The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-07-05 City Council Summary Minutes 07/05/94 73-181 Regular Meeting July 5, 1994 1. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....73-183 2. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation............................................73-183 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................73-184 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 10 AND 16, 1994 ................73-184 1. Agreements with Davila Circuits International and TechniTron, Inc. for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Pollution Prevention Demonstration Projects...........73-184 2. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for Professional Engineering Services in Connection with a Corrosion Control Investigation Study of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant...........73-184 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. for Water Main Replacement - Phase VIIIA...........................................73-184 4. Mutual Aid Agreement with the County of Humboldt and Fifteen Northern California Counties. . . . . . . . .73-185 5. Approval of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program and Adoption of Resolution Establishing an Overall DBE Goal for Fiscal Year 1994-95..............73-185 6. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae Before the California Supreme Court in Tobe, et al. v. City of Santa Ana, No. S-038530.......................73-185 7. Ordinance Enacting Chapter 9.50 of Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the Removal of Graffiti on Public Facilities and Recovery of the Cost Thereof.73-185 07/05/94 73-182 8. Consideration of Aggressive Panhandling Regulations...73-187 9. Conceptual Proposal For a Family Resource Center......73-194 07/05/94 73-183 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board Recommendation re Approval of Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Downtown Regulations to allow Incentives for Seismic Upgrade and Historic Preservation to be Combined for Commercially-zoned Properties which are both Seismic Category I or II and Historic Category 1 or 2: 401 Florence (office), 456 University (Varsity Theatre), 480 University (retail/residential), 661 Bryant (church), 520 Ramona (retail/office), 205 Hamilton (retail/office), 529 Alma (retail), 525 Alma (retail/office) and 232 Homer (retail)73-197 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........73-211 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m...........73-211 07/05/94 73-184 07/05/94 73-185 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:13 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 6:30 p.m.), Fazzino (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Huber (arrived at 6:50 p.m.), Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown SPECIAL MEETINGS AND/OR CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Rachel Sheridan v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. 708150 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 2. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litiga-tion Subject: Potential initiation of litigation on three separate matters Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c) PUBLIC COMMENT None. Mayor Kniss announced that pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c), the City Council took action in Closed Session to authorize the City Attorney to enter into litigation with Pacific Gas and Electric Company on a City Council vote of 6-0 with Council Members Andersen, Huber, McCown absent. ADJOURNMENT 07/05/94 73-186 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding government by the people (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding the Cable Co-op survey. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding various matters. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 10 AND 16, 1994 The City Clerk removed the City Council Minutes of May 2, 1994. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of May 10, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Huber "abstaining," McCown absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of May 16, 1994, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Simitian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 6. 1. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Davila Circuits International for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Pollution Prevention Demonstration Projects; amendments not to exceed $10,000 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and TechniTron, Inc. for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Pollution Prevention Demonstration Projects; amendments not to exceed $10,000 2. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for Professional Engineering Services in Connec- tion with a Corrosion Control Investigation Study of the 07/05/94 73-187 Regional Water Quality Control Plant; amendments not to exceed $22,000 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. for Water Main Replacement - Phase VIIIA; change orders not to exceed $92,580.74 4. Mutual Aid Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Humboldt and Fifteen other Northern California Counties - Water Assistance Program Water Agency Response Network (II-WARN) 1994 Omnibus Mutual Aid Agreement 5. Approval of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program and Adoption of Resolution Establishing an Overall DBE Goal for Fiscal Year 1994-95 Resolution 7338 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for Federally Funded City Transportation Projects" 6. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae Before the California Supreme Court in Tobe, et al. v. City of Santa Ana, No. S-038530 MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. Ordinance Enacting Chapter 9.50 of Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the Removal of Graffiti on Public Facilities and Recovery of the Cost Thereof (continued from 6/27/94) City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the item was a follow-up to Council's direction of December 13, 1993, particularly the part of the ordinance that allowed the City to seek restitution for damages to public property. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported the proposed ordinance, but he asked about the relationship with other governmental agencies. The areas that currently had the worst graffiti were Santa Clara Valley Water District's (SCVWD) property. Doug Graham, member of the Barron Park Association and the Northwest Flood Control Advisory Committee, had the SCVWD agree to break out the cost of removing graffiti on its property. Palo Alto should recover costs incurred for cleaning up property, e.g., SCVWD. He had experi- 07/05/94 73-188 enced that the SCVWD was reluctant to pay anything to other government agencies and was slow to respond to requests to clean up its property. Another problem was Santa Clara County Transit District. That agency was also reluctant to clean up and to cooperate in reimbursing other governmental agencies. He wanted an ongoing campaign to get the other governmental agencies to handle their share of the problem. The ordinance should be adopted, but the City should continue to look for more ways to recover costs of removal. Council Member Fazzino supported Mr. Moss's proposal to look for more effective ways to work with the SCVWD and Santa Clara County Transit District. He was pleased with the situation at the CalTrain Station on University Avenue. He asked whether Mr. Moss knew why the situation had improved significantly, e.g, tagging had been cleaned up within one or two weeks, and whether the process could be used with the other agencies. Mr. Moss assumed local people had called the hot line. Graffiti in South Palo Alto had been reduced significantly. The area south of Alma Street near San Antonio Road was being tagged. He believed the City was seeing the effectiveness of the Graffiti Hot Line and the people hired to clean up the graffiti. City Manager June Fleming said the City had had extreme success with the Graffiti Hot line, and residents had been eager to call in and report items properly. The graffiti van went out promptly. The City had had success working with the Joint Powers Board and cleaning up areas around the CalTrain facilities. She agreed that the staff did not get as prompt a response from the SCVWD, but staff would increase its persistence with the Board of SCVWD. Offensive graffiti was cleaned up immediately, and the agency was billed. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City had collected from the agencies. Ms. Fleming said the SCVWD had paid a charge that was billed, but she did not know of any recent instances. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, said the cleanup of the graffiti went overboard. He asked whether the paintings that were painted over at CalTrain would be replaced. Anne O'Neil, 130 Bryant Street, was appalled at the lack of creativity being applied to the solutions for the problems. She did not approve of youngsters being treated as criminals before they reached maturity. The City needed to be especially sensitive to the issues of young people. She suggested that young people 07/05/94 73-189 should be provided with jobs and be allowed to create beautiful scenic artwork and cultural assets for the community instead of criminalizing the behavior often committed by youthful partici-pants. Everyone would participate together to form a creative solution to beautify the City. The City should take advantage of President Clinton's fund for summer youth programs. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Enacting Chapter 9.50 of Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the Removal of Graffiti on Public Facilities and Recovery of the Cost Thereof" Council Member Andersen thanked the staff for its effort to effect a positive change in removing undesirable and unwanted graffiti in the public areas. He had spoken recently to several young people involved in tagging who admitted that it was considered an artistic expression but recognized that it was an addiction and that the City's program was effective. Young people said they were looking for a creative outlet, and he suggested that the people at the Cultural Center might be able to help. He offered to work with them, but they never returned. Many of the young people wanted to be the scene in addition to being seen. He believed the most effective way to deal with graffiti was to make sure it was removed quickly. The next step, as indicated in the ordinance, was that the young people and their parents had to be responsible for their behavior, and they might have to pay the consequence of anything that was destructive of public property. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. 8. Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Simitian, and Council Members Fazzino and Schneider re Consideration of Aggressive Panhandling Regulations (continued from 6/27/94) Council Member Schneider had received many telephone calls and letters regarding the aggressive panhandling that was occurring in the Downtown area and spreading throughout the City. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson indicated that in the Downtown area only six of the people considered to be regulars were truly homeless and confrontational. The rest of the people lived in either assisted housing or other housing available in the Downtown and panhandled primarily to get extra money to pay the rent. In the majority of cases the money was used for liquor and drugs. There had been an increase in door-to-door panhandling, standing on the medians, and other activities which had become serious problems. Downtown business was being affected by panhandling, and many people refused 07/05/94 73-190 to come to Downtown Palo Alto because of the aggressive panhan- dling. She had been approached by four people asking for money in a four-block area in the Downtown. She had been cursed at when she refused to give any money. She referred to the letters from Odette Mock, Mock Photography, dated June 29, 1994 and Georgie Gleim dated June 16, 1994 (letters on file in the City Clerk's Office), and she said the letters were an example of the kinds of comments Council Members had received. She wanted an ordinance passed that would address aggressive, intimidating panhandling. She hoped the Council would support the proposal. Vice Mayor Simitian said the Council Members who suggested the proposal recognized and acknowledged that being poor was no crime. They also recognized that the individuals on the street had important constitutional rights of freedom of speech and travel. Their rights had to be balanced against the rights of the general public. The citizenry had the right to walk on the streets of Palo Alto free of fear and being hassled. The difficult question was how to balance the respective rights of all parties. It was a challenge to reconcile the competitive rights and balance the rights in a way that was fair to all the parties involved. The approach proposed was noteworthy because: 1) The Council Members who supported the proposal felt it was wiser to wait and learn from the experiences of other communities about what worked and did not work and 2) The creation of a task force would give people the opportunity to comment about both the problem and the solutions before presenting an ordinance to the entire Council for action. That would be an important element in the success of any ordinance proposed. He had heard from seniors, women, and families with young children, and all three of the groups had expressed a concern about the discomfort and fear that they felt walking in Downtown Palo Alto. It was their interests that the Council sought to balance against the interest of the people on the street. He believed a process had been created that provided everyone with an opportunity to comment before an ordinance was produced. The process had just begun. Lily Batcheider, 422 Hibiscus Court, East Palo Alto, member of Stanford Homelessness Action Coalition (SHAC), said SHAC organized an open meeting on aggressive panhandling in February 1994 that was attended by the City Attorney and Police Department staff. There was a number of issues that needed to be addressed, but a task force should not be created. The open meeting indicated no need for legislation that was immoral and impractical. An aggressive panhandler could be arrested for assault, battery, harassment, obstructing the sidewalk, or disturbing the peace. The legislation focused on the homeless and poor people and was a way to criminalize their economic status. It was unconstitutional. Aggressive panhandling legislation was part of a larger view of how 07/05/94 73-191 to deal with the homeless crisis. Energy should be focused on building homes for the homeless, not putting people in jail. SHAC was not notified of the agenda item, and she urged the City to consider all organizations that represented people. She urged the Council not to form the task force. Lee Alton, homeless, took exception to the comment that directly connected the homeless panhandlers with aggressive behavior and said that many people were drug users and alcoholics. Most of the people he knew used their panhandling money for necessities that were not covered by the services mentioned in the memorandum, e.g., laundry and food. There was a comment that aggressive panhandling had increased, but he had noticed a sharp decline in such behavior compared to two years before. Aggressive behavior could be addressed by existing laws. He reminded the Council that the legislation was supposed to address all forms of street solicita- tion. He was worried that the legislation would limit not only aggression but also panhandling and loitering. Barbara Gross, 300 Hamilton Avenue, representing the Downtown Marketing Committee, said two years before, the Downtown Marketing Committee met to address the growing concerns of the merchants regarding aggressive panhandling. Customers had begun to make more comments about being inhibited to shop in the Downtown area and about being inhibited to walk the streets because of aggressive panhandling. The merchants decided that something constructive should be done, and Another Way Campaign (the Campaign) began. The Campaign had collected over $14,200 which had been donated to the Urban Ministry and Miramonte Mental Health Services to help support people who were financially and emotionally in need. The Campaign supported citizens who knew how to help people in need and who were trying to raise money in a way that was constructive for the entire City. It was an alternative way to meet the needs of people who were panhandling without creating an endless stream of people on the streets asking for money. The Campaign was only one component of a comprehensive approach to the idea of aggressive panhandling which had continued to worsen. There was evidence that customers in some of the businesses demanded that business owners call the Police Department because it had become so frustrating to them. She offered the resources of the Downtown Marketing Committee to help with the task force. Dan Stettler, 27X Mazanita Park, Stanford, was concerned about the tone being set in the memorandum and at the meeting that evening. He was concerned about the statement in the memorandum, "...many people, in particular the very old, the very young, and the infirm...," and he assumed the Council would be reluctant to use such emotional language on such an emotional issue without the proper research. He found that the people mentioned were the most 07/05/94 73-192 likely members of the community not to be out on the streets by themselves. The language was unnecessarily emotional, and the Council was using the most vulnerable members of society in order to raise the emotional level of the rest of the community and to shift the focus from a rational viewpoint to a more emotional one. In order to ensure the likelihood that the task force would be objective, the Mayor should appoint not only merchants of Palo Alto and City staff but also a few members of the Urban Ministry and SHAC. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber supported the concept of creating an ad hoc task force to examine the issue of aggressive panhandling. The Chamber realized it was difficult to separate the issue of homelessness and panhandling, but the behavior was aggressive. The City was tremendously supportive of programs for the homeless, which the Chamber and the larger business community had been careful to separate from the problems associated with aggressive panhandling. The Chamber had been part of the group that raised $14,000 to date since its inception. It was important that the issue of aggressive versus passive panhandling be examined and, if appropriate, an ordinance be developed. The Chamber would participate in any way possible to facilitate the process, would provide resources, data, etc., and suggested the Council look to the business community for members for the task force in addition to members from the Urban Ministry and SHAC. Many businesses had expressed concern about aggressive panhandling and would support the Council's action that evening. Nancy Samelson, 841 Esplanada, Stanford, said it was hard for Palo Altans to realize that the people were part of a much broader picture in society. It was a bad situation of homelessness and poverty; and the rich had become richer, the poor had become poorer, and homelessness had increased immensely in the state. The task force should not only look at getting the most money out of the local businesses but also look at what was happening to all of the people. People should help the people on the streets. Margaret Ash, 446 Forest Avenue, No. 6, said the City had less Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing compared to the number of homeless people, and there was no housing for people with no income. People with incomes between $19,000 to $46,000 were subsidized for housing. The majority of people was not eligible for help at the Urban Ministry, and often there was no room left in the shelter. Many of the homeless rented rooms with the money. The Comprehensive Plan apologized that the City would not be able to supply housing for the very low-income in the future. The City suggested that the people panhandled because they were drunks and drug addicts, but there were many facts that contradicted that 07/05/94 73-193 suggestion. She was not afraid to bring her granddaughter Downtown but was afraid of poverty. It was not the business of the Council to play on people's fears which would intensify the problem. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke about the food program in the City and no-income housing. Richard Fisch, M.D., 204 Sutter Avenue, said the issue was not consideration of aggressive fund-raising but consideration of aggressive expressions by a class of people who had the least economic and political clout. He was concerned about the people and the future of everyone. He thought the Council was coming close to an idea that expression was okay as long as it was not unpleasant or offensive. He supported the proposals made by others that there were laws that protected citizens from harassment and violation of existing ordinances. The Council should look at what could be done to incrementally protect people within the laws already in place. Debasis Sen, 668 Forest Avenue, had never been aggressively panhandled in Palo Alto and gave money to panhandlers for food. He urged the Council not to adopt any ordinance. Irvin Dawid, 3886 LaDonna Avenue, said Council Member Schneider commented earlier that the merchants complained their patrons did not want to come Downtown because of the panhandlers. At a previous Council meeting, he heard the merchants complain about the lack of parking spaces for their customers. The merchants asked the Council to build more parking spaces. He suggested people shop at Stanford Shopping Center where there were no panhandlers. He supported the recommendation. Palo Alto was a major city on the Peninsula and was attracting the same problems as San Francisco and San Jose. It was essential for the Urban Ministry and SHAC to be part of the task force. The task force should be balanced. Tom Pirkle, 3872 Nathan Way, employee of Urban Ministry, said much harm could be inflicted on the poor community in Palo Alto unless the greatest possible sensitivity was shown in making a distinction between the people who legitimately asked for alms and the people who aggressively panhandled. Most of the evidence heard about aggressive panhandling had been anecdotal and subjective. The homeless and low-income community in Palo Alto was complex and was made up of a diverse number of individuals, and one ordinance for that kind of community was morally dangerous. Police Chief Chris Durkin reiterated that the number of people involved in aggressive behavior was small, i.e., 6 people compared to the approximately 200 people who came to the Urban Ministry on a daily basis. The small group created significant feelings of 07/05/94 73-194 irritation and fear to members of the public. The Police Depart- ment had repeatedly asked the aggressive panhandlers to cease their tactics, but they did not cease their tactics. The Penal Code sections seldom worked due to the higher standards required for an arrest or filing for the District Attorney. The definition in the Penal Code section read: "assault is the unlawful attempt, coupled by the present ability to commit a violent injury on another." Most of the actions were verbal or obscene behavior. Council Member Huber asked how the participants on the ad hoc task force would be selected. Mayor Kniss said the City Manager would give guidance on the formation of the task force. City Manager June Fleming said her intent was to make it a task force that was inclusive rather than exclusive. There were representatives from several groups who had spoken that evening who would be candidates for the task force. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Simitian, that: 1) the Mayor appoint an ad hoc task force to study, analyze, and advise the City Manager and City Attorney on the specific behavior, community impacts, and human service program coordination issues which should be addressed in connection with aggressive solicitation; 2) direct the City Manager and City Attorney to provide reasonable staff support to the ad hoc task force. The ad hoc task force will be inclusive, and staff was directed to complete its work within 60 to 90 days of formation of the task force; and 3) direct the City Manager and City Attorney to take necessary actions to prepare for Council consideration an ordinance and other program elements which they deemed appropriate in order to address the problems and issues identified. Council Member Wheeler supported the motion and said it was a topic that deserved a lot of thoughtful consideration from a number of points of view. She specified that a member of the Human Relations Commission be on the task force. It was an area that fell under its jurisdiction. She was prepared to listen to the thoughts and recommendations that the task force brought back to the Council. There were many ideas in the community about how to define and address the problem which might or might not eventuate in the adoption of additional ordinances. Her action that evening did not prejudge any position she would take on an ordinance that was proposed in the future. Council Member Andersen wanted assurance that Item Nos. 1 and 2 on the memorandum were not exclusive. He clarified the ad hoc task 07/05/94 73-195 force recommendations would be the basis for consideration of the proposed ordinance by the City Manager and the City Attorney. Mayor Kniss said that was correct. Council Member Andersen agreed that the group needed to be inclusive. He hoped some of the people who spoke that evening would be included in the ad hoc task force. He said the recommen-dations that were brought forward might include a recommendation to do nothing. There was a limited form of the behavior, and he was not persuaded that there was an overall problem. There were homelessness and structural problems, but he was concerned the Council might have to strengthen its position as various communi-ties tightened their ordinances and tried to shift the problem out of their communities into other communities. He hoped the Council would give consideration to extending the efforts of the ad hoc task force to look at broader issues that might be addressed by the community that went beyond the punitive approaches to aggressive behavior. The City needed to teach the community to be assertive and say "no." In many instances, the situation was a mental health problem that could not be solved by an ordinance. He hoped the issue would move in a direction that not only would resolve the limited issue but also address the potential for resolving some of the other deep-seated problems in the future. Ms. Fleming asked whether the intent of the motion was for City Manager and City Attorney to either: 1) bring back an ordinance if that recommendation came from the ad hoc task force or 2) return with an ordinance whether or not the task force recommended an ordinance. Mayor Kniss clarified the Council would listen to the ad hoc task force and then decide what action should be taken. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the motion directed staff to prepare an ordinance, and the ad hoc task force would presumably help with the details of the ordinance. The motion did not suggest the report of the task force would return to the Council and the Council would then make a decision whether or not to direct staff to prepare an ordinance. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the language of the motion was designed to have the task force give the City Manager and City Attorney direction on the situation in Palo Alto and on preparation of an ordinance. The motion should be changed if the Council wanted to hear directly from the task force and not have staff return with an ordinance. 07/05/94 73-196 Vice Mayor Simitian said the reason for creating a task force was to draw on the knowledge and experience of the people who served on that task force. A task force was formed because it was unknown what information or views might be generated through its work over 60 to 90 days. He was not prejudging what would be received from the work of a task force, and that was not the intent of the motion. Rather, he was of the view that there was value in pulling a group of community and staff people together to give both the Council and staff the benefit of their thoughts. He wanted the staff to hear from the task force, as well as the Council, and the staff to use its professional judgment to return to the Council with a package that staff believed responded to the issues that it had observed and had heard about from the task force. The language in the motion asked the City Manager and the City Attorney to take necessary action to prepare for Council consideration an ordinance and other program elements which they deemed appropriate in order to address the problems and issues identified in the memorandum. If after the task force's report the City Manager and City Attorney did not believe an ordinance was appropriate, they could come forward and tell the Council that in their best professional judgment. He suggested the language could state "and/or" so it indicated there might be other program elements, the ordinance, neither, or both. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION addition-al language to Item No. 2 to read: "Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to take all necessary actions to prepare for Council consideration an ordinance and/or other program elements which they deemed appropriate in order to address the problems and issues identified in the memorandum. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to revise Item No. 1 to require that the ad hoc task force report its conclusions to the City Council and to delete Item No. 2. Council Member Andersen said nothing precluded the Council from moving forward with Item No. 2 after it had heard from the task force. As the motion presently read, it was conceivable that people could assume the staff could take a direction independent of the task force. The amendment made it possible to avoid that presumption. AMENDMENT FAILED 3-5, Andersen, Huber, Rosenbaum "yes," McCown absent. Council Member Huber supported the amendment because he felt the motion was not clear. He agreed with Council Member Wheeler's comments. He was not certain that he would support an ordinance 07/05/94 73-197 and wanted to hear the recommendation from the ad hoc task force. There was a suggestion by Police Chief Durkin that there might be a gap of tools to enforce. He wanted the issue of a gap addressed when the issue returned to the Council. Mr. Calonne clarified the direction to him was that if, in his judgment, he did not believe the task force produced information sufficient to justify an ordinance, he would inform the Council. Mayor Kniss said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian suggested language be incorporated into Item No. 1 that the ad hoc task force would report its findings back to the Council and to the City staff. A mechanism would be placed to ensure that the report was heard by the Council, that the public would have an opportunity to comment, and the information would be forwarded to staff. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that Item No. 1 be revised to include the sentence: "The ad hoc task force shall be directed to report back to the Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney." Ms. Fleming clarified it was staff's practice when an ad hoc task force was appointed that the efforts of the task force would be reported back to the Council. It was unfair for the Council not to have an opportunity to review the results of the task force's work. Staff would forward the task force's report to the Council and also bring back its work so the Council could discuss both pieces at the same time. Vice Mayor Simitian said it was important that the task force's work return to the Council and be made a matter of public record and that the public have an opportunity to comment on the report before the City Attorney and the City Manager prepared a response. Mayor Kniss clarified the report would be agendized for Council discussion before Item No. 2 was enacted. Vice Mayor Simitian had heard a number of people speak that evening regarding their concerns about an ordinance that had not been proposed and did not exist. He asked the members of the Council, staff, and the community to listen to one another and acknowledge the legitimacy of the different points of view that had to be balanced. It was important to understand that the task force would give the Council and the staff the benefit of its thoughts, but people should not think that the task force would produce the answer that would become the law of the City of Palo Alto. It was a resource and should be viewed as a resource. 07/05/94 73-198 MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. 9. Mayor Kniss and Council Members Andersen and Schneider re Con- ceptual Proposal For a Family Resource Center (continued from 6/27/94) Mayor Kniss said the item was a conceptual proposal for a Family Resource Center, not a definitive one. When she mentioned the item in April 1994, she suggested that the conceptual proposal would include a resource for families in the Palo Alto area and would include opportunity for advocacy, education, information coordina-tion, and visibility for families and children. An ad hoc group had been meeting on the issue for approximately two months, and last week the group met for its first organizational information session at Jordan Middle School library. There were 60 to 70 people in attendance at the meeting, including Council Member Huber. She asked for not only the Council's endorsement of the proposal but also for some staff support. City Manager June Fleming said staff understood that it was a conceptual idea, but the possibility that it might occur was exciting. It was appropriate for some staff involvement, but she did not know at the present time how much staff time would be spent on the proposal. She asked the Council to allow her the privilege of using the staff, within the resources available, to act as a liaison to the ad hoc group. She would return to the Council if the work became burdensome. When staff acted as a liaison, staff was specifically asked not to run the meetings and only served as a meeting place and time facilitator. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, President, League of Women Voters, said the League of Women Voters (LWV) supported the proposal to establish a Family Resource Center in Palo Alto. The widespread interest which had already been shown in the proposal was a demonstration of its timeliness. The LWV supported programs and policies that coordinated and integrated services that met basic human needs and promoted self-sufficiency for individuals and families. LWV supported programs at all levels of government that promoted the well being and encouraged the full development of children. Families with children were confronted today by a variety of difficult circumstances. Urban problems were becoming more obvious. A Family Resource Center would contribute to maintaining Palo Alto as a top-notch community, sensitive to the needs of all of its citizens. The LWV was convinced that public/private partnerships were effective means of responding to community needs. The development of a Family Resource Center would require the cooperation of the City, the schools, social service organizations, citizen groups, and area residents. The LWV would 07/05/94 73-199 help turn the idea into a reality, and it wanted to be a part of the working group. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported the concept of a Family Resource Center and the general thrust of the proposal. He suggested the organization needed more structure before it would become a successful group project. He asked whether the operation would be set up like the Senior Coordinating Council (SCC), e.g., the City established the operation, grew it to a viable size, and spun it off, or whether the City would look for a consortium of private organizations to either join together or create a new separate organization. He asked where the physical location would be, what resources would be necessary, and whether the contribu-tions would be supported by public funds or a combination of resources. He wanted to know the range of services provided and whether staff might or might not be necessary and over what period of time. He wanted a sense of the rank of the issues, e.g., battered women, children, single-family parents, dysfunctional families, youth, and seniors. The concept should indicate what the major and lesser problems were, and the problems that could be addressed effectively should be emphasized. Ann Ozer, 1510 Oak Creek Drive, strongly supported the proposal for the Family Resource Center. She said the meeting the previous week answered the questions brought forward by Mr. Moss. A family resource program could address the problems of the average Palo Alto family from early childhood to teenagers. Mary Sylvester, 135 Melville Avenue, had worked with the ad hoc working group on the Family Resource Center for several months. She had also worked with Mayor Kniss and her working group on the resource center concept. The Mayor's leadership had propelled the group to a new level of momentum. The group had begun to focus on some key issue areas in the community, and there was a sense of collaboration among the working team. In a community as complex as Palo Alto, few families had the knowledge and resources necessary to meet all of their family needs. Families frequently needed different types of help and levels of support. The ad hoc group recognized that there were needs in the community that were not being addressed. The City had an excellent group of service providers, but there were opportunities for enhancement of what already existed and an opportunity to fill gaps that needed attention. Several goals for the Family Resource Center had been enunciated during the previous months and enhanced upon by the meeting that the Mayor initiated the previous week: 1) information and referral services for families--services existed but informed providers of information were needed in some cases; 2) a succinct, focused way of looking at community needs and an opportunity to coordinate among service providers to fill the gap in services; 3) 07/05/94 73-200 assistance for family access services; and 4) an advocacy function. If there were a Family Resource Center, there would be an opportu-nity to have advocates who could be available to speak on behalf of needs of family and children. A direct service function was needed where gaps might exist. The Family Resource Center wanted to focus on family strengths, serve all ages and socioeconomic groups in the community, and be sensitive to issues of cultural diversity. The family would be broadly defined. She supported the Mayor's proposal and the ad hoc group was ready to move to a new level of organizational development which involved some staff time. The issues of organization structure, physical location, resources, staff, and ranking of needs still needed to be resolved and should be part of an ongoing strategic planning process which would not happen unless there was staff support. Council Member Schneider said over 60 percent of the families in Palo Alto either had two working parents or were single-parent families. A Family Resource Center could provide services and referrals as well as information to assist families. The proposal was in the established tradition of Palo Alto's reaching out to its residents. Palo Alto had done the same for its seniors and the needy. It was time to invest in the families in the community. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the City Council endorse the process of developing a conceptual proposal for a Family Resource Center, and direct the City Manager to assign appropriate staff resources to act as liaisons to the ad hoc group, approve on a formal basis a limited amount of staff time to assist in the specific proposal, and direct staff and others to report back the progress to Council in 90 days. Council Member Andersen appreciated the effort that was put forth by both the Mayor and Council Member Schneider on the proposal. The proposal had a great deal of merit and the concept was exciting. There was a tremendous need, and the model suggested by Ms. Sylvester was very exciting. The community could respond positively to such a conceptual effort. Staff assistance was needed in order for the concept to proceed. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to the comments in the Mayor's State of the City Address that "families looked somewhat different now than they did 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago." The Mayor was talking about the shape, size, and configuration of the families of today which was important in terms of the work of a Family Resource Center. He had heard from teachers during his eight-year tenure on the Palo Alto Unified School District Board that when they were asked how things had changed during the last 10, 20, or 30 years in terms of the children seen in the classroom, the answer was that the children came to them with a set of needs that were greater and 07/05/94 73-201 more diverse than they had ever experienced. Most of the needs had been addressed by the families before but could no longer be effec-tively dealt with by the families. There was anecdotal evidence that suggested that the need was real and was growing over time. Mayor Kniss appreciated the comments, but she had only gathered the groups together. The groups had motivated themselves and were very enthusiastic. She appreciated their support. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. RECESS: 9:29 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board Recommendation re Approval of Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Downtown Regulations to allow Incentives for Seismic Upgrade and Historic Preservation to be Combined for Commercially-zoned Properties which are both Seismic Category I or II and Historic Category 1 or 2: 401 Florence (office), 456 University (Varsity Theatre), 480 University (retail/residential), 661 Bryant (church), 520 Ramona (retail/office), 205 Hamilton (retail/office), 529 Alma (retail), 525 Alma (retail/office) and 232 Homer (retail). Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest with respect to her business and/or lease. Mayor Kniss read paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:313:94) in order to clarify the proposal for the public. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Table 1 of the Environmental Assessment in the staff report (CMR:313:94) identified the properties, the current usage, the existing square footage, and the potential square footage before the Council that evening. As noted in the staff report, the proposed text amendment would apply to nine sites in the Downtown but the site at 480 University Avenue exceeded the maximum commercial downtown zone Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and could not use either bonus. The zoning text amendment applied to eight Downtown sites. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the text change. The HRB recommended three conditions, one of which the staff and the Planning Commission supported. The modifications supported by the Planning Commission and staff were to incorporate into the ordinance a requirement that the building modification must conform 07/05/94 73-202 to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The City had had a longstanding ordinance requirement that limited the HRB and Architectural Review Board (ARB) to exterior design considerations. The Planning Commission's recommendation would not change that limitation; therefore, staff recommended that the proposed ordinance clarify that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's standards applied to exterior building modifications. Staff suggested the addition of the word "exterior" to the ordinance which was consistent with adopted ordinances for the City. He emphasized that the Council did not have before it any specific building projects for any of the eight sites, including 456 University Avenue (the Varsity Theatre property). Chop Keenan's Varsity Theatre proposal had received preliminary review by the HRB and the ARB, but no application for design review had been submitted. He said it was important to note that the City's zoning regulations, including the Downtown Commercial zone, had a wide range of permitted uses. The City did not control the establish-ment or sustentation of downtown uses. The City had not wanted to tightly control, other than ground floor retail use requirements, the mix of restaurants, retail shops, and other uses in the Downtown. There were strong market factors that made the Downtown an attractive location for bookstores, and there was the distinct possibility that a new bookstore would locate in the Downtown in one or two years no matter what the Council's decision was on the agenda item that evening. A major piece of new information that staff had had to deal with was the impact of the 1992 state Assembly Bill 2881 which amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the state law amended CEQA to require consideration of adverse impacts on historic resources as environmental impacts. He suspected there had been debate by some agencies that impacts on historic resources, rather than being physical impacts on the environment, were social or cultural impacts that did not require consideration. That was currently not the case. In consideration of the ordinance and any specific projects that were made possible by the ordinance, impacts on historic resources would need to be considered. Before the Council was not only the ordinance but also a proposed negative declaration that included some significant mitigation applied by the Planning Commission. The legal standard that the Council should keep in mind as it heard testimony from the public was that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required when it could be seen in light of the whole record that there was substantial evidence that the project might have significant effect on the environment. The public's testimony that evening could be focused on environmental impacts that might flow from the ordinance 07/05/94 73-203 amendment. Substantial evidence was the test that the Council should look for. Council Member Andersen felt that all the public's comments should be heard that evening and suggested the speakers time be limited to three minutes each. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the public testimony be limited to three minutes. Mr. Calonne said the Council had the discretion to limit the public testimony. The Council's rule indicated that the public testimony shall not exceed five minutes except in the case of a public hearing required by law where there was some property right issue involved. Council Member Rosenbaum opposed the motion. He believed that five minutes might be important to the people who had prepared informa-tion for the meeting. People could be encouraged to limit their comments. Council Member Fazzino was uncertain whether he preferred to limit the public testimony to three minutes or give everyone five minutes recognizing the fact that the Council would not finish the item that evening. Another possibility was to give everyone five minutes and at 12:00 a.m. or 12:30 a.m. to continue the item to another evening. He clarified his expectation was at approximately 12:15 a.m. the public hearing would be continued to another time certain for discussion and action. SECOND TO THE MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND City Manager June Fleming said given the fact that the Council would be on vacation beginning August 9, 1994, and the upcoming agendas were full, the item would be continued to September 7, 1994. Mayor Kniss clarified the public hearing would be continued to September 7, 1994. She explained that the people who testified that evening would not be able to testify again, and when the public hearing was continued, the people who did not get to testify could speak at that time. She explained that if a person were called to testify, their comments could not be deferred to September 7, 1994. Historic Resources Board Member Elizabeth Kittas pointed out that the HRB's approval of the zone change and negative declaration was 07/05/94 73-204 based on the proviso of three conditions. The motion clearly indicated that the HRB's support hinged on the adoption of the three conditions. Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian said when the issue was originally presented to the Council and Planning Commission in 1986, both Council Members McCown and Wheeler were Planning Commissioners. The discussion at that time was the extent of the incentives, i.e., the amount of square footage and the percentage that should be involved, and the amount of parking that should be allowed. There was not much discussion during that time on whether the two incentives should or should not be combined. The Council might want to consider whether the bonus should be a combination of the two incentives that would equal 50 percent of the total square footage. The Planning Commission did not attach any other qualifiers to the text amendment as presented. The two bonuses would be combined to equal 50 percent or 5,000 square feet, whichever was greater. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, said the ordinance amendment would help facilitate seven or eight difficult buildings in the City for seismic and historic renovation from a cost point of view. An attempt was being made to rectify what Council had begun in 1986 to mitigate and create incentives for property owners to perform either historic or seismic retrofitting, creating a 25 percent Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus for each function. A facility with both problems would incur an even larger cost. A method was necessary for mitigating both distinct sets of costs through a bonus FAR for each function, i.e., seismic or historic. The transfer of development rights (TDR) concept, proposed by the HRB, was an excellent addition to the text amendment. However, rather than using a Planned Community (PC) as the vehicle for the TDR, a simplified version should be adopted. It would allow property owners unable to reconcile a 25 or 50 percent FAR bonus with the historic architecture of the building to avail themselves of the mitigating bonus which would enable the sale to another property owner or for use on another property. Something other than a PC, which was a complicated and expensive process, should be consid-ered. Most people were willing to spend 5 to 10 percent of the cost of the replacement of the property for improvements and renovations. The Varsity Theatre and seven or eight other properties involved costs which were twice the replacement cost and that had been the reason Council had created the incentive to mitigate the costs in 1986. Parking had been addressed in 1986 by a 350,000-square-foot cap for all development in Downtown Palo Alto, 50,000 square feet of which had been reserved as an exemption for the bonus FARs, whether seismic or historic. About 14,000 07/05/94 73-205 square feet over the past eight years had availed itself to the parking exemption. However, in the case of the Varsity Theatre, the parking requirement for the proposed 22,900-square-foot building would be less than the existing 640-seat theater, i.e., the new parking requirement for the renovated Varsity property would be less than the existing parking requirement. The proposed ordinance would preserve the architectural distinction of the courtyard and facades. Bruce Grimes, 749 Moreno Avenue, appeared on behalf of a group of people attempting to save the Varsity Theatre as part of the City's heritage. He questioned destroying such a landmark in a Centennial year. The public wanted to ensure all the issues were known in order for Council to make the best possible decision. A key issue in his letter to Council (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office) was the conciliatory approach to determine whether it was possible in the remaining month for Mayor Kniss to encourage Council Members and members of his group to discuss in more detail some of the issues in order to present an alternative for Mr. Keenan. He had met with two individuals interested in preserving the theater and turning it into a film and performing arts center with a bistro atmosphere, but nothing could be accom-plished until Mr. Keenan's sincerity was known. The facility could become a much needed performing arts center. The 4,000 people who signed the petition would not want Mr. Keenan to save the Varsity Theatre if it meant the facility would be swallowed up. Gary Parks, 185 Union Avenue, No. 77, Campbell, was a member of the Theater Historical Society of America and a restoration consultant for the State Theater Preservation Group, an organization dedicated to the preservation, restoration, and continued use of the State Theater in Monterey, a 1926 movie palace designed by Reed Brothers who also designed Palo Alto's Varsity Theatre. It was in the first decades of the 21st century that the Reeds established themselves as the most prolific designers of theaters in the greater Bay region. Only a few of the two dozen theaters designed by the Reed Brothers escaped severe alteration or destruction: Oakland's Grand Lake, the Sebastiani, the State Theater in Monterey, and the Varsity Theatre. He strongly recommended that any adaptive reuse of the theater incorporate and restore as much of the interior design as possible. Between the restored Stanford Theatre and a preserved Varsity Theatre, University Avenue could have two stellar theatrical anchors. Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, had been a member of the Preserva-tion Action Council of San Jose and the California Preservation Foundation. She respectfully requested Council not approve the negative declaration but rather require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for all properties involved. She had discussed the 07/05/94 73-206 issue with an attorney specializing in land use, historic preserva- tion, and CEQA law. The City Attorney had mentioned the changes and additions to CEQA. People were weary of the demolition of buildings which resulted in Assembly Bill 2881, but the bill did not distinguish between exteriors and interiors of a project. She referred to Section 15065 of the CEQA guidelines that indicated "a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR be prepared for the project where any of the following conditions occur...the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment...or eliminate important examples of the major periods of the California history or prehistory." The Varsity Theatre was an example of an important part of California history and was one of two remaining mission revival courtyard theaters in California. The historic integrity of the exterior would be diminished if the interior were significantly altered. She referred to the findings of the Planning Commission on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:313:94), and she said the review had to be conducted prior to any work on any of the properties in the proposed zoning change. She referred to page 3 of the staff report (CMR:313:94) concerning the lack of City staff, and she said a consultant should be hired to evaluate such changes. The City already possessed such expertise in its HRB. She requested the Council to vote against the negative declaration for the proposed zoning change and require an EIR. Jennifer Kate Ward, 2242 Louis Road, said in 1979 Palo Alto's Varsity Theatre had been a popular movie house, restaurant, and music hall. The delicate fragments of memory had been forged into art. The new Varsity Theatre had not merely showcased but nurtured talent. A wealth of information and experience was available in just one visit to the Varsity Theatre. She recommended the irreplaceable landmark be treated with respect and not serve as a shell for another chain store but as a dazzling historic site, big screen movie house, thriving live music venue which Palo Alto lacked, and an acclaimed restaurant. The new Varsity Theatre should be kept old. Dennis Backlund, 488 University Avenue, No. 503, was a member of The League of Historic American Theatres based in Washington, D.C. and operated Adelle's Antiques in Palo Alto. He recognized the concern was a zoning change and was not directly related to the physical fate of the Varsity Theatre; however, the zoning change would make certain what many in the community protested--the destruction of the interior of the historic Varsity Theatre. The Varsity Theatre was a Category 1 landmark, which meant only the exterior was protected and subject to environmental review. The interior had been considered unprotected; however, at the end of 1992, new amendments had been made to CEQA that related to the 07/05/94 73-207 review of landmark buildings. The amendments blurred the previous- ly clear-cut distinctions between protected landmark exteriors and the unprotected interiors. The most relevant amendment of Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 read "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource was a project which may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an environmental review will be required." Recent CEQA amendments had broadened the definition of "signifi-cance." Section 21084.1 read "locally significant resources are presumed to be significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally signifi- cant." Significance, therefore, also had a historic and cultural meaning under CEQA. Under the amendments, issues of the social significance of the building were raised along with questions of the historic usage of the building. The Varsity Theatre was significant as an historic theater. The exterior of the building was a theatrical exterior, and the style of the front and courtyard was generally mission revival. An important statement related to the true significance of the Varsity's protected exterior had been made by Maggie Ballantine, professor of architecture and interior design at the University of Texas. In her study, The Show Begins on the Street, pages 185 and 186 concluded "theater architecture design was used to reinforce the glamour, escape, adventure, or romance of the film by extending those qualities to the building." The colorful eclecticism of the Varsity's exterior served notice architecturally that it was a theater and only a theater, all the theatrical elements being repeated and developed in the interior so the fantasy mood established outside was intensified inside. In a word, the interior was a more ornate and whimsical version of the facade and courtyard. The Varsity's architecture and decoration were everywhere expressive of theatrical use, just as a church was expressive outside and inside of devotional use. Any environmental review should raise the question about the extent to which the theatrical interior of the Varsity heavily contributed to the significance of the protected theatrical exterior and the extent to which the significance of the exterior would be substantially reduced by the destruction of the interior. The Planning Depart-ment recognized the possible effects of the recent CEQA amendments. He referred to page 4 of the staff report (CMR:313:94) that indicated "the environmental review document for some proposed building modifications could need to address building interior issues." Many in the community would press for an EIR on the proposed Varsity conversion so a fully informed decision could be reached on the issue. Susan Richardson, Box 1035, Palo Alto, did not want to see a bookstore or any other use for the Varsity Theatre. It would mean the loss of an opportunity to see and be part of such movie palaces. The combination of inside and outside decor was rare and 07/05/94 73-208 should not be turned into a bookstore. The City did not need a proposed bookstore on the calibre of Crown Books. There was an opportunity which should not be lost because of zoning regulations and the possibility of a bonus. She requested Council not approve the proposed ordinance. Ed Meserve, 16578 Shady View Lane, Los Gatos, was a structural engineer who had studied the Varsity Theatre in 1987, 1988, and 1989 and had worked on the structural renovations of the Stanford Theatre. Structurally, the Stanford Theatre was clearly superior to the Varsity Theatre. There were extensive corrosion and other problems with the Varsity Theatre, including two 20-foot walls with no reinforcement which could fall in an earthquake. There were many unknown factors with older buildings and it was very expensive to renovate, e.g., the final cost to renovate the Stanford Theatre was approximately $7 million. It would be less costly to build a new building than to renovate the theater; however, such was not Mr. Keenan's intent. Arne Hillesland, 250 Del Medio Avenue, No. 111, Mountain View, frequented Downtown Palo Alto because it was an exciting and unique place. The choices before Council were very important and should be seriously considered. He was a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley where there were distinct and frightening parallels between what was happening in Palo Alto and what had taken place in Berkeley in the early 1980s. The malling of the area around the campus had become so bad that merchants and citizens had banded together to push a referendum to stop the chain stores. The Garden Theatre in San Jose had been gutted for shop space much like the plans for the Varsity Theatre. After one year, the conversion was still incomplete, and Council needed to ask itself whether that could happen to the Varsity Theatre. Council had the opportunity to stop the encroachment of chain stores and provide cultural diversity and choices for its citizens and visitors. Council had the ability to decide not to throw away Palo Alto's uniqueness and then attempt to buy it back at a later time. He made an effort to come to Palo Alto for a nice dinner out and an intelligent movie but would not come Downtown for a second-rate taco and a discount paperback. On the day Palo Alto celebrated its 100th birthday, speeches had been given by grade school children and senior citizens, each glorifying the uniqueness of Palo Alto. Council should heed the words of its own citizens and not throw away its uniqueness by rezoning the Varsity Theatre. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, said 4,145 local citizens had signed a petition to retain the Varsity Theatre. Palo Altans did not want large chain stores, and he urged Council not to assist developers in creating space for such stores. Although Council might think large chain stores helped the economy, every large 07/05/94 73-209 chain store brought into an area maimed or destroyed smaller independent stores, drove up rents, and forced people out who formed the backbone of a community through involvement in local needs and issues. All over America, government programs were attempting to create the kind of community which existed in Palo Alto. The Varsity Theatre was on the list of historic buildings to be preserved. Its inside use and form were as important as its outside facade. Mr. Keenan had been quoted in the newspaper as saying "Palo Alto already has an embarrassment of cultural riches." Her family owned a No. 2 zoned historic building which required upgrades, but she would not ask the City to change its laws to help her. There were avenues open to Mr. Keenan other than the gutting of the Varsity Theatre, i.e., TDRs, PC zoning, combination of public and private funding, etc. Palo Alto was currently assisting Stanford in applying for National Historic Registry status. It might be more appropriate to include such a change to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and the Comprehensive Plan to consider the Varsity Theatre as part of a greater whole. According to the State Historical Resources Board before a judge could demand an EIR be conducted in assessing the significance of an historic building about to be irrevocably altered, one of the factors necessary was that a "ground swell of concern must be shown by the public." The signers of the petition clearly showed such concern and were supporters of the Downtown economy. It had been suggested a full EIR be required if substantial evidence was given that the project would impact the environment. She queried what constituted the environment. Artists had sketched, painted, and drawn the interior of the Varsity Theatre, hence an artistic environment. Musicians and fans would feel the loss of the musical environment. Any project which gutted the inside of the Varsity would inevitably impact the environment. Barbara George, 1725 Alma Street, said the issue was whether or not to amend the zoning ordinance to allow a double incentive for expansion to several commercially zoned buildings. All of the buildings would become eligible for expansion, giving developers the ability to create more square footage to rent and perhaps have a similar impact to what was happening with the most famous of buildings, the Varsity Theatre. The bottom line was that the citizens of Palo Alto did not want historic resources to be squandered or changes rushed into. Council would vote on whether or not to approve the zoning change. About 110 citizens had appeared to point out the problems with the zoning ordinance change. She implored Council to listen and look at the petition signatures and realize how strongly the citizens felt about the zoning ordinance change. Tami Jefferson, 360 Forest Avenue, No. 104, said a statement in the Palo Alto Weekly by Mr. Keenan indicated he felt he was "fighting 07/05/94 73-210 people's memories." She hoped the community's memories of the Varsity Theatre would not be one of regret. Once the inside of Varsity Theatre was destroyed, future generations would only know it through others' memories. The Varsity Theatre's historic, cultural, and social benefit to the community had been enormous. Some Council Members and Mr. Keenan thought some members of the public were being too nostalgic. However, the use for which the Varsity Theatre was built in 1927 was the greatest and best use for the community. At Varsity Theatre there was no generation gap among its customers or employees. Young people could see a movie on Saturday night, which should be lauded by parents, the Parent Teachers Association (PTA), the police, and Council. Visitors from all over the world had enjoyed movies, music, and special events. John Fredrich, 720 College Avenue, queried whether the preponder-ance of the public was attempting to demonstrate that a negative declaration should be denied or whether it was up to Council and the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposal should go forward as proposed. Nothing had been discussed about the public thoroughfare through the courtyard and whether it was a historic reality or just a public anomaly. Regarding private ownership, it was important to note that some members of the public thought a more aggressive use of zoning policies was appropriate and in the public interest. In order to promote the general welfare, Council needed to search for a vision rather than take the most expeditious path or the path of least resistance. The Varsity Theatre was an asset to the community for many of the reasons which had previously been stated. Although there should be some allowance for seismic costs, he did not understand how an allowance for historic preservation could be granted when the proposal would destroy the historic significance of a building. It was the primary issue Council should take up when it debated the negative declaration for the project. Randy Lutge, 940 Embarcadero Road, said in 1974 he joined his father in revitalizing the Varsity Theatre as a restaurant, bar, performing arts, and film theater called the "New Varsity." His job had been to accommodate the performing arts, and it had brought in many gifted local musicians. The Varsity Theatre provided space for the Palo Alto Players, the Children's Theatre, and world-renowned musicians and comedians. It had become a phenomenal community center, where all of the community young and old had could come together to enjoy themselves. Film students from Stanford found it a great place to work, and benefits for various causes were frequent occurrences. It was unique to the Bay Area and to America. He had awaited the time when Mr. Keenan would find a better capitalized tenant who could emulate the concept. Mr. Keenan had little connection to the most appropriate use for the property. With two more years on the lease, Mr. Keenan had 07/05/94 73-211 finagled his family out of the business. The Varsity Theatre was historical, not because it was a mega bookstore pushing all smaller local bookstores out but because it was a theater. Palo Altans should have the opportunity to vote on the issue and disagree with the Planning Commission which allowed the owner to do whatever he desired within zoning to the landmark. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Mr. Keenan as saying "he would do his bidding without extra incentive." Council should not overtly approve of the demolition of the Varsity Theatre by granting extra incentives. Palo Alto needed the Varsity as a vital community center, not another bookstore. Jodi Libretti, 720 College Avenue, reiterated the thoughts expressed in her letter to Council (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). The issue of the Varsity's conversion was indicative of a disturbing and disappointing trend in Palo Alto. The vision for the City's future had become increasingly short-term and inconsiderate of the needs and wishes of the larger community of people living in Palo Alto. It was unclear why Council would facilitate the demise of one of the City's most architecturally and culturally valuable buildings by granting an unlegislated bonus to the developer. Council Members had recently visited a gathering of concerned citizens who indicated possible ways to save the Varsity as a theater. There was an eagerness on the part of the represen-tatives to facilitate an unprecedented change in City policy. She asked why equal concern and loyalty were absent for small business- es and bookstores which might experience financial difficulty when competing with a large chain store. Small independent stores in Palo Alto gave the City its human face and character. The public expected Council to show some creative leadership, stand by existing City policy, and protect and preserve the aspects of Palo Alto which made it unique. She had spoken to Council Member Rosenbaum about Evanston, Illinois, a city which had greatly affected the small bookstores by welcoming in a large chain bookstore. People who lived in Palo Alto paid dearly for the privilege of doing so. Among the things which made the financial stretch worthwhile was the New Varsity, which could not be replaced or rebuilt once gutted. Many people were willing to fight for a careful study of the impact of such a major change to the Varsity and were willing to search for other options so the City treasure could be achieved. She asked Council to consider its duty to the entire population of Palo Alto, not just a small, powerful minority. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said staff had visited Coalinga after the earthquake and had been shocked at what it had found, especial- ly after inspecting buildings in Palo Alto. The result had been an ordinance requiring seismic upgrading of unsafe structures. As a compromise, rather than do nothing or force businessmen to upgrade, 07/05/94 73-212 the seismic bonus had been created. It had been assumed that property owners who had been made aware of buildings which were identified as unsafe would act in the interest of both the occupants and themselves because of possible liability in the event of an earthquake. Mr. Keenan was aware when he purchased the Varsity Theatre that it was a theater, had seismic problems, and was a historic property with a limited number of other potential uses. Failure to correct the seismic hazard put not only occupants but also owners at risk. It was inappropriate for Council to provide a double bonus to the property owner to do what should be done anyway would facilitate destruction of the use and function of the building. The renovated Stanford Theatre provided more tax revenue, a better ambiance and reputation for the community, and drew a much wider area of customers than any bookstore. An upgraded Varsity Theatre would do the same. There was wide support in the community to do something positive with the Varsity Theatre. He asked Council not to approve the double bonus and consider using the people who supported retaining the Varsity Theatre as a theater. If Mr. Keenan wanted to turn the theater into a book-store, it could be done with integrity, whatever the CEQA require-ments, but there was a difference between allowing it and facili- tating it. Roy Ola, 670 San Antonio Road, No. 25, was unhappy with what appeared to be the fate of the New Varsity Theatre. He challenged Council to be open minded about an obviously controversial topic and to provide leadership on the issue. The Save The Varsity Coalition was a group of concerned citizens speaking about the future. He was not against growth and development, but development had to be responsible and appropriate. He was against development which significantly altered the character of the community as it existed. He agreed with prior comments about chain stores. If the Varsity Theatre were lost, it would be another loss to Palo Alto. An editorial had appeared in the San Jose Mercury News concerning San Jose Council Member Margie Fernandez who was spearheading an effort to save the 1926 Fox Theatre in downtown San Jose. A recommendation had been made to establish a technical team to seek public and private funding. Although the Palo Alto facility was privately owned and the San Jose facility was publicly owned, consideration should be given to a public/private partnership. Council Member Fernandez offered to provide suggestions for Palo Alto's situation. Jonathan Angel, 3434 Ashton Court, had been a Palo Alto resident for 34 years and represented the interests of his family and neighbors. He understood Mr. Keenan had purchased the Varsity Theatre a few years before and presumably knew what was involved in the purchase. The double bonus issue had never appeared prior to Mr. Keenan's letter. It seemed as though the issue had been rushed 07/05/94 73-213 through, without consideration given to parking. Many people in Palo Alto were adamantly opposed to the change. He respectfully suggested that any Council Members who had in the past received campaign contributions from Mr. Keenan should decline in voting on the matter. DeWitt Durham, 393 Maclane, was Director of Purchasing at a small publishing house in Palo Alto. The question of the double bonus had become a referendum issue on the future of the Varsity Theatre and the presence of a super bookstore in Palo Alto. When a super bookstore opened, independent retailers could expect a 15 to 25 percent decline in sales. The financial structure of super bookstores depended upon deep discounts and extended terms of payments from publishers. The American Bookseller's Association had recently filed suit against a dozen publishers for the discounts and extended terms of payment offered to super book- stores. The suit alleged there was no legally supportable distinction between super bookstores and independent retailers. The bonus had been set up with the sweetener of a bookstore. Council had been asked to create the circumstances in which another bookstore could be brought into Palo Alto. He asked whether the Council was willing to pay the price of destroying the cultural and historical integrity of the Varsity Theatre, whether it was willing to do so at the price of the City's independent bookstores, and whether it was willing to be remembered as the Council that did not save the Varsity. Gregory Eitzmann, 607 Forest Avenue, said the issues were whether the Varsity should remain as it existed or be changed to something else and, if changed, what it should become. The Council could not force a private concern to maintain or continue an enterprise. The issue of what the space should become was a concern to Council and the community. Council had the opportunity to encourage diversity and maintain the scale of the merchants Downtown. Withholding the bonus would not prohibit any use of the land but would keep the scale similar to that of other merchants. It also demonstrated the general direction in which the community wanted its Downtown to look and feel. He urged Council to withhold approval of the incentive for the upgrade of the Varsity Theatre. Byron Coons, 2282 Amherst Street, had painted a picture of the Varsity Theatre in 1927, and the Varsity was not nearly as grand as it had originally been. If the Varsity changed one more time, especially the interior which was the only truly remaining part of its former soul, it would no longer be the same. Barbara Harley, 2139 Bellview Drive, Co-Chairperson of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PASH), a nonprofit association dedicated to the preservation of historic buildings, neighborhoods, and the 07/05/94 73-214 character of the City, queried what would happen if the first building that was changed by the ordinance had been on Hamilton Avenue or Homer Street since it appeared easier to do battle over the Varsity Theatre. PASH had asked her to make concerns known about all of the buildings which would be affected by the change of the ordinance. Most of the buildings could not retain the integrity of the building with a 50 percent increase in size. Some might even be adversely affected by a 25 percent increase, although the economics were understood. PASH asked Council to maintain the integrity of the buildings to the extent possible, the ordinance which protected the buildings, the integrity of the City, and the integrity of the process. The City had been very forward-looking in its historic preservation ordinance and the creation of the HRB. PASH wanted Council to increase its reliance on the HRB's exper- tise. None of the buildings should be destroyed by a 50 percent increase in floor space. Debbie Nichols, 714 Live Oak Avenue, Menlo Park, was opposed to the architectural changes to the Varsity Theatre proposed by the developer. The Stanford Theatre brought a sense of pride to a city which had retained lovely old buildings intact from its past heritage. The beautiful old buildings and the ambiance of Palo Alto's Downtown were important reasons she had chosen to live in the area. She was puzzled and disturbed when walking past the Varsity Theatre and its current state of dilapidation. She queried why the developer had allowed such disrepair. The Varsity Theatre should be brought alive with a thriving business. The business that came to the Varsity Theatre should incorporate the building's historic architectural nature. The historic nature of Downtown Palo Alto should not be destroyed for a short-term gain. The right choice should be made so future generations of Palo Altans could see that the current community had a vision. Pat Starrett, 440 Cesano Court, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage member, said much of the historical information about Palo Alto had been provided during the Centennial celebration. PASH was not opposed to progress but did consider the whole fabric of Downtown. It was worthwhile to reexamine the Varsity to determine its future. Chris Watkins, 1311 Parkinson Avenue, had been the manager of the Varsity some years before and was opposed to seeing it changed into a chain bookstore. Little shops would eventually go out of business, leaving behind empty store fronts. The Varsity gave character to University Avenue. He appreciated the fact Mr. Keenan was attempting to save the building, but other options should be considered. He urged the saving of the Varsity as a theater for public use just as the Fox Theater in Redwood City. There were many people willing to assist in saving the Varsity Theatre. He urged the consideration of other options. 07/05/94 73-215 Bill Glenn, 611 Hawthorne Avenue, said the New Varsity had played a big part in his life. He had worked at the Varsity for three years in the early 1980s. The biggest concern should be what the community wanted Palo Alto to be. The Varsity was an important, unique part of Palo Alto. Palo Alto would be much richer with a fine old movie house rather than another chain bookstore. It would be positive if people in Palo Alto came together with leadership to help facilitate a means of strengthening the Varsity as an ongoing concern, maintaining what it brought to the City as a landmark and shared bit of history. Vic Lovell, 885 Sherman Avenue, Menlo Park, said Council would gain more respect from the community if it did not place controversial items on the agenda late in the evening, causing people to leave before everyone had been given the opportunity to speak. The term "nostalgia" meant the kind of history which would not be destroyed. History was not about facades; history was about the function, the image and the experience of a place. Historical significance meant the landmark did not remain as a shell but remained for what it was intended. The Varsity Theatre was a wonderful place with many historical memories. Mayor Kniss clarified the Council agenda was not constructed in any way to circumvent any group. Three items had appeared on the agenda earlier in the evening which had been carried over from the previous week. People had waited since the previous week to speak on the items, all of which were important. Council had been present since 7:00 p.m. that evening, listening patiently, and no one had left. She objected to Mr. Lovell's comments. Council Member Fazzino did not object to being rebuked for legitimate reasons, of which there were sufficient numbers, but it annoyed him to hear comments such as Mr. Lovell's. A number of people had waited patiently the previous week to speak on two important issues: aggressive panhandling and a Family Resource Center. Council had attempted to accommodate the public by continuing the item until September 7, 1994, to provide sufficient opportunity to discuss the item and take action. Council had been very responsible and he objected to the comments. Peggy Kenny, 3181 Cowper Street, said the basic issue was the text change to the law. The text change should be made in consideration of the benefit to the public at large, as would any law which should be proposed or passed and not specifically of the benefit to one individual. She queried the public benefit or short-term gain if the Council gave the double bonus or 50 percent allowance. She urged Council to consider the larger purpose in changing the law. She understood it was not within Council's purview to dictate to a 07/05/94 73-216 property owner what could be done, as long as it was within the zoning allowance for the property; however, Mr. Keenan realized at the time of the purchase of the property that it had certain seismic liabilities, historical validity, etc. Mr. Keenan's earlier analogy about a pair of shoes was invalid. A more valid analogy would be the purchase of an old pair of shoes already damaged and was asked to resole and reheel. Mr. Keenan had been quoted in the local press that he would proceed with the plans with or without the bonus. She asked why the bonus or change to the law should be made. It appeared to be implied that a theater was not a viable or profitable enterprise either in Palo Alto or in the Varsity Theatre. She asked whether any market research supported such an assumption. Another issue which should be researched was the impact of theaters on local businesses. Many small retail businesses were located around the vicinity of the Century Theaters in Mountain View where none had been previously located. Ron Rainey, 40 South Market Street, San Jose, Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann, Inderbiteck, the law firm of representing Mr. Keenan, said many comments had been made about the Varsity Theatre along with expressions of powerful memories. The issue before Council was an ordinance which would permit an increase in FAR for historic preservation and seismic upgrades of buildings. Much opposition had been voiced for other uses of the Varsity Theatre, but it was not the issue before Council and the proposed ordinance did not necessarily have a direct impact on any of the comments. Staff had undertaken an appropriate environmental review. Nine buildings had been considered, mitigation measures had been identified for the potential impacts, and staff had suggested to Council, based on the review, adoption of the standards for which a negative declaration would be appropriate. Any additional environmental review would be based on conjecture and would divert Council's attention from the issue, e.g., the best way to save the eight or nine buildings. The proposed ordinance was an appropriate method of saving the buildings. Mayor Kniss clarified that anyone who did not have an opportunity to speak that evening should return to the Council meeting on September 7, 1994, and resubmit a card. Mr. Calonne said it would be appropriate for the Negative Declaration to be recirculated for additional public review and comment if the issue were being continued to September 7, 1994. There was a 20-day period required for recirculation. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether recirculation would be the same document or a different document. Mr. Calonne said after the Negative Declaration was prepared, the Planning Commission added a significant mitigation measure to the 07/05/94 73-217 ordinance that was the requirement that building alterations be consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's standards which appeared to address much of the comments heard that evening and the staff's analysis of the environmental impacts of the ordinance. It was appropriate to recharacterize the document as a mitigated Negative Declaration and recirculate the document for public comment. He clarified staff was unaware of the situation since the addition was made by the Planning Commission. There was a number of comments that evening that staff would respond to in writing for the Council in September 1994. He recommended the Council keep an open mind as to whether an EIR might ultimately be required. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Simitian, to continue the Public Hearing to the City Council Meeting on Wednesday, September 7, 1994, to begin no later than 7:30 p.m., and further, to recirculate the mitigated Negative Declaration. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Schneider "not participating," McCown absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. 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 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.