HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-19 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting September 19, 1994 1. Joint Meeting with Human Relations Commission ......... 73-376 1. Presentation by Santa Clara Housing Action Coalition .. 73-377 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Jim McFall for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Historic Resources Board ....................................... 73-377 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 73-378 3. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and DASSE Design, Inc. for Alma Street Bicycle Bridge Design; and Cost Sharing Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Menlo Park for Alma Street Bicycle Bridge ........................................ 73-378 4. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Vision Service Plan for City Employees' Vision Care Service .. 73-378 6. Follow-Up Audit Report on Palo Alto Community Child Care, Inc. ............................................ 73-379 7. Sublease Amendment Request from Santa Clara County Transit District for Reduction of Lease Responsibili-ties at the University Avenue Train Depot and Bagroom . 73-380 8. Proposals for an Option to Lease Property Located at 351 Homer Avenue (Williams Property) (Public Hearing Closed - continued from 9/12/94) ...................... 73-383 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of the application by Storm Land Company for a change in zoning from Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P) to Planned Community (PC) for property located at 400 Emerson Street, in order to construct a 8,100 square foot, three-story, mixed-use structure, and acceptance of an in-lieu parking fee for 13 parking spaces required .... 73-389 10. Evaluation of Six-Month Trial of Temporary Traffic Circle on the Bicycle Boulevard at the Bryant/Addison Intersection .......................................... 73-401 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned at
09/19/94 73-374
10:08 p.m. to Closed Session .......................... 73-404 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. .... 73-404
09/19/94 73-375
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Meeting with Human Relations Commission ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
09/19/94 73-376
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 7:11 p.m.), Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation by Santa Clara Housing Action Coalition Lee Wieder, member of the Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition, 550 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 307, made a presentation regarding the Santa Clara Housing Action Coalition (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Owen Byrd, Policy Director, Greenbelt Alliance, 173 Waverley Avenue, said the people who needed affordable housing already lived or worked in the community. Families earning less than 67 percent of the area's median income were officially lower income households. The gauge of low income usually included librarians, deputy sheriffs, nurses, firefighters, teachers, and many others who greatly enrich the civic life in the community. No study in California had ever shown that an affordable housing development reduced nearby property values nor had it shown that there was any relationship between population or density and violent crime. Everyone should recognize that without housing that was relatively affordable and appropriately located, Silicon Valley residents and employers would continue to be at a competitive disadvantage with other regions. He urged the Council to consider adding some density to the neighborhoods. Council Member Andersen hoped that members of the Santa Clara Housing Action Coalition would be available when the City Council reviewed issues that related to affordable housing. No action required. 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Jim McFall for Out-standing Public Service as a Member of the Historic Resources Board MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Resolution. Resolution 7357 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Jim McFall for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Historic Resources Board" MOTION PASSED 9-0. Jim McFall, 1530 Escobita Avenue, thanked the City Council for the Resolution. He was proud of the support the community had for historic preservation. He thanked the staff,his family, and Council Member Wheeler for their support.
09/19/94 73-377
Council Member Wheeler said for the last three years she had the distinct pleasure of working with Mr. McFall and he would be missed on the Historic Resources Board. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Darrell Benatar, 881 Lytton Avenue, spoke regarding the Lytton Traffic issue. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding concern for the trees. Susanne Shields, representing the Midtown Merchant Association, spoke regarding Midtown. Terry O'Day, Stanford Homelessness Action Coalition, 555 Waverley Street, spoke regarding the Aggressive Panhandling Task Force. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and DASSE Design, Inc. for Alma Street Bicycle Bridge Design; and Cost Sharing Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Menlo Park for Alma Street Bicycle Bridge 4. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Vision Service Plan for City Employees' Vision Care Service MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CLOSED SESSION The item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 5. Conference with Labor Negotiator (continued from 9/12/94) Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Chairperson Ron Andersen, Liz Kniss and Dick Rosenbaum) Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City Manager June Fleming, City Auditor Bill Vinson, and City Clerk Gloria Young
Authority: Government Code ∋54957.6 5A. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litiga-tion Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(b)(1) arising out of Architectural Review Board approval of sign application for 518 Bryant Street and subsequent discussions with counsel.
09/19/94 73-378
(Government Code ∋54956.9(b)(3)(B) & (E).) Public Comments: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Follow-Up Audit Report on Palo Alto Community Child Care, Inc. (continued from 9/12/94) Council Member Wheeler said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest due to her employment. City Auditor Bill Vinson said in November 1993, the City Auditor's Office reported there were serious deficiencies in the administra-tion of the child care subsidy program at the Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC). Additionally, it was reported that City staff was not doing an adequate job in monitoring the City's contract. He was pleased to report that internal controls and procedures surrounding PACCC's administration of the subsidy and the City's monitoring of the contract were now adequate. Improvements in subsidy administration and contract monitoring were the direct result of the responsiveness of PACCC and City management. The interim and current Executive Directors, controller, and program-ming and subsidy coordinators of PACCC and the City's child care coordinator should be acknowledged for their outstanding efforts in working with difficult issues presented in the original report. The positive results reflected their desire and commitment in establishing an effective and efficient subsidy child care program which were consistent with the provisions of the City's contract. The additional issues presented in the report that evening would help to further improve internal controls in PACCC's administration of the subsidy program. He thanked Margo Dutton and Ilene Hertz for their cooperation with the audit. They both recognized that controls and procedures were an essential element of good business practices. The audit exemplified how PACCC and City management worked cooperatively with his office in establishing the essential elements. Margo Dutton, Executive Director, Palo Alto Community Child Care, thanked City Auditor Bill Vinson for pointing out some of the difficulties and areas for improvement and also her staff and the volunteers who had spent the last year working very diligently to put PACCC back in a good position in the community. She personally thanked Kathleen Sullivan, Jeff Harrison, Tanya Swezey-Gleason, and Ms. Wheeler, PACCC's controller, who spent many hours improving the subsidy program. She also thanked the Council for its diligence. PACCC was on the road to recovery. Council Member Fazzino said the Council was very appreciative of Ms. Dutton's outstanding efforts as the Executive Director of PACCC. Ms. Dutton, PACCC's staff, and the City's staff deserved tremendous credit for bringing the program back from the edge of extinction in order to provide the very important child care services to the community.
09/19/94 73-379
Council Member Schneider asked whether the oversights discovered in the follow-up report were significant and would adversely affect PACCC. Mr. Vinson said no. The deficiencies that were found in the follow-up were the type of cleanup work that would be necessary to get PACCC to 100 percent. All three of the deficiencies noted, the most serious of which would be the subsidy waiting list, had already been addressed. PACCC had done an outstanding job and had corrected the deficiencies. Mayor Kniss asked whether there was presently more parental support than in the past. Ms. Dutton said there had always been parental support in the child care centers. There were presently 10 members on the 15-member Board of Directors, and the Board was still looking at its long-range plan to determine what kind of talents were needed. A broad cross-section of the community now had representation on the Board. Five members were asked to come on the Board because of their skills and because they were parents of PACCC children. The response from the community at large had been overwhelming. Council Member Andersen asked how the staff had responded to the centralization that was not present before. Ms. Dutton said there was staff turnover relating to the consoli-dation, but she was not aware of anyone leaving because of the new administration. No action taken. 7. Sublease Amendment Request from Santa Clara County Transit District for Reduction of Lease Responsibilities at the University Avenue Train Depot and Bagroom (continued from 9/12/94) Real Property Manager William Fellman said the item was initiated because the Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) had asked to eliminate the depot and the bagroom from the lease area. Staff proposed that a Request for Proposal (RFP) be done to find someone to take the SCCTD's place. Council Member Wheeler asked what kind of monetary implications, if any, were there to the lease arrangement that the City had with the SCCTD. Mr. Fellman said the City had a lease with Stanford University and the City subleased the property to SCCTD. The lease rent and taxes amounted to approximately $100,000 per year for the entire area, the turnaround, and the parking lot north of the transit station, depot, and bagroom. The City paid Stanford University and SCCTD reimbursed the City. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the portion that related to
09/19/94 73-380
the depot could be separated from the $100,000. Mr. Fellman said it was approximately 25 percent of the rent. Council Member Wheeler said the piece of property had been the subject of discussion within the community in terms of the Dream Team plan, and it also had been the subject of much discussion at the Historic Resources Board (HRB) meetings. The HRB had been working closely with Stanford University to possibly submit an application for national register status for the building. The building had already been designated by the State Historic Preservation Office as being eligible for national register status. The status would bring both opportunities and constraints to potential reuse of the facility. She asked whether staff had given some thought in the design of the RFP as to how it would handle the sensitive historic designation of the property. Mr. Fellman said staff would indicate in the RFP that the appli-cant would be responsible for the historical significance of the depot, including the painting inside the depot. There were other issues, including parking, that would make it hard to find a tenant for the building. The City had no financial obligation at the depot or the bagroom, and it would not release the SCCTD until it could find a tenant that could meet all the obligations, including historical. Council Member Wheeler asked whether representatives of the HRB would be asked to respond to the RFPs submitted prior to the return of the issue to the Council. Mr. Fellman said the HRB would be included in the process. Council Member Andersen said several rather unique facilities had been upgraded in that area, and he hoped staff would explore what had been done architecturally and historically with those facili-ties. He asked whether that portion of the lease with Stanford University could be separated so the City would have the flexi-bility necessary to protect the facility and come up with some creative uses. He hoped the RFP process would expand the poten-tials rather than limit them. Mr. Fellman said staff had had discussions with Stanford Univer-sity for many years, and Stanford had a master plan that was being developed for that area. Stanford had no desire at the present time to eliminate its ownership in the property. Council Member Schneider asked who would be responsible for the upkeep of the tunnel if SCCTD no longer took care of it. Mr. Fellman said the SCCTA was responsible for the tunnel that was adjacent to the depot and ran to University Avenue. Staff had never been able to find out who was responsible for the other three tunnels. Southern Pacific, the Joint Powers Board, and the City had all disclaimed interest in the property. The Joint Powers Board was responsible for the fifth tunnel that ran from Alma Street to the depot, and it was cleaned on a daily basis.
09/19/94 73-381
Council Member Schneider asked who was responsible for the waiting facility for the northbound trains. Mr. Fellman said that area was controlled and maintained by the Joint Powers Board. Council Member Schneider asked whether the area would continue to be maintained by the Joint Powers Board even if the lessee took over the depot. Mr. Fellman said that was correct. The proposal was for the SCCTD's area which was west of the railroad tracks, depot, and bagroom. Carl Moerdyke, Chairman of the Board, Museum of American Heritage, 275 Alma Street, said the Museum of American Heritage (the Museum) presented a written proposal, as recommended by City staff, that requested the Council waive the RFP process and make an immediate grant of the sublease to the Museum. The Museum had an immediate need for exhibition space, and it felt it was important to the Museum's vitality and viability to maintain a continuous presence in Palo Alto. The Museum had experienced increasing success not only in terms of patronage, membership, financial, and community support but more importantly in the involvement in the community in terms of its historical, educational, and cultural benefits. The RFP process could be very lengthy and the ultimate results of the RFP were not guaranteed to any applicant. It would be unfortunate for the depot to remain vacant for an extended period of time when a compatible and complementary tenant such as the Museum was in need of a facility. The Museum believed that very little needed to be done to the site in order to accommodate its usage. The impact on the immediate neighborhood would be minimal because of the character of the neighborhood. The benefits for using the site for exhibition space matched well with the Dream Team's concept of developing the new and dynamic gateway to Palo Alto. The Museum's location at the depot would be an added attraction to commuters and would encourage public transportation. He had heard comments that it was overly ambitious of the Museum to pursue both the depot site and the Williams property, but the Museum did not intend to be a static display. The Museum intended to be a dynamic force and a more active participant in the Palo Alto community. The Museum wished to continue with its schedule of major exhibition that would require a more expansive space than that which was afforded by the Williams property. If the Council determined that it had to move forward with an RFP process, the Museum offered as an alternative that the City consider a proposal for a temporary or interim tenancy in the depot pending the outcome of the RFP. Mayor Kniss asked whether the Museum believed the grant of the lease rather than going through the RFP process would excuse the Museum from incurring any financial costs. Mr. Moerdyke said the Museum understood a portion of the property that was under contract with the SCCTD could be subleased. The
09/19/94 73-382
Museum could budget for the costs in that location. Mayor Kniss clarified the grant from the City would not excuse the Museum from any financial obligations. Mr. Moerdyke said that was correct. Julia Freman, Manager of Transportation for Stanford University, said Stanford University supported the staff recommendation that a RFP would be published for the new tenant for the train depot. It was an opportunity to bring to life some of the goals of the Dream Team's work and also of the Comprehensive Plan transportation element. The depot was a perfect place for a multimodal comprehensive transportation center, and it could be turned into a wonderful use that would support all of the transportation goals. People were becoming very interested in the notion of public/private partnerships, and it was a great opportunity to explore what could be done on that site. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to authorize staff to proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP) to find another subtenant for the University Avenue train depot and bagroom before agreeing to release the Santa Clara County Transit District from its lease obligation. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 8. Proposals for an Option to Lease Property Located at 351 Homer Avenue (Williams Property) (Public Hearing Closed - continued from 9/12/94) Mayor Kniss said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest due to her membership on the Board of Directors of The Palo Alto Fund. Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest due to a relative's participation in the Cleo Eulau Center for Children and Adoles-cents. Council Member Huber asked whether a comparison could be done in potential traffic or trip usage between the Museum of American Heritage's (the Museum) proposal and the previous Peninsula Conservation Center's (PCC) proposal that the Council approved earlier. Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said the PCC proposal, according to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that was done, would have generated 70 vehicle trips per day and required 30 parking spaces. The PCC's proposal included a 3,500-square foot addition to the existing facility. The EIA also included 36 trips per day for the facility for the Lace Museum which did not include any type of addition. There would be approximately 44 trips per day if 1,000 square feet were added, and it would require 22 parking spaces. If the Museum uses were similar to the Lace Museum, the figures would probably be the same.
09/19/94 73-383
Council Member Huber asked which of the seven proposals submitted would conceivably qualify for the funding from Santa Clara County for historical renovation. Ms. Freeland said Santa Clara County's park charter funds required that the property be open to the public in Santa Clara County and that it be used for park uses continually. In order for the property to qualify for the funds, it would have to be dedicated by the City as parkland. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said dedicated parkland was generally not suitable for exclusive use by one or more private functions. Office space use would be clearly inconsistent with park dedica-tion. Museum-type use was probably consistent, but anything that was a mix of the two would have to be looked at case-by-case. Vice Mayor Simitian said the PCC planned to use the site as office space but also planned to pursue that option as well. Mr. Calonne recalled that park dedication was not a part of the proposal. Council Member Andersen referred to the cost to the City in Attachment B Chart Summary of the staff report (CMR:422:94) and said some of the proposers indicated no cost as proposed, others indicated possibly the cost of disabled access and rewiring if necessary, and another proposer indicated possibly the cost of some city involvement in capital improvements. He asked what the costs would be to the City for those proposals. Ms. Freeland said it might be possible to use the state historic code and not upgrade the electrical wiring to a significant extent. Both of the proposals were vague about what was meant by disabled access and whether it would be just the outside access or the inside too. Disabled access could be a significant cost. Council Member Andersen said the proposers assessed the costs to be from $100,000 to $200,000 and asked whether the costs were comparable for the City. Ms. Freeland said yes for the improvements required to convert the house to nonresident use. The primary change would be the disabled access. Council Member McCown said the presentations previously heard by the Council were extraordinary in what they represented about organizations in the community and depth and quality of those organizations and the dedication and enthusiasm of people who spoke about their own programs as well as the opportunity to use the house. It was a difficult process to choose between the seven proposers and the final user. She would use four criteria: 1) consistency with the provisions of the will, 2) the financial viability of the organization and the ability to pay some or all of the upfront costs and the longer term financial stability to be a good 20-year tenant, 3) the organization recognition and
09/19/94 73-384
commitment to the house as a historic resource, and 4) the breath of organization involvement in Palo Alto and the broader community and what the potential activities in the house would mean being accessible to and serving the broad constituency in the community. She said there were strong candidates that addressed all of the criteria fairly well, although there were differences and strengths in each area. She suggested the candidates be narrowed down to three or less, and also recommend that the Council create an ad hoc committee made up of members of the Policy and Services and Finance Committees to interview the final candidates and to return to the City Council with a recommendation. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to select the final preferred proposals for use of the Williams Property for further negotiations as follows: 1) the Pacific Art League of Palo Alto, 2) the Museum of American Heritage, and 3) The Palo Alto Fund. Council Member Andersen felt the Cleo Eulau Center had merit and would prioritize it higher than The Palo Alto Fund. AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved that Cleo Eulau Center for Children and Adolescents be added to the selection list for further review. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether expected City financial contribution could be added to the criteria. Council Member McCown said the financial ability of the organiza-tion to pay upfront costs was a policy issue that was inherent when the final proposer was chosen. There were enormous differ-ences among the three proposers in terms of City participation, e.g., costs range from zero to 100 percent. It could be the basis for elimination of a proposer. Council Member Rosenbaum said the question of financial viability might be a long-term issue and whether the organization could perform over the 20-year term of the lease. The Palo Alto Fund stated it expected the City to improve the building which he felt was a demerit for their proposal. It was unclear what the Museum of American Heritage expected, and he wanted the Museum to appear before the staff or an ad hoc committee and give the City its best offer. The Pacific Art League of Palo Alto had not asked for anything. Council Member McCown agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum that it was a policy question whether the Council wanted to consider an applicant who was proposing that the City bear 100 percent of the cost. The policy issue could be handled by an amendment to eliminate The Palo Alto Fund from the proposals. She was not ready for that step because there might be further questions before that policy decision was made. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the criteria specified
09/19/94 73-385
would take care of the question of expected City financial contributions. Council Member McCown said that was correct. The level of expected City participation would clearly be grounds for deciding in favor of one proposer over another proposer. Council Member Rosenbaum said The Palo Alto Fund expected the City to pay for the capital costs, and it was a stretch to believe it came under the terms of the will. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to eliminate The Palo Alto Fund from the final proposals. Council Member Huber supported the motion and also the amendment. The Palo Alto Fund proposed that the City pay for everything, and he felt The Palo Alto Fund provided seed money and organization for groups similar to the Sandplay Therapy and Training Institute and the Children's Tree House. Their uses were not broad enough to qualify for the use of the Williams property both from the socio and Citywide side and the historical preservation. Council Member Wheeler said former Mayor Klein stated earlier that the proposal by The Palo Alto Fund grew out of the City's past experience with the house. The Palo Alto Fund determined that it would be better to find groups, associations, or uses that would be compatible with the house rather than try and make the house fit an existing organization's needs. She agreed with his comments, and she had appeared before the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee to try and put forth a less formulated proposal that would accomplish the same things. The point also made very clear by Messrs. Klein and Northway was that anyone that made that kind of proposal would not be able to put up the funds. The City would be expected to provide the funds which totally changed the rules under which everyone had been operating for many years. The policy in accepting the gift to the City and the rules set down at that time and from that time forward had been that the City would not fund the house. If the City wished to make a shift in the policy direction and fund the house, the City should get more use out of the house than The Palo Alto Fund proposal presupposed and it was only fair to give people an opportunity to apply under the new rules. Unless the Council was willing to eliminate all the old criteria, she wanted to work with the two remaining applicants, if The Palo Alto Fund were removed, because the two applicants fit the criteria that had been previously established. Council Member Fazzino supported any motion that encouraged the Council to make a decision that evening. He had long supported the concept of historic preservation use for the site. He would have been more inclined to support the Peninsula Historic Clothing Society's proposal as a third option for the site than some of the others suggested, but the majority of the Council clearly supported the two or three recommended proposals. He was enthu-siastic about the Museum of American Heritage's proposal as long as it did not involve any City costs, and that issue needed to be negotiated by the committee. The proposed use by The Palo Alto
09/19/94 73-386
Fund was exciting, and it responded to the terms of the will and provided a broad cultural benefit for the community through the support of nonprofits; but he concurred with his colleagues that he could not support City funding for that proposal. Perhaps the community foundation might be interested in supporting that kind of nonprofit incubator. He was inclined to allow The Palo Alto Fund to explore the possibility of alternative funding before it was eliminated completely from consideration. Vice Mayor Simitian opposed the proposed amendment. He had concerns about the possibility of City involvement in terms of funding the proposed use, but the staff report (CMR:422:94) presented the previous week indicated that The Palo Alto Fund had asked for the cost of the required improvements, and the Museum of American Heritage had also asked for the cost of the required improvements except tenant improvements. The staff identified the costs of the required improvements to be in the range of $200,000 to $300,000. There was discussions about what that might or might not involve to bring the building up to code. The Council would have to consider the other proposer if the criteria were that if a proposer asked for a substantial City contribution, it would be excluded from the list. He was not prepared to eliminate the Museum from the list and could not use that criteria as the basis to remove The Palo Alto Fund. He would not be comfortable, no matter how beneficial the use was, to allow an organization to occupy the property unless it demonstrated its commitment by investing some significant funding into the property. He would rather have the funding issue resolved through discussions. The Palo Alto Fund had put forth a creative idea, and he was intrigued by the notion of using it as incubator space to help develop nonprofit organizations, let them grow and become successful, and then let other new nonprofits take their place. It had the potential to create the greatest good for the broadest number of people no matter how beneficial the activity or use might be of one particular group. He believed The Palo Alto Fund had the greatest potential for minimal impact on a residential neighborhood, and the impact would also be minimal in terms of the actual physical structure of the house. Council Member McCown supported the amendment. She believed The Palo Alto Fund's intention and purpose was that the City should be responsible for the cost of preparing the house. There was a policy purpose in making the proposal that way. The Council needed to make a clear policy decision and not pursue a proponent that wanted the City to bear the entire cost which was not consis-tent with previous policy in that area. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-2, Fazzino, Simitian "no," Kniss, Schneider "not participating." MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider "not partici-pating." Mayor Kniss and Council Member Schneider returned to the meeting since both of them no longer had a conflict of interest with the elimination of The Palo Alto Fund and the Cleo Eulau Center for
09/19/94 73-387
Children and Adolescents proposals. Council Member McCown said she had suggested an ad hoc committee be appointed, but the Council might want to discuss how it wanted to proceed. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted the staff to provide an evaluation of the two proposals and return to the Council. It might be helpful to have an ad hoc committee review the evaluations. Council Member Fazzino said Council Member McCown had a good framework for the process in her earlier comments. He supported the idea of an ad hoc council committee which would include staff. Council Member McCown suggested a couple of final interviews and a one-month time frame which was reasonable. Director of Finance Emily Harrison clarified the staff would provide an evaluation of the two proposals, arrange the inter-views, and return with a staff report to the Council. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the Council was trying to avoid asking the staff to make a policy choice or a political choice or a choice about what was "the best use" of the site. It was a decision that rested with the Council. The Council would need the advice of staff about various practical issues that related to the ability of the two finalists to respond to the criteria of the RFP. Council wanted the staff to address the issues of long-term financial viability, evaluate what the front-end costs would be for the applicant and the City, the issues of traffic impact, and architectural or historic preservation. All of the issues were issues that the ad hoc committee and the Council would want to consider in reaching its policy decision. The staff would staff the ad hoc committee rather than serve on it. Ms. Harrison said an abbreviated RFP process was used to bring the proposers to the Council, and the RFP did not ask for information that would allow staff to do an indepth evaluation, e.g., the financial viability of the proposers. Staff did not ask for a lot of information it normally asked for during an RFP process to provide Council with a good recommendation. Staff would not be able to provide that kind of evaluation within a short time frame. Council Member Fazzino asked how much time would be necessary to conduct an evaluation. Ms. Harrison said staff could provide the evaluation in six weeks providing there was full cooperation from both proposers. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to request the Mayor to appoint a three-member ad hoc committee to be made up of members from the two Standing Committees to participate in interviewing the final preferred proposals and report back to the City Council in six weeks. Council Member Andersen believed the purpose of an ad hoc commit-tee had diminished when the proposers went from three to two. He
09/19/94 73-388
was concerned that the recommendations from an ad hoc committee were carried out in a situation that was not a public process, and he was more comfortable with a staff report and a vote on the item by the full Council. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Andersen "no." PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of the applica-tion by Storm Land Company for a change in zoning from Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P) to Planned Community (PC) for property located at 400 Emerson Street, in order to construct a 8,100 square foot, three-story, mixed-use structure, and acceptance of an in-lieu parking fee for 13 parking spaces required. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber explained that the Council's packet did not contain the elevations that were reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning Commission. Staff alerted the Council of that fact and copies of the plans were at the Council's places that evening. The item received unanimous support from the Planning Commission and ARB, as well as a strong staff recommendation for approval. Mayor Kniss said there was concern about the elevations not being contained in the packet that evening, and she asked whether any Council Member wished to speak to that issue. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the major issues in the project had been the parking lot design, payment of parking in-lieu fee for vehicle spaces not provided on the site, bicycle parking spaces, number of residential units, public benefit, including the design of the public art niche, and also access to the trash enclosure and parking spaces for the adjoining restau-rant use. After discussion of the issues, both the ARB and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with the conditions outlined in the staff report (CMR:453:94). The conditions included one residential unit, eight offsite bicycle parking spaces, a minimum of two onsite bicycle racks, review of the art piece by the Public Art Commission (PAC), and an in-lieu parking fee for 13 parking spaces not provided onsite to be subject to the provisions of an approved parking in-lieu ordi-nance. Architectural Review Board Member Julie Maser said the ARB was very enthusiastic about the project from a design standpoint. The ARB favored one unit for the residential portion. There were a few minor comments about architectural detailing which would return to the ARB as well as a few items that were omitted that were required to be submitted to the ARB. Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian said Planning Commission was enthusiastic about the mixed use aspect of the project, i.e., office, retail, and housing together in the Downtown area. The
09/19/94 73-389
main issue from the Planning Commission was around the in-lieu parking. The Planning Commission planned to present the in-lieu parking fee concept to the Council soon so that was tied into the project and no set fee per se was required. The fee would come from the Council's approval of the in-lieu parking fee ordinance. Council Member McCown referred to Item No. 4, Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:435:94) that stated "The applicant shall work with the Transportation Division to provide additional bicycle racks (approximately 2 to 8) at 400 Emerson Street." She asked what it meant by the statement to work with the applicant and whether it could be zero if it did not work out or whether it was mandatory. Ms. Grote said it was considered to be a mandatory condition that the applicant coordinate with the Transportation Division to decide on the location of the two bicycle racks. Council Member McCown said the statement said two to eight. Ms. Grote said the amount was left open and depended on where there was room for the bicycle racks. Council Member McCown clarified it would be up to the discretion of staff as to whether it turned out to be two, five, seven, or eight. Contract Project Planner Joyce August clarified there would be two lockers onsite, and the Planning Commission requested that there be additional bicycle racks onsite rather than the eight additional bicycle lockers shown on the site plan. Council Member McCown clarified the recommendations was for eight bicycle lockers offsite and additional bicycle racks as opposed to lockers onsite. Ms. August said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked who decided whether it was two or eight bicycle racks. Ms. August said the applicant would confer with the Senior Planner Gayle Likens in the Transportation Division and would attempt to fit as many bicycle racks as possible on the site near the entrance to the first floor use. Council Member McCown was uncomfortable with the vagueness of whether there would be two or eight bicycle racks. She asked whether staff could pick a number that was feasible for the applicant. Ms. August said the applicant was asked to speak with Ms. Likens before August 31, 1994, but that did not occur. The applicant was not fully aware of the requirements for the placement of the bicycle lockers. At the present time, Ms. Likens had not drawn up a plan for the applicant, and it was the applicant's role to
09/19/94 73-390
propose. She asked the Council to request that the applicant propose the number of bicycle racks that would be onsite. Council Member McCown asked whether the Council could pick the number. City Attorney Ariel Calonne suggested the word "work" be deleted and the word "consult" be inserted; after "Transportation Divi-sion" delete the word "to" and insert the words "and shall;" after "provide" insert the words "the maximum feasible number of;" delete the parenthetical "(approximately 2 to 8)" at the end of the sentence; and add the words "with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 8." The sentence would read: "The applicant shall consult with the Transportation Division and shall provide the maximum feasible number of additional bicycle racks at 400 Emerson Street with a minimum of two and a maximum of eight." Council Member McCown would prefer an exact number and asked the applicant to respond to what would be a feasible number. Ed Storm, Storm Land Company, property owner, 399 Bradford Street, Redwood City, said four bicycle racks would be workable on the site, and anything in excess of that number might make the entry area look overshadowed by bicycle racks. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the property was currently in a CD-C(P) Downtown Commercial Pedestrian Combining zone and he asked what the zone currently allowed. Ms. Grote said it would allow the same types of retail and commercial uses; however, it would require additional parking. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it would allow the proposed residential use. Ms. Grote said yes. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to page 4, Attachment C, Planning Commission staff report dated July 8, 1994, and the issue of public benefit which was required for a Planned Community (PC) and he understood that the only reason the project needed to be a PC rather than to work within the existing zoning was because of the inability of the applicant to provide the parking onsite. Ms. Grote said that was the primary reason for the PC. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether there was anything else other than the parking issue that would not be allowed under the current zoning for the project. Ms. Grote said no. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to the comparison chart on page 4 and asked whether the allowable square feet was 7,700 square feet of commercial space plus 7,700 square feet of residential space. He said the proposal was for approximately 8,400 square feet of
09/19/94 73-391
commercial and residential together. He asked whether that would exceed the 7,700 square feet allowed or whether it was less than the 15,400 square feet of the two combined. Ms. August said the total was a combination of 7,700 square feet. The applicant had originally proposed to enlarge the corner parcel to approximately 7,700 square feet, but he had revised the proposal and the total parcel configuration would be 6,875 square feet. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified under the proposed floor area square footage for the combined commercial/residential development, the current proposal's total square footage was less than the 7,700 square feet, which had been approved by the ARB and the Planning Commission. Mr. Storm said the proposal was for 0.8 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) based on the commercial square footage, and he understood the residential square footage did not count. Vice Mayor Simitian asked why the residential square footage did not count when the chart on page 4 stated there was a maximum of 7,700 square feet for both commercial and residential. Council Member McCown referred to page 7 of the Analysis which stated the FAR of mixed use projects could be cumulative, which meant that if it could be done as a mixed use in a CD zone, it could be added together if the parking were provided. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether that meant if the parking requirements were met, there could be 15,400 square feet of residential and commercial development. Ms. August said yes. The residential units were not counted as part of the FAR calculation; and therefore, an applicant to continue to add residential units without affecting the allowed amount of square footage permitted for commercial uses. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified residential square footage was not counted against the allowable square footage within that existing zone. Ms. August said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to the chart on page 4 and the 1.0 FAR for commercial and residential, and he said there was not a cap on the residential FAR and the 1.0 FAR was a cap for the commercial only. Ms. August said the cap applied to the commercial with the caveat that there should be sufficient parking provided onsite. Vice Mayor Simitian asked for reassurance that as a result of the PC, the City was not allowing any additional floor area commercial and residential square footage than would have been allowed under the existing zoning. He wanted to be clear about how much
09/19/94 73-392
variance there was since staff had commented that there was not much variance so there was not much public benefit. Mr. Schreiber said the building proposal could be approved under the CD-C(P) zoning without a PC zone, but the issue was the parking. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to the chart on page 4 which stated the proposed height was approximately 47.5 feet, and he asked why the building had an approximate height of 47.5 feet. Ms. August said the architect had shown on the elevations the point of measurement for the height of the building at 47.5 square feet which was the approximate midpoint of the roofline. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the staff agreed with and accepted the architect's selection of a measurement point. Mr. Schreiber said yes. It was the difference between the initial site plan and the final building permit application. There might be a slight change. Vice Mayor Simitian said the public benefit described in the Planning Commission's staff report dated July 8, 1994, was a drinking fountain and the viewable art in the art niche and also the staff considered the provision of the residential unit in a commercial project. He did not view the residential unit as a incremental addition to the public benefit since the residential unit was allowed under the existing zoning. He did not see the art niche clearly defined on the plans. Ms. Grote said the art niche was to the left of the drinking fountain on the elevation. There was a gate between the two. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it was an ornamental gate. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian asked for a description of an art niche. Ms. August said it was a small alcove on which a piece of art could be placed. The design of the art niche had not been decided yet. The ARB and the Planning Commission had requested that the proposed art niche and the art object be presented to the Public Art Commission (PAC) prior to returning to the ARB for final review. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the conditions reflected that requirement. Ms. August said Condition No. 8 on page 9 of Attachment F, Planning Commission staff report dated August 31, 1994, reflected that requirement. Vice Mayor Simitian said page 1 of Attachment A indicated differ-ent wording.
09/19/94 73-393
Ms. August said the wording was slightly different. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the staff and City Attorney were comfortable that the City would be assured of the public benefit attached to the project. Ms. August said the new language in Attachment A was stronger because a member of the PAC requested that the PAC oversee the development of the art niche and also requested that it be linked to the design of the water fountain as well. Council Member Andersen asked how the Council conveyed an interest in getting additional housing units to a property owner and asked whether the Council had any leverage in that kind of situation to make certain that there were more than one unit created. It was a creative project, but there was an opportunity to build at least two units on the property. The one unit was 2,200 square feet. Architectural Review Board Member Maser said the ARB asked the same question. The designer of the project pointed out that because of the size and access to the units, it would be difficult to provide a dual access, and the circulation of the upper floor level would become inefficient. The ARB felt that although there was a need for greater density of housing in the Downtown area, there was also a place for more luxurious rental accommodations. The ARB was open to the diversity of different types of housing in the Downtown area. The ARB was excited about the mixed use of the project and believed the one unit was appropriate for the building. Planning Commissioner Ojakian said when the Planning Commission considered the conceptual phase of the project, it suggested that additional units be considered. There was a trade-off between some minimal public benefit and the in-lieu parking. Most of the Planning Commissioners were willing not to pursue the need for additional units and felt it was an unfair set of circumstances to apply to the situation since if the applicant would have waited several weeks, the PC would have not been required. The Planning Commission was also concerned about trying to maximize the number of mixed variety units in the Downtown area. Council Member Huber said there was a lot of discussion about the in-lieu fees and the ordinance that would be considered by the Planning Commission in September 1994. He asked what the costs looked like in the ordinance. Planning Commissioner Ojakian said the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the in-lieu fees at its previous meeting which would be brought to the Council. Mr. Schreiber said the item would reach the Council in late October or early November 1994. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing
09/19/94 73-394
closed. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommendations and conditions of approval with the following findings, amended as shown in Attachment A to CMR:435:94: Findings 1. Site. The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are such that the application of the general and the combining district CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown Community, Pedestrian combining district) does not provide the flexi-bility to construct an 8,110 square foot mixed use building with the required number of on-site parking spaces (27 spaces). 2. Public Benefit. Development of the site under the Planned Community district results in public benefits not otherwise attainable. Public benefits that the applicant is providing include (1) one residential unit on the third floor, (2) a public drinking fountain, and (3) a secured public art niche, both on the Lytton Avenue facade. Below are the staff recommended public benefit findings: a. One residential unit is provided in addition to the commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design Guide support mixed use. This precedent may stimulate more mixed use proposals in the downtown area. b. The public drinking fountain and art niche are consis-tent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines because they provide pedestrian viability to this corner. The applicant will maintain and service a drinking fountain that will be available for use 24 hours per day. This is a service that City staff would not likely be able to duplicate. 3. Comprehensive Plan Goals. The site development regulations applicable, including office, retail, and residential uses in a mixed use structure are consistent with the following Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan goals: a. Housing Policy 6 "Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family rental units while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing." b. Housing Policy 14 "Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial areas." Program 33: offer incentives and mitigate disincentives. c. Employment Policy 2
09/19/94 73-395
"Encourage the construction of more housing primarily on or near industrial and commercial sites." d. Environmental Resources Policy 13, Program 43 "Mitigate impact of air quality problems due to sta-tionary and vehicular sources. Implement programs to reduce total transportation related emissions through the development of additional housing close to employ-ment centers." Recommendation and Conditions of Approval 1. The following Conditions of Approval; 2. The environmental assessment attached to the staff report dated August 31, 1994, recommending a negative declaration; and 3. The ordinance amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to change the Zoning Map designation for 400 Emerson Street from "CD-C(P) Downtown Commercial Pedestrian Combining" to "PC Planned Community." Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 1. A Certificate of Compliance showing the lot line adjustment shall be submitted for approval to the Public Works Depart-ment. A condition to the lot line adjustment shall include language permitting permanent access across 400 Emerson to the rear of 412-414 Emerson Street, that shall be submitted for approval to the City Attorney before the Certificate of Compliance is granted. The access shall be granted to the parcel at 412-414 Emerson Street to reach 2 parking spaces, permit deliveries and trash removal, and for emergency access. 2. The applicant shall apply for an amendment to the existing Use Permit for 412-414 Emerson Street through a Zoning Administrator hearing addressing the following issues: change in property dimensions, permanent access across the rear of 400 Emerson Street to reach the rear of 412-414 Emerson, on-site parking spaces, trash enclosures, and to provide police and fire emergency access. 3. Applicant shall show proof of Santa Clara Valley Water District's acceptance that the proposed development and construction will not affect any site remediation for removal of an underground storage tank that occurred in 1986 and will assume removal of 2 oil-assisted hydraulic hoists in the existing structure on the site. 4. Twelve parking spaces (of the 27 required parking spaces) and 2 bicycle lockers shall be provided on-site. One residential parking space may be shared; one equivalent parking space
09/19/94 73-396
shall be in the form of 8 bicycle lockers located off-site; and 13 additional parking spaces are subject to an in-lieu parking fee to be paid to the City. The applicant shall work with the Transportation Division to provide additional bicycle racks (approximately 2 to 8) at 400 Emerson Street. 5. Applicant shall coordinate with the City's Transportation Division to designate the location of 8 (of the 10) bicycle lockers where appropriate in the downtown area. Final design of the bicycle lockers shall be submitted for approval by the Transportation Division and the ARB. 6. Details of development plans shall be submitted for approval by the ARB, including the following: noise reduction plan, signage, lighting, north and south wall facade changes, color palette, and roof material. 7. The parking lot decorative wall shall be constructed, to the extent structurally feasible, to permit visibility all the way to the far wall, where the south stairwell is located. 8. Applicant shall consult with the Public Arts Commission (PAC) before submitting final details of the art niche and water fountain for ARB review and approval. All PAC comments shall be submitted as part of the final site development plans for ARB review. If the art object(s) is City-owned art, the owner shall enter a hold harmless agreement with the City. 9. Applicant shall provide space on-site for a padmount trans-former first verifying the location of the electric vault with the Utilities Department. The final design shall be submitted to ARB for approval. 10. A final landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Utility Energy Services Division, Planning Division, Public Works Department and ARB. a. The planter at the parking lot's east exit shall be installed to permit an unobstructed view for drivers exiting onto Lytton Avenue at all times. b. The final landscape plan shall include a complete plant listing indicating quantity, locations, type and size of plants and trees, irrigation schedule, fence loca-tions, and lattice details. 11. A streetscape plan showing all proposed plantings, tree irrigation, street lighting changes, and any other changes shall be submitted to ARB for approval. a. The street tree plan shall first be submitted to the City Arborist for approval, before the final landscape plan is circulated for City departmental review and ARB review and approval. b. Any street lighting changes shall be submitted to
09/19/94 73-397
Utilities, Public Works, and the Planning Departments, prior to ARB review and approval. 12. A final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the Public Works Department. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 13. Applicant shall pay the City an in-lieu parking fee of $23,000 per space, based on the number of parking spaces required, at a rate of 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. The total fee is estimated to be $299,000 based on the 13 spaces that cannot be provided on-site. This amount may vary based on final construction measurements. In the event the City adopts an ordinance within one year after occupancy of the project, which estab-lishes an in-lieu parking fee that is higher than $23,000 per space, the owner shall pay the difference between $23,000 per space and the amount established by the ordinance. If the fee established by the ordinance is lower than $23,000 per space, the City will refund the difference between the $23,000 and the amount established by the ordinance. In the event that the In-Lieu Fee ordinance hereafter adopted by the City Council contains provisions that conflict with this condition, those ordinance provisions shall apply. 14. A construction plan shall be submitted for approval by the Public Works Department and Transportation Division that addresses the location of construction staging areas, travel routes for construction vehicles, fencing of the construction site, a plan for keeping the streets and sidewalks free of dirt and other construction debris as well as all other issues deemed necessary by the City to provide for the public safety and to reduce impacts of construction on the surrounding area. The plan shall include provisions to keep the streets open for vehicles and pedestrians. 15. Utility load sheets shall be submitted for approval by the Utilities Department's Water-Gas- Wastewater Engineering Division and the City's Cross Connection Control Inspector. 16. An Encroachment Permit and Street Work Permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right-of-way. 17. Improvement plans for all utility construction shall be submitted for approval by the Utilities Department, Public Works Department and the Inspection Service Division. The plans shall include a separate water service and meter, a new gas service line and a separate sewer lateral to serve the residential unit. The water utility point of service shall be at the sidewalk. Backflow prevention into the public water supply shall be provided. The sewer lateral point of service shall be approved by the Public Works Department and Inspection Service Division.
09/19/94 73-398
During Construction 18. In order to reduce dust levels during construction, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered frequently, with reclaimed water, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days. Spill-age resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately at the expense of the owner. Dust nuisances originating from the construction operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the developer's expense. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor the developer's dust control operations with respect to work on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor the developer's dust control operations with respect to work on public property. 19. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall determine BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall determine BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on public property. Prior to Occupancy 20. The parking lot entry gate shall be electronically operated, and equipped with a Knox Key Switch to allow Fire and Police services to access both 400 and 412-414 Emerson Street at any time. The parking lot entry gate shall remain open during normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Parking spaces #4 and #5 shall be signed and permanently made available at all hours of the day and night for use by the occupants of 412-414 Emerson Street. 21. Bike lockers shall be installed, with 2 on-site bicycle lockers and 8 off-site bicycle lockers, as designated by the Transportation Division, preferably at the Caltrain Station in Palo Alto. 22. The applicant shall provide closure documentation to the City from Santa Clara Valley Water District related to the under-ground storage tank and removal of the 2 oil-assisted hydrau-lic hoists. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classifi-cation of Property Known as 400 Emerson Street from CD-C(P) to PC" Council Member Fazzino appreciated the work done by the Planning Commission, ARB, and staff on the project. It was a wonderful use
09/19/94 73-399
for the site and was an exciting, attractive structure and a nice gateway to the Downtown. He was excited about the residential unit. It was one of the first creative reuses of amortized property. Mr. Storm was owed a great deal of credit for his intriguing and creative proposal to take an amortized property and make it into something which was consistent with the Urban Design Plan. Council Member Schneider said it had been an extraordinary project, and she was delighted to see the project in the Downtown area. She was glad that the developer would be working with the PAC. It was the first project before the Council where the PAC would be consulted, and she hoped it would set a precedent for future projects developed in the Downtown. She also hoped in the future that similar projects would have additional units. Council Member Huber said Mr. Storm brought the project to his office approximately a year and a half before it was submitted to the City. He supported the project and could find the public benefit. He believed similar projects that the City wanted to see in the Downtown should not have to go through the PC process to get a good project. Council Member McCown suggested the motion include the wording provided by the City Attorney with respect to the maximum feasible number of additional bicycle racks. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that on page 3 of the Ordinance, Section 3(d)(ii) a sentence be added to the end of the section to read as follows: "The owner shall consult with the Transportation Division and shall provide the maximum feasible number of additional bicycle racks at 400 Emerson Street, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 8." Vice Mayor Simitian said he had also met with Mr. Storm sometime before to look at a project proposal. He liked the project and believed it was a nice addition to the corner. It would define the corner in a way that was beneficial. The City needed to think about why a project like that needed to go through the PC process because it forced the Council to stretch its imagination on the public benefit issue. He could not find that a single unit of housing on the site constituted public benefit. If there had been a multiplicity of units, there might have been a case that the willingness to do that constituted a public benefit. He suggested that additional language be included in the Condition of Approval No. 8 as amended and as set forth on Attachment A, page 1, and in the ordinance that the art niche be filled with an art object. Architectural Review Board Member Maser said Public Art Commis-sioner Sandy Eakins felt it might be possible that the fountain would be such a beautiful object that it could serve as an art object. Vice Mayor Simitian did not want the project to end up with one nice looking drinking fountain and no display of art at the second location.
09/19/94 73-400
Mr. Storm said he understood his obligation to work with the PAC to do something that was beneficial to the community. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that page 5 of the Ordinance, Section 3(e)(iii) be revised to insert a sentence after the first sentence to read as follows: "The Public Art Commission shall have authority to require dedication of an art object for the art niche." Council Member Andersen concurred with the comments of Vice Mayor Simitian and Council Member Huber on the issues that related to the PC process. Mayor Kniss concurred with the comments made by Council Member Huber regarding the issue of the PC process. It was an area the Council needed to reconsider. She congratulated Mr. Storm on his project and perseverance. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 10. Evaluation of Six-Month Trial of Temporary Traffic Circle on the Bicycle Boulevard at the Bryant/Addison Intersection Mayor Kniss corrected staff recommendation No. 2 which should read: "stop signs be installed at Homer and Channing Avenues at Bryant Street." Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said the bicycle boulevard extension from Churchill Avenue to San Franscisquito Creek was completed in October 1992. The purpose of the bicycle boulevard was to provide a safe, low volume and relatively obstacle-free route for bicycle travel across town. Removal of obstacles meant installing a traffic signal at Embarcadero Road and removing as many stop signs as possible which was an important feature of the bicycle boulevard. The removal of stop signs on Bryant Street at Kingsley and Addison had been the focus of the most concern for many residents and some Council Members who were worried that that would mean more traffic and greater speeds on Bryant Street. For that reason, the bicycle boulevard extension when it was approved by Council in 1992 included a trial street closure between Channing and Addison Avenues on Bryant Street. The Council discussed the results of the trial in July 1993. Some residents were concerned about the traffic that had been diverted from Bryant Street onto Addison and Ramona Avenues as a result of the closure. Council then decided that the closure should be removed and replaced with another trial traffic management measure. Staff narrowed down the possible measures that could be instituted to a traffic circle or a pair of road bumps and conducted an outreach program with the neighborhood of those possibilities. Neither the Historic Resources Board (HRB) nor the residents who attended the neighborhood meeting last year were in favor of the road bumps or the circle and both preferred reinstatement of the stop signs at the corner. Staff chose the traffic circle for implementation on
09/19/94 73-401
a trial basis because stop signs were inconsistent with the bicycle boulevard concept and because the circle would not impede travel of passengers in need of urgent care as road bumps would do. The circle had the possibility of improving the aesthetics in the neighborhood and creating the illusion of a closed street. The trial of the circle concluded with positive results both operationally and neighborhood acceptance. Staff was aware of some parents' concerns about school children crossing Bryant Street and their preferences for reinstatement of the stop signs. Nevertheless, staff had concluded that the circle had not compromised intersection safety and it provided a boulevard for bicyclists with a minimum number of stop signs. Another staff recommendation concerned new stop signs on Homer and Channing Avenues at Bryant Street. Bicyclists, automobile drivers, and pedestrians had asked for a safer crossing at Homer and Channing Avenues by installing three-way stops. Accidents at Homer Avenue and Bryant Street had increased and stop signs were needed. At Channing Avenue and Bryant Street, the problem was not as severe but because it was a one-way couplet, staff felt the treatment should be the same on both streets. Rob Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, was skeptical when the bicycle boulevard was initially proposed and was concerned about the potential impact to his children. The staff's proposal was balanced, but it might need some fine tuning in the future. He hoped the Council would monitor it as it went forward. He did not believe a future study would improve the situation, and he hoped the Council would approve the permanent installation of the traffic circle. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, supported the staff recommendation and did not want new stop signs added on Bryant Street at Addison Avenue. The circle worked very well for everyone. She hoped the Council would approve the recommendation. William Frye, 536 Lincoln Avenue, was disturbed that more stop signs were being asked for. Palo Alto had too many stop signs and traffic signals already. He suggested the Council not add anymore stop signs and take out an old stop sign when a new stop sign was planned. Betsy Gamburd, 1024 Ramona Avenue, wanted a stop sign at the corner of Addison Avenue and Bryant Street. There was a growing school population and more children were walking and bicycling to school. The Council needed to recognize their rights to travel safely to and from school. Motorists traveled rather quickly when approaching that intersection at 8:00 a.m. The slope of Bryant Street, the number of parked cars, and the circle made it hard for motorists to see the children. She was troubled by the cost of the project and a stop sign would be less expensive. She hoped the Council would consider the needs of the children and help protect their safety. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve: 1) permanent installation of the Bryant/Addison traffic circle and 2) that stop signs be installed on Homer and Channing
09/19/94 73-402
Avenues at Bryant Street. Council Member Fazzino said the Council was desperate to find the right solution to the traffic problems, particularly protecting children's safety, and at the same time accommodate the need for the bicycle boulevard as well as making sure that traffic had access through the neighborhood so that one or two streets were not unduly impacted. He originally supported the barrier and went along with the circle as an alternative because he was concerned about the additional traffic on Ramona Avenue and Waverley Street. The circle had been a tremendous success. He agreed that stop signs would be more effective, but he believed that given a choice between traffic circles and stops signs, traffic circles were a much better deterrent. Circles were very effective in residential neighborhoods in Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. Staff should consider traffic circles more often in the future as effective traffic control devices in the community. He hoped the HRB would work with the Professorville neighborhood and make the circle as attractive as possible. Staff might want to consider standards for traffic circles in the future. He was delighted that staff recommended stop signs be placed on Homer and Channing Avenues at Bryant Street, and he strongly recommended the need for three-way stops. In the future, it might be possible to remove the stop signs on Bryant Street, but it was important to add the stops signs given the accident history in that area. He commended the staff for its efforts. Council Member McCown said staff had been consistent in the past with the recommendation to place stop signs at Homer and Channing Avenues, but previous Councils had voted against it. Council Member Fazzino said some of the Council Members were in favor of the stop signs. Vice Mayor Simitian said the traffic volumes had decreased from what it had been on the street before there was a barrier or a traffic circle, but the traffic on the street had increased since the removal of the barrier and the placement of a traffic circle. A traffic circle did not provide the same level of traffic reduc-tion as a barrier. He did not like barriers because it moved the traffic problem to some other location. The Council should not have been surprised that the traffic on Bryant Street went to other streets which was the idea of a bicycle boulevard and a barrier. He believed the stop signs were necessary since the traffic level had increased after removal of the barrier. The stop signs might have been avoided if there had been a barrier and fewer automobiles on the street. He had supported the bicycle boulevard because the bicycle boulevard was one of the few places where the Council could give people meaningful transportation alternatives to using their car. People would get out of their cars if they were given something to use that really worked. Council Member Rosenbaum commended the staff for perseverance in the face of near unanimous opposition to the proposal when it first surfaced.
09/19/94 73-403
Council Member Andersen had received comments that the concrete surface was rough on some bicycle tires on Bryant Street, and he asked for consideration of an upgrade to the strip for bicycles. Mayor Kniss echoed the comments of Council Member Fazzino that there were other opportunities throughout the City to use traffic circles. She said a rotary was a good alternative. The other streets were originally unhappy with the increase in traffic but were now more comfortable with the final decision. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. to Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involv-ing labor negotiations and significant exposure to litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 5 and 5A. Mayor Kniss announced that there was no action taken on Agenda Item No. 5. Mayor Kniss announced that the Council took action by a 9-0 vote regarding Agenda No. 5A to direct the City Manager and City Attorney to take appropriate action to cure an alleged agenda notice defect in connection with the Architectural Review Board's consideration of signs at 518 Bryant Street. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.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.
09/19/94 73-404