HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-18 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting April 18, 1994 1. Proclamations for Dignitaries from Sister Cities ...... 72-416 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 72-416 2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Michael Fromhold Upon His Retirement ............................................ 72-416 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Lawson Software Inc. for Payroll/Human Resources Software Package Purchase and Support .......................... 72-416 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dynix Inc. for Equipment, Software and Related Services for the Library Computer System ............................... 72-416 5. The Utilities Advisory Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Utilities Electric Demand Side Management Programs: the Pilot Commercial Air Conditioning Program, the Residential Compact Fluores-cent Lamp Program, and the Residential Refrigerator Rebate Program ........................................ 72-416 6. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 302 (Nepotism) of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding Employment of Siblings 72-417 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting the Plans for the Transmission of Reclaimed Water to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and Municipal Service Center ................... 72-417 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 72-417 8. Closed Session Conference: Subject: Potential initia-tion of litigation on two separate matters ............ 72-417
04/18/94 72-414
9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission Recommendation re Consideration of the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Decision to Revoke Conditional Use Permit 73-UP-22, Granted to an Eating and Drinking Use at 3901 El Camino Real, now occupied by La Cumbre ..... 72-417 10. The Policy and Services Committee forwards the Revised Draft Urban Design Plan to the City Council without Recommendation ........................................ 72-421 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:15 P.M. - 9:52 P.M. ........... 72-428 11. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of April 25, 1994 ............................. 72-434 12. Council Comments, Questions and Announcements ......... 72-434 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:33 p.m. in memory of Glenn Mueller who served as a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force .................. 72-435
04/18/94 72-415
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamations for Dignitaries from Sister Cities Mayor Kniss presented the proclamations and gifts to the dignitar-ies from the sister cities. Leland Levy, former Mayor and President, Neighbors Abroad, recog-nized the dignitaries of the four sister cities representatives. Mayor Kniss presented and accepted gifts. Council Member Schneider said she had the distinct pleasure of being the liaison to Neighbors Abroad and recognized her guest Council Member Eva Joelsson, from Linköping, Sweden. Council Member Fazzino enjoyed his dinner with Brigitta on Friday evening. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding "Government by the people?" (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding Stanford University. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 7. 2. Resolution 7304 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Michael Fromhold Upon His Retirement" 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Lawson Software Inc. for Payroll/Human Resources Software Package Purchase and Support 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dynix Inc. for Equipment, Software and Related Services for the Library Computer System; change orders not to exceed $5,000 5. The Utilities Advisory Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Utilities Electric Demand Side Management Programs: the Pilot Commercial Air Conditioning Program, the Residential Compact Fluorescent Lamp Program, and the Residential Refrigerator Rebate Program
04/18/94 72-416
6. Resolution 7305 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 302 (Nepotism) of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding Employment of Siblings" 7. Ordinance 4214 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting the Plans for the Trans-mission of Reclaimed Water to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and Municipal Service Center" (1st Reading 4/4/94, PASSED: 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, McCown absent) MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 3 and 5-7. MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 4, Fazzino, McCown "not partici-pating." AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Kniss announced that the Council would adjourn to a Closed Session during the recess. CLOSED SESSION 8. Closed Session Conference: Subject: Potential initiation of litigation on two separate matters
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(c). Public Comment None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission Recommendation re Consideration of the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Decision to Revoke Conditional Use Permit 73-UP-22, Granted to an Eating and Drinking Use at 3901 El Camino Real, now occupied by La Cumbre (continued from 3/28/94; public hearing closed) Mayor Kniss said the item was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke conditional use permit 73-UP-22 for an eating and drinking establishment located at 3901 El Camino Real. The Zoning Administrator had determined the conditional use permit should be revoked because the condition involved live music as well as a health and safety issue. The City Attorney had advised the Council could not revoke unless there was a violation. It was a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Council was required to disclose outside contacts or discussions as provided in our proce-dural rules. She reminded the Council that the rules did not permit any outside contacts or discussion on the matter after the public hearing was closed. Council Member Huber said he was not present for the public hearings on the issue, however, he had read all of the material prior to the hearings and had watched the video tape of the
04/18/94 72-417
meeting and believed he was in a position to vote on the issue. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke Use Permit 73-UP-22, in 60 days. Council Member Fazzino believed there had been significant violations of the use permit and the offenses have been extraor-dinarily egregious. The Council had no choice but to revoke the use permit. When the permit was issued, live music was not allowed nor was it envisioned. Live music was a violation of the permit conditions and was the most significant issue. The owners had ignored the City, the permit conditions, and continued to refuse to abide by the current use permit prohibition of live music. The owners had indicated to the Council that they had no intention of accepting a revised use permit without allowance of live music. Live music had never been approved for the site, and therefore, the Council in good conscience could not approve the use when the owners did not intend to abide by the law. Live music had lead to overuse of the site which had lead to many of the problems which he believed had created unacceptable levels of impact on the neighborhood, i.e., parking, noise, alcohol misuse, litter and human waste, and violent incidents. The greatest concern to the Council was the number and degree of violent incidents that had occurred at the site. The evidence was clear, based upon the record, that the incidents related directly to La Cumbre's operations. He believed that the health and welfare of the citizens were at risk with continued operation of La Cumbre given its inability over the previous years to control the use of alcohol. Based upon the record provided to the Council by the Police Department, he concluded that it was dangerous on El Camino Real. The staff report (CMR:164:94) indicated "that neighbors testified that they had lost all sense of security or safety in their neighborhood." He did not believe that city government had any greater obligation than to assure the security and safety of its citizens. There were 82 police calls that related to La Cumbre between August 1992 and August 1993 which was the highest total for any establishment in the City. The Police Department reported that there were disturbances, fights, drunkenness, and weapon and drug crimes which culminated last September 1993 in a fight involving 100 people that required police assistance from Palo Alto, Stanford University, Los Altos, and California Highway Patrol. Five people were taken to the hospital with injuries. It was clearly a significant cost to Palo Alto and neighboring cities, and based upon the record, it was a disproportionate use of police resources to respond to problems at the site. In good conscience, the Council could not countenance such lawlessness or threats to human safety in the City. He was bewildered by the situation regarding the ownership. He could not accept the argument that the sales transaction was legitimate. A sales price of $70,000 for a million dollar annual business did not make sense. He was troubled by the fact that there had not been any response by the landlord during the discussions over the last two years. Despite comments to the contrary, there was no evidence of written agreements from the All American Market or the auto repair
04/18/94 72-418
shop to accommodate additional parking. He did not agree with the comments by Barton Hechtman at the previous Council meeting but appreciated his appearance and the fact that he conducted himself in a professional manner and dealt with the facts. The attorney for the applicant indicated the possibility of bias since many patrons of La Cumbre were Hispanic, and his response to that comment was that many of the neighbors of La Cumbre were also Hispanic, and he had heard from a significant number of the neighbors over the past two years regarding problems at La Cumbre. He viewed the argument of bias as being intellectually bankrupt. He had no choice but to vote to revoke the use permit. The owners had demonstrated that they planned to continue to disregard the rules of the use permit. Based upon the evidence presented, the owners appeared incapable of operating La Cumbre in a manner that respected the rights of the neighbors. He appreciated that some changes had been made over the last several weeks, but he viewed those changes as being too little, too late. The owners had nearly two years to respond to City concerns regarding the problems and only did so after the use permit revocation process had begun. It was time to bring security and tranquility back to the neighborhood. Council Member McCown associated with the comments pointed out by Council Member Fazzino that there was a violation of a specific permit condition with respect to the allowable type of music and the very clear position of the use permit holder of total unwill-ingness to abide by the condition of the permit. She was influ-enced by the violation of some of the City's most important laws with respect to the conduct of citizens on the street, and the level of police activity was without precedent in the community in terms of similar establishments. She was initially bothered by the position in some of the written correspondence from the applicant that he/she did not have the responsibility to control that behavior because it was not occurring on the premises but instead in parking lots and across the street. Belatedly, at the public hearing there was an acknowledgment that that was an area of responsibility. As stated by Council Member Fazzino, that statement and a number of other actions was too little, too late. The Council was asked by legal counsel for the applicant to focus on the future, the changes that had happened, and the better management that had been instituted rather than the past activi-ties. She might have done that but for the fact that there was a 17-month period of extraordinarily unacceptable behavior and intervention on the part of the Police Department before any changes were attempted. The changes that were implemented did not occur upon the initiation of the revocation proceedings but only after the permit was revoked by the Zoning Administrator. She found that evidence was not credible in terms of the ability to control the operation in the future in contrast to the past behavior. She had the same questions about the change in owner-ship which was being represented to the Council as a change that would bring about the new standard of behavior. There were a number of questions as to whether it was a genuine transfer and change in operation. She did not believe that that alone was grounds for revocation of a permit, but the other reasons stated earlier were the appropriate grounds. When the City was faced
04/18/94 72-419
with that kind of operation and violation of the City's require-ments, the proper action for the City was to revoke the permit. The business operator was free to make a new proposal to the City of a new operation and conditions. Since her term on the Council and previously on the Planning Commission, she had never seen a stronger case for revocation of the use permit based on the evidence presented in the application. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the revocation. The expressed insistence by the owner of La Cumbre to maintain live music was the source of the problem. It was expensive to bring in well known musical groups, and by necessity a large number of customers must be attracted. The customers easily overwhelmed the parking lot and adjacent street parking and had to park in the surrounding neighborhoods. When that fact was combined with the use of alcohol which was required for the financial viability of the operation, inevitably there would be large numbers of people who had consumed varying amounts of alcohol in the residential neighborhoods. There was no way around the problem. Council Member Huber echoed the comments of his colleagues. The crux of the issue was having a live band. The reason for a live band was to attract customers. The reason the use permit did not allow live music was because too many people would be attracted and all of the facilities would be overtaxed, i.e., not only the structure but parking, neighborhoods, police, etc. He considered whether or not it would be possible to apply conditions that might clear up a longstanding problem and how the owners approached the issue of live music, i.e., they insisted it should be there in derogation of the use permit. He reviewed the writings and listened to the testimony of the people with regard to the owner's efforts to clean up the situation. As pointed out by Council Member McCown, the efforts during the past 17 months had been halfhearted. If new conditions were applied, there was not a track record that would indicate that the situation would improve. He was convinced, even with the imposition of conditions, that the facility was out of control and had been out of control for quite some time. New conditions would not solve the problem. He believed the Council had to revoke the permit due to the potential danger to the people who lived around the area, as well as patrons of the facility. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. The problems associated with La Cumbre were clearly related specifically to the large crowds that were there for the live music in violation of the use permit. The correspondence received and from previous testimony indicated that there was no plan to cease live perfor-mances. The Council had a responsibility to protect the people living in the neighborhoods adjacent to La Cumbre. She did not believe that granting the proposed revised conditions for use would solve the ongoing problem. Mayor Kniss associated with the comments of her colleagues and supported the motion. Council Members had not only heard from the residents but some had also walked the streets frequently and seen the number of police vehicles that were necessary. The
04/18/94 72-420
Council felt it was a difficult area and it put a great deal of pressure and expense on the Police Department to be in that particular area on a regular basis. The live music feature was an attraction, and it was necessary for the owner to offset the nightly cost with any number of people. There had been a great number of people present on many nights. The parking was a difficult problem. There was a public health and safety nuisance which had been well characterized, not only by public testimony but also by the fact that some Council Members had walked the neighborhood. The parking situation affected an area up to 300 feet beyond the La Cumbre site. She was concerned about property values in the area. The problem was perception, and when the perception was such, it became a reality. Residents in the area had complained to the Council many times in the past. There was previous correspondence in 1981 that clearly defined the problems, and at that time the owner also promised to make substantial changes. There appeared to be a disingenuous on the part of the owners to transfer the property. It was difficult to look at a figure that was $70,000 and not find that it was a bargain even between brothers for a business that had produced the amount of money that appeared to come from the establishment. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct the City Attorney to prepare written findings and return the findings to the Council for consideration. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 10. The Policy and Services Committee forwards the Revised Draft Urban Design Plan to the City Council without Recommendation Mayor Kniss explained that the item began in 1986 and was trans-ferred to the Urban Design Committee (the Committee) in 1987. The Council had visited the issue several times in the past and also in December 1993. Vice Mayor Simitian said the item had been before the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee for an exceedingly long period of time. There was substantial testimony at the Committee level and the Committee asked that the item return to the Council with a revised format. The highlighted materials indicated the changes and edits made and strikeouts indicated the material that had been deleted during the evolution of the process. He believed the P&S Commit-tee was comfortable with the concept of an urban design document, but it struggled with the different perceptions of two groups of participants in the process and whether or not it was an urban design document that articulated a vision for the Downtown area without too much rigidly prescribing the means by which it arrived at that vision or whether it was or could be construed to be a document of hard and fast rules and regulations which unduly limited the flexibility of those who had to work in the Downtown area. He characterized it as not so much a difference over the
04/18/94 72-421
desirability of a vision for the Downtown but a debate about whether or not the document received was a set of guidelines or a set of hard and fast rules and regulations. The issue was not resolved at the Committee level, and staff was directed to bring the issue to the Council for Council action on the matter. Council Member Huber said Vice Mayor Simitian was the Chairperson of the P&S Committee the previous year and he was not at the meeting when the discussion occurred on the issue. It was a referral to the Council to discuss the philosophy. Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton, member of Public Art Commis-sion, commended the staff on the report which addressed all of the issues and confusions that came up at the P&S Committee meeting. She wanted to address the confusion about the many planning things going on at the same time that seemed to be redundant and said the activities supplemented each other. Businesses and business owners were attracted to cities for the same reason that customers were attracted to those businesses. The Urban Design Plan (the Plan) was a terrific document for that reason, and she did not think that it was prescriptive. As an architect, she read it as performance instruction and it did not give specific instruction. The zoning laws did that. The document was a generous, interesting, and viable item. She urged the Council to adopt it with enthusiasm. Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, spoke as a consumer of the City's zoning laws. He had built many buildings in the Downtown area. The City had the best application of zoning laws that he had encountered in the Bay Area. The zoning laws were comprehendible that defined the physical constraints of a property and reflected the philosophy outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Architec-tural Review Board (ARB) was composed of informed professionals who provided aesthetic cohesion both site specific and neighborhood to a project. There was an appeals process to an elected, accountable City Council. The result was a system that continually produced highly creative properties of excellence with a minimum of bureaucracy in a total absence of created political currency in the approval process. The proposed Plan was a new layer of government which was both explicitly and by implication a zoning, comprehensive plan, and architectural guide overlay to the existing zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and ARB process. The plan would constrain and inhibit owners and architects, the ARB members in their deliberations, change zoning laws, and Council land decisions. The unapproved had already been evoked by the ARB in its deliberations over the previous year. The temporary committee was already angling for Downtown improvement money. The plan was flawed in a basic tenant that "whatever private developers do will positively or negatively effect public spaces, therefore, in order to carry out the original Council mandate dealing with Downtown amenities and public land, a private property plan is required." It was a prosperous rational. There were public forums that dealt with private property planning. It was appropriate for the Urban Design Plan Committee to participate in the Comprehensive Plan process and any site specific ARB meeting to articulate its views. There was a process duly established with all of the stakeholders
04/18/94 72-422
at the table deliberating the various issues. The P&S Committee referred the issue to the Council to discuss the philosophy of the Plan rather than a page-by-page discussion. He would also reserve his page-by-page comments outlining his specific concerns. A good part of the Plan was that it dealt with the public right-of-way. He knew how those documents got used or abused and would not have spent an inordinant amount fooling with the concept if he thought a better solution and better City would be the results. The results were in his self-interest. He guaranteed the results would be very negative in terms of creativity and range of architectural solutions. Council Member Andersen said considerable effort had been made to modify the document to appeal to as many of the interested parties as possible. Several parties since that time have come on board with the document. He asked whether Mr. Keenan felt progress had been made to make the document less onerous. Mr. Keenan said there were fundamental philosophies at odds that dealt with what he perceived to be a zoning overlay. The document talked about the rhythm of store frontages and corners that were three or four stories high which should descend from the middle of the block. Those were constraints on an existing zoning which were inappropriate. The issue was a legitimate one to raise, and it might be a great idea, but it was the wrong forum. Council Member Rosenbaum said Mr. Keenan was thought of as a developer that liked to work within the existing framework, e.g, the City told him what the zoning was and he came in with a project that satisfied that zoning. He asked whether the Plan would change that with respect to the Planning staff. Mr. Keenan said yes. The Planning staff would have to look at every application within the context of the Plan. Council Member Rosenbaum believed that if Mr. Keenan's project satisfied the existing zoning, the Plan would have no impact. Mr. Keenan said theoretically that was correct. Unfortunately, the Plan specifically required the Planning staff to look at how it worked with the Plan. The Planning staff was already burdened beyond their ability to do what the existing City laws mandated. People were charged extra for everything because the staff was overburdened. Explicit language should be in the Plan that the staff and ARB did not need to refer to the document, and that it was simply something for architects and property owners to look at to get a sense of the direction of the Urban Design Plan Committee. If it were a plan, then it needed a different forum. At that table, they were not the players who perceived it to be a private property plan. Council Member Rosenbaum said at a later time he would query staff to determine whether staff was in agreement with Mr. Keenan's interpretation as to the impact of the Plan on their approvals. Even though a project satisfied the zoning requirements, it would still need ARB approval. Considering the difficulties Mr. Keenan
04/18/94 72-423
had with the ARB's agreement on the color of a building, it would not be surprising if the ARB referred to the Plan which would be a problem. Mr. Keenan said the ARB already did, and the Plan was not even approved. Council Member McCown said absent the Plan, someone that was required to go through the ARB process for design review had no guidance as to what the City wanted in the Downtown. A project was presented and the five ARB members responded to how the project fit into the context. Sometimes it was helpful and sometimes it was not. She asked whether it was more helpful to have some guidance that described the City's goals, which was nonbinding or regulatory, ahead of time than to have none. Mr. Keenan said yes. The zoning laws defined the physical constraints. Beyond that, to define the architectural constraints was to miss the opportunity on many projects. There were many solutions to a property. He saw solutions that ran completely contrary to many of the concepts outlined in the Plan that would be acceptable. Those concepts should not be precluded. He queried what was being done Downtown that required a primer for architects. Council Member McCown said the document stated its intention was to be used at the staff and ARB levels as guidance only and not regulatory. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) process was similar, and people who had buildings that came under that ordinance went through that process to get advice. The City had no authority to compel them to do anything with that advice. She queried why the Plan was not capable of working the same way. Mr. Keenan said the HRB process was a perfect example of his concern. He worked with the HRB at the corner of University Avenue and High Street many years before. The HRB was presently flexing its authority and prerogatives well beyond its original intent. The HRB had involved from an architectural jury to co-architect in many cases. It was incrementalism. The document in benign hands could be innocuous. The document had to be fair and less objective. It was a mistake for the document to constrain creativity and possibilities which was not its charge. He would not have spent long hours on the document if he were not concerned about its constraints. The current process did not have the property developers intimidated. Julie Maser, 1440 Dana Avenue, Architectural Review Board Member and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Member, enthusiastically endorsed the guidelines. As a member of the ARB and CPAC and as an architect in a firm currently working on a major Downtown project on University Avenue, she had referred to the document frequently and found it to be immensely helpful. They had met with seven staff members during the initial preliminary design aspect of the project, and each staff member had asked them to read the guidelines to help them understand what the City was striving for in the Downtown. When the Alain Pinel building at
04/18/94 72-424
Webster and University Avenue was brought to the ARB, the corner of the building had been ignored. The guidelines emphasized that the corners in the Downtown area were important and should be treated with respect, and entrances should be off of corners. The ARB recognized that it was impossible for the applicant to put the entrance on the corner and asked the applicant to strengthen the corner. The applicant redesigned the plan and returned with a better design. The applicant was not forced to do something suggested by the guidelines but came up with something far superior to what would have happened without the guidelines. It was a guide and should not be feared by anybody. For the CPAC members, it had been an educational tool. The document should clearly state in bold letters that it was a guideline and did not preclude alternative design solutions. Vice Mayor Simitian said the current document included language on page 1 "that it was important to emphasize that this plan is intended to guide downtown development and amenities, and is not intended to be binding or regulatory in nature." He asked whether Ms. Maser was suggesting stronger language. Ms. Maser said no. After reading the paragraph, she said it did exactly what she intended. Council Member Wheeler said Ms. Maser brought up the example of the Alain Pinel building and 525 University which were projects that were done in the absence of the Plan being a formal document. She said one of the concerns expressed by Mr. Keenan and by previous testimony was how formal adoption of that guide might affect the ARB's behavior. It was used in a friendly way because it had not been adopted policy of the City. She asked whether the ARB could and would continue to use it in a friendly way. Ms. Maser said yes. The adoption of the Plan would not change how the ARB viewed the document. It was an educational tool for the ARB and expanded the thinking of the ARB without binding it to anything. The Alain Pinel building was a good example of how the ARB would use the document. Aino Vieira-Da-Rosa, 951 Lincoln Avenue, Architectural Review Board Member and former Urban Design Committee Member, said the ARB had been looking forward to the Plan for a long time. The document was an architectural primer that combined architecture into a single design document for Palo Alto, took the zoning one step further, and showed what could be done through design in the long term. The document would limit confusion and would be wonderful for developers, and architects could still pursue their own plans. It was marvelous to see the context of future devel-opment in Palo Alto. John Montgomery, 1780 Bay Laurel Drive, Menlo Park, Urban Design Committee Member, wanted to focus on whether the Committee had done its job and whether the Plan met the purpose intended by the City Council when it order the drafting of an urban design plan in 1987. He reviewed the history of the Committee. The Council's predecessors established the purpose of the Plan. Critics had
04/18/94 72-425
suggested that the Plan exceeded its intended purpose and that the Committee had gone beyond its charter. To correct that misconception, he read the purpose clause from the work plan adopted by the City Council in 1987. When the City Council charged the work plan, the intent was that the document was not a zoning document. The Committee had worked together for six years. In conjunction with the design consultant, David Gates, it had conducted a exhaustive inventory of the Downtown area and had defined its boundaries and characteristics over a two-year period. It assembled the information and identified distinct districts within the Downtown area. The document took shape after countless meetings and weekend workshops. The Plan was completed and presented to the ARB, HRB, Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and the Planning Commission in June 1992. All the bodies endorsed the Plan. The Plan was presented to the Council in February 1993, and it was referred to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee. During the rest of 1993, the Committee met with property owners and revised the Plan to address their concerns. The Committee believed it had carried out its assignment from the City Council and that the Plan served its intended purpose. The City staff's report (CMR:215:94) shared that assessment and recommended the Council adopt the Plan. A number of developers in Downtown Palo Alto had endorsed the draft Plan by incorporating elements into their projects. The Committee urged the Council to adopt the Plan and authorize funds to have it professionally formatted and edited. Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana Avenue, Urban Design Committee Member, was asked to participate as a representative of the residential point of view and at the onset she had concerns about the way Downtown Palo Alto had been developed. The Council passed regulations that addressed density and zoning issues but she agreed with those who felt that more specific and visionary guidelines for future Downtown development were needed. She was hopeful the Committee could provide the guidelines visually and verbally, thereby giving a logical, functional, and aesthetically pleasing basis for development regardless of the economic cycles Palo Alto faced, i.e, the Downtown's evolution would not be defined by relatively short-term pressures. The Committee believed that good planning would best ensure an economically viable and dynamic downtown. The Committee arrived at the concepts found in the document after frank and sometimes heated debates. In addition to the expertise from Urban Planner David Gates, the guidance and expertise of the City's Planning Depart-ment was used as well as the professional design and architectural talents in the group. The interaction of a variety of perspec-tives and priorities provided new learning. Urban plans or guidelines were found in a multitude of cities. To keep Palo Alto a special community, Downtown streets should invite pedestrians to walk, visit, and shop, be interesting, and have a sense of place. Architecture should be original but congruent with its neighbor-hoods, buildings scaled for retail appeal, and balanced in relation to the width of the streets and surrounding structures. Vision and vigilance would be required to keep Palo Alto economi-cally viable and appealing. The guidelines would help the City realize those goals.
04/18/94 72-426
Trisha Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Street, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Member, representing CPAC Section I Subcom-mittee, said the subcommittee was involved in the geographic area from the creek to Embarcadero Road from Middlefield Road to Alma Street. From the subcommittee's perspective, it was a pleasure and relief to have the Plan. The result of the Committee's efforts was remarkably similar to what had been discussed philo-sophically and in broad visions by the CPAC. There was a lot of synergism. The difference was that the Plan had gone into more detail than the CPAC would have the time, energy, or budget to do regarding the Section I area. Only three physical sites would be studied, and the Plan provided a way for the subcommittee to accomplish a fourth study area for the CPAC without the expense. Many of the ideas of the CPAC had found a physical picture in the Plan, and it had reinforced many of the visions and goals of the CPAC. The subcommittee believed the Plan should stand on its own because of the merit of the seven years of work and because the CPAC would not be finished with its work for quite awhile. The community owed the Committee its respect and the Plan should be approved. It was not without controversy, but no urban design plan would be without controversy. It provided an opportunity for different opinions and discussion but did not mean it should not be approved. The CPAC Section I Subcommittee strongly endorsed the Plan. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, Chairperson, Urban Design Committee, presented a slide show that shared with the Council the relationship between the reality of the present City, graphics, and the Plan. The purpose of the Plan was to talk about urban form and a sense of place, intangible things that zoning without a plan could not address. University Avenue was the most recognizable thing about Palo Alto--the primary retail strip. A set of symbology was developed to illustrate what the Downtown could be. The entrances from Middlefield Road and Alma Street needed to be made more recognizable, and the consultants said a focus or anchor was needed in the Downtown. The Committee developed a Civic Center cross axis that connected City Hall to Cogswell Plaza and Lytton Avenue. The need for a secondary cross axis evolved into a center rather than a cross axis which the Committee called the Cowper Center near 525 University. Alma Street was recognized as having the potential for a greenbelt. The side streets of Hamilton and Lytton Avenues were recognized as specific districts. An alley system for pedestrians could be an exciting way to develop some of the existing Downtown alleys. The retail core showed activity points, cross axis, and historic buildings. Lytton Avenue had some interesting buildings that needed to be considered, and the South of Forest Area (SOFA) had a special ambiance. More of Palo Alto could look like that area. The Committee was looking for issues of scale and humanity, not for specific architectural solutions. The Committee asked for color in the project and for two or three readers from the Committee during the editing process. David Zink-Brody, 400 Ortega Avenue, Mountain View, Urban Design Committee Member, said the Downtown was the living, breathing, and
04/18/94 72-427
heart of the City. It was a colorful, active place to live, work, and enjoy. The document should reflect those qualities and that vitality in the language and the graphics. The Plan could serve to guide, educate, and provide investment for Downtown Palo Alto in conjunction with zoning and the CPAC. The Committee agreed that three-dimensional graphics was an important element of the document which would show a sense of place, how people entered the Downtown, and the location of important gathering places. Color could provide both clarity as well as an excellent marketing tool for city management or economic development areas of the staff to promote growth for developers. The Committee felt that the cover, districts, and maps should be in color to give the quantity and importance of the information provided better clarity. The Committee's goal was to provide a clear, concise, and consistent document. The Committee had worked with the development community to reorganize the architectural design and guidelines and move it into the Urban Design Observations section. Professional editing was needed to make final decisions on word choice. The goal was to remove such phrases as "should and shall." The word "could" could be inflammatory. The professional editing was needed to provide a seamless document to clarify the Committee's input in terms of the language and where other sources were quoted that could help developers, staff, and the public. Guidelines offered possibilities, and the Committee hoped the Council would support its vision for the possibilities for the future of the Downtown. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:15 P.M. - 9:52 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss the potential of litigation by the City as described in Agenda Item No. 8. The City Council authorized the City Attorney to initiate litiga-tion against Bay HealthCare to recover unpaid planning application fees. The Council's vote in favor was 9-0. The City Council directed the City Attorney not to initiate action to collect court costs from Kemper, etal v. City of Palo Alto. The Council's vote in favor was 6-2, Andersen, Wheeler, Kniss, Fazzino, Schneider, and Huber voting "yes," Rosenbaum and Simitian voting "no," and McCown "not participating." AGENDA ITEM NO.10 CONTINUED MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the staff recommendations and revisions as follows: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2. Adopt the revised Draft Downtown Urban Design Guide, incorpo-rating the comments of the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Public Art Commission, and Utilities Advisory Commission; 3. Provide additional funding in the amount of $16,600 to produce a professionally edited and reformatted final docu-ment, with black and white graphics;
04/18/94 72-428
4. Direct staff to produce the final Downtown Urban Guide, incorporating comments received from the boards, commissions and the Council; and 5. Thank the members of the Urban Design Committee for their years of service and commitment well beyond the original work program. Vice Mayor Simitian said it was important that the Council spend some time on the Plan because of the issues that people on both sides of the document had raised with respect to what the document meant and how it would be used. The record needed to reflect the comments not only for the public but for the various boards, commissions, and staff. He believed the document was an attempt to articulate the vision for the Downtown. If that vision could not be articulated, then the Council could not reasonably expect anyone to help achieve that vision. There was value in the exercise and in the product in terms of it being an articulated vision for the Downtown. It was important, however, that the Council state that the objective was to simply describe where the Council was headed and not to mandate or legislate to any individual or applicant who participated in the process. He saw the document describing where the Council was headed in terms of the developmental objectives but not trying to mandate or limit the route by which someone got to those developmental objectives. He agreed with much of what Mr. Keenan said that evening but he disagreed with his conclusion which had to do with how the document was to be used in the future. It should not be used as a "club" to beat every applicant about the head when they walked into the door of City Hall, and he hoped the Council agreed that that was not the purpose of the document. The fact that it was not meant to be used in that way was reflected throughout the revised document. He referred to the Statement of Intent on page 1 of the Plan, which was in large type and highlighted because it reflected a new addition, which stated "it is important to emphasize that this plan is intended to guide downtown development and amenities, and is not intended to be binding or regulatory in nature." He referred to a statement on page 62 under Architecture Guidelines that said "It is important to note that mimicking context is not always appropriate, and that in some circumstances, contrast is what is needed. These guidelines are not intended to stifle such development where it is appropriate..." --it was a useful example because one of the things that people worried about when there was a downtown plan or any design plan of that sort was that it would be used as a "club," i.e., that was what was wanted and that was what would be built. It was a specific recognition that sometimes it was not only what the City wanted but that in fact something altogether different might be called for in a particular context. As the maker of the motion, he did not view the Plan as a regulatory document, and he hoped the seconder of the motion concurred. He urged his colleagues to comment because some future generation of commissioners or applicants might search the minutes to find out the Council's intent when it adopted the document. The phrase "sense of place" had been mentioned by the speakers that evening and was in the document and had value and
04/18/94 72-429
importance. A person might not be able to define it, but they knew it when they did not see it. The easiest way to deal with the issue of a sense of place was the expression "there was no there there" or a place that had no sense of place. Through both the private and public partnership discussed that evening, a sense of place in Downtown Palo Alto had emerged that needed to be fostered and perpetuated. It was about design, and design was about things that were visual. Some of the Council Members were very good at visualizing based on the written word, but he needed the pictures and to see what was being talked about in order to conceptualize what the words meant. It would be a shame to have gone through a seven-year process that for want of a few thousand dollars in graphic and color produced a document that did not go that last step in terms of giving people the pictures they needed to know what was desired. He agreed with the staff report that it was time after seven years to release the Urban Design Plan Committee from its assignment. He hoped there was support for the full expenditure. Council Member Wheeler associated with the comments of Vice Mayor Simitian. One of the things that frustrated people who brought applications to the City was the fact that the City had a process that made an application to the City quite expensive in order to satisfy both the staff and the review bodies. A document that set down a vision for potential applicants would be helpful for appli-cants. Applicants would know what the City wanted in terms of development applications in the Downtown area and would also be an aid to the ARB. The ARB's job was made easier if the Council and the community could articulate for the benefit of the ARB what the context should look like. Mr. Keenan had brought up the concerns about the document, but of equal concern or greater concern to him was how the document would be used by those who would use it. She reemphasized what Vice Mayor Simitian had put into the record that it was her intent that the document be used as a guideline and not as a "club." She expected an applicant who felt mistreated by the process to proceed with an appeal to the Council. The Committee talked about issues that were relevant when it started, and the issues were presently as relevant, if not more so, than it was before. She felt it was time to put the issues into place. Council Member Andersen said a developer had indicated to him that he no longer was willing to work in the City of Palo Alto because of the lack of clarity on the vision. A benefit from the Plan might be that other developers would return to the community which would offer diversity of development. He suggested a friendly amendment include the request that two people from the Committee be involved in the process of editing of the document. He had spoken to Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle who indicated the staff was a little stretched at the moment and the assistance would be helpful. Vice Mayor Simitian said if there had not been as much controversy about the document and about specific language in the document, he would have no problem adding that request. He queried if the process were opened to participation by several members of the Committee, before the document was finalized, other members of the
04/18/94 72-430
public and the development scene would have to have the opportu-nity to review the process. He did not want to hear a new set of charges about information that was not included during the public process. Mr. Schreiber said Vice Mayor Simitian's analysis was correct. He concurred that the editing process was difficult, and staff did not want to get into a long-extended process of wordsmithing. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the final version of the document after editing would return to the Council. Mr. Schreiber said no. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether there would be a final, edited version that might be available for comment for several weeks which could be submitted to the editor. It would be a way to allow both some input from interested members of the public and the Committee as well. Mr. Schreiber said the copy could be distributed to people on the mailing list as well as the City Council packet and allow several weeks for public feedback. Mayor Kniss clarified the final document would come from the Planning Department. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the document be distributed for review. Council Member McCown suggested that second sentence in the Statement of Intent that Vice Mayor Simitian read, which she agreed was important, include Ms. Maser's suggestion that the sentence state explicitly that "it was not intended to preclude alternative design solutions." MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the following language be added to the STATEMENT OF INTENT as follows: "However, it is important to emphasize that this plan is intended to guide downtown development and amenities, and is not intended to be binding or regulatory in nature and, that it is not intended to preclude alternative design solutions." Council Member McCown said that if in the future, the Council heard from an applicant that they had been told by staff, ARB, Planning Commission, or another reviewing body that something could not be done because it was not consistent with the Plan, there would be problems. It was critical that implementation be done in a way that was in accordance with the good will and intentions of the document, which was guidance, encouragement, and to let people know what the Council was looking for. If applications were held up because of inconsistencies with the Plan, it would be red flag, and she believed the Council and future Councils would be well within its appropriate consideration
04/18/94 72-431
to pull the Plan off the table as a guidance document because it was not being used that way. She could not overemphasize how important the Plan be used appropriately in the future. Council Member Huber said a previous Council had a philosophy that asked for the preparation of some type of document with regard to the Downtown. He was on the earlier committee and had that philosophy. The Council often talked about getting out in front of what was going on in the community by planning and getting some guidance, instead of being put in a crisis situation which was what the document did. He had the same concerns expressed by everyone else that the document was not to be used as a regulation or "club." He understood Mr. Keenan's concern. His concern was that almost any guideline could be interpreted as a regulation. If that approach was taken, there would be no guidelines on anything. The Council had made it expressly clear that evening that it was not to be done as a regulatory document. Messrs. Baer, Keenan, and Thoits had much Downtown that was excellent and were not the major concern. He believed the people that the document was really needed for was the people who came from outside and were willing to do what they were told and then moved on. The guidelines would be beneficial to those people. Council Member Rosenbaum said there two types of projects--one was considered an entitlement, i.e., someone proposed something that was allowed by the existing zoning regulation, and the other was a discretionary Planned Community (PC) application. He asked whether the existence of the Plan would have any impact on the staff's approval of the proposal that otherwise satisfied the existing zoning. Mr. Schreiber said the impact would be in the design review process. The impact would be to help shape the discussion both in the staff analysis of a project and the ARB discussion of that project. It was clearly understood by staff that it was not a regulation, but the guide portion would become part of the public process. He said a project consistent with the zoning would not be approved no matter what, which was the presently the case. There was a design review process, and the document would become adjunct to that process that would hopefully clarify for both the applicants, staff, and decision makers the design framework. The document had been extensively used in draft form for many years and had played a role in the design review process and had not been a throttling role but an enabling and encouraging role. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the document would be used by the ARB, and staff would not be in a position to tell an applicant to go away with respect to a project that otherwise satisfied the zoning regulations. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The staff received numerous requests from property owners, potential property owners, devel-opers, potential developers, architects, etc. for information on what the City wanted in the Downtown area. Staff could provide the document and give them more than simply a broad verbal description which would continue to help clarify the types of
04/18/94 72-432
projects they might want to pursue or not pursue. Council Member Rosenbaum was concerned that the Plan might interfere with a developer who had a strong interest in pursuing something which satisfied the zoning regulations. Staff wrote the report to the ARB and the report might express the concern that a particular project was not in line with the Plan, and in the end the ARB would make that decision. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. He assured Council Member Rosenbaum that not being consistent with the Urban Design Guide was not a reason for denial of a project, but it would be part of the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a particular project. Council Member Fazzino offered a friendly amendment which was consistent with concerns raised that evening about the possibility of the document being used in a prescriptive way. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the City Council review the use of the document in one year. Council Member Fazzino said the effort had been outstanding. If everything that the authors of the document said were correct, it would be valuable tool for the City of Palo Alto. A vision of Downtown was entirely appropriate and it could serve to guide ARB, developers, and the community in developing a Downtown which was unique. He wanted to make sure that the process remained as flexible as possible and emphasized saying "yes" to applicants and accommodating unique proposals and not creating another level of bureaucracy for applicants. He believed that over the last few years, in large measure due to the enlightened nature of individu-als developing the Downtown area, the City had had some tremendous successes without the adoption of the document. He would not want to see that success stymied in any way. He asked what would happen if the Dream Team came up with recommendations which were inconsistent or went beyond the scope of the design plan and how would those recommendations be incorporated into the Plan. Ms. Wilson said the intent of the Plan was bring an area like that into consideration that needed special study. The Committee did not have the answers to those areas. She found it inconceivable that something would happen in that area that would have a deleterious affect on other things that had been proposed. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Dream Team effort was the logical next step in development of the Plan. Ms. Wilson said absolutely. People needed to get into the reality of the issues. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. The ARB had the message from the Council regarding the way in which the Council wished to see the document used. He looked forward to the discussion of the issue in one year. He congratulated the Committee for its outstanding years of effort in putting the
04/18/94 72-433
document together. Council Member Schneider was delighted to see in the Plan the emphasis on public art which the Downtown needed. She held in high regard the CPAC endorsement of the Plan. Mr. Keenan made a comment about "the document in benign hands could be innocuous" and she was hopeful that the document would become something that kept design innocuous and exciting but at the same time without destroying the vitality of the Downtown. Mayor Kniss underscored the plan versus guide and was always concerned that the kind of document that began as a guide suddenly slid into a plan and became the kind of instrument that could be used to hit the unwitting on the head. She was concerned that everything sounded terrific, but five years later it could be of great concern. She supported the document because of Council Member Fazzino's amendment that the document would return to the Council in a year. The message sent by the Council was that it was a guide." She commended the Committee on the contents and its ability to last that length of time. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of April 25, 1994 MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, second by Fazzino, to cancel the City Council Meeting of April 25, 1994. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 12. Council Comments, Questions and Announcements Council Member Andersen shared his appreciation to the Palo Alto Centennial Committee 1994 and their acknowledgement of the disappointment of the Saturday evening events. He was hopeful that there would be another opportunity for a true celebration. Mayor Kniss said she would pass Council Member Andersen's comments along to the Palo Alto Centennial Committee 1994. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:33 p.m. in memory of Glenn Mueller who served as a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force 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
04/18/94 72-434
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.
04/18/94 72-435