HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-27 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting March 27, 1995 1. Midtown Market Analysis Study Session.................75-301 1. Proclamation Recognizing the Contribution of the Palo Alto Mediation Program in Conjunction with "Mediation Week".................................................75-302 2. Appointments to the Human Relations Commission........75-302 3. Traffic Safety Recommendations - Refer to the Finance Committee and Policy and Services Committee...........75-304 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company to Furnish and Install an Aeration Blower at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant....75-304 5. Request for Approval to Adopt the Santa Clara County Operational Area Disaster Response and Recovery Organi-zation Interim Agreement..............................75-304 6. Resolution 7488 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Ralph S. Libby Upon His Retirement..........................75-304 7. Ordinance 4265 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Create Capital Improvement Project No. 19535, Citywide Timekeeping System, and Provide Interim Funding for that System...............75-304 8. Ordinance 4266 "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Analyses of Recorded Tapes from the 1994 Shoreline Amphitheatre Concert Season...........................75-304 9. Recommendation for Council Opposition to SB323 (Kopp)--Electronic Public Records Disclosure..................75-304 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board upholding the decision to approve a proposal for one A-frame sign for O'Connell's Eire House............................................75-304
03/27/95 75-299
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommends approv-al of (a) an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Munici-pal Code Section 18.94.070(b) for property located at 3200 Park Boulevard, 340 Portage Avenue, and the adja-cent former railroad right-of-way with Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue frontage extending the nonresidential use amortization schedule for the former Maximart site for 20 years beyond 1999..............................75-314 12. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Create and Fund Capital Improvement Project 19533, "Civic Center Plaza Lighting...................75-326 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........75-326 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned in appreciation to Ralph S. Libby on his retirement at 11:45 p.m...............75-326
03/27/95 75-300
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:50 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Midtown Market Analysis Study Session Synopsis of Midtown Market Study Session In July 1994, the City Council approved a consultant contract with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for the Midtown Market Analysis to provide the City assistance in resolving the serious economic issues facing the Midtown Shopping Center. In January 1995, the Keyser Marston study was completed and widely distributed. The City Council study session began with public testimony, where the various stakeholders in Midtown voiced their opinions on the study. That was followed by a presentation by Tim Kelly, Princi-pal, Keyser Marston Associates, an author of the Midtown Market Analysis. In the consultant's judgment, the key area for the first efforts of major revitalization was the area comprising the northeast corner of Midtown. The consultant believed that the rehabilitation of the existing structures alone would not materially reverse the economic problems of the area over the long term and create the dynamic neighborhood that the residential community desired. Hence, redevelopment was recommended for the long-term revitalization of Midtown. The consultant urged the City to play an active role in the revitalization of the Midtown Shopping Center area. Mr. Kelly answered several questions asked by Council Members. To conclude, Carol Jansen, Manager, Economic Resources Planning, made some brief comments. One last presentation was made by a member of the public at the end of the meeting. Staff was requested by the Council to return with recommendations for the long-term economic vitality of Midtown Shopping Center. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
03/27/95 75-301
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamation Recognizing the Contribution of the Palo Alto Mediation Program in Conjunction with "Mediation Week" Mayor Simitian presented the proclamation to Marcia Pugsley and John Kidd, members of Palo Alto Mediation Task Force. 2. Appointments to the Human Relations Commission Mayor Simitian asked the Council to vote for two candidates on a single ballot for the appointments to the Human Relations Commis-sion (HRC). Council Member Fazzino would vote for Wynn Hausser and Litsie Indergand. There were several very good candidates, and he encouraged them to apply again. It was unusual for a person to be appointed to a board or commission on the first try. He was pleased with the quality of applicants. He appreciated Ms. Indergand's sensitivity to both sides of the panhandling issue and how she would address the issue, recognizing the various interests, concerns, and impacts of an ordinance. He believed it was important for commissioners to reflect a strong sensitivity to individuals from different economic backgrounds and to understand how those individuals might be impacted by City action. Vice Mayor Wheeler echoed the comments of Council Member Fazzino. There was an extraordinarily strong group of candidates for the two positions. All of the individuals could serve extremely well in the position. She encouraged anyone who did not receive the appointment that evening to reapply when the opportunity arose. She would cast her votes for Mr. Hausser and Ms. Indergand. Mr. Hausser was extremely well prepared for his interview and provided thoughtful answers to the Council's questions. Ms. Indergand had played a leadership role in her neighborhood, church, and a variety of community organizations and had exhibited a broad interest in a variety of the topic areas that the HRC was interested in, particularly homelessness, children and youth, and diversity. She said Ms. Indergand's answer to the final question on the application to see the HRC became obsolete was a unique and uplifting as a goal. Council Member Schneider would cast her vote for Wynn Hausser and Litsie Indergand. Both applicants would bring additional diversity to the HRC. Council Member McCown said Commissioner Janet Stone also noted the quality of candidates who had applied and had indicated she would ask the candidates not selected that evening to become involved immediately in the activities of the HRC or some of the task
03/27/95 75-302
forces associated with the HRC. Council Member Andersen would support Wynn Hausser and also Catherine O'Brien. Ms. O'Brien offered a wealth of background, experience, and innovation which would complement the HRC, particularly her audiovisual experience. He concurred with all of the comments made regarding the extraordinary pool of candidates, and he hoped that the candidates would participate in activities of the City which would benefit from their talents. Council Member Rosenbaum said there was a number of very qualified candidates. He would support Litsie Indergand because, in addition to all of her other qualifications, she had lived in the community for a great length of time and had considerable familiarity with the City's issues. He would also support Catherine O'Brien. He was impressed with her energy and enthusiasm and the wealth of her qualifications. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR HAUSSER: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR INDERGAND: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR O'BRIEN: Andersen, Rosenbaum, Simitian VOTING FOR OZER: VOTING FOR PIERCE: VOTING FOR SAVAGE: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Wynn Hausser received eight votes and Litsie Indergand received seven votes and were appointed on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding fair play (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Ken Schartz, no address listed, spoke regarding cable channels. Gretchen Hillard, 3048 Greer Road, spoke regarding the unsafe traffic conditions on her road. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 17 AND 18, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of January 17 and 18, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR
03/27/95 75-303
MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 through 9. Refer 3. Traffic Safety Recommendations - Refer to the Finance Commit-tee and Policy and Services Committee Action 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechani-cal Company to Furnish and Install an Aeration Blower at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 5. Request for Approval to Adopt the Santa Clara County Opera-tional Area Disaster Response and Recovery Organization Interim Agreement 6. Resolution 7488 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Ralph S. Libby Upon His Retirement" 7. Ordinance 4265 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Create Capital Improvement Project No. 19535, Citywide Timekeeping System, and Provide Interim Funding for that System" 8. Ordinance 4266 "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Analyses of Recorded Tapes from the 1994 Shoreline Amphitheatre Concert Season" 9. Recommendation for Council Opposition to SB323 (Kopp)--Electronic Public Records Disclosure MOTION PASSED 9-0, with clarification of Item No. 9 to reflect that Council authorizes staff to take all actions necessary to indicate that Palo Alto does not support SB323 in its current form. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board upholding the decision to approve a proposal for one A-frame sign for O'Connell's Eire House in the public right-of-way four feet away from Centennial Walk and adjacent to the curb along Bryant Street in front of 520 Bryant Street (continued from 2/21/95) Planner Lorraine Weiss said the applicant, Jeffrey Pollack, originally submitted a sign proposal in August 1994 that included four A-frame signs to be located in four different locations near Ramona Plaza. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved two
03/27/95 75-304
locations in September 1994 with conditions. One location was along the west entrance to the alley near Citibank on Ramona Street and the other location near the northernmost entrance of Ramona Plaza at University Avenue. Staff recommended one sign in front of 525 Bryant Street in the public right-of-way four feet away from Centennial Walk. Jim Baer protested the legality of approval because he did not receive a public notice. On October 6, 1994, ARB continued the item to restudy the location of one sign along Bryant Street with the elimination of the menu holder and chalkboard and to place an arrow toward the restaurant. The Public Works Department accepted the Bryant Street location. In December 1994, the ARB granted the final approval of one sign on Bryant Street. The applicant filed an appeal on December 12, 1994, because he felt the original September 6, 1994, approval of two signs was valid and noticed properly. The City Council accepted the applicant's request to continue the project on January 23, 1995, to the February 21, 1995, meeting. At that time the appeal was reagendized to the meeting of March 27, 1995. Staff maintained the same recommendation of one sign located on Bryant Street four feet away from Centennial Walk. Architectural Review Board Member David Ross said the ARB approved locations for two signs but the locations needed to be negotiated between the applicant and the Public Works Department. When the item was set aside for process reasons, the ARB was instructed to consider it de novo and staff provided an additional sign ordinance analysis and the A-frame sign guidelines. The guidelines strongly suggested that A-frame sign's purpose was to help locate a business that was not visible from its technical address. Based on the guidelines and the staff recommendations, the ARB approved the staff recommendations. At the final hearing, the applicant indicated that he, in concert with other property owners, would seek a sign master program which the ARB supported in concept. Mayor Simitian clarified the item was quasi-judicial. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said that was correct which meant that the Council's decision had to be guided by the standards set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and any other applicable guidelines or regulations. The Council's decision had to be based on the evidence in the record before it that evening, including the comments heard during the public hearing that evening. The Council's policy required disclosure of substantial information conveyed to the Council Member about the matter. A procedural matter required the Council's action to be predicated upon written findings which traced the analytical root between the raw evidence in the record and the conclusions made. Mayor Simitian clarified the reference to the PAMC section would be distributed that evening. City Manager June Fleming said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked that the code language be placed on a transparency for Council Members to view and that copies be distributed to the public. He referred to the A-frame Sign Guidelines (Attachment L) which were adopted November 17, 1983,
03/27/95 75-305
and asked whether it was Council adoption and what authority the guidelines had. Mr. Calonne said the guidelines had the force of the law and were adopted by the ARB pursuant to authorization delegated from the Council under PAMC Section 16.20.100.A4 which was the exception to the City's general prohibition on portable signs. The exception authorized the ARB to adopt guidelines for portable signs. Mayor Simitian asked whether the Council could make any decision it wanted regarding the number and location of signs. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mayor Simitian said he had visited the site and spoken with the applicant, Jeffrey Pollack, regarding the procedural issue only. Council Member Fazzino said he had visited the site and spoken with the applicant, Mr. Pollack, regarding the procedural issue only. Mr. Baer had mentioned the subject to him. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Jeffrey Pollack, Appellant and Applicant, O'Connell's Eire House, 518 Bryant Street, said the 518 Bryant Street location was extraordinary property in that it had no street frontage. He had met with Mr. Baer before purchasing the property and explained his concern that there was no street frontage and that the address was faulty. He asked Mr. Baer to work out a situation so that he could put the name of the business on the walkway from University Avenue. The property required a permit process to complete the rebuilding, and Mr. Baer indicated that he could help him get through the permit process for a fee of between $5,000 and $10,000. He told Mr. Baer that he liked to meet the people in the city agencies because he might need to build something else. He said that from that point forward he and Mr. Baer had been adversaries and everything had been blocked by Mr. Baer. Mr. Baer never looked at the rendering of the arches on University Avenue. There were other ancillary problems that were before the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) unrelated to the signs that he had had a situation with Mr. Baer. He applied to the City through the Planning Commission and the ARB for four signs on Hamilton Avenue, Bryant Street, Ramona Street, and University Avenue. The proper letters were sent out. He attended the ARB meeting which granted the location of two signs. The Public Works Department issued a permit for two signs to be placed on University Avenue and Ramona Street. The City Attorney's Office stated that on September 16, 1994, Mr. James Baer lodged a written appeal of the ARB's September 1, 1994, action. The appeal was deemed untimely by the City Attorney. He believed the process was wrong and asked how he could get back to the ARB on the issue. Mr. Baer was the main developer in the area, and it was unfair for him to be a business owner in the City and to have to go before a board that the people who ruled could be hurt by the person who was applying against his permits. The sign rules and regulations stated that signs could be given for lack of street frontage which could be used for freestanding signs or for exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
03/27/95 75-306
applicable to a property involved that did not apply generally to property in the same district. Through an intermediary, he told Mr. Baer the previous week that he would take the sign off Ramona Street and move it to Bryant Street which meant the signs would be on University Avenue and Bryant Street rather than on Ramona Street on the 250 University Avenue side. He asked him to put the issue over until the property owners of the Centennial Walk discussed the issues of closing and signage of the alley, etc., but Mr. Baer refused to postpone the matter. He should be able to have signs on University Avenue and Bryant Street, and he asked the Council to treat him in a fair and just manner. Jim Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, said his involvement in the process began with his unfortunate behavior--he removed a sign on September 11, 1994, and placed it in a dumpster because on four previous occasions he had taken the signs, brought them to the front door of O'Connell's Eire House, and asked that the signs not be put in front of the businesses at 250 University Avenue. There had been a process that had allowed the signs between the last time he removed the signs and September 11, 1994. He and Roxy Rapp rejected the sign on the stone archway. The purpose of 250 University Avenue was to open up an urban design vista, and he went through 18 public hearings to define the materials and nature of the vista. The urban design plan pointed out that it was extraordinary in an urban setting to create a 200-foot view line unobstructed by commercial purposes. He had dedicated a perpetual easement along University Avenue. The building had previously run directly adjacent to the Congdon & Crome Building so there was no view into the alley or the building at 518 Bryant Street prior to the construction. At the Ramona Street, there was a passenger loading zone with a white curb which was done specifically to create the importance of that expanse. The whole design of the building was to create an open view of the businesses in the alley. At the ARB hearing on a 2:1 vote the sign was approved, but there was no indication that he and Mr. Rapp had objected to the placement of the signs on University Avenue and Ramona Street. The representation was to the contrary that the owners of 250 University Avenue thought it was acceptable. When he found out about the decision, he indicated that he would not allow his tenants to put signs of that style in that location. He recalled the trouble Citibank had with approval of signs. He would not make available to another business owner the right to put signs on his property. There was an unwritten policy in the City that no tenant could apply for a sign without the landlord's consent. The circumstance was that a non-tenant could ask permission and be granted the right when tenants in the building could not. The signage and the presentation of a retail building was essential to the definition of the character and quality of the building. The signs were placed without his consent, and his objection was made known. The process was absurd when it allowed a business for private purpose to place signage on the sidewalk directly in front of another place of business. The City should not grant to 518 Bryant Street something that was not granted anywhere else in the City, i.e., the right to put signage in front of a building without the building owner's permission. The ARB recognized that the address problem created the need or opportunity for an A-frame sign placed on Bryant Street.
03/27/95 75-307
Mr. Pollack said the sign guidelines applied to his property. When the issue returned to the ARB, tenants of 250 University Avenue and other businesses in the area signed a petition that stated they had no objection to the signs. Mr. Rapp had prepared a map for signs at University Avenue and Bryant Street of all the businesses in the alley which he approved. The property owners were scheduled to meet on April 4, 1995. He would relinquish the A-frame signs if the situation were resolved. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member McCown clarified Mr. Pollack indicated he had recently proposed sign locations at University Avenue and Bryant Street rather than University Avenue and Ramona Street. The ARB recommended one sign on Bryant Street, but the ARB's original action was for two signs at University Avenue and Ramona Street. She asked Mr. Pollack what his location preference would be if two signs were approved. Mr. Pollack said he was comfortable with the locations at University Avenue and Bryant Street. Mayor Simitian said there had been some suggestions in the comments that evening and the materials received that there was a legal question about the ability of the City to permit the placement of an A-frame sign on a sidewalk where it was a public right-of-way. Mr. Calonne said the guidelines would not be applicable that a sign could not be placed on frontage adjacent to the property. Council Member Fazzino asked how many signs were presently displayed. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber replied there were signs on University Avenue and Ramona Street. Council Member Fazzino asked the status of the discussions regarding a permanent solution to the problem. Mr. Pollack mentioned discussions with Mr. Rapp and others regarding a more permanent sign that included all the businesses' names. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not received a formal application. Council Member Fazzino asked about the possibility of a more permanent solution to the disagreement. Mr. Pollack said the map prepared by Mr. Rapp's architect was delivered to the Chairperson of the ARB. Mr. Ross did not believe a formal application had been made, but he and ARB Chairperson Julie Maser had received a copy of the sketch about a potential application to the City. Mr. Pollack said Steve Player and Warren Thoits had planned a meeting on April 4, 1995, of all the property owners of the Centennial Walkway to discuss closure of the alley and signage for the Centennial Walkway.
03/27/95 75-308
Council Member Fazzino asked whether there was a possibility of a more permanent solution to the problem based upon the information previously received. Mr. Schreiber noted for the record that Mr. Rapp spoke to staff several months previously regarding a similar illustration. Staff had been quite restrained during previous meetings regarding the issue. He had a lot of confidence in Messrs. Player's and Thoits' ability to mediate the differences, but staff could not speculate on the outcome of the discussions. Council Member Fazzino asked for staff's reaction to a maintenance of the status quo for two to three months to allow the parties to resolve the issue. Mr. Schreiber said if the Council wished to extend the status quo, he suggested it be done with a clear time limit. He believed three months was extremely long. Mr. Calonne said Mr. Pollack's ultimate request was for signage on Bryant Street and University Avenue. It appeared that the dispute over the Ramona Street sign had been resolved which was the sign that had caused the biggest part of the dispute. Council Member Fazzino asked the reason for the Bryant Street address and whether it related to the Stankovic's office address rather than the restaurant entrance. Mr. Schreiber said since the restaurant portion of the building did not have any frontage on a public street, it had the address of the building. Council Member Fazzino clarified the entrance to the building could be on Centennial Walk but would still have a Bryant Street address. Mr. Schreiber said Centennial Walk was an officially adopted City name. There would probably be an opportunity to a facility with an address on Centennial Walk, but he was uncertain that would respond to Mr. Pollack's concerns regarding the location of the business. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the rule would be different if the property were on Centennial Walk and whether the justification for the sign being located on Bryant Street was because the property was on the unofficial Congdon & Crome/Citibank walk and had a Bryant Street address. Mr. Schreiber said the official address for O'Connell's was 518 Bryant Street which was the reason staff and the ARB recommended that the sign be placed on Bryant Street. Council Member Fazzino asked how many businesses in the City had similar situations. Mr. Schreiber said there were businesses throughout the City that were located on alleys.
03/27/95 75-309
Council Member Fazzino asked whether there had ever been signage issues related to other similar locations. Mr. Schreiber said the tenant at the former "If Wishes Were Horses" facility put out an A-frame sign without City approval, but it was removed later. Council Member Fazzino asked Mr. Pollack how many people entered O'Connell's from different locations. Mr. Pollack said people saw the signs and came into the restaurant. The signs were useful to the business. The majority of people came from University Avenue and Ramona Street. Mayor Simitian asked whether the Council's action that evening would affect the ability of the parties to move forward with a proposal for additional signage. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member Huber clarified the staff originally recommended one A-frame sign at Bryant Street, and the ARB approved two A-frame signs and said the Public Works Department should determine the locations. The Public Works Department indicated the locations would be at University Avenue and Ramona Street. The City Attorney then brought to the Council's attention his concern regarding process and the City Council directed the ARB to review the issue. The ARB then reviewed the issue again, and the staff made the same recommendation as previously which was the Bryant Street location. The ARB concurred with one sign on Bryant Street. In the meantime, there were two signs pending the appeal. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment and Architectural Review Board decision to approve the placement of one A-frame sign located in the public right-of-way four feet away from Centennial Walk and adjacent to the curb along Bryant Street in front of 520 Bryant Street, subject to the findings and conditions as listed: Findings: 1. The A-frame sign situated in the public right-of-way four feet away from Centennial Walk and adjacent to the curb along Bryant Street in front of 520 Bryant Street meets the stan-dards for review as set in the Architectural Review Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code specifically as the sign relates to Sections 16.48.120(a)(2), (3), (6), (7), and (10). The sign is designed to be compatible with the immediate environment of the site and improvements which surround the restaurant as the sign without the menu holder and chalkboard is well designed, fits with the context of the downtown, and
03/27/95 75-310
is reminiscent of the type of restaurant at the site. The proposal creates an internal sense of order to the function and siting of the subject business as the sign will clearly direct customers to the location within Plaza Ramona and add to the pedestrian vitality of this area. The sign as proposed is sited carefully to provide safe and convenient pedestrian and vehicular access. 2. The A-frame sign complies with the criteria of the A-frame Sign Guidelines in that the subject site is in the Downtown Pedestrian District, the site lacks the street frontage necessary for visibility as the restaurant is situated in Plaza Ramona, the proposed location does not conflict with pedestrian access and is safe, and the sign is attractively designed and identifies the business. Conditions: 1. The A-frame sign shall not have a menu holder and/or a chalkboard. 2. The applicant shall submit to Planning staff for review and approval a revised sign design illustrating the arrow pointed in the appropriate direction towards the restaurant prior to submittal for encroachment permit. 3. The sign shall be portable to take in after hours of opera-tion. 4. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for placement of the sign in the public right-of-way in which the City holds an interest. 5. All commercial sidewalk encroachments are subject to the regulations contained in Section 12.12.020 in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. 6. The encroachment shall be managed in a manner so that a minimum of 8 feet sidewalk clearance is maintained at all times. 7. The encroaching structure shall be maintained in a safe manner at all times. Council Member Huber understood Mr. Pollack's concern because any businessman needed people to find his business, and he understood Mr. Baer's concerns. He hoped there would be some means of working out further additional identification of the location of the restaurant through the process that Mr. Player would bring to fruition. It was the Council's decision to have the ARB reconsider the issue, and he believed the decision of the ARB was reasonable. He encouraged the people to work out something better. Council Member McCown clarified the reason the issue was original-ly brought to the Council was not because of an appeal by Mr. Baer who questioned the noticing of the original meeting and the decision to put the signs on University Avenue and Ramona Street
03/27/95 75-311
which was originally noticed as affecting Bryant Street. She assumed that if Mr. Baer had been at the original hearing and had made his arguments, the Council would not be dealing with the issue that evening. The issue was whether people knew about the meeting and had the opportunity to present all the information to the ARB before the ARB made its decision. There was a long tradition in Palo Alto to respond to people who came to the Council and said they did not understand something was being heard when it was being heard. She understood the controversy and frustration; but based on the merits of the issue that were reviewed by the ARB the second time, the motion was correct. She believed permanent signage proposed by Mr. Pollack and initiated by Mr. Rapp was an excellent idea. She liked the idea of signage on University Avenue that would direct the public into Centennial Walk and also to City Hall. Eliminating the signage on Ramona Street was the best solution from O'Connell's perspective because the Ramona Street entrance was the entrance where the restaurant was the most visible to the public. The two most important places for signage for the public was the Bryant Street and University Avenue locations. She encouraged the pursuance of an application for permanent signage on University Avenue. Mr. Calonne clarified the City was under a legal obligation under the Brown Act to cure what had been described by Council Member McCown as a noticing defect and rehear the issue. It was not a discretionary matter. Mayor Simitian asked the effective date of the removal of the existing signs and allowance for the authorized sign. Mr. Calonne said the action would be effective immediately. Mayor Simitian clarified the Bryant Street sign would be authorized to remain regardless of whether or not additional signage was approved for other businesses, including O'Connell's. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He was uncertain whether Mr. Pollack had an encroachment permit from the Public Works Depart-ment for the Bryant Street site. Mr. Schreiber clarified staff would not take enforcement action against the existing signs and would allow approximately one week for Mr. Pollack to get the encroachment permit processed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to delay the item for two months to provide an opportu-nity for the applicant and the appropriate parties to come to a reasonable permanent compromise for signs at University Avenue and Bryant Street. Council Member Fazzino said it was not an easy issue to deal with due to its intensity. He would support the status quo of two signs at University Avenue and Bryant Street and did not believe it was appropriate to have a sign at Ramona Street. He believed the main motion took away Mr. Pollack's leverage and returned the issue to a one sign situation. It was a unique business in an alleyway situation, and the City needed to provide adequate
03/27/95 75-312
signage for businesses located in alleyways. He was troubled by the Bryant Street address issue and did not believe Mr. Pollack was being treated fairly. The office building was on Bryant Street which was the reason why Bryant Street had been identified as the address. The entrance to the restaurant was an equal distance between University Avenue and Bryant Street. The Council needed to allow the parties time to resolve the issue and come up with a permanent solution. For the long term, the City should work with the ARB on addressing the alleyway signage issues. He reminded the Council that it approved a sign exception for Citibank in the same area to allow the bank adequate visibility. Council Member Kniss said the substitute motion supported mediation and conflict resolution, and two months would allow time to resolve the issue. Council Member Andersen said the Council had a great deal to benefit by postponing the issue for a short time and could eliminate A-frame signs entirely by forcing the issue. He did not know whether the main motion would provide a long-term solution that would encourage permanent signs and remove the A-frame signs from the sidewalk. Mayor Simitian was not interested in the issue returning to the Council. Ultimately, the resolution should be a single sign and he would support the main motion on that basis. The issue of identification was diminished after a business had had an opportu-nity to establish itself over a longer period of time. There might be some progress on the signage in two months. He suggested the Council maintain the status quo for 60 days or until June 1, 1995, to allow an opportunity for a compromise for signs at University Avenue and Bryant Street after which the original motion would become effective. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION that the status quo be maintained and effective for 60 days until June 1, 1995, to allow an opportunity for a compromise for signs at University Avenue and Bryant Street after which the original motion would become effective. Council Member Schneider would not support the incorporation into the substitute motion due to aesthetics. The Downtown area was in the process of cleaning up signs, newsracks, and trellises and she was afraid additional A-frame signs added to the clutter. Mr. Calonne clarified the substitute motion referred to Bryant Street and University Avenue but the status quo was Ramona Street and University Avenue. The Council's action to have 60 days for Bryant Street and University Avenue needed to be clarified. Mayor Simitian clarified that that was the intent of the maker and seconder. Mr. Calonne referred to Attachment A, Conditions of Approval, Item No. 8, "The encroachment permit shall be revokable if the approved structure is determined to be a hazard to pedestrian traffic or if permit conditions are not fulfilled," which was not present in the
03/27/95 75-313
original approval, and recommended that the Council delete the condition. The existing Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) provided that encroachment permits were revokable on determination of the City Manager for any reason. There was no reason to constrain the City Manager's authority through the condition. It was highly advisable in that particular situation to retain jurisdiction to conduct a periodic review, and he suggested the condition be reinstated in the approval unless the ARB had some conscience process that went into eliminating the condition. Mr. Ross said the removal of a one-year review was an oversight. In October 1994 at the ARB's substitute hearing, the condition was still supported at that time and should have been included at the December 1994 hearing. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION to delete Condition No. 8, "The encroachment permit shall be revokable if the approved structure is determined to be a hazard to pedestrian traffic or if permit conditions are not fulfilled," and add a new Condition No. 8 that would read: "After one year, the applicant shall reapply to the Architectural Review Board for continued placement of one A-frame sign in the approved Bryant Street location." SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 5-4, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider "no." RECESS: 9:05 P.M. - 9:16 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommends approval of (a) an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.94.070(b) for property located at 3200 Park Boule-vard, 340 Portage Avenue, and the adjacent former railroad right-of-way with Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue frontage, extending the nonresidential use amortization schedule for the former Maximart site for 20 years beyond 1999; (b) approval of resolution amending the City of Palo Alto Compre-hensive Plan land use designation for a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from Single-Family Residential and Light Industrial to Multiple-Family Residential; (c) adoption of ordinance rezoning a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from R-1 and GM(B) to RM-30; and (d) amendments to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.24.040 and 18.26.040, which would allow (with a conditional use permit) the development of parking facilities on abandoned railroad right-of-way properties located in the RM-30 and RM-40 zoning districts. Mayor Simitian explained that the presentations would be heard first followed by the public testimony. Council would skip its questions to staff, Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) until after the public had spoken; but there was concern expressed that the public would not have the opportu-nity to address the issues that arose through the Council's
03/27/95 75-314
discussions. Council Member Fazzino said on several occasions people had raised the issue of groundwater as being relevant to the decision with respect to the future of the property and that the groundwater was in some way related to Hewlett Packard. He asked the City Attorney's advice with respect to any potential conflict of interest. City Attorney Ariel Calonne had conferred with Council Members Fazzino and Kniss who both had a source of income from Hewlett Packard. Because Hewlett Packard was not directly an applicant on the matter but was nearby, there was a potential for an indirect financial impact. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations suggested that there would have to be a $1 million or greater impact on the Hewlett Packard site. He had conferred with FPPC's staff; and while neither he nor FPPC's staff was qualified to give any financial advice, he had discussed the issue with Council Members Fazzino and Kniss who were comfortable that that kind of impact would not happen. The Council was not being called upon to make any kind of binding or directory conclusion about the effect of groundwater contamination on properties either at the Fry's Electronics site or any other properties. He did not believe there was any potential that a decision regarding contami-nation with respect to the former Maximart site could impact the Hewlett Packard property at 395 Page Mill Road. He had also conferred with FPPC staff on that matter, and while it was not a financial issue, there was a remote risk that the action could be construed to directly involve Hewlett Packard. Mayor Simitian clarified that further discussion of the issue would be continued to the City Council meeting on Monday, April 10, 1995. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the item responded to an April 4, 1994, City Council assignment and contained a recommendation from the Planning Commission and staff (1) to extend the amortization date of commercial uses at the former Maximart site from 1999 to 2019, a 20-year extension; and (2) to allow the adjacent former railroad right-of-way to be used for parking by the users of the Maximart site. The two actions entailed a variety of ordinances and resolutions and two Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) which were contained in the staff report (CMR:182:95). He pointed out that the original assumption was that staff could process a use permit for the parking lot in conjunction with the former railroad right-of-way land as part of the Council's action. Upon further discussions with the City Attorney's Office, it was concluded that the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) did not give any authority to process a use permit until the ordinance establishing that right was effective. One of the ordinance changes being presented was to establish the right to use the land with the use permit for parking. The use permit and also the design review by the ARB of the parking lot would proceed after the effective date of the ordinance. The use permit would be processed through the Zoning Administrator, the design review would be processed through the ARB, and both would only come to the Council upon appeal. The effective date would be 45 days after the first reading of the
03/27/95 75-315
ordinance. He explained the Council would be considering the extension of the commercial uses of the Maximart site; a resolution that changed the Comprehensive Plan designation of the former railroad right-of-way from single-family and general manufacturing to multiple family; an ordinance that changed the zoning of the former railroad right-of-way land to RM-30; an ordinance amending the RM-30 and RM-40 zones to allow parking to occur with the use permit on the former railroad right-of-ways; and also the design approval for improvements at the former Maximart site. The design review of improvements on the former railroad right-of-way would not be considered by the ARB formally until after the ordinances were effective. Planning Commissioner Jon Schink said the Planning Commission recommended on a vote of 5-1-1 that the Council extend the nonconforming use of the property until the Year 2019. The Planning Commission believed it was the best use considering the toxic problem underlying the property. Architectural Review Board Member David Ross said the scope of the ARB review was limited to site improvements, potential building improvements, and adequacy of the EIA. It did not address directly the amortization question. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Jack Wheatley, Partner, WSJ Properties, 3201 Ash Street, said WSJ Properties joined in the application initiated by the City to clarify and seek approval for the amortization extension. The property had been rezoned two or three times during the previous 20 years. He wanted the use of the property preserved for the tenants, particularly Fry's Electronics and Cable Co-op, and also to allow upgrading of parking and landscaping improvements on the site which would not be done if the amortization were not extended. Upgrading emphasis had been given to Park Boulevard. He generally concurred with the staff and Planning Commission recommendations. Detail development drawings would be resubmitted for approval by the City and ARB if the Council approved the application. Boyd Smith, Partner, WSJ Properties, 301 Coleridge Avenue, said WSJ Properties was in agreement with housing as the long-term use of the property, and the location lended itself to housing. The result of a toxic plume from the Stanford Research Park made a housing development on the site too risky at the present time, and the neighborhood needed to be cleaned up to make a housing development feasible. A housing project would necessitate a loan of approximately $50 to $70 million which was not possible because of the toxic issue. He believed there could be substantial legal liability issues that could arise out of personal injury lawsuits and other types of claims that would be staggering. He noted that the City rejected an opportunity to purchase a site a number of years previously for housing because of toxic issues. The proposal to extend the amortization of the existing property allowed for a reasonable income on the property and to prepare for a future housing development. The toxic contamination could be corrected, and the 1991 Regional Water Quality Control Board estimate indicated the cleanup could be accomplished in
03/27/95 75-316
approximately 30 years. Fry's Electronics generated excellent sales tax to the City, and it needed until 2020 to amortize its improvements. Cable Co-op indicated it would be disruptive and costly to move its business. Larick Hill, architect for the project, 884 Portola Road, Portola Valley, said no additional square footage was proposed for the project, but a redistribution of the square footage within the project for the expansion of Fry's Electronics. There were some existing problems with the site, and the continued use required that those problems be mitigated. Additional parking was proposed because of a major problem of inadequate parking on site for employees. Currently, there was a great deal of noise in the loading dock area at the rear of Fry's, and a sound wall was proposed along the back. Landscaping was proposed around the building, but the loading dock function would still work. Street trees along Park Boulevard were proposed to improve the aesthetic corridor. He showed diagrams of other internal parking improve-ments, e.g., changing the grading along the entrance on Portage Avenue, moving the fire hydrant. The applicant would continue to work with the ARB to improve the site. Mr. Smith said people had questioned whether there was a lease agreement with Fry's. There was a signed lease agreement with Fry's Electronics through the Year 2014, with a 5-year option extension. John Seltzer, 431 Olive Avenue, said he had a business on Olive Avenue that had been closed because of zoning. The City's priorities were obvious, but the basis for the decisions was not obvious. He suggested the Council talk to the people on Olive Avenue who were affected daily by the situation. The noise generated by the businesses at the Maximart site took place all hours of the day. People were asked to participate in community meetings and the input from the majority of people on Olive Avenue and the immediate neighborhood was against the continuation of the existing zoning. He believed the decision had already been made. Mary Henry, 431 Olive Avenue, had hoped the homes in the neighbor-hood would appreciate value in a mixed environment. WSJ Properties had put only a minimum amount of energy and attention into the property. The loading docks were a dumping site, and the noise at night was continual. She and her husband had attended countless sessions, but they believed it would not make a difference and that the Council had already made its decision. The Council held two standards--one for the economically expendable small businesses and one for the wealthy large businesses. The Council should either completely rezone the neighborhood to commercial or make the promise that there would be a neighborhood and that the Council would not make a fiscal decision five years later to sacrifice the neighborhood. She hoped the Council would protect the citizens' rights and not the rights of properties that had done nothing to build neighborhoods. Steve Berry, 385 Olive Avenue, said the City had not listened to the Olive and the Ventura areas' opposition to the amortization extension. The neighborhoods wanted the Maximart site turned into residential as of 1999 as planned. He believed when he bought his
03/27/95 75-317
house that the Maximart site would become residential. He lived on the same plume groundwater and was fine, and there were other housing developments being built and sold in the area that were fine. Olive Avenue homes were priced far below the average home in Palo Alto. Nobody wanted to live in a neighborhood with a noisy parking lot in their backyard and with trucks and 200 employees coming and going 7 days a week; and nobody wanted a 60,000-square- foot store behind them, an 8-foot soundwall with the graffiti that would ensue and the isolation it would cause, and the traffic problems. The City wanted Fry's Electronics' retail taxes and did not care what it cost the neighborhood. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, asked the Council to grant the amortization extension for the former Maximart property which would allow Fry's Electronics to remain in its current location. There were many people in the community who wanted Fry's to stay. The Chamber represented about 800 businesses in the community, and a number of them was also citizens in Palo Alto. Fry's generated approximate-ly $500,000 in sales tax to the City each year. From an economic standpoint, Fry's revenue was equivalent to slightly more than the operations budget of the Children's Library for one year, the fire prevention programs for one year, the Police Department's personnel and training budget for one year, keeping the Community Theatre open for two years, and keeping the traffic operations part of the budget for two years. The Chamber was not advocating that any of the services or operations be halted or changed in any way, and the Chamber and the community would expect that the services would continue. The Council decision would allow a good corporate and community citizen to continue doing business and continue doing his/her part to making Palo Alto a good place in which to live and work. Steve Player, 1874 Guinda Avenue, Chairperson, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Economic Vitality Committee, said the issue was a difficult decision for the Council. He said the denial of the extension request would not guarantee housing on the site. Housing would not be a realistic development on the site for many years. The question was what a reasonable use was for the site and what mitigations could be utilized on the site pending the ultimate construction of housing. Mr. Smith had indicated that it was his intention to ultimately build housing on the site. Fry's Electronics was the best use for the site in the interim, and Fry's not only increased the revenue of the City through sales taxes but also served the community and its residents. The developers had offered to assist with the improvement of the site during the interim period. Improvements would improve the circulation and appearance and would hopefully deal with some of the issues of sound, light, etc. The conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, ARB, and the Council would help mitigate the impact of Fry's continued use on the neighborhood. There were many fabrics that made up the community, and services were provided from the revenues generated from businesses such as Fry's. He urged the Council to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff and extend the amortization period. Patricia Dixon, 305 Olive Avenue, said her children were being raised in an isolated neighborhood because the City wanted
03/27/95 75-318
revenues. She could not sell her home because no one wanted to live in such an area. She had lived in her house for many years and had not been affected by the groundwater. Other developments were being built in the area, and WSJ Properties could sell the property if it did not want to build housing on the site. Maria Spalietta, 295 Olive Avenue, had lived 28 years in the neighborhood. She lost her business and was also losing her houses because no one wanted to buy the homes. There were other houses in the neighborhood that could not be sold, but it was not because of the effects of pollution. She did not want the soundwall or WSJ Properties' renting to businesses behind her home for 20 or 30 years. The site should be brought back into the neighborhood or businesses should be built from Page Mill Road. The pollution would not affect businesses. The revenue for the City and WSJ Properties was more important than the lives of the people in that neighborhood. Douglas Dixon, 305 Olive Avenue, asked how Palo Alto functioned before it had the revenues from Fry's Electronics. His family's business as well as many other small businesses had been forced to conform to the zone change that applied to the area in 1994. He purchased the property with the knowledge that the area behind his property would be changed to residential. During the past five years, the Olive Avenue area had begun to flourish with other young homeowners working toward a traditional family neighborhood. The biggest threat to the neighborhood was the extension of amortization. If the extension were granted, Olive Avenue would remain surrounded by commercial buildings and parking lots for 20 years, and the neighborhood would return to disrepair. Five homes on Olive Avenue had been for sale for two years, and the homes were the least expensive homes in Palo Alto. He asked the Council to give the residents on Olive Avenue the same chance as it had to other areas in the City and not add to the area's total isolation. The residents of Olive Avenue bought their homes with the belief that there would be a planned residential redevelopment. Fry's Electronics knew the lease would be for nine years. Carlos Rodriguez, 265 Olive Avenue, said he purchased his home because he thought the area would be changed to residential. His house would now have a big wall as the landscape, the noise and the traffic would increase, and the safety of his house would change. He could not sell his house even if he wanted to. Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos Avenue, said Palo Alto had been fortunate in the past to have City leaders who saw beyond the next year's balance sheet to what the community could become. She hoped there were still such leaders on present day the Council. The Council's decision would determine the fate of a neighborhood for the next 20 years. It was an opportunity to bring life to the area and to look beyond the short-term economic benefit to the possibilities of what the area could become. The Council could transform the area into a place where people lived, worked, shopped, and played or condemn the area to the haphazard pattern of development that currently existed and continue to ignore its potential. Palo Alto needed dreamers and leaders. Cities that tied their fate to a particular business enterprise suffered the consequences when enterprises made better decisions for their
03/27/95 75-319
business. The Council was the current steward of the City's future and should not gamble that future on the assumption that the tax policy that currently existed in California would exist in the future. There was no necessity to give Fry's a 25-year guarantee. Fry's had not given Palo Alto a commitment to its future. Palo Alto was a special community that recognized and strived to realize the potential of its many neighborhoods. The decision was not about money but about the vision for Palo Alto. John Caruso, 3401 El Camino Real, said El Camino Real was a ghost town because of zoning. He wanted a conditional use permit to operate an auto repair business on El Camino Real near Fry's. Everyone should work together to make Palo Alto a place for families. Tom Wyman, member of Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, Business and Economics Subcommittee, 546 Washington Avenue, said the objective of the Subcommittee was to be business friendly, consistent with maintaining residential quality of Palo Alto. Many diverse views were also heard at a design workshop held in the neighborhoods of California and Ventura Avenues. Given the concerns about revenue sources and the hazardous substances in the groundwater, the former Maximart site was viewed as not being an immediate possibility for housing. The Subcommittee's report stated that if and when the Maximart site were redeveloped, it should be used primarily for housing and include a park, an open space component, and a pedestrian connection to complete the street grid. Another design workshop could be held to consider the residences that would be affected if the amortization were extended for Fry's, i.e., the zoning could be changed on the residential areas so that the owners could recapture their investments. Additional measures should be taken to resolve the conflicting issues and protect and preserve the property values of the neighborhoods. The former Maximart site had been a commercial operation for over 75 years, and some recognition of its historical aspects should be considered. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said attention should be given to the neighborhood but it was important to continue the commercial use at the former Maximart site. The site should be rezoned back to commercial. When the previous Comprehensive Plan was adopted, every site that was potentially appropriate for housing was zoned residential. The City had had time to find out what did and did not work residentially. It was time to reexamine the City's commitment to the amount of land that had been zoned residential. The community had not indicated the extent to which it still wanted an intensive effort for more housing. The site was a logical commercial site and had served as an anchor in a larger business district. The entire economic picture had changed in the last 15 years and she asked why the Council would want to interrupt a business district that worked. She urged the Council to consider the continued commercial use and rezoning of the property for the long term. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, said the Council could either hold onto its commitment to housing or sell it out for money. The Council was ready to give away 12 acres of land without any impact analysis on the loss of potential housing, the feasibility of
03/27/95 75-320
alternative housing, or the rise of housing costs projected in the adjacent Ventura neighborhood due to the increased number of employees looking for housing. The action would set no controls on the kinds of businesses that would be at the site or the growth and the number of employees, especially after the huge parking lot was completed. She doubted that the parking lot would ever be removed once it was approved. There was no analysis of the resulting traffic at the intersection. There were no compelling toxics and the owner's liability was no different from any other developer building housing in the area at the present time. She referred to the Barron Park Association Foundation letter dated February 26, 1995, that was excellent on the subject. There would be no future housing development if the amortization were extended. The site was near employment, a train station, major bus intersections, and major shopping and was supported by the neighborhood. She asked the Council's decision to be responsible for the community's resources. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the Barron Park Association Foundation (BPAF) had two technical assistance grants from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the cleanup investigation and evaluation of the two Superfund sites in Palo Alto--the largest was part of the 640 Page Mill Road site. He referred to maps that showed the actual contamination and said the highest level of contamination was in the well on Portage Avenue at 350 ppb. The Hohbach site had been recently approved for a high-density housing complex which had a higher level of contamination than the Maximart site. The highest level at 620 Page Mill Road was 17,000 ppb, and that site had already been developed and occupied by a large office building filled with lawyers. BPAF, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, EPA, Varian, and the City of Palo Alto had evaluated the health risks and had determined that there were no health risks from the toxic contamination. BPAF's charter under the EPA grant was to inform the community as to the health risks from contamination of the groundwater. BPAF would be remiss if it allowed the misinfor-mation to continue. He referred to page 11 of the staff report (CMR:182:95) that stated there was no risk and if the Council made a decision based on that imaginary risk, it would create real problems for future evaluations and decisions on other sites in the City. It would take one to two years to evaluate the efficiency of the extraction wells before a true evaluation and an estimate of the cleanup could be made. Hewlett Packard and Varian had made a commitment to cleanup the site. The site at 620 Page Mill Road was being cleaned up with a large new building over the extraction and monitoring wells. The contamination and hazards did not exist (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said as one of the decision makers who helped rezone the land to residential, she had a responsibility to the neighborhood to ask the Council to continue the residential zoning for the property. A 20-year extension was too long for the young families in the neighborhood. She also believed the decision had already been made and that the public hearing was just an exercise. When the Comprehensive Plan was done 20 years previously, the Council dealt with a 3:1 jobs/housing imbalance. A lot of housing had been built since then, but there was still a 3:1 housing imbalance. Every parcel
03/27/95 75-321
that changed from residential to nonresidential exacerbated the issue. The amortization process was slow, and people had made decisions for their lives based on that amortization. The former Maximart site was capable of providing housing and would make a rational plan for the neighborhood. She agreed with the comments of Ms. Christensen and Ms. Petrosian and said it was very discouraging that some members of the Council were taking the direction of reversing the solid planning gains of the last 20 years. William Alhouse, Realtor, 2600 El Camino Real, said the City's greatest resource was young people's obtaining homes in the area. He said toxics had been one of his nightmares as a realtor. There was a reason millions of dollars were being spent to cleanup the toxics that affected everyone. He owned the building at 2600 El Camino Real that was affected by toxics, and he could not sell or refinance it. He was concerned about the question of environmental conditions that would affect the value of the property if the former Maximart site were developed into housing. Potential buyers could not understand the toxic situations, and realtors could barely explain the consequences. He hoped the issue was considered seriously. The extension of the amortization was the right solution for the next 20 years which was the time it would take to cleanup the site. The owners were interested in creating housing on the site, and in 20 years when further investigation had been made on the real effects of toxics, it would be a perfect place for housing. Keith Petty, 1420 Pitman Avenue, said the situation was real and it was a monstrous problem. He was a general partner in the property and would not sell the property to anybody else. The property had a history and he believed Fry's Electronics added to the City's culture. To make housing economically possible on the site, the building would have to be two-story units. He did not know which would be better a soundwall or people looking down on neighbors from a second-story unit. He was troubled that the neighbors were suffering, and a way had to be found to help the people who had lost their businesses and could not sell their homes. The City should assume some obligation for those properties. He hoped the Council would make the right decision and extend the zoning. Annolie Myers, 2215 Emerson Street, said Fry's Electronics was a big improvement at the former Maximart site. It was difficult to let reason and fiscal responsibility prevail, but fiscal consider-ations were important. She understood the people had suffered economic hardship when the City rezoned the properties, but there was always injustice when governmental agencies downzoned property without adequate compensation for the people whose properties were devalued. The people on Olive Avenue would not benefit that much if the extension were denied, and Fry's filled a need in the community. There would be a vacant lot if housing could not be built for a long time, and the property tax assessment would decrease which would affect the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). She urged the Council to weigh all the issues carefully. August King, 380 Margarita Avenue, had worked on Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) subcommittees, attended workshops,
03/27/95 75-322
and talked to City staff, but his input had been ignored. He wanted to see the survey that showed the community consensus regarding the extension for 20 years. He had hoped that recreational facilities would be expanded, but a parking lot was being expanded instead. The toxics issue was a scare tactic, and there was no evidence that it existed. He hoped the Council would consider the people in the community before it made a decision. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said WSJ Properties had had 19 years to clean the site. Trees had been used as bumper stops, and the official wheel stops had been moved into the landscape. WSJ Properties was the worst neighbor, e.g., lights flashed at neighbors, fans ran all night, and trucks came in and out all the time. There were alternatives to the plan rather than stuffing the parking against the neighbors' fences. Fry's had maximized every inch and made it more inconvenient to the neighbors, more noisy, and more unattractive. Other existing parking lots could be used for parking. The soundwall would not protect the neighbors from noise when there was a differential in the distance and it should be placed closer to the loading dock at Fry's. The ARB ignored the Planning Commission's recommendation that there should be an especially attractive soundwall behind 265 and 305 Olive Avenue. She said there should be no truck deliveries on Sunday. The Council had complete control over the existing conditions and could make a decent life for the people in the neighborhood. David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, said in 1984 the aspirations of the Ventura neighborhood residents came to fruition when the City Council changed the zoning of the Maximart site to housing usage. The action was a promise and commitment by the City to upgrade the area. The integrity of the City was worth nothing when the subsequent City Council felt no compulsion to carry out the previous Council's commitments. The action to extend the amortization of Fry's commenced because of the assumed toxics groundwater hazard that prevent residential development at the site. He said there was no groundwater wells on the site, but on page 16, Exhibit 9 of the staff report (CMR:182:95), it stated "the groundwater monitoring wells located on the site" and "According to .....Groundwater wells are located on the property to monitor the plume." The staff had not seen a document or evidence that indicated the existence of any possible hazard because none existed. The consultant hired by WSJ Properties could not identify any hazard. All the stories were myths and fables, and no basis existed. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, understood that a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance could only be done by the City, not a private party. The property owner was being treated as the applicant by providing the owner with special rights in the public hearing. The revised text from the City Attorney had new language regarding vested rights, and he noted that more of the language in the inducement clause might need to be picked up in the enactment clause. The language said it could be modified which meant that extending it for 25 years did not mean it would end in 25 years. The Environmental Impact Assessment (94-EIA-32) indicated the flow water was from south to north on the residential property on the south side of Olive Avenue. There was a proposal to build a large
03/27/95 75-323
impervious area for a parking lot next to the residential proper-ties and provide a wall in between with holes which would provide runoff from the former Maximart property onto the single-family residences on Olive Avenue. That provided an incentive so that the only people who could purchase the Olive Avenue properties were WSJ Properties. WSJ Properties could then come back to the Council with a request to rezone the properties to match the effective rezoning on the former Maximart site to a commercial use. The proposal asked for an extension of amortization to provide increased sales tax over a period of years from Fry's Electronics, but the language before the Council was to provide any commercial use on the property. He suggested the draft language be amended similar to the other four subsections in 18.94.070 to carefully describe the kind of business. The parking could be provided on the existing site by removing the warehousing operation that would also permit the City to deal with the problems suggested in his letter dated February 16, 1995 (on file in the Clerk's Office). Leonard Ely, 2161 Bryant Street, pointed out that only four lots would have the fence against the back of a property. There was a buffer between the other nine lots. He understood that no bank would make a loan to develop any property if there were a hint of pollution. The City might want to buy the property to protect the residences and then build housing on the site. Fry's made a contribution to the economic vitality of the community which helped with the parks, libraries, police, and fire. It kept the balance between the economic interests and the housing. He encouraged the Council to extend the amortization so the area could be cleaned up and the Council could figure out what to do with the entire area. Steve Van Zant, 262 Whiteclem, said the site was perfect for housing because it was far enough away from El Camino Real and the railroad tracks yet it was close enough to transit sites. Businesses should be along El Camino Real. The only study done on the groundwater was commissioned by Fry's, but an integral study should be done that was not paid for by Fry's. If the Council wanted to balance economic growth, it should promote housing. The Council made a promise when the site was zoned originally, and the area was being made a sacrifice zone for the rest of the City. The Midtown area was a better location for Fry's. Peter Lockart, 405 Olive Avenue, said Palo Alto was one of the few major cities in the area that did not have a redevelopment agency and did not have a good grasp of the long-term plan. In 1973, his intent was to purchase commercial property but that changed. He originally supported the proposal by WSJ Properties, but the comments that evening had brought forward serious questions that needed more investigation. He preferred commercial zoning for himself but would vote against the commercial issue to have some harmony in the neighborhood. His properties also abutted WSJ Properties. He hoped the Council would restrict the expansion of the parking lot area which almost exceeded the square footage of the Olive Avenue houses. The expansion was not a hardship but a new acquisition, and he questioned whether it would solve the groundwater problem.
03/27/95 75-324
Greg Osborn, employee of WSJ Properties, 1450 Greenwood Avenue, said the City Council had changed the zoning in 1984 and WSJ Properties did not create the plume that contaminated the property. He clarified there were monitoring wells on the property. WSJ Properties could not develop, finance, or market the property. Fry's Electronics had been terrific for Palo Alto and it was the best alternative for an interim use for the property. The lease with Fry's had been signed but it was contingent upon the Council's action. It made sense to continue the use until such time as the groundwater could be mitigated, environmental law evolved and made certain kinds of developments more possible, and banking and lending institutions were able to fund such projects. There were other businesses at the site, and it had been a commercial site since the early 1970s. The wisest decision would be to extend the amortization as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith said the soundwall had been designed and requested to protect the neighbors against noise and light. The City's studies indicated that that would improve the situation. There were six existing monitoring wells on the property, and he had not resisted putting more on the property. He clarified the former Maximart site had never been empty and was full of tenants when the Council rezoned the property. He understood the residents of Olive Avenue had a problem but he asked whether the residents' property values would be better off in 1999 if the building were demolished and a vacant lot was behind the residences for many years. People had said there were no trees on the property, but every tree on the property had been planted since he bought the property. Many trees were removed when the Santa Clara Valley Water District reconcreted the creek. Part of the plan was to plant substantial trees in addition to the trees that were already there. He clarified the natural drainage flow was from Olive Avenue onto WSJ Properties. WSJ Properties was a conservative company and was not willing to take the risk of a housing development on the site. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member McCown said she participated with two of colleagues in drafting a memorandum that related to the idea of some longer term planning for the greater area. She asked what needed to be done so the Council could consider that additional action at the time the Council discussed the issue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council should ask the City Manager to agendize the item on the same meeting night when the item returned for discussion. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to continue the item to the Monday, April 10, 1995, City Council Meeting. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked how the Council Members' questions to staff should be handled before the April 10, 1995, City Council Meeting. City Manager June Fleming said it would be helpful to staff if
03/27/95 75-325
Council Members sent the questions to staff before the meeting in case the questions required research. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 12. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Create and Fund Capital Improvement Project 19533, "Civic Center Plaza Lighting" MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $30,000 to fund a Civic Center Plaza Lighting Capital Improvement Project. Ordinance 4267 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Create and Fund Capital Improvement Project 19533, `Civic Center Plaza Lighting'" MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian announced the precinct walk for Citizens for Quality Schools/Yes on Measure B to be held on Saturday, April 1, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. at Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned in appreciation to Ralph S. Libby on his retirement at 11:45 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
03/27/95 75-326