HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-10 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting July 10, 1995 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with the
Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code ∋54957.6.. 76-289 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m. ........... 76-289 1. Resolution Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France ................................................ 76-290 2. Overview of MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District Activities ............................................ 76-290 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 76-291 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 1995 ...................... 76-291 3. Approval to Sole Source a General Banking Services Agreement with Bank of America - Refer to Finance Committee ............................................. 76-291 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lewis & Tibbitts, Inc. for 1995-96 Electric Utility Trench and Substructure Installation ............................. 76-291 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Mechanical Corporation for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Incinerator Exhaust and Cooling System Replacement Project ................................... 76-291 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Alcal Roofing for Reroofing of Fire Station No. 1 ........... 76-292 7. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Sprint Communications Company L.P. for the Construction of a Bike Path from Churchill Avenue to the Southerly End of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Parking Lot . 76-292 8. Resolution 7529 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling its General Municipal Election of Council Members, Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election ...................................... 76-292 9. Resolution 7530 entitled "Resolution of the Council of
07/10/95 76-287
the City of Palo Alto Implementing the provisions of Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code on Behalf of Local Safety and Miscellaneous Members Represented by Local 1319, International Association of Firefighters of the City of Palo Alto ................. 76-292 10. Mayor Simitian and Council Members Andersen, Huber, and Schneider re Consideration of Revised Newsrack Regula-tions (continued from 5/22/95) ........................ 76-292 11. The Policy and Services Committee re Approval of the staff recommendation for revisions to the policy and procedures concerning Cubberley Artists ............... 76-294 12. Architectural Review Board Request to the City Council to Establish a Subcommittee to Update the Sign Ordinance ............................................. 76-301 12A. (Old Item 14) Historic Resources Board Recommendation to the City Council to Extend the Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 1106 Bryant Street, Located Within the Professorville Historic District ... 76-304 13. Historic Resources Board re Submittal of Application to Add the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, 95 University Avenue, to the National Registrar of Historic Places .. 76-312 15. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 1.04 of Title I by Adding Section 1.04.071 Relating to Time Limits for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions .............................. 76-312 9A.& 9B. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation ... 76-312 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. in memory of past Council Member Phil Flint who served on the Council from 1963 to 1967 ............................. 76-312
07/10/95 76-288
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:40 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 5:45 p.m.), Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 5:47 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with the Labor
Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code ∋54957.6 Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her Designee Pursuant to Compensation for Unrepresented Employees (June Fleming, Jay Rounds) Unrepresented Employee Groups: Management, Confidential and Hourly Employees Mayor Simitian announced that no reportable action was taken. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
07/10/95 76-289
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France Mayor Simitian welcomed the students to the City of Palo Alto. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7528 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. 2. Overview of MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District Activi-ties Nonette Hanko, Board Member, MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), said she was the Palo Alto representative to the MROSD. She said MROSD was created over 22 years ago. Craig Britton, General Manager, MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, presented a slide show and an overview of MROSD activi-ties. He said the boundaries of the MROSD included Santa Clara, San Mateo and a portion of Santa Cruz near the Skyline Ridge. He said the MROSD encompassed approximately 330 square miles and had a population of approximately 600,000 residences. The main goal was to complete an urban green belt which involved buying the rural lands that were undeveloped in the foothills and the baylands for recreational and visual enjoyment. The MROSD currently owned 40,000 acres of land and recently recorded a deed to acquire 1,400 acres. The lands owned by MROSD were very diverse and included Redwood trees, oak woodlands, grasslands, baylands, etc. Council Member Fazzino asked for an update regarding the new South County Open Space Authority (SCOSA) which had been established in San Jose and the southern part of the county. Mr. Britton said SCOSA included the balance of Santa Clara County with the exception of Gilroy and its sphere of influence. He said because of Proposition 13 the funding source was a special assessment district which was currently under litigation, so SCOSA was existing on money borrowed from Santa Clara County's Park Fund. MROSD had worked very closely with the SCOSA.
07/10/95 76-290
Vice Mayor Wheeler asked where the moneys would come from for new acquisitions of land. Mr. Britton said MROSD was currently working with San Mateo County. Mayor Simitian asked what individual cities that were within the MROSD could do to support the MROSD efforts. Mr. Britton said a number of cooperative projects had been done with various cities and there were discussions with Palo Alto regarding a trail that would eventually connect all the way from the Arastra Preserve to Skyline. Mayor Simitian thanked Ms. Hanko and the MROSD staff for the presentation and for the good work that had been done. Council Member Fazzino thanked Nonette Hanko and the staff of MROSD for their efforts. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding dishonesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Kenneth Schwartz, P.O. Box 243, Millbrae, spoke regarding plot view. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of March 27, 1995, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 9. Refer 3. Approval to Sole Source a General Banking Services Agreement with Bank of America - Refer to Finance Committee Action 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lewis & Tibbitts, Inc. for 1995-96 Electric Utility Trench and Substructure Installation; change orders not to exceed $46,150 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Mechanical Corporation for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Incinerator Exhaust and Cooling System Replacement Project;
07/10/95 76-291
change orders not to exceed $17,000 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Alcal Roofing for Reroofing of Fire Station No. 1; change orders not to exceed $6,500 7. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Sprint Communica-tions Company L.P. for the Construction of a Bike Path from Churchill Avenue to the Southerly End of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Parking Lot Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and MCI Telecommunications Corporation for the Construction of a Bike Path from Churchill Avenue to the Southerly End of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Parking Lot Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and WilTel for the Construction of a Bike Path from Churchill Avenue to the Southerly End of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Parking Lot 8. Resolution 7529 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling its General Municipal Election of Council Members, Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election" 9. Resolution 7530 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Implementing the provisions of Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code on Behalf of Local Safety and Miscellaneous Members Represented by Local 1319, International Association of Firefighters of the City of Palo Alto" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. Mayor Simitian and Council Members Andersen, Huber, and Schneider re Consideration of Revised Newsrack Regulations (continued from 5/22/95) Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case suggested the City Council discuss the recommendations associated with the newsrack regulations separately. The Council Members' item involved drafting of newsrack regulations for harmful material as well as for more comprehensive regulations which would need to comply with federal and state guidelines. Mayor Simitian referred to Recommendation No. 1 in the memo and the language proposed in the ordinance to address blinder racks and said his interest was only to control such materials to the extent that they existed in public rights-of-way on sidewalks, but not on public property. Ms. Case advised that staff's recommendation with regard to all of the newsrack regulations was that they be limited to public
07/10/95 76-292
rights-of-way. The blinder rack recommendation would authorize something broader than that; however, staff advised the regulations be limited to public rights-of-way. Mayor Simitian referred to Recommendation No. 3 regarding the creation of working group(s) by the Mayor and said he was concerned that if the process were too formal, it would be extended. He was comfortable with letting the City Manager, in cooperation with the City Attorney's Office, appoint the working group(s) to ensure that the staff received the input it needed to make a recommendation to the City Council within the Brown Act regulations. Council Member Huber said he and his colleagues had received various correspondence, phone calls, and numerous comments regarding materials in the newsracks which were not appropriate for minors. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the following: 1. Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance under the authority of Section 313.1(d) of the Penal Code to prohibit the display of material that is harmful to minors, as defined in the Penal Code, in a public place public right-of-way, other than a public place from which minors are excluded, by requiring the placement of devices commonly known as blinder racks in front of the material, so that the lower two-thirds of the material is not exposed to view. 2. Further direct the City Attorney to prepare a position paper setting forth the legal framework within which the City may regulate newsracks. If various alternatives are available for regulation, the position paper should describe the various options available to the City. 3. The Mayor City Manager, with the advice of the City Attorney and City Manager, shall appoint a working group or groups to review alternative means of newsrack regulation available to the City. The working group(s) should consist of representatives of business and property owners, the print media, and the public. 4. The City Manager and City Attorney shall review and consider the suggestions of the working group(s), and shall prepare an ordinance and propose a staff work program for Council consideration. Council Member Andersen concurred with Council Member Huber. He requested that any correspondence received be included in the record. Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the motion. She understood public rights-of-way meant clearly there were no regulations for materials that were placed inside a private store but asked where
07/10/95 76-293
a facility such as a neighborhood shopping center which had outdoor newsracks fell and were similar to a public right-of-way. Ms. Case said the Penal Code provisions that provided the authority to adopt the blinder racks ordinance spoke to locations within public places from which minors were not excluded. While staff's advice was that the blinders could be treated differently, she felt the City would not want to get into the business of regulating racks on private property even if it could be viewed by the public. Vice Mayor Wheeler encouraged her colleagues to consider allowing the City Attorney's office to explore the possibility of including those racks that were placed in public view which were outside of a public business. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the original language in Recommendation No. 1, "Direct the City Attor-ney to prepare an ordinance under the authority of Section 313.1(d) of the Penal Code to prohibit the display of material that is harmful to minors, as defined in the Penal Code, in a public place, other than a public place from which minors are excluded...," be retained. Council Member Schneider supported the motion and asked how the ordinance would be enforced and whether the publisher of the materials or the City would be responsible for putting blinders on the racks. Ms. Case said the City would not be responsible for putting blinders on the racks; it would be the responsibility of the distributor or publisher. The question of enforcement under the Penal Code was left to the City's discretion and she would discuss with the City Manager the appropriate enforcement. Mayor Simitian said his concerns fell into three categories: First, the aesthetics or visual clutter problem. For example, in some cases in the Downtown, California Avenue, portions of Midtown, and other neighborhood shopping areas, there were 20-plus racks in a row. There was a more aesthetically pleasing way to present the materials to the reading public of Palo Alto. Second, that the racks constituted a problem with respect to pedestrian movement up and down the sidewalks. Third, he believed there were some legitimate public safety issues. He acknowledged that there were some free speech issues involved and given the rights of public access, representation by members of the media, he and his colleagues would certainly respect those rights. He said the City had no intention of infringing or inhibiting free speech. He encouraged the City Manager and/or the City Attorney to include comments not only from members of the public and from local merchants but also from representatives of the media who would have a legitimate interest in how the City worked that out. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
07/10/95 76-294
11. The Policy and Services Committee re Approval of the staff recommendation for revisions to the policy and procedures concerning Cubberley Artists Council Member Fazzino said that the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee had discussed the issue and recommendations were before the Council. The P&S Committee had decided not to proceed with the suggestion that there be a policy which limited the artist to 10 years at Cubberley through the vehicle of market rates. The P&S Committee believed that nearly all qualified artists were currently being accommodated at Cubberley and that appeared to be the likely scenario for the foreseeable future. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino for the Policy and Services Committee moved approval of the staff recommendation for revisions to the policy and procedures concerning Cubberley Artists, that the selection criteria be broadened to include creative excellence or the potential for creative excellence, demonstrated artistic skills, past demonstrated service, and the willingness to give service to the Palo Alto arts community and Palo Alto residents. Further, that the Policy and Services Committee recommends reaffirmation of the current policy of subsidy for studio spaces for Cubberley Artists with no market rental rates in the future. Council Member Huber confirmed with Council Member Fazzino that with the exception of the recommendation that the selection criteria would include the potential for creative excellence, the P&S Committee had reaffirmed the current City policy. Council Member Fazzino said that was correct. Council Member Schneider had heard from the artists that the application process had deterred a number of people from seeking space and she asked whether the P&S Committee had addressed that issue. Council Member Fazzino said the P&S Committee had not dealt with that issue. Director of Arts and Culture Leon Kaplan said the application consisted of two parts: 1) the arts required the applicant to submit slides and other materials that described the artist's work; his/her vision; how the space was intended to be used, and his/her aspirations; and 2) what service would he/she provide to Palo Alto. The administrative part included information about the applicant's previous tenancy and financial records. Council Member Schneider asked whether there was a means test with respect to the financial ability of a tenant. Financial Analyst Martha Miller said currently, there was no question asked regarding an applicant's finances, however, the applicant was required to submit information on his/her references. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the P&S Committee discussion
07/10/95 76-295
regarding the availability of vacancies and asked how many vacancies had occurred since the program had been in existence. Ms. Miller said there had been six vacancies since 1990. Council Member Rosenbaum asked if it was anticipated that the vacancy rate would continue into the future. Ms. Miller said it was difficult to estimate. There was some expectation that there would be natural attrition. Council Member Andersen asked how many tenants at Cubberley relocated for the Jordan site. Ms. Miller said there were seven artist spaces that were at Jordan and that initially ten artists came from Jordan. Council Member Andersen referred to Exhibit B Section: Sabbati-cal/Professional Leave in the staff report (CMR:173:95), "...an artist may be away from the studio for up to two months without consequence and after 60 days the artist was required to find a subtenant but, that after six months on a one-time basis only, the City would find a suitable artist," and asked if in essence, the artist who was using the space was in effect evicted. Ms. Miller said no. The tenant was allowed to come back within the twelve-month period. Council Member Andersen referred to the staff recommendation regarding the change in the policy for the potential for creative excellence and asked staff to describe how it was anticipated that artists who did not have the demonstrated artistic skills or the past demonstrated service to the community, but had the potential for creative excellence, would be selected. Mr. Kaplan said the intent was to be inclusive of all artists and not to give the impression that there was a clique of established artists. With or without that criteria the City's track record for attracting emerging artists was excellent. City Manager June Fleming said the staff would need additional time to determine how it would deal with the selection criteria with respect to creative excellence. Mayor Simitian said the item was one that he would have hoped would not have reached the City Council level or forum because it was the worst possible level to grapple with issues such as judgment about art, emerging artists versus fully emerged artists, subsidy levels, etc., since it was at that level, the Council needed to address the issue and reach a conclusion. There were 15 classrooms at Cubberley that were used as studio space and he asked what the typical square footage was. Ms. Miller said a typical studio was 780 square feet. Mayor Simitian referred to the staff report which indicated that
07/10/95 76-296
the market rental rate was 80 cents more per square foot per month and said that the City was subsidizing each studio by approximately $640 per month or $7,500 per year. Ms. Miller said that was correct. Mayor Simitian said if a tenant rented a studio for 10 years, the City's subsidy amounted to $75,000 and asked what the goal was the City was trying to create through that level of subsidy. He asked whether the goal was to create an "incubator space" for emerging artists, a center of artist excellence with accomplished, fully emerged artists, or was the goal to accomplish both. Ms. Fleming recalled that when the vacant school sites were discussed, the issue of Palo Alto losing its artists to other communities surfaced and the assumption was that the loss was occurring because Palo Alto did not have the luxury of providing affordable space or providing a subsidy. That had been the impetus for using the space at Jordan and subsequently at Cubberley. Mayor Simitian said the information was helpful and hoped that the public would speak to the tenancy limitation and pricing structure issues at the appropriate time. He asked how a subsidy of more than $75,000 for a single individual could occur given the relatively limited number of spaces. He was not troubled by the subsidy as a whole but he was concerned about the equity issue. He questioned the "blind basis" of the panel review and the number of the panelist. Mr. Kaplan said the panel included four members: a member of the Public Arts Commission, a local gallery owner, someone from outside of the community who was a museum curator, and a local attorney and art collector. Mayor Simitian said given the fact that the panelists were presumably knowledgeable of local artists, he questioned how the process was performed on a "blind basis." Mr. Kaplan said the process was the fairest one that staff could devise, and some panelists could recognize some works of art because of experience with it, but that was not an overriding condition. When the names of the artists who were prioritized as qualified were revealed, there was generally great surprise by the panel. Mayor Simitian asked when information was requested regarding contributions or service to Palo Alto with emphasis on the arts or to the Cubberley Community Center whether that was submitted as part of the blind basis process. Mr. Kaplan replied yes. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the City of Sunnyvale's program and noted one of the requirements for awarding space or continued tenancy was the commitment to use the studios for at least 75
07/10/95 76-297
percent of the year or more and asked whether the City had a similar requirement that the space used at Cubberley should be the tenant's primary artist space. Mr. Kaplan said there was a requirement that the studio space needed to be the tenant's only or primary space and that it could not be used for storage, but there was no way of checking how much time a tenant used the space. Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, said the goal of the Cubberley art studio program was to keep artists in Palo Alto. A number of the artists' sites or potential sites had been lost in Palo Alto. She supported the P&S Committee's recommendation to continue the valued resource to the community which was not the building but the artists who resided in the building. The process of selecting artists had shown that there was no long waiting list of people trying to rent space at Cubberley. Mary Garman, 938 Clark Avenue No. 3, Mountain View, said she had spent the last six months of her own time perusing possibilities for extra artist space and had been on the waiting list for the Cubberley Community Center for almost five years. She suggested a fair outreach campaign to attract artists happen prior to any policies being implemented. She did not welcome the application process. Prentiss Cole, 75 Coronado Avenue, Los Altos, said he had leased studio space at Cubberley for the last two and one-half years. He appreciated the Cubberley Artists program and urged the City Council to support the P&S Committee recommendation. He did not feel the process was a closed one, it had been improved, and suggested that staff continue to refine the process. Andy Licht, 357 View Street #4, Mountain View, said he had applied two and one-half years ago for space and waited for six months before he was selected. He considered himself as an emerging artist. The development of an artist was a long-term commitment. He supported the P&S Committee recommendation. Susie Thom, 753 Maplewood Place, President, Council for the Arts, said overall she agreed with the policy and procedures for selection and turnover of Cubberley artists. She requested that Council consider the issue of equality, e.g., the long-term tenure of artists, and said it should be dealt with in a way that was consistent with the other groups that used the community theater, Cultural Center, etc. She was unaware that turnover was required of the other groups and knew of no penalties. She referred to the sunset clause contained in the recommendation whereafter 10 years the rental rate would go to the then published nonprofit rate which was currently nearly a 50 percent premium, and after 50 years the market rate which would be nearly a 200 percent premium above the current artist's rate. Raising the rate would only create more market rate studio space and cut down on the amount of subsidized space available. There had been considerable turnover among the artists at Cubberley and all artists who had submitted proposals and were approved by the panel had been offered space.
07/10/95 76-298
She asked the Council to approve the P&S Committee recommendations. Linda Raffel, 770 Santa Ynez, Stanford, said she was grateful to have a lot of first rate artists around to encourage her and having space at Cubberley had allowed her to participate in other areas of Palo Alto such as fund-raising activities, etc. She strongly supported the P&S Committee recommendations. Susan Wexler, 805 Tolman Drive, Stanford, said the subsidy was generous but was not a charity. The value to the City of Palo Alto was enormous although it might not be quantifiable. Although the application process was difficult, she supported the P&S Committee recommendations. Mayor Simitian clarified that his comments regarding the nature of the subsidy were not intended to address the value of the work that was performed or whether or not the City was providing some form of charity but rather when there was a significant amount of money to be invested by the City, it was necessary to look at generating the greatest artistic benefit for the community and the issue of how the benefit was spread equitably within the community. Council Member Andersen said he had sent letters to artists throughout the community some of whom had applied for studio space and were not accepted, and in every instance he had felt a tremen-dous sensitivity to the artists at Cubberley. He referred to page 4 of the staff report (CMR:173:95), under Tenancy Terms and ques-tioned the intention of the need for subsidized rent, i.e., if an artist was successful in another endeavor or financially secure, the artist would no longer be considered as qualified for the space. Mr. Kaplan said the intent of the Tenancy Terms was not a financial based need because staff did not want to be placed in a position of deciding who could afford space but rather a need for space in which to create art. Council Member Andersen said he differed fundamentally with the intent and believed there needed to be some limits placed on the tenancy terms so that the benefit could be spread as far as possible. He was not supportive of a market-based approach to encourage the tenants to leave Cubberley but felt that it was appropriate for artists that were outside of the Cubberley community to know that there would be a point in time when the application would be much easier to get through the process. AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Simitian, to amend the motion to place a 10-year limit on any individual artist space at Cubberley unless there was no one on the waiting list. Mayor Simitian asked staff what was a reasonable amount of time for tenancy lease at Cubberley.
07/10/95 76-299
Mr. Kaplan said it was difficult to quantify. An artist could take 10 years or more to develop. Council Member Andersen said the 10-year figure resulted from the meetings with the Cubberley artists. It was important to keep in mind that the City had a 25-year lease on the property, and it was conceivable that a tenant might be a resident of Cubberley for the 25 years. He did not feel that was good public policy. Council Member Fazzino believed the current program was working very well. Although he concurred there were some issues that the City needed to stay abreast of and possibly reconsider in the future, turnover did occur at the Cubberley site, and staff did propose ways of reaching out to emerging artists. He was concerned about Council trying to micromanage the program and said it needed to rely on staff and the art's community to work with the criteria in place. He suggested reviewing the criteria in five years to see whether any changes were needed. Council Member McCown concurred with Council Member Fazzino and she also agreed with Council Member Andersen that a 10-year term was the right level if a term needed to be established. Where she differed was whether a case had been made to establish a term limit which got to the question of whether there was a natural turnover. In another five years, the City would be at the ten-year mark. At that time, there should be a review of the tenancy to determine how many artists had rented space and for how long, and evaluate at that time making any judgments necessary for turnover. Council Member Schneider concurred with Council Member McCown and said she was bothered by the fact that the resource could not be shared with more of the community. She recommended a review in five years and requested regular updates on how many people had applied for space and how long the waiting list was. Council Member Huber would not support a term limit at that time on the leases at Cubberley. It was true that the City charged relatively low rent, but he felt that what the artist gave back to the community also provided additional service. He asked that the report include that information. He was satisfied with the current process but wanted to keep track of it so that if there were a lot of long-term tenants, the policy could be revisited. Vice Mayor Wheeler would not support the 10-year limit. One of the reasons there was some agreement on an adjustment after 10 years was because it was part of a package. It had been pointed out at the P&S Committee meeting and the Council meeting that a benefit of the long-term artists was that they served in a mentor role for some of the emerging artists. Good thinking had gone into the recommendations as well as a lot of participation in the evolution of the recommendations. Mayor Simitian said there were two benefits to be derived from the subsidy program: 1) the benefit to the entire community by having an arts center and a place where people created good art; and 2)
07/10/95 76-300
the individual artists who enjoyed the opportunity to work at Cubberley through the subsidy. The question, therefore, was how the benefit was distributed equitably. A number of his colleagues indicated that the 10-year term was reasonable but they did not want to deal with it that evening. He believed it would be better to address it that evening. He was not interested in creating a lot of hoops for the artists to jump through and wanted less bureaucracy. It would be better after 10 years to indicate that the subsidy needed to be shared with an additional number of artists. It was a simple policy question--to what extent did the Council want to share equitably in the subsidy that was consistent with creating an outstanding public art space. AMENDMENT FAILED 3-5, Andersen, Schneider, Simitian "yes," Kniss absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to revisit the issue in five years to determine if attrition continues to provide vacancies for qualified artists who desire to lease space at Cubberley. Council Member Rosenbaum felt the motion would respond to a number of the concerns that had been expressed regarding the issue of equity. Council Member Andersen clarified the Council would continue to receive information regarding how the process was proceeding with respect to the issues raised. Mayor Simitian said although he felt the amendment was well intended, he was not supportive of it. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-2, Simitian, Wheeler "no," Kniss absent. Council Member Andersen referred to the comment made by Prentiss Cole regarding the need to have dialogue between staff and the art community and encouraged that to happen. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-1, Simitian "no," Kniss absent. 12. Architectural Review Board Request to the City Council to Establish a Subcommittee to Update the Sign Ordinance Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) requested a Sign Ordinance Subcommittee which would consist of two ARB members and three members of the public to develop a handbook that embodied the thinking and the design philosophy of the ARB regarding signs. The ARB requested that the Sign Subcommittee be created as soon as possible and did not request staff support for 1995 but asked that staff attend the first meeting. Staff understood the need to update the sign ordinance but recommended that the Sign Ordinance Subcommittee not be established until adequate staff resources including Planning staff, City Attorney's staff, and possibly the Economic Resource Planning staff could be committed to support the effort. She said
07/10/95 76-301
400 hours of Senior Planner time with an additional 200 to 300 hours of City Attorney time would be needed to update the sign ordinance. Staff recommended that the entire issue of updating the sign ordinance be considered as a part of the Planning Division Work Program to be considered by Council in September 1995; and if it were considered a high priority, it could be done in 1996. Using that approach would prevent one aspect of updating the sign ordinance to get ahead of the other aspects of the efforts. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the sign ordinance process was labor intensive and that was the reason staff hours were identi-fied, but he did not want the information to be interpreted as an effort to discourage the Council. The issue needed to be looked at periodically, and he welcomed the opportunity to review the sign ordinance. Architectural Review Board Member Cheryl Piha said the ARB felt strongly about the update of the sign ordinance. The sign ordinance presented a significant amount of challenges for the ARB in reviewing applications. The current sign ordinance was confusing, out-of-date, and inconsistent. She urged the establishment of the Sign Ordinance Subcommittee without the allocation of staff time in order for the process to begin. Council Member Fazzino asked what the downside was of allowing the Subcommittee to move ahead and come up with some suggestions prior to staff involvement. Ms. Grote said the downside was that the Subcommittee might get ahead of the rest of the effort; and when staff time was allocated, there might be some inherent issues. Mr. Calonne said the experience with citizen committees ran the gambit in Palo Alto; excellent products from some, not so excellent products from others. Although there were significant legal technical issues, it did not mean that the Subcommittee could not go ahead. City Manager June Fleming said there was a reality issue to be dealt with because the Planning Division's Work Plan needed to be looked at in its totality. If the Council chose to make a decision about the sign ordinance issue that evening, it would not have the total plan before it. Mr. Calonne said his office was well over budget with respect to planning issues. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there was a way to accommodate the opportunity for the ARB to develop some proposals, to engage in some open-ended discussions or some visionary process with respect to what the sign ordinance might look like, evaluate a number of the alternatives, and then bring some additional structure to it at the point where the staff needed to be involved.
07/10/95 76-302
Ms. Fleming said that process could occur but there was a risk of having to redo work. Vice Mayor Wheeler said volunteer hours in the community came easier than a lot of other communities, but they did not come easy in general. She asked whether the handbook would be substantially different with a revised ordinance than it would be with the current ordinance. Ms. Piha said if the Subcommittee were asked to create a handbook from the current ordinance it would be impossible because there was conflicting information that would not reflect what was currently being approved at the ARB level. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that the ARB's hope was to come up with a document that looked forward to different ordinance provisions. Mr. Calonne said there might be a possibility of his office spending some up-front time on an orientation of the Subcommittee to get a general sense of what the rules were. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported the recommendation that the Subcommittee be formed. He spoke to the confusion of whether or not a sign constituted an advertisement. With the revision in the ordinance, it would be necessary to clearly define what was and was not advertising. The City needed to also look at signs not only with respect to its relationship to the building that it was on, but with respect to the building it was adjacent to. He strongly urged the Council to enforce the ordinance that was currently in effect. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, supported enforcement of the current sign ordinance, in particular on Middlefield Road, where all the night lights have proliferated as well. She supported the ARB recommendation and said an enormous amount of time was spent dealing with applicants over signs, much of which was the result of misunderstanding the rules. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation that updating the Sign Ordinance be considered as part of the Planning Division Work Program scheduled for review by the City Council in September 1995. If the City Council assigns the Sign Ordinance update to the Planning Division as a project for 1996, the Sign Ordinance Subcommittee would be established as part of the update project. Council Member Huber said there was no question that the sign ordinance needed to be reviewed. He was concerned about drafting a handbook with the assumption that an ordinance would flow from it. Council Member Fazzino said the ARB wanted to proceed, and he felt it should be allowed to lead the process and the staff become involved later.
07/10/95 76-303
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation to establish the Sign Ordinance Subcommittee. Council Member Andersen said if he could be assured that the ARB had sufficient background with regard to some of the pitfalls of the First Amendment Rights, etc., he would support the Subcommittee starting to work on a revised sign ordinance. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she liked the process but not the timing. The delay was for only two months until the Council could review the Planning Division's Work Plan within the overall context. She wanted to take a closer look at the process within the larger context. She would be prepared to act in September and would vote against the motion because of the timing issue. Mayor Simitian would vote against the motion on a philosophical basis. He wanted to be informed before the development of an ordinance. He did not believe the ARB should take the task under its responsibilities until the rules were known under which it needed to operate. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-5, Andersen, Fazzino, Rosenbaum "yes," Kniss absent. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. RECESS: 9:45 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to move Item No. 14 forward to precede Item No. 13 and become 12A. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. 12A. (Old Item 14) Historic Resources Board Recommendation to the City Council to Extend the Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 1106 Bryant Street, Located Within the Professorville Historic District Mayor Simitian said the item was a quasi-judicial matter and the procedural rules would apply. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommended a 12-month extension of the moratorium on the demolition of the house within the Professorville Historic District and a demolition permit would not be issued until May 18, 1996, as outlined in the staff report (CMR:337:95). City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council had the authority to either extend the moratorium for a period of up to one year. Although the ordinance did not specifically state that it was to facilitate someone acquiring the house and moving it, it was implied in the provisions which related to public notice. Mayor Simitian asked if the 12-month moratorium were granted was there any flexibility if three months from now the HRB was
07/10/95 76-304
entirely satisfied that the building was totally beyond salvage and reached the conclusion that demolition was appropriate. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance read up to one year. The question about how far the conditions could go was delicate because the ordinance did not have much in the way of authority for broader kinds of conditions that the Council might wish to attach. Mayor Simitian asked specifically if the moratorium were adopted, could there in fact be a provision to waive the moratorium if it were deemed appropriate with the approval of the HRB. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mayor Simitian asked if the applicant offered to present a specific proposal whether it would be acceptable if the Council wanted to impose a moratorium, to refer the issue to the HRB and allow the HRB to waive the moratorium if the HRB were satisfied with the applicant's presentation that the structure was not worthy of being saved. Mr. Calonne said the language in the ordinance in effect stated that the Council, upon recommendation of the HRB, could require appropriate and reasonable notice. The language appeared to contemplate a referral to the HRB after the Council action. Ms. Grote said the current Historic Preservation Ordinance required the HRB to review replacement structures on historic houses, so whatever was proposed to replace the house if demolished would require HRB review. Vice Mayor Wheeler recalled an instance when there was a previous demolition of an historic building and the HRB reviewed the replacement structure. Ms. Grote noted that although the review of the replacement structure was mandatory, compliance with the HRB recommendations was voluntary. Council Member McCown clarified that there was an automatic 60-day moratorium which started as of the date of the application to demolish was filed and that the proposed recommendation would essentially add 10 months to the moratorium rather than 12 months. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked, even if there were a willingness on the part of the applicant to agree to the approval of the design of a replacement structure through an HRB process, whether the City was able to enforce it, e.g., if the HRB approved the replacement structure and the property fell into someone else's ownership, what would prevent a different structure from being built. Mr. Calonne advised if the Council had legislative proposals to change the voluntary nature of the review process, Council could
07/10/95 76-305
do that; but it would involve approval of the moratorium and during the pendency of the moratorium to enact legislation that authorized the Council's desired requirement. The City could legally justify urgency or other interim action necessary to get the City where it wanted to go from a legislative standpoint. Council Member McCown said the process was an unusual situation and she was surprised that the applicant was an HRB member. The situation with the property had existed when the applicant was interviewed for the HRB. She was unaware of her involvement with the property at that time. She was concerned that if the Council went forward with the moratorium and the applicant was asked to negotiate a process with her colleagues on the HRB and at the same time be expected to participate as an HRB member, that would represent a conflict that needed to be addressed. Mr. Calonne said from a legal standpoint he would presume that the official duty would be regularly performed and the board members were capable of being fair and dispassionate and would not allow any personal interest in the matter to affect their decision making. The question for the members individually would be whether the situation created bias. The bias test was when the decision maker had become so personally embroiled in the matter that he/she was not subjectively capable of rendering a fair dispassionate decision then there was a legal problem. Elizabeth Kittas, Historic Resources Board member, said the HRB felt that demolitions of historic buildings should not be encour-aged but rather preservation should be encouraged. There should be ample opportunity for avenues to be explored in preference to demolition. Throughout the City there were shining examples of what seemed impossible but which became possible structures to preserve, e.g., the Byxbee House. The HRB was concerned about attrition of the historic fabric within the Professorville Historic District (District) where bungalows were equally important to what made up the District. There was a precedent within the last two years when an historic property was brought before the HRB and the HRB had not recommended extending the moratorium. The applicant made a strong case for his/her plight and in retrospect the HRB immediately regretted its decision as well as having received a great deal of public feedback about it. The HRB members who voted on the moratorium went to the site, viewed the house and property, and their opinion was that the house was quite salvageable. There were successful precedence in the area of rehabilitations of similar bungalows and additions thereto. The HRB approved the extension of the moratorium for the 12-month period to allow for suitable alternatives to be consid-ered. Ann Hagey Barbee, 1106 Bryant Street, said there had only been two demolitions in the District within the last five years. She requested approval for the issuance of a demolition permit. She asked that the HRB recommendation be modified with respect to the 12-month moratorium. She entered into a seal auction for 1106 Bryant Street which was offered by the City of San Francisco. Her initial walk through of the house led her to believe that it was a
07/10/95 76-306
tear down because she had not seen any redeeming value within the structure. The house was 1100 square feet and was built in the early 1900s by a family who lived in San Francisco and occupied the home during the summers. She distributed a report from a construction engineer which said the house and the foundation was not cost-effective for remodel to a larger two-story building. Over the past six months, she had explored all of the resources and possibilities for the house. The house was salvageable, but it would be at great expense to her and would result in a much smaller house. She asked the HRB for suggestions for the house and the only suggestion was to use the crawl space as a potential small room, but she would have to use a ladder to access it which was not an acceptable solution for her needs. When she inter-viewed for membership on the HRB, some of the Council Members knew that she owned property at 1006 Bryant Street. She had no idea at the time she bought the house that there would be a problem tearing it down. She referred to the proposed plans for the replacement structure. The most difficult argument that she dealt with was the question of what happened to the District if in fact it lost 20 percent of its historic housing stock by tearing down her home. It would take the City 90 years to reach 80 percent, and in fact her new house would be older and more historic at the time. She urged the Council to approve the issuance of the demolition permit. Jess Wilson, 318 Lincoln, was in the real estate business and had competed against Ms. Barbee for the house at 1106 Bryant Street. He agreed that the structure was beyond demolition. The foundation was bad and the floor plan was less than desirable for almost any type of family use. It was unfair economically to delay the demolition in order to see if someone might come up with a better plan. Lydia Morse, 308 Lincoln Avenue, said for the last 33 years she had viewed the house from her window. Although she had worked diligently to preserve the houses in the District, she felt the house at 1106 Bryant was ready for demolition. She urged the Council to permit Ms. Barbee to proceed with her demolition permit. Carol Malcolm, 281 Addison Street, said as an environmental planner she was interested in the house and had looked into it when it was on the market. She strongly urged the Council, ARB, and HRB to make sure there was some kind of disclosure on real estate in the District so that when property went on the market, there was information about the kind of problems and challenges associated with a buying a home in the District. She supported Ms. Barbee's application. Joan Jack, 1005 Bryant Street, a member of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST), said guidelines for people wishing to buy property in the District were needed as was education of the public and realtors who advised potential buyers. She said that everyone had a right to know what constraints, if any, they might face before they purchased property in the District. She supported Ms. Barbee's application and suggested that if the City Council felt a moratorium were necessary that a 6-month period be
07/10/95 76-307
imposed and not a punishing 12-month period. The policies and guidelines should be developed to help people and not make them jump through hoops after they had already purchased property. Nancy Sederquist, 801 Garland Drive, was surprised and appalled that a member of the HRB had proposed a demolition in an historic neighborhood. Professorville was a very important neighborhood in Palo Alto and the residents were very proud of it. The HRB was suppose to protect the historic buildings. Ms. Barbee had not brought a bare piece of land but rather a house in an historic district. She encouraged the Council to enforce the 12-month moratorium and she hoped that during that period Ms. Barbee would reconsider her plans. Gwenn Bowen, 1116 Bryant Street, looked forward to Ms. Barbee's construction of a new home as planned. She felt it would be an asset and a joy to the neighborhood. David Kennedy, 252 Kingsley Avenue, said over the years Professorville had changed quite a bit. He urged the Council to allow Ms. Barbee to proceed without imposing an additional moratorium so that the neighborhood would be upgraded and allowed to maintain its character. Rob Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, had met with the owner, toured the existing home, and had reviewed the plans for redesign of the house. The existing house was seriously rundown. He recognized the Council's role was to balance the needs and the sensitivity to the District as well as what was reasonable and realistic for the residents. The new design was quite marvelous. He said Ms. Barbee had taken a very sensitive approach to the design and the reconstruction of the house which merited the Council's careful consideration. Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, a member of the HRB and PAST, said the house at 1106 Bryant was at a very prominent spot within the Professorville District. She felt that it was important to keep the integrity of the District. Ms. Barbee felt the issue the Council faced was difficult. She did not believe that any moratorium on her demolition application was fair since she had already explored the opportunities for other solutions. She suggested that Council direct staff to make the writing of a new demolition ordinance a high and urgent priority which would give the HRB a strong direction to do so as well as a request to draft replacement design guidelines. If the Council felt the moratorium should be upheld, she suggested the term be for six-months only. Further, it would allow any future buyer of historic property to explore alternatives and for the preservation community to provide helpful and timely input. Mayor Simitian asked Ms. Barbee when she had taken title to the property. Ms. Barbee said in November 1994.
07/10/95 76-308
Mayor Simitian asked why she had not applied for a demolition permit at the time. Ms. Barbee said she believed she had a moral responsibility to look at all of the possibilities for the house. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether Ms. Barbee had presented the construction plans to the HRB and, if so, what had been the general reaction to the plans. Ms. Barbee said she had but there had been no real discussion of the plans. The HRB discussion focused on the moratorium. Ms. Kittas said the HRB had been presented with a request to demolish the existing house and the plans for the replacement structure. The HRB had not reviewed the replacement plans but rather focused on maintaining the integrity of the District and strongly encouraged the applicant to work with the Board on exploring alternatives to demolition. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Historic Resources Board recommendation to extend the moratorium on issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of 12 months from the date of application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until May 18, 1996. Council Member Huber said with respect to preserving the District, the current ordinance was powerless with the exception of imposing a moratorium. If the District was going to be treated with some degree of integrity, then it was necessary to do what the Council could to preserve what it currently had. He supported the HRB's recommendation. Vice Mayor Wheeler said part of the frustration was that the ordinance as it stood was very weak with respect to the provisions to protect the district. The existing house was squarely in the heart of the District; and although it was not one of the grander houses, it certainly represented a Professorville structure. There were some other houses in the District which did not represent Professorville as clearly as that house did. The owner should be given every opportunity to find alternative ways of dealing with the structure. HRB members had offered to help the applicant as well. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved to approve the Historic Resources Board recommendation to extend the moratorium on issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of six months from the date of application. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member McCown had a lot of ambivalence about the situation that faced the Council. Whether the Council extended the moratorium or not, the HRB had the review authority for the replacement structure, but there still was no guarantee that it
07/10/95 76-309
would be built. She was reminded of the scenario that the Council had seen during the R-1 housing era when people asked for variances because they had a large family and wanted a bigger house, variances were granted, and then the family relocated out of state. It became very slippery when the Council responded to the individual nature of the circumstances rather than trying to apply more even-handedly the tools that the City had. She supported Council Member Huber's motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council approve an extension of the moratorium on the issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of nine months from the date of the application; and that the moratorium be subject to a waiver by the Historic Resources Board. Further, that the City Attorney be directed to return with an analysis for potential legislative remedy for the specific application and that the City Council retain jurisdiction over the issue. Mayor Simitian said although there was a replacement structure design the fact of the matter was that the model might or might not be built when the original structure was demolished. He chose the nine-month period because the applicant had already taken six months to look at alternatives; and he believed reducing the twelve-month moratorium by three months was a fair resolution. His motion attempted to provide the maximum protection for the neighborhood, save the house if it were at all salvageable, be fair to the applicant, and give the HRB the leverage it needed to do the job. He looked forward to the City Attorney's legislative fix for the problem. Mr. Calonne said the policy issue was that staff would need to get some background to explain the sentence in the HRB ordinance which read "Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations shall be voluntary not mandatory." He suggested that the staff be directed to return to the Council with an analysis for some legislative remedy to the ordinance. Ms. Grote said the City Attorney's suggestion for legislative remedy went to the heart of the HRB ordinance. The HRB had been having discussions for the past year about whether compliance with the ordinance should be voluntary or mandatory. She said that was not a minor legislative cleanup of the ordinance but rather the heart of the ordinance. Mayor Simitian said if the applicant and HRB agreed on the demolition and the design of the replacement structure and the applicant was willing to post a bond or provide some other assurance, he could not believe that the City would not accept that. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber agreed with Ms. Grote that when the HRB ordinance was adopted, the fundamental policy discussion by the Council was whether or not the process should have a mandatory component. The decision was made that it should not. If the shift was to a mandatory
07/10/95 76-310
component, then the process, amounts of staff time, and the ramifications would be very different. Mayor Simitian said the intent of the motion was based on the fact that there was an application, a specific case before the Council that evening, and the Council was trying to come up with an answer to that specific application. He asked whether the motion accomplished that goal. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Schneider said there was no easy solution to the issue. She was a supporter of the HRB and in particular of the Professorville Historic District. She supported Mayor Simitian's motion for a nine-month moratorium because there was an opportunity to use the application as an example for future designs and for the development of the guidelines. Council Member Andersen concurred with Mayor Simitian's motion and said it provided the HRB with some leverage and also provided the applicant with an opportunity to be persuasive in some of the issues she was dealing with. He said the larger issue needed to be addressed but it should not be done in the context of a particular application. Council Member Fazzino supported the concept of strengthening the historic issue but believed it was a separate issue. It was important not to allow that to get in the way of the rules that were before the Council that evening with respect to the specific property. He was supportive of the second part of the motion regarding a much more active HRB role with respect to the applica-tion and asked that the motion be divided for voting purposes. He was troubled by using a different moratorium time period for that property as opposed to others. Mayor Simitian asked whether it was appropriate to give direction to the City Attorney to report back to the Council on a mechanism or mechanisms which would allow the HRB to ensure compliance by an applicant with any offer the applicant made. Mr. Calonne said staff would prepare a document that would provide for the construction of what was actually reviewed by the HRB, recognizing that enforceability was questionable since the agreement would be voluntary. He requested the motion include that the Council would retain jurisdiction over the moratorium in order to bring the matter back to Council to provide additional direction to the HRB with respect to standards to waive or terminate the moratorium; and to provide a mechanism for the Council to effect his advice. SUBSTITUTE MOTION RESTATED: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council approve an extension of the moratorium on the issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of nine months from the date of the applica-tion; and that the moratorium be subject to a waiver by the Historic Resources Board. Further, that the City Attorney be
07/10/95 76-311
directed to return with an analysis for potential legislative remedy for the specific application and that the City Council retain jurisdiction of the issue. SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve the award of authority to the Historic Resources Board and the direction to the City Attorney, including the retention of jurisdiction. FIRST PART OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. SECOND PART OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve the moratorium to be a 9-month period rather than a 12-month period. SECOND PART OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 4-4 Andersen, Schnei-der, Simitian, Rosenbaum "yes," Kniss absent. MAIN MOTION to approve the 12-month period rather than the 9-month provision. MAIN MOTION PASSED 6-2, Schneider, Simitian "no," Kniss absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she would work with the staff and some of her colleagues to address the larger issues which were mentioned that evening. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue Item Nos. 13 and 15, and the Closed Session. 13. Historic Resources Board re Submittal of Application to Add the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, 95 University Avenue, to the National Registrar of Historic Places 15. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 1.04 of Title I by Adding Section 1.04.071 Relating to Time Limits for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions 9A.&9B. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. in memory of past Council Member Phil Flint who served on the Council from 1963 to 1967. 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
07/10/95 76-312
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.
07/10/95 76-313