HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-12 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting June 12, 1995 1. Appointment to the Utilities Advisory Commission ...... 76-144 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Sue Sucher for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations Commission .................................. 76-146 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 76-147 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 1995 ...................... 76-147 3. Draft Scope of Work for Citywide School Commute Safety Study -Refer to the Policy and Services Committee ..... 76-147 4. Revisions to Policy and Procedures for Selection and Turnover of Artists' Space at Cubberley Community Center - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee ... 76-147 5. Resolution 7512 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Nancy Ritchey for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations Commission ........................ 76-147 6. Resolution 7513 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Opposition to Assembly Bill 318 Regarding Municipal Water and Power Utility Rates ................................................. 76-147 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Co., Inc. for Water Main Replacement Project Phase IX ...................................... 76-148 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Montgomery-Watson for Consultant Services for Re-evaluation of Regional Water Quality Control Plant Discharge Stan-dards ................................................. 76-148 9. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company for Gas Main Replacement Project, Phase V ............................................... 76-148 11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Sanchez Concrete Construction, Inc. for 1995 Sidewalk Replacement Project ................................... 76-148
06/12/95 76-1
12. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Bogdonoff Construction, Inc. for Utility Meter Shops Remodel Project at Municipal Service Center ................... 76-148 13. Submittal of a Proposal for Packard Foundation "Volun-teers for Cities Project" Grant ....................... 76-148 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 76-148 14. Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Site and Design applications for a Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Master Improvement Plan ................... 76-148 15. Follow-up Recommendations re Midtown Market Analysis (continued from 5/22/95) .............................. 76-153 18. Status Report on Financing and Project Costs of Proposed Single Room Occupancy Housing Project at 725-753 Alma Street ....................................... 76-176 18A. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and the Archi-tectural Review Board recommend to the City Council final review of a proposed rezoning from CD-S(P) to a Planned Community (PC) district in order to demolish an existing, approximately 3,000 square foot auto service building and to construct a mixed use project consisting of 107 units of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, up to 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial office space and 70 to 74 parking spaces in a two-level parking garage for property located at 725-753 Alma Street ....................................... 76-176 20. Response to Council Request on the Legality of City Payments for Conflict of Interest - Related Real Property Appraisals ................................... 76-176 17. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolutions Regarding Assessments for University Avenue Area and California Avenue Area Parking Bonds for Fiscal Year 1995-1996 ............... 76-176 19. The Utilities Advisory Commission recommends to the City Council approval of financing of the Shasta Power Plant Rewind Project .................................. 76-178 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 76-179 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. .......... 76-179
06/12/95 76-143
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum (arrived 7:10 p.m.), Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment to the Utilities Advisory Commission Council Member Andersen said there was an exceptional field of candidates for the vacancy. He felt Richard Gruen was an excep-tional candidate, well informed and well qualified. He also felt there was a need for a business background that was used in a free market environment and that James Sahagian's business background would be a good mix on the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). He would cast his first ballot for James Sahagian. Council Member Kniss echoed Council Member Andersen's comments. There were three candidates with exceptional and unique back-grounds. She would cast her first ballot for Richard Gruen. She felt he would bring some unique qualities to the UAC. There were a number of candidates who would serve the UAC extremely well, and the Council was lucky to have that kind of qualified candidates applying. Council Member Fazzino said there were three strong candidates: Meredith Anguin, James Sahagian, and Richard Gruen. Mr. Gruen had attended nearly every meeting of the UAC over the past three or four years, had a strong background and advocation in the area of utilities, and had demonstrated a very deep understanding of issues through his comments before the UAC and correspondence to the UAC and the Council, which most Council Members had very little understanding of. There was a need for someone with a technical background who at the same time was able to translate into elected official or lay terms the policy questions that went before the Council. He would cast his first ballot for Richard Gruen but would be delighted if his colleagues voted for James Sahagian or Meredith Anguin as well. Vice Mayor Wheeler echoed her colleagues comments. Some of her colleagues had discussed that they could have taken the pool of candidates and appointed a new five-member commission and had an excellent board. She agreed there were three candidates that had outstanding backgrounds, and had given excellent interviews. One reason she was anxious for the UAC to be established, was because of the need to translate the highly technical issues into the English language so that the Council Members without technical backgrounds could understand in order to make good decisions for the citizens of Palo Alto. She would cast her first ballot for Meredith Anguin because her employment was in the field of utilities. Council Member Schneider said the candidates were very impressive. They were a very bright group of candidates who knew far more than she did about utilities. She would cast her first ballot for
06/12/95 76-144
Meredith Anguin. She was impressed with her ability to communicate to the Council which spoke well to her ability to communicate with the existing UAC members. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ANGUIN: Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR BRISKI: VOTING FOR DEBS: VOTING FOR GRUEN: Fazzino, Kniss VOTING FOR MILL: VOTING FOR SAHAGIAN: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Simitian, VOTING FOR THOMPSON: VOTING FOR WACHSMAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that none of the candidates had received five votes and another round of ballots was in order. Council Member Fazzino would cast his second ballot for James Sahagian to give him a fifth vote. He wished the UAC could be increased to seven members to accommodate both Ms. Anguin and Mr. Gruen as they were excellent candidates. Council Member Andersen reminded the Council that at the onset of the UAC there was a concern about whether or not there would be a sufficient number of candidates qualified. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ANGUIN: Rosenbaum VOTING FOR BRISKI: VOTING FOR DEBS: VOTING FOR GRUEN: Huber VOTING FOR MILL: VOTING FOR SAHAGIAN: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR THOMPSON: VOTING FOR WACHSMAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that James Sahagian had received seven votes and was appointed on the second ballot.
06/12/95 76-145
Mayor Simitian thanked all of the applicants and said he was impressed with the candidates across the board and appreciated their applying and willingness to serve and would hope to draw on their talents at some other time. 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Sue Sucher for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations Commission MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7511 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Sue Sucher for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations Commission" Vice Mayor Wheeler had the pleasure of knowing Ms. Sucher for many years in a variety of roles, both community-wide and personally. She said with assurance and affection that the sentiments in the resolution were appropriate but only gave a capsulated version of the person she was and the work she had done for many years in the community of Palo Alto. She knew Ms. Sucher would continue to contribute to the community as she was able. Council Member Fazzino was disappointed that Ms. Sucher had to leave the Human Relations Commission (HRC). She was an outstanding member of the HRC and contributed significantly to making it a very important part of the City. He and Ms. Sucher did not always agree on issues, but her pushing and probing oftentimes convinced him to take into consideration the impact of the City's policies on individuals in the community. He would miss her valuable counsel and hoped she would find a way to continue contributing to the community. Council Member Schneider said she met Ms. Sucher when she was she was a member of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Ms. Sucher spent many hours of her valuable time with CPAC and then with the HRC and was very much needed by the community. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian congratulated Ms. Sucher and thanked her for her service. Sue Sucher, former Human Relations Commissioner, thanked the Council for the Resolution and expressed great respect for the HRC staff, David Martin, and his highly dedicated group, who tenaciously served a segment of the Palo Alto population that was in such need of advocacy and services. The fact that Palo Alto had a HRC reflected the concern and understanding that contributed to the uniqueness of the community, not every community had a Human Relations Commission. She thanked her former colleagues and said she had learned a lot from them, gained a lot from the experience, and hoped she could contribute further to the City at a later time. She hoped the Council's vision would continue to
06/12/95 76-146
support the human side of the community. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding proper public administration (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Claudio Martinez, P. O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding archaeology and the San Francisquito Creek. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Kenneth Edward Schwartz, no address, spoke regarding attitude. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding zoning and publication in the newspaper of Architectural Review Board approvals so that the public could exercise its right to appeal. Janet Stone, 2225 Ramona Street, spoke regarding Mediation Program funding. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of March 25, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 9 and 11 - 13. Refer 3. Draft Scope of Work for Citywide School Commute Safety Study -Refer to the Policy and Services Committee 4. Revisions to Policy and Procedures for Selection and Turnover of Artists' Space at Cubberley Community Center - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee Action 5. Resolution 7512 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Nancy Ritchey for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations Commission" 6. Resolution 7513 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Opposition to Assembly Bill 318 Regarding Municipal Water and Power Utility Rates" 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Co., Inc. for Water Main Replacement Project
06/12/95 76-147
Phase IX; change orders not to exceed $142,293 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Montgomery-Watson for Consultant Services for Re-evaluation of Regional Water Quality Control Plant Discharge Standards 9. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company for Gas Main Replacement Project, Phase V; change orders not to exceed $39,915 11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Sanchez Concrete Construction, Inc. for 1995 Sidewalk Replacement Project; change orders not to exceed $36,000 12. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Bogdonoff Construction, Inc. for Utility Meter Shops Remodel Project at Municipal Service Center; change orders not to exceed $6,667 13. Submittal of a Proposal for Packard Foundation "Volunteers for Cities Project" Grant MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3 - 9 and 11 - 13. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue Item No. 10, Rejection of Bid for Landscaping the Arastradero Creek Access Road, to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to move Item No. 16 forward to become Item No. 18a. MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Site and Design applications for a Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Master Improvement Plan and mitigated Negative Declaration to allow upgrading of the golf course drainage and irrigation system, as well as renovations to the golf course, driving range, parking, and clubhouse facilities for property located at 1875 Embarcadero Road (continued from 5/15/95) Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said the process for the conceptional Palo Alto Golf Course Master Plan started in the late 1980s and in 1993 the consultants were hired to start working on the Master Plan (the Plan) which took over a full year. The consultants worked with a committee of approximately 15 people representing the Golf Course Corporation, the Golf Advisory Committee, the tenants, and other interested golfers. Out of that came a Master Plan which dealt with some of the basic issues: 1)
06/12/95 76-148
the soil conditions which needed to continue to provide a proper growing medium, especially with the change to reclaimed water; 2) to improve the irrigation system which had been completely redone; 3) to take care of some of the safety hazards on the driving range; 4) to improve the clubhouse and the pro shop to provide a better facility for more people in order to generate more revenue to offset the cost of the golf course; and 5) to improve the maintenance yard to take care of some of the environmental concerns around the facilities and materials that were used and to better store the equipment. The Master Plan was conceptual; and if approved, it would go back to the Finance Committee sometime in the fall for financing and scheduling of how the implementation would go forward. Mayor Simitian asked what the impact of the project would be on the wetlands and the mitigation anticipated. John Schwarz, Assistant Project Manager, Holman and Associates, said there were 11 small areas on the project site which qualified as wetlands and there would be minor impacts to several of those smaller areas. The project proposed to enlarge Wetland No. 10 which was the largest piece on the northwestern portion of the site and it was the opinion of the biologists that enlarging that area provided greater habitat value and more than compensated for the loss of the smaller pieces. The impact and the wetland delineation had been verified by the Army Corp of Engineers. Robert Buell, Chairperson, Palo Alto Golf Advisory Committee, Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, 1480 Hamilton Avenue, said the Golf Advisory Committee's view on the Master Plan was that: 1) the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was a fine recreational facility, approximately 100 rounds of golf were played there every year, it was economical, and well run, the pro shop was one of the best in the State, and it returned a substantial net income to the City each year; 2) something needed to be done about the conditions that existed at the golf course quickly. The problems already mentioned had been addressed carefully and thoroughly by the process and the solutions being offered deserved careful consider-ation. The golf course was approximately 39 years old; and during those years, two holes were revised and rebuilt, a clubhouse was constructed, and a pump station was put in to bring reclaimed water to the course. The rest of the course, 16 holes, had had no attention. The problems confronting the golf course had to do with age and the condition in which the course existed on the high salt water table. The development of the Plan beginning with the selection of the consultants through completion of the Plan had been a long, carefully crafted, participative process involving the Golf Advisory Committee, interested citizens, and staff. He was impressed with the way the process had operated and felt it had worked well. The Master Improvement Plan was a comprehensive, carefully structured response to the issues. The Golf Advisory Committee approved the approach that had been taken and urged the Council's careful consideration of the approach. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, had not seen the Master Plan but she understood that the driving range fence was expected to be
06/12/95 76-149
raised from 45 feet to 75 feet. She did not know if that was a firm decision but she felt there needed to be some careful assessment as to the visual impact it might have on the baylands. Consolidating the wetlands issue was probably a healthy thing as wildlife biologists had pointed out; however most of them were like minilakes and the edges had particularly valuable habitat. In the course of making the larger one larger and making the smaller ones smaller, it was very important to pay attention to the edge habitat that would be created and attempt to accelerate that. She had been impressed with the last renovation when the clubhouse was built. John Brooks Boyd not only had done an outstanding job of creating a clubhouse but a very fine public building also. It was a public golf course and it needed to maintain an aura that anyone could visit the facility, it was not a private club. She did not know what the new renovation would create, but she did not want the clubhouse to lose the fine characteristic that John Brooks Boyd had designed into the building. Council Member Kniss asked the environmental consultant to comment on Ms. Renzel's remarks. Mr. Schwarz said in regard to the visual and the wetlands it was his understanding that the driving range fence was going to consist of some wooden posts and some netting. He referred to the check list on page 34 of the staff report (CMR:248:95) and said their assessment looked at whether the new height of the fence would obstruct any scenic vista or public view, that the fence had existed currently at half of the height, and that the golf course was developed and not considered as a scenic public view corridor. Because the netting on the fence would not be as obstructive as a sound wall and the fact that the golf course was developed as it was used currently, it was Holman and Associates' opinion that it would not create a significant impact. With regard to the wetlands, Ms. Renzel made a good point about the edges of the wetlands and the vegetation; however, most of the small wetlands referred to as saline brackish in nature, were currently disturbed by the golf course use, were regularly mowed, and were subjected to some pesticides regularly used for the golf course maintenance. Those factors made the wetlands quality as habitat less than a typical wetland that had significant vegetation on the edges. The enlargement of Wetland No. 10 would more than compensate for that by expanding the area that would not be effected by the golf course operations. Mr. Simitian asked whether it was Mr. Schwarz's professional judgment that there would be no net loss of habitat as a result of the project. Mr. Schwarz replied yes. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommenda-tions to: 1) approve the mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the proposal will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and 2) approve the Site and Design Application for the
06/12/95 76-150
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Master Improvement Plan and with the findings and conditions for property located at 1875 Embarcadero Road. General 1. Final improvement plans including building design, landscape plans, irrigation plans, fence plans, lighting proposals and water use calculations shall be filed with the City as a site and design application for the individual projects, subject to approval by the ARB. Prior to Submittal For Further Site and Design Review 2. The Applicant shall submit plans and designs for the repair of Embarcadero Way from Embarcadero Road along the entire golf course parking lot frontage to the service entryway near the proposed employee parking spaces. The repairs shall include pavement base failure repairs, median curb replacement, curb and gutter replacement and pavement overlay to standards acceptable to the Public Works Department. The existing trees along the entrance road and in the median shall remain. The applicant shall submit plans and designs for the extension of the bicycle path along the north side of Embarcadero Road to Embarcadero Way. The proposed bicycle path crossing of the new exit driveway shall be relocated about 20 feet towards Embarcadero Road to a marked crosswalk at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and the exit driveway. The proposed crosswalk that is shown crossing Embarcadero Road at the intersection of Embarcadero Way shall be eliminated. Implementation of the plans for improving Embarcadero Way and the bike path shall be made a condition of approval of the first phase of construction of the Master Improvement Plan, subject to standards acceptable to the Public Works Department and subject to approval by the ARB. 3. The applicant shall submit plans and designs to prevent contaminants from contacting storm water and to verify that stormwater is not contaminated in compliance with the provi-sions of the National Pollution Discharge Eliminations Systems (NPDES) General Construction Permit process The applicant is required to file a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. The applicant shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Department of Public Works. 4. The applicant shall submit plans and designs for an erosion control plan to ensure that excessive sediment does not enter the wetlands areas of the site in compliance with provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit authorized by the State Water Resource Control Board on August 20, 1992, to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 5. The applicant shall submit plans and designs to ensure that
06/12/95 76-151
storage and use of reclaimed water for irrigation meets all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Department of Health Services, and County Health Department, to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 6. The applicant shall obtain approval for filling drainage channels and wetlands areas in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) and section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972). 7. The applicant shall conduct a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owls by a qualified ornithologist. If no owls are located during these surveys, then no additional action would be warranted. If breeding owls are located on or adjacent to the site, the applicant shall follow all recommendations developed by the ornithologist for protecting the nesting sites during the breeding season and relocating the owls during the non-breeding season. The applicant shall submit a report documenting the findings of the ornithologist, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. These recommenda-tions shall be incorporated into subsequent site and design approvals, and landscaping and grading plans. 8. The applicant shall conduct a pre-construction survey for Nesting Raptors by a qualified ornithologist. The applicant shall follow all recommendations developed by the ornitholo-gist for protecting any Nesting Raptors during the nesting season (March to July). The applicant shall submit a report documenting the findings of the ornithologist, to the satis-faction of the Planning Department. These recommendations shall be incorporated into subsequent site and design approv-als, and landscaping and grading plans. 9. The applicant shall conform to all requirements for the handling, storage, and use of hazardous materials (herbicides, pesticides, and golf cart batteries) as stipulated by the Fire Department. The applicant shall submit a report documenting these findings and obtain a Hazardous Materials Permit, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 10. The applicant shall ensure that any major excavation, such as the creation of new ponds, shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that any intact cultural deposits are identified prior to destruction. If deposits are identified, the applicant shall follow all recommendations developed by the archaeologist in compliance with procedures established by the County Coroner's Office and the Native American Heritage Commission. The applicant shall submit a report documenting these findings, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 11. Applicant shall file a Form 7460-1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for review and clearance of the height
06/12/95 76-152
of the proposed fences and lighting standards on the driving range and for the fence located between the #6 fairway and the airport parking lot. Council Member McCown said the process was very well done involving staff, the consultants, and interested members of the community. It did not seem to her that anything away could be taken from it in terms of its critical importance to the long-term maintenance of what was presently an outstanding facility. The financing issues were a significant challenge with regard to how the Master Plan would be implemented. In terms of making a decision about what the program should be, it was outstanding; and she hoped in the near future the financing options could be sorted out and the Plan could proceed forward. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Palo Alto had one of the early municipal golf courses which was an excellent course in its time. It had gotten a lot of use over the years and was beginning to show its age and wear. Approval of the recommendation that evening and the Council action that would be taken in the near future would get the course back up on its feet. Mayor Simitian said he had reviewed the environmental material carefully because of the controversy that so frequently erupted between the environmental community and the golf community, particularly when looking at a sensitive location. He was pleased to see that the City was enrolled in the autobahn program in terms of providing additional habitat which was a source of concern and debate in other locations. The absence of controversy spoke well for all of the work that had been done in connection with the Golf Course Master Improvement Plan. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15. Follow-up Recommendations re Midtown Market Analysis (contin-ued from 5/22/95) Manager, Economic Resources Planning Carol Jansen said two areas identified as Phase II could be incorporated in concept into Phase I which dealt with noncomplying buildings in the Midtown area and looked at the different ways that zoning could be approached for the Midtown Market Analysis. Staff primarily saw three differences between area-wide planning efforts and the approach to economic revitalization for Midtown. The staff report (CMR:296:95) emphasized a private sector initiative component and investment rather than public monies investment in the conceptual side planning aspects. The recommendation was also to use a smaller focal group for the conceptual side planning phase or individuals who would act as ambassadors to their constituent groups. The primary aim of the exercise, particularly in Phase II, was toward zoning and entitlement processes as ultimately part of the plan. Council Member Andersen noticed in the updated version of the Midtown Market Analysis a significant reduction in costs as a result of reconsideration; but he noticed a time line for the
06/12/95 76-153
area-wide planning approach which remained at one to two years and a three- to five-month time line on the earlier version. He asked Ms. Jansen to give more detail as to why the one that had more community input would take so much longer. Ms. Jansen said would answer the question of why it was anticipated to take less time, particularly in Phase I of the Midtown approach. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber could respond to the area-wide planning approach. Whenever the number of reduced in the initial stages of the process, the time was reduced which was one of the primary components of the approach. Ambassador roles needed to be played by those sitting at the table with the exception of commercial property owners who were funding the exercise so that the meeting and educational times, etc., involved would deal with fewer numbers which lead to less time in the process. The Phase II process was dependant largely upon what happened in the Phase I process and the nature of those conceptual plans. If the plans resulted in a building rehabilitation plan, the next steps to be taken would be substantially smaller than if it resulted in a phase redevelopment stage. That was unknown until the Phase I process was completed and staff knew the kinds of products and investment strategies that the commercial property owners in Midtown chose to make. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the level of involvement would be different which could make the Midtown approach go faster and the key was what Ms. Jansen indicated regarding Phase II. If the result of Phase I were simple like changes to the zoning ordinance, minor modifications, etc., it could be processed in a matter of four months which would be the minimum for Phase II. If Phase I indicated more complex regulations, design guidelines, etc., especially involving scope of traffic or other changes which could trigger an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), then Phase II could easily take one year or longer. If that were the case, the difference between the two processes might be very minimum. The estimate was one to two years for area-wide planning, generally in talking to other jurisdictions, it meant an 18-month stand alone process. Council Member Fazzino was troubled by the either/or nature of the proposals. The document indicated either $25,000 would be spent and decisions would be made by the property owners or $300,000 would be spent and that involved the residents. He felt there was something in between where all constituent groups could be involved including residents in a dynamic real-time planning process and significantly less than $200,000 or $300,000 would be spent. Ms. Jansen agreed. She was speaking to the Midtown approach process and not to the area-wide planning. It did involve all participants, it was at what level and at what point in the process that they were all involved. The interests of the residents clearly were in areas of zoning, structures, use, and relationships in anchor tenancies and satellite shops etc. Much of it came about in conjunction with the conceptual planning
06/12/95 76-154
phase, but where the lines were drawn and how those investment strategies from commercial property owners were made as part of that process, were not generally in the purview of residential involvement. Residential involvement would be under the proposal at the very beginning stages. A single property owner would go through the entire conceptual planning stage with no residential or commercial tenant input. The intent was not cut and dry. The residents would be involved at the conceptual planning stage, in the zoning crafting stages, and in the development review phases of the actual plan going through the public hearing process. It was not anticipated in the community that something could just happen at the public hearing stage without prior input. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there was a way at the start of the process to involve the neighbors or a small number of neighbors representing the larger neighborhood with an effective facilitator thereby reducing the cost and the amount of time necessary in the process. Ms. Jansen said staff suggested it could play a that role. In the preparation of the Midtown Market Analysis. There was a small focal group that represented all of the various interests in Midtown, including the Residents' Association; but in order to keep the costs down, the consultant acted as the educational provider of what market analysis contained and how it came about. Council Member Fazzino asked about the possibility of viewing the staff as a constituent and using the resources of a professional facilitator. Ms. Jansen said it was possible, but one of the main reasons it was not suggested was to keep down the costs for commercial property owners as well as the City. Mr. Schreiber followed up on the question of cost differential, the area-wide planning approach was a generalized cost range. Staff had tried not to underestimate it but until a specific process was put together, there were no consultant bids on it. Staff saw $250,000 as the maximum, but it could come in less. If Phase II ended up being complex rather than simple and an EIR had to be done, that alone would cost around $70,000. Staff did not have the expertise to put it together and test out complex unusual zoning regulations that were tied in with various economic objectives and would need outside assistance for that. The cost could easily approach up into the $150,000 plus range for a public/private partnership. The range was not that much different if the solution was reasonably complex in terms of a deviation or modification from existing regulations. Ms. Jansen did not anticipate that to be the case. She felt reasonably simple solutions could be found rather than reasonably complex ones. The entire approach was to make it very workable and simple to deal with. Staff's aim was to make it less complex in order to deal with commercial property development in Midtown rather than more complex.
06/12/95 76-155
Council Member McCown asked if there were some analogies and learning to be brought forward from the exercise that was done with the Dream Team project which was the conceptual thinking about potential changes in the area around the Caltrain Station/ University Avenue as it went under the train tracks. It was a process where landowners, business owners, and community interests were involved and it contained two phases. There was a similar situation where Stanford University as a landowner shared in the cost and an outside planning facilitation was used. The Midtown Market Analysis had some different components and elements with a much more needed and economic financial analysis, but she asked whether there was some way to model the process after what she felt was a very successful process for the Dream Team which was very inclusionary. It was a small group of 15 people that was a sounding board that followed through on the initial community meetings. She thought the total time frame was less than 18 months. Ms. Jansen said there were some good parallels but the one complicated factor in Midtown that the Dream Team effort did not have was the multiple property ownership. Staff was in a pre-Dream Team place currently. One of the primary aims was to try to get a commonality of goals with a number of commercial property owners so that there was a singular center thinking. If that were there now, there would be some great parallels that could be made between the Dream Team efforts and what might be envisioned in the Midtown process. Council Member McCown said it was true that Stanford University as the underlying landowner had a unique situation which the Midtown area did not have but there were a number of uses such as the Holiday Inn and the Red Cross which had very long term interests in what the potentials for change might be. She agreed that in terms of the ability to craft a process that did not take forever, that used good planning and the economic analysis, and that involved equal participation in a relatively small focal setting, staff had come up with something that would work similarly well. Mr. Schreiber said in the Dream Team situation immediate residential neighbors that were not in the immediate area which allowed the Dream Team process to be somewhat more free wheeling in terms of looking at the options because there was no one that had a primary interest. Also in the Dream Team process, economics were not a notable consideration in the first phase. Whichever approach was being considered, the objective was to find an economically viable solution. He cautioned having a first phase that was open- ended. The City might end up with something that could not be economically implemented and then the Phase II process would result in the cutting back Phase I because things were found not economically viable. His sense was that economic reality was needed in the process from the beginning. Council Member Kniss felt the multi-property was the main issue. She was personally aware of some situations where a single property owner development worked and a multi-property owner failed. The matter of ownership was important. She asked with regard to the final product, while it stated conceptual on
06/12/95 76-156
public/private and specific on the area-wide, how the two differed, and whether there something ready that would be commercially viable. She noted that neighbors were an extremely important consideration with regard to Midtown. The staff report (CMR:296:95) indicated that there would be higher residential satisfaction with the area-wide planning approach versus the public/private and she asked for comments on the process issue. Ms. Jansen said consultants would not be used in order to get feedback from the residents as they would be under an area-wide or specific plan process. It did not mean that the end product would not be the same at some point. It was hard in that type of a process to predict the exact outcome. Part of the risk factor of putting something into two phases was that the second phase would not be known until Phase I was substantially complete. For example, if in the process several property owners decided that their investment strategy would be to simply be an investor and not be an individual property owner on a property by property basis. If that were to occur, a very different physical plan could evolve. Some properties in Midtown as presently developed were more viable than others. Some properties were in relatively decent structural shape, filled with active and good tenants, and had parking on-site. Others did not fit into that category, so there would be highly variable conditions on a property by property basis, particularly with the intermingling of the proforma with the conceptual planning exercise. Council Member Kniss said staff might produce a great plan that the neighbors loved but it might not be economically viable. She asked how staff got down to the economic viability in the area-wide planning approach and whether there was some marriage of the two plans that allowed economic viability and satisfaction of the neighborhood but still had a workable plan in the end. The Dream Team approach had been discussed but not tested out. Ms. Jansen said the question she would ask of the Dream Team efforts was whether it would be built because the answer to that was not known yet. There were some serious economic considerations of the project. She agreed with Council Member Kniss that one of the biggest problems with doing things that involved large numbers of residents' planning on private property was if they chose not to adopt the tools to make things happen, it would never happen. One of the things staff tried to put together in both processes, but in a different fashion, was to get something that could be built which would take an exceptional level of economic input. In the conceptional plan it was anticipated and to assist in Phase II there would be a good list of uses permissible in neighborhood commercial and the relation-ship of satellite uses to anchor tenancies would be worked out in that process. The key issue in neighborhood commercial centers was not to have a single or more dominating use, but another key economic issue was there could not simply be all small shops without some form of anchor tenancies or the center would not be built or, if built, would not survive. Putting the two together in the process was the key to its success.
06/12/95 76-157
Council Member Rosenbaum said the item had been on the Council's agenda for May 22, 1995, and if there had been time, Council probably would have passed the staff recommendation. At that time, there was no mention of an area-wide planning approach costing perhaps $200,000 to $250,000. He asked what had happened in the intervening three weeks to cause the additional staff report to be written and why was so much time being spent on the issue. Mr. Schreiber replied that the area-wide planning approach had surfaced earlier in the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) process. The November 7,1995, staff report that transmitted staff comments on the CPAC recommendations including the Community Design recommendations, identified a $200,000 to $250,000 cost for area-wide planning. The Planning Commission and the CPAC both recommended an area-wide plan for the Midtown area. The staff report that the Council reviewed the previous Saturday was in the process of being developed at the time the other staff report was prepared. The timing was aimed for the Council's review of the Community Design Section. It was really an elaboration on the information that was transmitted last November. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why the Council had before it consideration of a plan that cost $200,000 to $250,000 whereas if there had been enough time on May 22, 1995, Council would have approved a plan costing $22,500. Ms. Jansen said the report before the Council that evening was the same as what had been before it on May 22, 1995. Council did not have a proposal before it that evening to do an area-wide plan in Midtown. The CPAC recommended a series of area-wide plans and since the report discussed area-wide planning which had originally been recommended for Midtown, staff felt another report showing the contrasts and commonality between the two approaches would be helpful to the Council to know the differences rather than staff responding verbally as it was being discussed. The only recommen-dation before the Council that evening on Midtown was the one in the Midtown Market Analysis Follow-up Report. There was no recom-mendation for an area-wide plan in Midtown. Council Member Schneider said there were some good ideas out in the community with regard to Midtown that would satisfy the requirements of the neighbors. They involved relatively small anchor tenants of about 20,000 square feet maximum, e.g., Walgreens was satisfied with the smaller square footage instead of the larger 55,000 square foot major Safeway Store, surrounded by smaller independent businesses in the 500 to 1,000-square foot size which was doable for small businesses. If the City reduced the fee for a Planned Community (PC) of $10,000, some of those great ideas that were out there might surface. The merchants were willing to chip in money. The process could be simplified without great expenditure of funds and some of those good ideas could be put on the table. It was getting to be overwhelming and she was afraid the City would be faced with the same kinds of issues as it had in the past where issues were talked to death, no one could
06/12/95 76-158
afford to get anything on the table, and no one was satisfied. She asked Ms. Jansen to respond. Ms. Jansen said there were four neighborhood/commercial centers, two of which were PC zoned, that showed even greater economic stress than Midtown presently exhibited which were Alma and Edgewood plazas. She did not advocate a PC zone for Midtown because PC zones were as difficult as specific plans, absent a tool to implement them where there was multiple-property ownership involved. There were 660 questionnaires that came back from people that had ideas about Midtown, and she agreed that there was a wealth of great ideas out there. PC zones were not simple and required a component of public benefit that had no definition. Whenever there was public requirement benefit which might not have unanimity, it could be used in a way that did not always lead to good things. Staff's recommendation was that the PC zoning process was not the kind of process in a multiple property ownership situation such as in Midtown and that the Phase II zoning and conceptual plan approval would be a better way of approaching eventual development in Midtown. In terms of kinds and sizes of uses, there would be no 55,000 square foot businesses in Midtown because it could not happen physically. Council Member Schneider said that was not her suggestion. She realized that Safeway Stores, although willing to be flexible on design, would not be flexible on size. She asked where the negotiations had gone with regard to Walgreens because she understood it was more flexible and would be willing to be an anchor for smaller local businesses. Ms. Jansen said that Walgreens had expressed interest in the Midtown Market location which was certainly an open market for that kind of facility. Walgreens was only a 10,000- to 11,000-square foot facility which was substantially less than Safeway. A 20,000-square foot grocery store at current standards was smaller than any other surrounding community and the competitive loss that the City had achieved as a result of that were quite high. On July 10, 1995, the Council would be receiving from staff a Retail Trends Analysis and in the area of grocery stores there were significant losses in all areas of the City and a good deal of it had to do with the fact that the size restrictions had not allowed for even relatively reasonably scaled developments within the Midtown, Alma Plaza, and Edgewood Plaza areas. Size would be very important; where enough anchor tenancies needed to exist to keep a center healthy economi-cally, feed the satellite shops, and where they did not overwhelm the satellite shops in the center. Council Member Andersen felt that Council Member Kniss's question regarding how economic reality could be achieved was significant. The issue that bothered him was whether or not the property owners were going to join together in proposing a viable approach, would the property owners proceed with a site planning exercise, and could the property owners work with the community in that effort. He knew there were many property owners present and he urged them to speak on the issue before the public addressed it.
06/12/95 76-159
The Council needed to hear where the property owners stood currently. Timothy Kelley, Keyser Marston, Associates, Inc., said his organizations recommendation was that the private property owners needed to take a leadership role. He realized the importance of community input, but there were clear messages in the work they had done. Until there was some clear direction from the property owners who were not totally clear in their own minds yet, he felt that direction was needed before going on to a bigger plan, otherwise the plan might not have much meaning. From his own experience working in smaller groups with the property owners, there would be more chance of resolution that way than having a large process and if a larger process were needed later, it could always be done. The important thing was to get the property owners to take an active role in making decisions for their future. Council Member Andersen asked for clarification with regard to a small group of citizens being ambassadors for a larger group of neighbors, how many citizens would be involved, and how they would be involved, as observers. Ms. Jansen said if the property owners chose to proceed, the City would have to return with Budget Amendment Ordinance for the consultant selection process because the proposal was that if the property owners proceeded with the hiring of an architect to look at conceptual planning, the City had its part in the proforma and the traffic study. Staff would return to the Council as soon as the property owners entered into the agreement if they desired. Once staff received direction from Council that evening, it was staff's intent to talk to the residents group and the various involved groups within the Midtown area to get a sense of who they felt was important to have at the table. In the Midtown Market Analysis preparation, there was a working group of 10 to 12 people on a regular basis who represented all constituencies in Midtown including the residents group. There were only one or two members representing the residents group and they changed periodically during the process. There were several property owners represent-ed and representatives from the Commercial Tennis Association. All of the people played an ambassador role and it worked very well. When the Midtown Market Analysis came out, there seemed to be a huge education level that had been achieved with the ambassadors present in the room and they had openly shared that with their constituent groups. Council Member Andersen said when the Stanford students provided the City with their analysis, there was an interactive approach in the conclusions and a high level of appreciation brought about from the point of view of many when they saw the other stakeholders' perspectives. One of the issues which surprised him was that a lot of the members of the community were convinced that the reason the City was involved was to raise the sales tax revenue. He asked how important it was from the City's viewpoint to have a 20 percent increase in sales tax revenue for that particular shopping center.
06/12/95 76-160
Ms. Jansen replied from an overall retail sales tax perspective it was not important. Vice Mayor Wheeler said one reason she was concerned with the narrow focus study was that simultaneous to the discussion that evening there were discussions going on Saturdays and various non-Council evenings regarding the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) update. The Council was at the point of discussing the Midtown shopping district and the Plan was calling Midtown something different from what the current Comprehensive Plan called which raised some concerns. She understood what was proposed had a very narrow focus; but because of the simultaneous discussions about what was Midtown, what Midtown should be, and comments with respect to a new traffic study and looking at more parcels than just the northeast quadrant, how would staff's recommendation to look solely at the northeast quadrant fit into the concurrent discussions about Midtown. Ms. Jansen said what was suggested in the approach was if there were large and small problems and resources were limited to address the problems, the smallest number of the larger problems be addressed. It did not mean that all of the other issues being discussed in the Plan would not be addressed. It meant the highest vacancies and the greatest problem buildings were in the Midtown core area, so that would be looked at first. It did not mean that the other buildings would not need to be looked at eventually. Bringing together the outside of the core area would be part of the planning processes of Phase II. Resources would be on the greatest need at the current time. The same thing was true of the traffic analysis. Staff believed that with a limited traffic analysis, it could bring forth enough information for the Council to make a decision to either stop or to proceed. It was important because if issues were potentially controversial, it might be that the traffic that might disperse into other areas with a two lane configuration was great enough that Council might not want to proceed. The same was true in looking at ingress and egress to the Midtown Shopping Center and how the signalization might be handled. The issue were fairly straight forward and it might not get down to the exact signal design without further expenditures but it would help to make some public policy decisions as to whether to proceed, spend more dollars, or allocate more staff time. That was the purpose of the approach. Council Member Kniss referred to the grocery store at the corner of Charleston Avenue which had undergone substantial renovations and was slightly smaller than 20,000 square feet. She asked if staff had investigated or determined why that particular store was successful. Ms. Jansen replied it was a combination of factors that was not present in Midtown. There was a single ownership and management entity in the Charleston Center and there was some physical redevelopment. It had the look and feel of a shopping center that was not present in Midtown, and there was some physical rehabilitation a few years before. She did not want to mislead
06/12/95 76-161
the Council. The actual sales tax generated from Charleston was not high, it was very low nationwide and was not a high performer; however, it was a welcome neighborhood center. She did not know why that particular anchor tenancy succeeded in that location. It was a known factor in looking at the dollars that the surrounding stores in Menlo Park, North and South Palo Alto, and Mountain View were taking a good deal of Palo Alto's grocery store revenue and in more southerly areas of the City that might be a factor. Piazza's Fine Foods at Charleston Center worked very well as a niche grocery retailer in that community just as Whole Foods worked in the Downtown area in a different fashion. In the case of Midtown, there were two such markets, one was a niche market, The Co-op and another was a standard grocery store, Safeway. Mr. Schreiber said last week he participated in a tour that Council Member Wheeler gave to himself and Peter Calthorpe of the Piazza's Fine Foods at Charleston Center and part of the discussion centered on Peter Calthorpe's question about whether it was unionized which could make a significant difference in salaries, benefits, total labor costs, etc. His sense was that and Safeway and Lucky Stores were major chains and unionized, and their operating margin was so thin that the only way they survived was with very high volume which meant greater footage. There could be smaller food stores that could survive but there had to be a combination of lower labor costs, the right physical location, the right management, and the right niche. There had been some predecessors to Piazza's that were not regarded anywhere near as highly by the neighborhood because those factors had not been put together. Mayor Simitian theorized if there were a single developer that wanted to make some money on his/her property and could not do it without flexibility from the City in getting discretionary approval from the Council which meant that the neighborhood and larger community had to buy into the project, that single developer would have to find a way to interact with the neighborhood and community to make sure the proposal that went to the Council had support and he/she would need to solicit from the community what interests or concerns they had in the process and try and make sure that the proposal going before the Council addressed those interests and concerns as articulated by the neighborhood and community. The process that was being struggled with that evening derived from the fact that there was no single developer and the City was dealing with a multiplicity of property owners, so there was a variety of perspectives and expertise. He bought into the staff's proposal that there needed to be a way to pull the people together and turn them into a single developer. He asked how staff would ensure that once a single developer was created the developer proposed would meet the interests and concerns from the neighborhood and community. There were already 660 responses from the community on what was important, and staff had indicated that there needed to be some mechanism for people in the neighborhood and community to comment on what went on during the process. He did not agree with the ambassador process, it was the worst of both worlds. It was tokenism in terms of neighborhood participation, but it cluttered up the development
06/12/95 76-162
function on the part of the property owners. He asked whether there was some way that a group of people could work as a single developer while creating in tandem a process that allowed that newly created single developer to check in along the way with the neighbors, the community, with the interests articulated, and the 660 responses to make sure that what was being developed as a proposal was consistent with neighborhood and community concerns. It was going to have to be approved by the Council given the discretionary approvals that would be necessary. He asked if there was some mechanism to pull those people together for a series of checkpoints along the way and to have a conversation with the newly created development group. Ms. Jansen said it was not staff's intention that the recommenda-tion be tokenism, but it was staff's intention to allow for an interactive process. If the group decided to get together without City facilitation, it had always been highly suspect in the community when something was done without the neighborhood and community being a part of the process, even if the eventual outcome was the same if they had been involved from the onset. It was not anticipated that a group of people would get together, prepare plans, and then bring in the public review process. It was going to go back and forth, much as the Midtown Market Analysis did. There would be checkpoints where staff could go back to the merchants, the commercial property owners, and the residents as a whole to keep the educational process going which went beyond the ambassador role. It was tough to write definite proposals out and sometimes staff had to be trusted with creativity in the process. David Green, 3244 David Avenue, had been a representative for the residents the previous summer and staff included him in the process and were polite until he asked for something staff did not want whereupon they argued. He was told that the residents interest were not the same as what was being done, there was a limited mandate that focused on property owners, and resident issues should be taken up at a later time. The ambassador role was tokenism. He only gave up after trying to have input into the survey that was being done and someone else took his place. He had some hostility about the experience he went through and did not have any suggestions except that the Council should be clear in its directions as to whether it wanted a cooperative process with input and real participation or whether to wait until the end when there was a proposal and the residents had to go up before the Council and plead for someone to pay attention. He had a detailed list of exactly what the residents wanted, it was on the table, and they did not even have to participate if staff would simply consult with the residents. The resident's definition of local scale was a complex one with four components and were listed in a letter to Council dated March 22, 1995. One component was size. It did not matter whether it was a 20,000- or 40,000-square foot building, but it could not be a single use over 20,000 square feet and still be called local scale. Piazza's Fine Foods was a good example; and if it were in Midtown, it would be great. The trojan horse of the zoning change to get rid of the caps of 20,000 square feet was an agenda. Everything else about the proposal was
06/12/95 76-163
great. David Squires, 642 Bryson Avenue, representing Midtown Residents' Association, said there were a number of good ideas in the proposal. The real issue was the role of Midtown residents in any working group for the Midtown area. He had a concern with the language on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:296:95), "Other stakeholders would act as ambassadors to their constituent groups throughout the process, and the predominant resident role would be played in the plan/zoning review stages." He had been involved in a number of projects throughout his career and wanted to emphasize the importance of having participation by the Midtown residents on any planning committees, working groups, etc., at all stages of development and especially at the conception stages. From his experience, if problems occurred early on and could be resolved, a lot of time and money could be saved during the process. With respect to the time and expense of the CPAC study versus the streamlined Midtown study, the existing Plan was designed as a community outreach and he felt it was possible to get a compromise with a few Midtown representatives working on committees or working groups to put forth most of the ideas of the Midtown residents. He felt there was room for compromise between those two polar examples. He asked that Council require that Midtown residents have some sort of voting participation in all phases of any working group that dealt with any aspects of Midtown. Ken Johnson, P. O. Box 10007, Stanford, said he was a Stanford University student that had been studying the Midtown issue for the past seven to eight weeks and the issue surrounding its decline. The charge in his class was to try to gain the perspectives of the City officials, the merchants, the residents, and the commercial property owners in Midtown. The students on May 24, 1995, conducted a community forum and presented the results to the Midtown community. He referred to a transparency and said it seemed that all four stakeholder groups came together on consensus, the first component being a medium size anchor tenant such as Walgreens. The second component was the traffic study. Although there were a diverse amount of opinions of what should be done about the traffic in Midtown, a traffic study that led to further study and discussion appealed to all four groups. The traffic study should not only deal with external flows of traffic along Middlefield Road but internal flows among the parking areas and parking itself. The third component was improved infrastructure, especially the sidewalks and trees. Whether or not the City or the property owners took a lead in making sure it happened was not an item of consensus among the four groups but merely the fact it was a point that should be concentrated on before further efforts were made. The fourth component was emphasis on better inter- and intra-communications, especially among the property owners who had a diverse number of interests. There had been no consensus as to whether or not it should be a working group or some other mechanism that had less components of tokenism but merely the emphasis on better communication. All four groups agreed on the small town atmosphere and the local scale which could be achieved in a number of ways: through the creation of more gathering areas, more
06/12/95 76-164
restaurants or cafes, outdoor gazebos, etc., places where people could congregate and frequent the various stores within the center. Both the Midtown residents and merchants wanted an intimate relationship with the people in the community. All four groups agreed on the last component which was relaxed parking and zoning regulations. He submitted a letter listing all of findings of the class (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Council Member Kniss asked with respect to "medium size anchor store" whether the students had an actual square footage or whether they simply agreed on the word "medium." Mr. Squires replied that the definition of the word "medium" meant "not the super store." Council Member Kniss asked whether there had been anything in the students research that would indicate square footage. Mr. Squires said in the community forum on May 24, 1995, the small discussion groups generally agreed that 20,000 to 25,000 square feet was acceptable. Council Member Kniss asked what was meant by "relaxed" parking and zoning regulations. Mr. Squires said it was the sentiment of the community that there were zoning regulations preventing Walgreens from going into Midtown. Pat Marriott, 960 Dennis Drive, said the Council had done asked pertinent questions with regard to the proposal, and she had renewed faith that the Council understood the concerns of the residents. If the Midtown residents were allowed to participate in the process, not just as ambassadors, they could do a good job and facilitate an efficient process. Midtown residents held responsible jobs and would be a responsible working group or committee member. She thanked the Council for recommending that the residents be included in the process from the onset. The staff report (CMR:296:95) referred to the goal as being primarily economic. She felt that values were the issue, and values determined the choices that were made and those choices had ramifications. Her values as a Midtown resident were not to have the biggest, most profitable grocery store in Palo Alto or Santa Clara County. Her goal was to have a neighborhood that was pleasant to live in, that was not besieged with traffic brought in from surrounding areas, and to have a community and local scale- type of shopping center. The quality of life had to be looked at in addition to the economic base. Duane Bay, 2261 Columbia Street, Co-op Board Member and Midtown Merchants and Professional Association chair, commended staff who did an excellent job of creating the vehicle that could bring about the single developer mentioned by Mayor Simitian. The Co-op and the Merchants Association supported the staff recommendation and was prepared to participate as a partner in the planning process. In the study done by Stanford University students, it
06/12/95 76-165
was brought up that there was concern about how the City would support various elements of what might be done. He believed that if there were a partnership process as recommended by staff, a viable change in Midtown could occur. The property owners were aware of the need to have a plan that was compatible with the neighborhood and they would have the intelligence to become the single developer that would produce a project that would have neighborhood support. He believed the alternate planning process on the table would have little success in bringing the owners together initially which would be needed to have a successful product. He agreed with the residents goals, strongly supported them, and encouraged the residents to keep advocating those goals. Tom Trudell, P. O. Box 7251, San Jose, owner of Bergman building, 2741 Middlefield Road, said approximately one year prior he was present to support the Keyser Marston (KMR) study because he saw some definite progress being made in Midtown and the City helping out was much appreciated. One of the findings in the study, absent the support of the property owners who had few options remaining to them, was redevelopment which was voted down. Walgreens was a possibility, but there were problems. In May 1995 when the Midtown Market Analysis Phase I and II was proposed, he saw a chance for progress with ratio changes, improved parking, etc. The Midtown Market Analysis Follow-up, mentioned one to two years but as a property owner, one to two years cut down his options severely. He had tried to do something with his building for the past two years but had had problems with floor area ratio, zoning, etc. He felt the Stanford students did an excellent job in providing a catalyst to pull the four groups together. One of the findings in the KMR study was that the property owners were not working together. The property owners were working together now and making progress. He urged the Council to forget the CPAC, the one to two years, and proceed with the Phase I and II study. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, echoed what Duane Bay and Tom Trudell had said. She had been a part of the Midtown Market Group and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) was very pleased with the KMR study. She congratulated the Stanford students. There was a great deal of commonality for the property owners, merchants, and residents. Everyone was a stakeholder and that was the key in the decision before the Council that evening. The Chamber's Economic Vitality Task Force was interested in convening some discussions involving the various groups and playing a role as resource facilitator if appropriate. She commended staff on its work and felt that the staff was not suggesting that the residents not play a role. There were two keys: 1) that something needed to change in Midtown, and 2) timing. She did not think the merchants had to wait one to two years while trying to figure what to do in Midtown. Sales were tough all over and things needed to move more swiftly in the Midtown area. Council Member Kniss said with regard to the merchants not having one to two years, she would surmise that the small shop owners were presuming that the anchor tenants would make the dramatic difference in bringing the customers or clients back in to
06/12/95 76-166
Midtown. Ms. Frank said yes, vacancies were obvious and the concern was great. Anchor tenants and a general improvement to the whole district was important. Mike's Cafe was a wonderful addition to the Midtown Center and those were the kinds of things needed in Midtown to keep it a vital area. Dan Hanley, 1091 Lincoln, San Jose, representing Midtown Market, 2701 Middlefield Road, endorsed the staff recommendations. Council Member Andersen mentioned the property owners and what they planned to do. The property owners had met many times over the prior seven to eight months and had formulated a plan of action to do a private site plan development. The property owners encouraged and supported the residents and urged their assistance in buying into whatever program could be collectively agreed upon. He urged Council to recommend to staff a City role that would involve implementation of the process. He asked Council to consider combining Phases I and II as suggested by Council Member Fazzino so it would not take two or three years to get the process implemented. Walgreens contacted the Midtown Market long before the grocery store operations were vacated which was due to a loss of money for five to six years. Knowing that Walgreens would be a viable tenant and feeling that the community would support such an operation, the Midtown Market vacated the building. When Walgreens made its concerns apparent with regard to a traffic signal, the commercial property owners were contacted and agreed to support Walgreens as a tenant as a method of revitalizing the Midtown Center. A proposal to lease the Midtown Market building was written up at that time and since Walgreens insisted on moving the signal, the issue had been before the City for over 15 months. He urged the Council to combine Phases I and II of the Midtown Market Analysis and find a way to surmount the barriers that had been raised so that the process could be implemented. Council Member Andersen asked if the recommendation were expanded to allow more participation on the part of residents in the process, whether that would work with the property owners. Mr. Hanley said the residents were a vocal group and the shopping center served their needs. The demographics were terrific for finding tenants. Tom Foy, 2775 Middlefield Road, said that Midtown was made up of "Mom and Pop" stores. Although people were property owners, they were doing something else besides providing their families with a living. He supported the staff recommendations, Phases I and II, with a time limit on the Phase II aspect, so the owners of the buildings that were vacant could present them knowing what the square footage demands were and how much parking would be involved. If the Midtown Center did not secure the right tenants, the neighbors would not utilize the stores. RECESS; 9:45 P.M. - 10:05 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to: 1)
06/12/95 76-167
Assist property owners in their efforts by playing a "convener" role in the form of site plan preparation, to be privately funded by the property owners, with City staff facilitation of plan preparation and community input to the process. The product of this exercise would be a conceptual master plan for the Midtown core area showing the general building locations and square footage of anchor tenants and small shops, and attendant parking areas on a center-wide basis; and 2) Contingent upon the property owners' decision to fund and undertake the conceptual master planning exercise, staff would proceed with the following two phases: Phase I: 1) The City retain the services of a traffic engineering consultant to (a) provide technical assistance to the conceptual site planning exercise, should the commercial property owners proceed, and to (b) determine the proper location of a signalized entry into the commercial center (should one be necessary) and to evaluate the anticipated traffic impacts of a two-lane versus four-lane Middlefield Road configuration; and 2) The City retain the services of a qualified retail financial consultant to provide a pro-forma analysis of the site plan alternatives within the Midtown core area. Phase II: 1) The City investigate the preparation of a companion zoning ordinance, which could be called the Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center Zone, that spells out the purposes of neighborhood commercial centers in the City and defines those uses permissible within the district; 2) The City initiate a change in the zoning ordinance to allow non-complying structures to rebuild at or below existing floor area rations, so long as the project does not result in greater non-compliance on any specific property. This provision could apply to Midtown only, to all four of the City's neighborhood commercial centers, or it could include all of the El Camino Real areas of the City. The application of this change to non-complying structures would apply initially only to Midtown, but that other areas of the City be analyzed further for relief of the non-complying structures provisions; and 3) Direct staff to draft a policy permitting the City-owned parking lot to be used as credit for parking required for ground floor re-use of structures within the Midtown core area. Further, that 1) the Mayor confirm the working group selected by the City staff, include the proviso that the committee would be made up of four Midtown residents and a representative from the City Council and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to be appointed by the Mayor; 2) that the working group and staff report back on the progress of Phase I within three months; and 3) that the report include the feasibility of implementing Phase II, and subsequent to that that the Midtown plan be placed on a fast track for implementation. Council Member Andersen appreciated the efforts of the Stanford students. The Council and staff were anxious to bring about solutions. The City was not trying to raise sales tax revenue. Sales tax revenue was brought up only as an indication of volume and volume, indicated how a business was doing. It was an issue that created mistrust and one of the reasons why people needed to be brought together. There was a problem in the Midtown area that was real and it could not wait one to two years. The Council needed to move quickly. The property owners were interested in moving forward, and the residents wanted to have input and were
06/12/95 76-168
anxious to have the Midtown area viable. He did not believe was much difference in the kinds of services needed in Midtown and the kinds of amenities the community wanted which would also serve thee businesses already there. It was just a matter of bringing people together. The business interests were anxious to work with the representatives of the Midtown area and four people would report to the citizenry. That allowed for the kind of input the Midtown residents were anxious to have and at the same time making certain the process would not take a great deal of time. Council Member McCown believed the perspective that was articulated in some of the correspondence from the residents stating what the core values were for the area were consistent with the direction of the staff recommendation and the interests of the property owners and merchants. She was excited that it all could be made to work together. She was extremely frustrated about Council Member Rosenbaum's question regarding the one- to two-year process and that the Council had to ask so many questions which created concerns from the public about the implications if the Council decided to go with the one to two year planning process. It a very unnecessary process, and it would have been easier if Council could have gotten a staff response similar to the motion Council Member Andersen had just proposed which involved an additional way to include citizen participation. When the item was before the Council on May 22, 1995, there was no suggestion by anyone to expand the planning process. The only question the Council had was how the residents would have a significant role and greater participation. Council Member Huber supported the motion. He believed it was always important to frontload the process with neighborhood involvement, not because it would speed up the process or that there would be consensus but if it were not done, the next phase would either be more difficult or in all probability would not be accomplished. It was a big surprise to him when the sales tax issue was mentioned in the meeting with the Stanford students. He believed that the Council was in search of economic vitality and that vitality enabled businesses to operate, provide services, and make a reasonable profit. He did not see it as a situation where the City was trying to find additional revenue. If sale tax revenue came as a result of a healthy local shopping center area, that would be great, but the Council's main concern was to make it viable. He believed the residents appreciated the fact that it might be necessary to draw from other than the immediate neighbor-hood but what they did not want was a draw from a massive region. He felt that was adequately expressed in the letter from Ron Wolf, Midtown Residents' Association, dated June 7, 1995 (on file in the City Clerk's Office), which commended the committee and particularly those portions dealing with the size of single uses and the ultimate question of zoning. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He felt most encouraged that evening by a tremendous amount of agreement among property owners and residents regarding a vision for the Midtown area. It augured very well for the opportunity for the group to work with the City to fashion a Midtown plan for the future which
06/12/95 76-169
benefitted everyone. He thanked staff for effort put into the project and for bringing City resources to bear on the issue, although he did not agree with certain aspects of the proposal. There was tendency in government to get caught up in planning terms but oftentimes planning terms separated people who were involved in public policy decision making. A word like "ambassador" tended to separate people who participated in the process. It was essential that everyone involved in the process, City staff, property owners, and residents be full partners in the decisions being made in order for the plan to be a success. He felt the process could move very quickly in making the project a reality. He agreed with Council Member McCown's comment that based upon what had been heard that evening and what he had read, the major parties could come to an agreement on 80 percent of the issues and then move quickly to address the other 20 percent of the issues where there might not be total agreement. He felt there was agreement on the long-range vision for the Midtown area. Even though the City was focused on the Comprehensive Plan process, at the same time in order to make it a success, it was essential to find a way as a City organization to devote resources to the success of the Midtown project. If it took a few additional dollars to make it a success, it was well worth it. Perhaps not at the outset but later on, Council might want to consider the possibility of an independent or outside facilitator along the lines of what Council Member McCown had suggested to help in the process. The City was an interested party but had some of its own unique interests to bring to bear in the process, and it might be necessary to bring an independent facilitator in if appropriate. He felt the process would be very successful. There were many people of good will who were involved in the effort, and he was convinced that the Midtown Shopping District of the late 1990s and the early part of the next millennium would be just as successful as the Midtown Shopping Center was back in the 1950s and 1960 when he and Mayor Simitian lived in that area. Vice Mayor Wheeler said from the testimony heard that evening, the letters received, and various other input expressed there had been one common objective on the part of merchants, residents, and property owners which was that it was time to move toward getting something done in the Midtown area. The proposal before the Council was a good but bold attempt to do that. Something she had learned through her experience on the Planning Commission and the Council was that cities had become very good at the traditional zoning regulation process. The City felt very empowered whenever it placed a set of zoning regulations on an area. Those zoning regulations were very good at telling property owners what they might not do; however she had learned over the years as had the community that the traditional zones and the traditional way of getting those zones applied to specific pieces of property gave the Council no ability to force the owners of those pieces of property to bring about the change the community desired. The other lesson that had been learned over the years by property owners was that very little change happened in the City of Palo Alto if the changes proposed were not acceptable to the neighbors of those pieces of property. She hoped the Council and the property owners in the Midtown area had heard that message and
06/12/95 76-170
would carry that into the deliberations to be entered into over the next several months. Council Member Fazzino sounded a note of optimism about the process that would be ensued from the motion, but she was more cautious and asked for everyone's cooperation, patience, and feedback about the process. Things had been done the old way for so many years, and the City knew the old way did not work very well and was looking for ways to embark on new processes and procedures that were more collaborative in nature that would take into account a variety of interests. She asked for everyone's patience, indulgence, and keeping the channels of communications open with the Council on what was working and what was not. It was a risk-taking adventure for everyone involved and she hoped it could be approached with good will. She thought it was in everyones interest, including the City's, to work together to reach a solution that could meet the mutual needs and desires that had been expressed by all of the stake-holders. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the staff recommendation and motion. He felt it was a step toward the City and the property owners both fulfilling their proper roles. The property owners would do site and design for their property and the City would handle the traffic studies and modifying zoning regulations if required, and although not discussed, there was a willingness to fund more of the public infrastructure. With regard to relaxing the zoning, it should be recognized, particularly by the residents, that it was really a self-limiting area. The northeast quadrant was four acres, and the parking requirement for retail was four per thousand square feet; for every 250 square feet of retail area, one parking space was required and no one would move in without sufficient parking. That created a 50:50 ratio which was what was currently there, and half of that area would be parking and half would be retail. If it could be rearranged in a more rationale fashion, it would be perfect. He wanted the process to move along quickly. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. In the final analysis, what the Council would be looking at five years hence was the success of the businesses that took the risk to go into the Midtown area. The community wanted small locally-owned businesses and retail was a very difficult business, particularly small shop owners. It was going to be incumbent upon the community to shop locally to support the business owners because local shopping would be responsible for the success of the small shop owners. It was not only the risk that the City was taking but the risk that the property owners were taking, and she hoped that five years hence the small local business owners would be applauded for their success. Council Member Kniss wanted that the process be kept workable. It was very clear that Midtown was self-limiting, it was a small and very visible area. She said in addition to being self-limiting in size, how appealing was the design that went into it, was extremely important to pedestrians. Midtown was a walkable neighborhood as defined by the CPAC in the past and very accessible. If she drove by the Midtown Center and it was jammed with cars, she would not stop. It was the kind of area that
06/12/95 76-171
needed easy ingress and egress and a good parking ratio. She urged that the zoning be looked at very carefully. She supported the motion but warned to keep a sense of practicality about it so it would be a success in the end. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified the motion modifying the staff recommendation, that it would now be a legislative body rather than a working group subject to the Brown Act. Council was creating a body by formal action expressed through the Mayor and the body had to report back to the Council. His second concern was in the recommendation on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:255:-95) Phase II which was somewhat ambiguous as to whether the action dealt with only Midtown or whether it dealt with all four of the City's neighborhood commercial centers. He hoped Council could clarify that. Council Member Andersen was not prepared presently to become involved with other areas. It might turn out to be a model for other areas but he did not believe the Council was anxious to become involved in all the other shopping areas at that point in time. He had a hard time envisioning property owners getting together with an audience of 15 or more people and being able to deal with things that other property owners had to deal with. He asked whether there some way it could be set up that would not create that type of complication. Mr. Calonne said yes, as follows: not to direct staff to appoint, not have the Mayor make an appointment, and not have the body have to report back to the Council. Mayor Simitian said that was why he had somewhat of a different concept in mind, but he supported the motion because he felt there was more than one good way to involve the public. He frankly had a hard time imagining a group of property owners sitting around having a candid conversation about what their financial interests were in terms of maximizing the development potential of the property with community participation at the same table at the same time. The notion he had in mind was almost the reverse of what staff recommended which was that the ambassadors would not be from the community to the developer group but from the property owners developer group to a working group that had community members on it. That would allow some measure of candor and confidentiality in discussion among property owners but would still set up a community group. Council Member McCown asked the City Attorney whether there was anything in the creation of the working group that would preclude the property owners from being by themselves as often as they wanted to and whether there needed to be private candid conversa-tions among property owners, while they could be doing that already. Mr. Calonne said the problem was that once the body was defined, if the property owners became a quorum, they were then subject to the Brown Act. As soon as the body was created by formal action of the Council or by having the Mayor make appointments directly,
06/12/95 76-172
it became a legislative body. The other component that was not essential but was related was having the body report back to the Council. He mentioned that because that completed the loop as far as the Brown Act was concerned. Council Member McCown said the Council would want to avoid the working group reporting back. The whole point of the working group was to get results back in terms of their perspective. Whether it came back through a staff report with the working groups ideas included was to her an incredibly fine distinction and if that meant it was a Brown Act committee then it should be because she wanted the working groups input. Also, staff had proposed the creation of the working group and the Council was now saying it would like additional membership. Again, the Council was trying to recommend to staff that it expand the scope of what was brought forward in the proposal and if that created a Brown Act committee then it needed to be a Brown Act committee. Council Member Andersen agree that the property owners should be able to meet privately to deal with confidential issues. In his opinion the property owners would do that regardless. As far as a quorum was concerned, there was no reason why less than a quorum of property owners would get together at one time. Council Member McCown said having the Mayor appoint was a confirmation or additional perspective to the group that the staff had proposed to put together anyway. If that needed to be called a formal appointment by the Mayor, that was the label that would have to be associated with it. She saw it as asking: 1) for additional members of the neighborhood; 2) to get the work product back; and 3) that for the Mayor's oversight and just being aware of who the committee was and giving his input back to staff as to whether it was a balanced committee. From the legal point of view, if that made it a Brown act committee, the Council would have to live with it. Council Member Andersen said the members of the committee would learn to appreciate the Brown Act. He did not think there was any alternative except to try another structure which he was not sure he wanted to do. Council Member Fazzino asked the City Attorney if it would make any difference if the City Manager appointed a committee. Mr. Calonne replied no, if the Council directed the composition. Council Member Fazzino asked if the Council asked the City Manager to put together a committee of interested parties on the Midtown issue and requested that it report back to the Council with a set of recommendations, would that avoid the Brown Act. Mr. Calonne yes, that was essentially what the staff recommendation was. He did not want it perceived as a technicality and he was sensitive to it because essentially by having the Council create a body or have the Mayor appoint people to a body which would then look at an issue and report back to the
06/12/95 76-173
Council, the Brown Act viewed that as offloading a significant chunk of public deliberative process and in that offloading process it required those meetings to be open. It was more than a technicality, it was a function of how the Council wanted to interrelate with the body it was creating. If the Council wanted to interrelate with the body directly as advisors, it was subject to the Brown Act. If the staff recommendation were accepted that a working group should be appointed, it was not a Brown Act body. Once the Council formally directed creation of it in a specific way, it would clearly be a Brown Act body very clearly. The original staff recommendation was fine. Council Member Fazzino asked Council Member Andersen what he was willing to do with regard to the motion. He felt everyone was clear on the direction the process. Therefore, if the Council adopted a more informal approach and asked the City Manager to appoint the committee and involve all of the major parties, including residents and property owners, it would end up with the same result; and the committee would report back to Council with its recommendations and the Council would take action avoiding the problem with the Brown Act. Council Member Andersen said he would withdraw the motion if the seconder agreed and modify it on the basis of what Council Member Fazzino suggested. He felt if there were a Brown Act problem, the residents would find it to be even more onerous. Council Member Kniss agreed to withdraw her second. MAIN MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER City Manager June Fleming said the Brown Act procedures were very clear. She felt the Council understood the issue and it was a policy decision the Council needed to make. Mayor Simitian said if there were going to be a body that had Brown Act responsibilities was inappropriate. If what the Council was setting out to do was to get around those requirements to give property owners a vehicle to work together as property owners, he offered a substitute motion to ask the City Manager to make sure there was some mechanism to formalize public input during the process and to have those people report back to the City Manager who would then bring both a proposal from the property owners and the community members that were participating in the process. The Council would then have done nothing that violated the Brown Act, and it would create a process that worked better for property owners. He asked the City Manager to make sure that the community was involved in every step. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve: 1) Assist property owners in their efforts by playing a "convener" role in the form of site plan preparation, to be privately funded by the property owners, with City staff facilita-tion of plan preparation and community input to the process. The product of this exercise would be a conceptual master plan for the Midtown core area showing the general building locations and
06/12/95 76-174
square footage of anchor tenants and small shops, and attendant parking areas on a center-wide basis; and 2) Contingent upon the property owners' decision to fund and undertake the conceptual master planning exercise, staff would proceed with the following two phases: Phase I: 1) The City retain the services of a traffic engineering consultant to (a) provide technical assistance to the conceptual site planning exercise, should the commercial property owners proceed, and to (b) determine the proper location of a signalized entry into the commercial center (should one be necessary) and to evaluate the anticipated traffic impacts of a two-lane versus four-lane Middlefield Road configuration; and 2) The City retain the services of a qualified retail financial consultant to provide a pro-forma analysis of the site plan alternatives within the Midtown core area. Phase II: 1) The City investigate the preparation of a companion zoning ordinance, which could be called the Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center Zone, that spells out the purposes of neighborhood commercial centers in the City and defines those uses permissible within the district; 2) The City initiate a change in the zoning ordinance to allow non-complying structures to rebuild at or below existing floor area rations, so long as the project does not result in greater non-compliance on any specific property. This provision could apply to Midtown only, to all four of the City's neighborhood commercial centers, or it could include all of the El Camino Real areas of the City. The application of this change to non-complying structures would apply initially only to Midtown, but that other areas of the City be analyzed further for relief of the non-complying structures provisions; and 3) Direct staff to draft a policy permitting the City-owned parking lot to be used as credit for parking required for ground floor re-use of structures within the Midtown core area. Further, that the City Manager ensure that there is adequate opportunity for public comment, confirm the working group selected by the staff, that the working group and staff be directed to report back on the progress of Phase I within three months, and that the report include the feasibility of implementing Phase II. Council Member Fazzino supported the substitute motion. He asked whether property owners or residents that met by themselves were subject to the provisions of the Brown Act. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the property owners and residents who met together would then be subject to the Brown Act. Mr. Calonne said no, not unless they were a body created by formal action by the Council. Council Member Fazzino asked whether Mayor Simitian's substitute motion would do that by asking the City Manager to create the joint group. Mr. Calonne replied that Mayor Simitian's substitute motion was indistinguishable from the staff report. The staff report and the City Manager's judgment were informed by the discussion that
06/12/95 76-175
evening so he did not think the substitute motion created a Brown Act issue. Council Member Fazzino envisioned the property owners/residents group being invited back to a Council meeting to discuss with the Council any recommendations or ideas they had about how to make Midtown a success, and the group not being able to do so because of public notice procedures. He felt the Council was making the process unduly bureaucratic which was a mistake but he support the substitute motion to move the process along. Mr. Calonne said the effect of the substitute motion was to make the committee not subject to the Brown Act. Council Member Andersen confirmed that with the substitute motion the property owners and the residents would have an opportunity to meet and confer on a regular basis. Mr. Calonne say yes. He characterized the entity was precisely the way it was set out in the staff report. It was an informal working group that was in essence advisory and appointed to the City Manager through her staff. Mr. Andersen asked whether the liaisons and other representatives, would be chosen at the City Manager's discretion as well. Mr. Calonne said being that the entity was not subject to the Brown Act, liaisons could go to whatever sessions there were. Mr. Andersen supported the substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-1, McCown "no." MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue Items No. 18, 18A, and 20 to the City Council meeting of June 26, 1995. 18. Status Report on Financing and Project Costs of Proposed Single Room Occupancy Housing Project at 725-753 Alma Street 18A. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and the Archi-tectural Review Board recommend to the City Council final review of a proposed rezoning from CD-S(P) to a Planned Community (PC) district in order to demolish an existing, approximately 3,000 square foot auto service building and to construct a mixed use project consisting of 107 units of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, up to 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial office space and 70 to 74 parking spaces in a two-level parking garage for property located at 725-753 Alma Street. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is requested for portions of the parapet that exceed the 50-foot height limit by 4 feet. (continued from 6/5/95) 20. Response to Council Request on the Legality of City Payments for Conflict of Interest - Related Real Property Appraisals
06/12/95 76-176
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolutions Regarding Assessments for University Avenue Area and California Avenue Area Parking Bonds for Fiscal Year 1995-1996 Mayor Simitian announced that the Council would consider confirma-tion of the City Engineer's Report and Assessment Rolls for the California Avenue Parking Projects, Numbers 71-63, 86-0l, and 92-13, and the University Avenue Parking Projects, Number 75-63, and the Lot J Refunding and 250 University Avenue Acquisition. The City Engineer prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report providing for the levying of special assessments within the assessment districts established for the five Parking Projects under Resolutions of Intention Numbers 4993, 6485, 7230, 5242, and 6768. The assessments would be used to pay principal and interest on the various bonds issued, and the amounts of the assessments proposed to be levied for Fiscal Year 1995-96 were contained in the report. The report was and had been open for public inspection. The purpose of the public hearing was to allow the Council to: hear all objections, protests, or other written communications from any such interested persons; take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to matters in the report; remedy and correct any error or informality in the report; and amend, alter, modify, correct, and confirm the report and each of the assessments. Mayor Simitian asked the City Clerk if any written communications had been received from interested persons. City Clerk Gloria Young said no. Public Works Senior Engineer James Harrington pointed out that the staff report (CMR:285:95) included an addendum referenced as Exhibit C which was only one change. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Resolutions. Resolution 7514 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll California Avenue Off-Street Parking, Project No. 71-63 for Fiscal Year 1995-96" Resolution 7515 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Project No.
06/12/95 76-177
75-63 for Fiscal Year 1995-96 Resolution 7516 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll University Avenue Lot J Refunding and 250 University Avenue Acquisition for Fiscal Year 1995-96 Resolution 7517 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking Project No. 86-01 for Fiscal Year 1995-96 Resolution 7518 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll California Avenue Parking Project 92-13 for Fiscal Year 1995-96 MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 19. The Utilities Advisory Commission recommends to the City Council approval of financing of the Shasta Power Plant Rewind Project Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said staff had been working with Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for the past eight months on a method of funding the infrastructure improvements for the Shasta hydroelectric generators. During the process, staff worked with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) keeping it advised of the progress of the contract. Maintenance on the Shasta equipment had been deferred for many years because of a lack of federal funding, and an equipment failure could result in higher WAPA cost to the City due to WAPA having to go out and find supplemental power. As one of WAPA's largest customers using Central Valley Project energy, Palo Alto took a lead in developing the funding arrangement. Staff felt it was a beneficial project since it used the Rate Stabilization Reserve for needed infrastructure improvements, it was a safe loan repaid with interest as monthly credits on the WAPA purchases, and it demonstrated to congress that Palo Alto was not only a customer but a partner with WAPA. Staffed asked for approval on the loan; and with that action, WAPA could begin the process of awarding contracts and start the work. Utilities Advisory Commission Member Fred Eyerly said the UAC had a lot of discussion concerning the financing of the proposed project and were content with it. He noted that Palo Alto staff took the lead on the project with other WAPA customers for the rewinding of the generators at Shasta which had many benefits and he urged Council to approve the project. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the package before the Council that evening was missing a resolution required by the federal government. The action taken that evening would approve the contract, and staff would return at a later date with the resolu-
06/12/95 76-178
tion to satisfy the federal government. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff was concerned about the loan with respect to the issues surrounding deregulation. Mr. Mrizek replied there were no concerns with the issues on deregulation. The sale of the Power Market Agency (PMA) was the main area of concern. The staff report (CMR:279:95) included a letter from Jim Feider of the Department of Energy that stated if the sale of the PMA progressed, he would insure as much as possible any guarantees on the loan being repaid to Palo Alto. Council Member Andersen asked with regard to Exhibit B of the staff report why Palo Alto was such a big player and had such a large percentage share. Mr. Mrizek said 80 to 90 percent of Palo Alto's energy came from WAPA compared to all of the other utilities listed, Palo Alto had a very low level of energy take. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and Palo Alto were the two largest players of all of the utilities listed on the contract and that was why staff felt that Palo Alto should share the higher part of the loan. Staff strongly believed in infrastructure and keeping up the Shasta system. Keeping up infrastructure at home was another reason staff moved forward in participating at the one-third level. Council Member McCown asked whether going through with the process and the contract in any way would influence the City's position when the WAPA contract ended. Mr. Mrizek said that was a question that other members of the contract asked whether there would be certain advantages when the contract was renegotiated beyond 2004. Palo Alto took the position as a partner with WAPA that the infrastructure needed to be maintained and did not ask for a better contract negotiation beyond 2004. The only thing asked for was a fair interest rate back on the loan. Council Member McCown asked if WAPA was making promises to other members of the contract or just the ones who had asked. Mr. Mrizek replied that during the process of putting the contract together, some of the other members suggested that but there was no deals to any customers of WAPA. The position was taken that that was not the reason for the loan but the position was just to maintain the infrastructure. He did not feel that WAPA would not have been able to grant that as part of the loan. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the contract between the Department of Energy's Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and 15 WAPA customers, including Palo Alto, for funding of maintenance work at Shasta Power Plant. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and the United States
06/12/95 76-179
Department of Energy and Department of Interior for Financing of Shasta Power Plant Rewind Project MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian said on Saturday, June 17, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., there would be a formal lighting of the Civic Center Plaza. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
06/12/95 76-180
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.
06/12/95 76-181