersen understood the ARB would have design input on the solid fence recommendation, but it was a temporary fence and a permanent structure would be approved in the 1995/1996 budget with a CIP. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Andersen had not seen any discussion that suggested the permanent fence should be put in at earlier point in time. He was confused about the time line of the undergrounding and whether it would be more appropriate to move forward with the permanent fence at the beginning. He asked why the process required a temporary fence that had to be approved by the ARB. Ms. Fleming said the proposed expansion plan had not been designed and there was no permanent fence in place that could be brought to the Council for approval. The temporary fence was a way to shield from public view the temporary storage that would occur. When the project was planned, staff did not include in the expansion project any funding for extensive fencing other than the fencing that would be done with the project. Council Member Andersen asked when the entire project would be completed. Electrical Engineering Manager Mike Beanland said in Fiscal Year 1993-1994, staff would be doing the majority of the undergrounding in the SOFA area as well as at the substation, i.e., the demolition of the building at 841 Alma Street and the removal of the 1950s substation equipment. Then there would be a one-year design period in order to make the best use of manpower. The design process would include a design and review of a permanent architectural facade on the Alma Street side. Funding in Fiscal Year 1995-1996 would be for the purchase of the equipment that would be installed at the substation and the construction of an
02/16/93 70-135
approved facade. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation, based on the findings below, to adopt the Negative Declaration, approve the ordinance, and direct the Architectural Review Board to require a solid fence design for the temporary fence to be constructed along the southern portion of the site's Alma Street frontage: Findings 1. The Zone Map amendment is in the public interest and is required for the health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the zoning of the property is consistent with the majority of City-owned land, facilitates the upgrade and expansion of the Alma Street Substation which provides electrical power to Downtown 2. This project will not have a significant impact on the environment in that the use of the site will be subject to separate environmental and architectural review. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property known as 841 Alma Street from CD-S(P) to PF" MOTION PASSED 8-1, McCown "not participating." COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Vice Mayor Kniss and Council Member Andersen re Re-Advertise-ment of the Planning Commission Vacancy MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to direct the City Clerk to re-advertise for the vacancy on the Planning Commission Mayor McCown explained the motion would extend the schedule for the pending appointment to fill the unexpired term on the Planning Commission. The applications already received would be part of the applicant pool. Council Member Cobb was troubled by the motion and believed an extension of the schedule by the Council would be a serious error. All of the applicants were very qualified. The only time the Council had ever extended the schedule was when there was an inappropriate response. He believed re-advertising would send an incorrect message to the public. Council Member Fazzino respected the intent of the motion. Only once, during his 10+ years on the Council, had he supported such a request which was when a Human Relations Commission (HRC) appoint-ment was held over until the beginning of the new year to accommo-date the new Council. Even though he suspected the intent was a
02/16/93 70-136
good one and believed the orientation argument was valid, he was concerned about the precedent involved given the fact that an open and fair competitive process had resulted in several outstanding candidates. He was also concerned about the perception that might be given to the community that since none of the Council's friends had applied for the vacancy, the process should, therefore, be opened up again to allow a favored candidate to step forward. Vice Mayor Kniss clarified she had no friends anxious to apply for the vacancy. She believed there were two members of the community who had applied for the vacancy who were not residents of the community. She was disturbed about that circumstance and indicated there had been some discussion about changing the application to indicate a residential address. She hoped the Council would support that change so there would be no question about a person's residency when an application was submitted. The City Attorney had assured her that it was a requirement for a person to live in the community. Only five people applied for the vacancy and she believed it was fair to allow reapplication. She was concerned about the number of applications that were received. Council Member Andersen concurred with the comments of Vice Mayor Kniss. A considerable number of applications were received for the last Planning Commission vacancy. A number of well-qualified candidates had applied, and only well-qualified applicants would be accepted. The question was whether there was a sufficient pool for making that determination. He wanted to give an opportunity for additional people to come forward with an application. The fact that the Council opened the application process for further consideration indicated a greater emphasis on its desire to make certain there was a broad-based applicant pool--not just a narrow-focused, second-time around approach. He would not deny anyone a second-time around if appropriate. He preferred a larger pool, and the orientation of potential boards and commission members offered that opportunity. Council Member Simitian asked when the vacancy was advertised and whether it was during a holiday period when people might have been distracted. He clarified that when there was a vacancy on a board or commission, everyone who had applied previously was sent a letter informing him/her of the opening. Deputy City Clerk Corene Avlakeotes said it was the normal practice to send letters to the people who had applied previously as well as to other organizations and interested people in the community. That process did occur for the vacancy on the Planning Commission. Council Member Simitian asked when the opening was announced. City Manager June Fleming said the vacancy was the result of Pam Marsh's formal resignation the middle of January 1993. Council Member Simitian asked whether the City Attorney had any problem with changing the process.
02/16/93 70-137
Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said no. Council Member Simitian said Council Members Cobb and Fazzino made some important points about the process. The process was best served when there was the greatest opportunity for people to apply and the community benefited when there was a larger number of choices. He had some concerns about setting the process aside, but those concerns would be overborne by the desire to have the greatest number of applicants from whom the Council could make the best possible choices. Mayor McCown was concerned because an unanticipated resignation of a Planning Commissioner was a different situation in terms of the visibility of the opportunity to apply in the community as distinguished from the July time of year when a regular term expired. Extending the period to encourage additional applica-tions was not a judgment of the merits of the people who had already applied versus the people who might apply from an extended process. The desire was to have a broader pool of applicants. She was concerned when an applicant pool had no diversity of gender. It was more important to achieve the best possible pool and give the community the benefit of a wide range of choices for the Council than to move forward based on applications received no matter what the circumstances. She believed it was justified under the circumstances to reopen the process. She clarified two of the five applicants that had applied were her clients, and therefore, she would not be considering him/her as potential appointees because of the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. Council Member Fazzino did not disagree with the comments of Mayor McCown and believed it might be appropriate for the Council to factor in the issues of gender diversity and size of pool into the commission/boards selection process but that should be included in the rules with respect to that process. He was not troubled with the specific arguments raised by his colleagues but was troubled by the arbitrary way the Council was going about making a decision with respect to the process. The Council needed to have some clear rules about how commissioners were chosen. Council Member Cobb recalled the application process was extended when there was no pool at all. There was an adequate pool even if there was some issue over an applicant's address. He agreed with Council Member Fazzino's comments about changing the rules in the middle of the game. The notices were given and people applied. He believed women's rights were trivialized by the issue, and it was a very twisted path when the Council started judging lists in that manner. Each applicant was told to reapply after a previous process and he believed the motion was a slap in the face to those people. Mayor McCown did not disagree with Council Member Fazzino. It might be appropriate if the Council wished to do so, to have a statement that expressed and acknowledged that the Council was looking for diverse pools of applicants for all the boards and
02/16/93 70-138
commissions and that the Council reserved the right to extend time periods and seek broader applicant pools when the Council concluded it was appropriate to do so. It had been done in the past as an ad hoc procedure but there had never been any definitive rules, and it was within the Council's purview to do that. She did not believe that could be decided ahead of time, and the Council would have to look at each individual process and conclude whether it was achieving the goals the Council had for representation on the board or commission. She favored moving forward on the ad hoc basis and supported considering a way to clarify that the Council reserved the right to extend the time and seek broader applicant pools. Vice Mayor Kniss concurred with Mayor McCown and asked whether the Council should obtain something in writing on the issue. Ms. Case said it would be appropriate for the Council to indicate it would consider the issue but it could not go any farther that evening since it was not agendized. Council Member Fazzino said he would work with staff to up come with some suggested rules to incorporate the suggestions made. Council Member Simitian was not enthusiastic about creating a new set of rules. He preferred to work from the understanding that the Council reserved the right to say that the pool was not sufficient but would exercise that right very sparingly. If the Council needed further clarification, a line could be added to the application that stated the Council reserved the right to re-issue if sufficient applications were not received. He would support the motion but had no interest in pursuing the process issue further. Mayor McCown agreed with Council Member Simitian. Beyond that statement, the Council would always be faced with individual, case-by-case decisions as to whether it was appropriate in a given situation. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Cobb, Fazzino "no." COUNCIL MATTERS 11A. (Old Item No. 4) Confirmation of Appointments to the Centennial Board Vice Mayor Kniss said an exemplary group would be joining the current Board of Directors of Centennial 1994. She said the number of participants had been increased to 24 which gave a very good mix of men, women, and age groups. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to confirm the following appointments to the Centennial Board: Leonard Ely Bill Green Carroll Harrington
02/16/93 70-139
Alan Henderson Larry Klein John Northway Steve Player Marlene Prendergast Kathy Torgersen Maddie Stein MOTION PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. in memory of Tory Seedman, former President of the Palo Alto Youth Council and youngest recipient of the Citi-zen of the Year Award in the 1970s. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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 two years from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
02/16/93 70-140