HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-17 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting July 17, 1995 1. Interviews for Planning Commission .................... 76-357 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. ........... 76-358 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 7:10 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. ............ 76-358 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 76-358 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 1995 ....................... 76-359 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Experts Company for Tree Trimming Services ............ 76-359 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Satellite Painting, Inc. for Painting Civic Center Garage ....... 76-359 3. Ordinance 4282 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to the Refuse Fund for Used Oil Recycling, and to Receive Grant Funds ................. 76-359 4. Ordinance 4283 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 725-753 Alma Street from CD-S(P) to PC .................................... 76-359 7. Historic Resources Board re Submittal of Application to Add the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, 95 University Avenue, to the National Register of Historic Places (continued from 7/10/95) .............................. 76-359 8. Ordinance Amending Chapter 1.04 of Title I by Adding Section 1.04.071 Relating to Time Limits for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (continued from 7/10/95) .............................................. 76-363 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of an ordinance siting criteria approved as part of the 1991 Revised Santa
07/17/95 76-355
Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan .......... 76-363 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the appeal be denied and the Zoning Administrator's decision be upheld to approve a Home Improvement Exception for a single-story addition to an existing single-story residence, located 17 feet instead of 20 feet from the front property line, 6 feet instead of 8 feet from the side property line, and with 42 percent lot coverage instead of 40 percent lot coverage for property located at 230 Parkside Drive ... 76-364 11. Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board re Park Improvement Ordinance for an Entrepreneurial Homeless Garden Project in the El Camino Park ......... 76-376 12. Development Project Preliminary Review Application for Expansion and Relocation of Victor Aviation, Palo Alto Airport, 1901-1925 Embarcadero Road - Refer to Planning Commission ............................................ 76-380 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 76-382 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. .......... 76-382
07/17/95 76-356
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:50 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 6:00 p.m.), Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
07/17/95 76-357
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to move the Closed Session Item Nos. 5 and 6 forward to be heard prior to the Special Orders of the Day. 5. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Waller v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC No. CV746208
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(a) 6. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Potential Initiation of Litigation on One Separate Item
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(c) Public Comment None. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 7:10 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 5 and 6. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 5 and 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding fair play (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding Citizens for Affirmative Planning (CAP) initiative (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, spoke regarding the Urban Ministry. Trina Lovercheck, 1070 McGregor Way, spoke regarding Aggressive Panhandling Task Force. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding an applicant
07/17/95 76-358
for the Architectural Review Board who blamed her for suggesting that his project was not appropriate. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of April 3, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Experts Company for Tree Trimming Services Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Arbor Tree Surgery Company for Tree Trimming Services; change orders not to exceed $3,126 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Satellite Painting, Inc. for Painting Civic Center Garage; change orders not to exceed $13,500 3. Ordinance 4282 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to the Refuse Fund for Used Oil Recycling, and to Receive Grant Funds" 4. Ordinance 4283 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 725-753 Alma Street from CD-S(P) to PC" (1st Reading 6/26/95, PASSED 7-0, Huber, Rosenbaum absent) MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. Historic Resources Board re Submittal of Application to Add the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, 95 University Avenue, to the National Register of Historic Places (continued from 7/10/95) Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the Council was requested to endorse the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommendation to add the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot located at 95 University Avenue to the National Register of Historic Places. The HRB was recommending that Council endorse the application and the map attached to the staff report (CMR:326:95) showing the HRB recommended boundary, which was different from staff's recommended boundary. The HRB was recommending inclusion of the station, the baggage room, the kiosk for passenger arrival, the pedestrian structure on the Alma Street side, and the four pedestrian tunnel
07/17/95 76-359
structures that were physically designed into the interchange for the University Avenue/Alma Street auto access. Staff was recom-mending to not include those four pedestrian structures (ramps). They were included by the HRB because of their context, not because the HRB was interested in seeing them preserved, according to the record of HRB's action and conversation with staff. Staff believed if the application to the National Register included the ramps, it would indicate that they were intended to be preserved by the City. The intent to preserve the ramps would interfere with objectives articulated in the Dream Team effort or any other efforts to integrate convenient pedestrian access from the Downtown transit station to both Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford University. Staff believed a better integration of the transit station would actually be a more historic relationship between transit and the rest of the community and that it would further other policy objectives regarding encouraging transit. Staff wanted the ramps not to be included. Council Member Fazzino recalled the station was redone about 1940. He believed the Council decision to create the underpass was made in 1939, and so he assumed the underpass project was completed about 1941 or 1942. He asked if the ramps were incorporated into the original underpass project in 1942. Ms. Lytle said yes. She understood the ramps were part of that original underpass project. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the other pedestrian structure further north was incorporated into the plan. Ms. Lytle said everyone was in agreement that that pedestrian structure was appropriate to include in the designation. Council Member Fazzino asked, if the City were suddenly presented with significant resources to do something different on the site that meant eliminating the ramps, making it more pedestrian oriented and perhaps incorporating a park, what problems the City would face and whether the HRB would be concerned about loss of the ramps. He wanted to know just how critical the ramps were given another exciting opportunity might be forthcoming. Caroline Willis, Historic Resources Board Member, said the train station was what the HRB wanted to preserve. The ramps were built contiguous with the train station and were part of the environment of the train station. The HRB did not feel that historic designa-tion of the ramps preempted the Dream Team. The HRB only meant that the environment of the train station would be considered. However, if those ramps needed to be demolished, it would just be a review process which would probably take place anyway because of the proximity to the train station. Council Member McCown clarified that including the area with the four ramps in the application for the designation would not make a difference in terms of future potential changes of the ramps. Ms. Lytle said no. Staff was concerned the City might be sending
07/17/95 76-360
the wrong message to the National Register and to the state that the City's intention was to preserve those ramps. Whether the solution to integrating the transit station to the Downtown was the Dream Team concept or whether it was some less expensive, less glamorous solution, significant modification of those structures would be required. They were currently a detriment and an inconvenience to the legibility between the Downtown and the transit station. People who used them decided they were unpleasant and were discouraged to take the train. Council Member McCown clarified staff laid out an alternative whereby the Council could create, if it decided not to include the area with the four ramps in the application, its own internal structure so that any changes would go through an HRB review process and the context could be reviewed. Ms. Lytle said that was staff's proposal. Council Member McCown was concerned whether there was also a catalyst for change on those ramps with respect to changes that the Joint Powers Board (JPB) was evaluating for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access issues for the train. Ms. Lytle said the JPB shared with City staff its tentative proposal which showed an at-grade crossing for ADA accessibility. Staff had only preliminarily looked at the JPB's proposal. Staff had some preliminary concerns about the accessibility being only from one side of the area, which staff had not fully communicated to the JPB; those discussions were still ongoing. Council Member McCown clarified the ADA issue for the JPB had to do with the other pedestrian underpass, not with the pedestrian ramps going down into the University Avenue underpass. Ms. Lytle said the JPB's method of solving ADA compliance issues was still ongoing, and the JPB had spoken with staff about solutions that would occur within the area with the four ramps. The one that was before staff and Council that evening, however, was with the other pedestrian ramp. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she wanted to pursue the question of the pedestrian crossings further. When she was liaison to the HRB, views and opinions had been expressed by State Historic Preserva-tion Officer Cherilyn Widell who met with the HRB, City staff, and Stanford Management Company staff in early 1994. She referred to a staff memorandum placed at the July 10, 1995, Council meeting which indicated that the officer should clarify her position. She asked if staff had heard from Ms. Widell's office. Ms. Lytle said staff had a telephone conversation with Ms. Widell regarding her position on the issue, and Ms. Widell was of the position that she felt the application could be rejected if the ramps were not included in the application. Staff recommended to make the application in any case and allow the record to stand so that there was documentation that staff did not intend to include them as preserve features. However, staff would also support
07/17/95 76-361
following up with an application that eventually would be accepted. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked, if the HRB had had an opportunity to discuss the staff recommendation as regards how the HRB would enter into the process without the designation of the pedestrian underpasses, what the HRB's reaction was. If the HRB had not had an opportunity, she asked if Ms. Willis had a personal reaction. Her recollection of the discussions that took place when she was liaison to the HRB was that there did not seem to be interest on the part of the HRB in preserving the pedestrian underpasses. However, there was an interest in the HRB to make sure that any proposed development within the context of the area of the station be assured of coming through the HRB. Ms. Willis said the HRB felt the pedestrian underpasses were difficult to defend to the National Register that they were original historic features of the train station site and environ-ment. What happened in the vicinity of those tunnels reflected on the station itself. The HRB hoped that Council would see the issue could be addressed with a memo accompanying the application rather than going through the elaborate process of submitting it with arbitrary boundaries and then having the application return and the process repeated. It was not as though the preservation ordinances were strong enough to defend those tunnels. She did not see it as being an issue. She believed that the boundaries needed to be logical. She did not believe anybody saw need to preserve the tunnels, but one could not just cut off the bound-aries beside the building and expect that to stand. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked staff what it was in the National Register status legislation that gave the City pause to think that there might be some reason the City could not move ahead. Ms. Lytle said regardless of whether the territory was included, there would need to be California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of modifications of the territory as it related to the historic structure. Staff's concern was if the tunnels were included in the National Register status description of the elements that were for preservation, a need for a significant or mitigative impact could be found if the City wanted to modify the tunnels. Inclusion of those features might actually lead from a "no impact, no mitigation" to an "impact, mitigation" situation if they were modified. Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, spoke on behalf of Stanford University, which was the ultimate owner of the property, and said Stanford supported and agreed that the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot should be on the National Historic Register. Stanford also agreed with City staff's recommendation that the ramps should not be included in the application. The ramps which were being included primarily for contextual reasons were going to be adequately addressed, and the entire composition of the historic district would be adequately assessed through the CEQA process and through the HRB's own process. Stanford supported City staff's recommendation and
07/17/95 76-362
hoped to see the Depot on the National Register. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the staff recommendation to endorse the application with a modification to remove the subterranean pedestrian walkways (ramps) from the territory to be described in the National Register of Historic Places. Further, to direct staff to refer any changes in the vicinity of the Southern Pacific Depot, including the pedestrian ramps, to the Historic Resources Board for review and recommendation. Council Member McCown said Ms. Lytle's point was well taken that Council try to communicate clearly what Council's standards and expectations were with respect to the ramps and not send mixed signals. If the response to the more limited application were negative, then Council would have to revise it, including putting the ramps in if needed. At least Council would try to be clear about Council's concerns, and that was an appropriate first step. Council Member Kniss concurred with Council Member McCown's comments. She did not see any sense in starting out by including the ramps. To her it still seemed ambiguous as to precisely what the message had been from the state. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 8. Ordinance Amending Chapter 1.04 of Title I by Adding Section 1.04.071 Relating to Time Limits for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (continued from 7/10/95) City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the item would reinforce in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) existing time limits under state law that allowed 90 days for a person dissatisfied with a City administrative decision to file a lawsuit. It was really just to put a pointer in the PAMC to the state law that already established the time frame. Typical kinds of actions included personnel and various land use matters. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "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" MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of an ordinance siting criteria approved as part of the 1991 Revised Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The City received notice on February 1, 1995, that the California Department of Toxic Substances Control had approved the 1991 Revised Plan. Under
07/17/95 76-363
the terms of AB 2948 (Tanner), the City has 180 days from receiving notice of the Plans to either: 1) adopt a city Hazardous Waste Management Plan that is consistent with the approved County plan; 2) incorporate the applicable portions of the approved County Plan, by reference, into the City's General Plan; or 3) enact an ordinance which requires that all applicable zoning, subdivision, conditional use permit, and variance decisions are consistent with the approved County Plan's siting criteria and identified general areas for hazardous waste management facilities. The subject ordinance will fulfill this legal requirement. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the item was a request for a zoning ordinance amendment that required state mandatory proposed commercial hazardous waste facilities be consistent with siting criteria outlined in Chapter 8 of the approved Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. An overlay district was being created in compliance with state directive. It was a follow-up requirement from the original Tanner legislation. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to introduce the Ordinance (Exhibit 1) that requires all approvals for commer-cial hazardous waste facilities be consistent with the siting criteria in Chapter 8 of the County Plan (Exhibit 2) and estab-lishes an overlay zone for applying for such a facility; and direct staff to prepare a Work Program item for the Planning Department for Council consideration in September that would include Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning ordinance amendments which would further strengthen the City's ability to appropriately regulate siting of hazardous waste facilities. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 18.85 Regarding Special Regulations for Hazardous Waste Facilities" MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the appeal be denied and the Zoning Administrator's decision be upheld to approve a Home Improve-ment Exception for a single-story addition to an existing single-story residence, located 17 feet instead of 20 feet from the front property line, 6 feet instead of 8 feet from the side property line, and with 42 percent lot coverage instead of 40 percent lot coverage for property located at 230 Parkside Drive. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the item was an appeal of the decision which approved a one-story addition to an existing single-story house which resulted in 42 percent lot coverage where 40 percent was the maximum allowed, a 17-foot front setback where
07/17/95 76-364
20 feet was required, and a 6-foot side setback where 8 feet was required. She approved the decision based on the lot size which was 6,000 square feet as opposed to 8,000 minimum required in that zoning district and because it was about 600 square feet smaller than the surrounding properties which were generally 6,600 square feet. She also approved it based on the fact the addition would preserve the architectural integrity of the structure. It aligned the front wall of the addition with the existing wall of the garage and would extend the horizontal orientation of the house across the entire front facade. The ceiling height and the new hallway would match the ceiling height in the living room and would create an unbroken plane from the front of the house to the back of the house. The proposal would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties because it did not encroach further into the front or side setback than the existing house, and an arborist's letter was submitted with the application verifying that there would not be damage to an existing plum tree on the neighboring property. In addition, a solar access study was submitted as part of the application which showed there would be minimal impact on the neighboring property or the subject property itself as a result of the addition. The Planning Commission heard the item on June 28, 1995, and recommended that the appeal be denied and the Zoning Administrator's decision be upheld. She referred to a letter from Patrick Loehrer, a different arborist, at Council's places that evening (on file in the City Clerk's Office). She reviewed it briefly and would concur with most of what was said except that she did not believe the timing of the project should be delayed by six months in order to fertilize the plum tree. That could be done concurrently with construction or after construction. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council's policy called for disclosure of any contacts or other information Council received that significantly influenced Council Members' views about the project. The specific findings that Council needed to make had to be based on the evidence that was currently in the record, which would be heard that evening. The Council would need to determine that the applicant for exception had met the burden of showing sufficient evidence for each of those findings. Mayor Simitian clarified the requirement was whether or not all the findings could be met. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He referred to page 5 of Attachment 1 of the staff report (CMR:350:95), Finding Number 1, "There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district." As he understood the Zoning Administrator's reasoning, it was based on the minimum lot size requirement for the district. The subject property was about 25 percent smaller than the minimum. He referred to Finding Number 2, "The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter." The Zoning Administrator detailed in the report the facade issues on pages 5 and 6 of Attachment 1
07/17/95 76-365
of the staff report (CMR:350:95). Finding Number 3, "The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity," was similar to conditional use permits or variances. It was namely a finding of no detriment to property in the vicinity and to the public health, safety, or general welfare. Home improvement exceptions (HIE) were intended to be considerably more liberally applied than variances. He would emphasize in Finding Number 2 that granting the application needed to be "desirable" rather than "necessary," and that implied some policy latitude. Council Member McCown had difficulty tracking how a 6,000-square-foot lot fit into the variations within the Greenmeadow subdivi-sion. The zoning in the area was 8,000 square feet minimum, and the subject lot was 6,000 square feet; but then staff commented on the fact that the historical development pattern in Greenmeadow itself was different because of the very nature of how that subdivision was put together. She wanted clarification on the issue of the lot size relative to two different standards. Ms. Grote said Joseph Eichler designed the Greenmeadow tract and made many lots smaller than lots in other tracts in order to dedicate some of the area to a community center with a pool and recreational opportunities. She did not know why the lot at 230 Parkside Drive ended up being about 600 square feet smaller. Two lots within the Greenmeadow neighborhood were approximately 6,000 square feet whereas most were about 6,600 square feet. Council Member McCown said for the record, she visited and looked at the property and the adjacent residence, but she had not had any contact with anybody with respect to the item. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Gabe Groner, applicant, 230 Parkside Drive, said he wanted to add more space to their 3-bedroom Greenmeadow home to accommodate visiting friends and relatives. One bedroom was being used as his business office. In the Fall of 1994, he began working with Karen Cullen Marcinik, a neighbor and an architect who was becoming well known throughout Palo Alto for her remodeling design of Eichler homes. They considered several alternatives and decided upon the one presented in the application. The planned room would be in an existing patio which was defined by the original front fence aligned with the garage and covered with concrete. The bounds that were already established would not be moved. The Greenmeadow Architectural Review and Covenants Committee reviewed, approved, and recommended the design. The recommendation then was unanimously approved by the Greenmeadow Community Association Board of Directors. The Zoning Administrator approved it without qualification at a hearing. He explained the plans to all of the immediate neighbors, and many of them came to see the plans. There were 30 signed letters and petitions which indicated support of virtually all of the immediate neighbors. The Planning Commission found the application met all the findings. One Planning Commissioner said that it was a clean, simple extension to what already existed. The Planning Commission found no
07/17/95 76-366
evidence of injury to the appellant or anyone else and pointed out that the exception process allowed for small incremental changes in order to avoid larger, more disruptive changes. One Planning Commissioner recommended the arborist he had chosen. Throughout the process, he tried repeatedly to have a face to face discussion with Phyllis Hilton, the appellant, who refused every attempt. Ms. Marcinik and at least two professional mediators in the neighborhood were also unsuccessful. All the surrounding lots were larger than 230 Parkside Drive. Of the 270 houses in Greenmeadow, there were only 6 houses with lots as small as 230 Parkside Drive. The lot was exceptional not only because it was small but also because other lots that had the same model house were much larger. Lots in Greenmeadow were as large as 8,000 square feet. One of the appellant's concerns had been that the addition would shade and kill the appellant's plum tree. It was physically impossible for an 8- or 10-foot building to entirely shade a 25-foot tree that had its lowest branches at 8 to 10 feet. He had not seen the appellant's arborist report, but he understood the problem was with the root system. An arborist had looked at their maple tree, which was two to three feet from where they would be digging the foundation, and the appellant's plum tree. The arborist recommended hand trenching near the maple tree and did not think the plum tree needed special care. He would be happy to hand trench near the plum tree and would give it all the care that would be given to his maple tree. If that were the problem, it could have been solved six months prior had the appellant been willing to discuss it. Karen Cullen Marcinik, 4046 Ben Lomond Drive, showed the model of the Groners' house with the planned addition at 230 Parkside Drive and the appellant's house at 220 Parkside Drive. The trees in the model were fairly accurate and would grow up around the existing wall and patio. The site was chosen for the addition because all the material landscaping would remain since the site currently was a concrete patio. There was an existing fence, and so the impacts in the neighborhood would be very subtle. The roof would be at 10 feet which was the height of the existing living room. It was typical for a Greenmeadow home to have a 10-foot ceiling that went back to the glass wall at the back of the house. The front door had been moved forward where there was currently an outdoor covered walkway. Of the 5 other houses in Greenmeadow that had the same 6,000-square-foot lot size as the Groners', one recently completed an addition, which was the same as the applicant's. The only difference was to avoid exceeding the 40 percent lot coverage, holes in the ceiling of the covered walkway at the entry were cut. It was a technicality that did not affect the overall volume of the structure. By enclosing the entryway, there would be better access to the new room and to an existing family room. The other reason the location was chosen for the addition was that there would be little impact alongside the neighbor's garage, where the trash cans were kept. The 10-foot ceiling also allowed high clear story windows along the front which would let plenty of light into the new room but would preserve privacy. High windows were very typical of the Eichler houses in the neighborhood. She did the solar access study originally because the person across the street was concerned about the addition's shading his house.
07/17/95 76-367
She was surprised to find that the shadows were actually facing away from Ms. Hilton's house. She took photographs which showed that at 8:30 a.m. the shadows were already pointing out toward the street and not shading Ms. Hilton's house. The property at 270 Parkside Drive had a similar 10-foot addition in the same location, and the next door neighbor had some bushes which were in full sun. Ralph Whitaker, 4003 Scripps Avenue, said he had lived in Greenmeadow for 30 years. It would not be a "monster" house. "Monster" houses got their appellation because of what was an intrusive matter of character, style, dimensions, and tastes. The property at 230 Parkside Drive did not meet that criteria. The owners were people who had been in the neighborhood for 17 years and were very active and positive contributors to organized neighborhood. Their architect had come to Greenmeadow because she was a professional architect and a devoted student of the Eichler design. He believed a 2 percent excess of lot coverage under special circumstances that had been described was well worthwhile. The design was harmonious, compatible, and in scale and would be an excellent contribution to the neighborhood. He commended the action of the Groners and their architect, and he hoped it would be approved. Joseph Mandell, 250 Parkside Drive, said he supported the Groners' application for the HIE. The plan would fit in very well in style and size with the other Eichler homes in the neighborhood. There had been at least three other homes on the same block with similar exterior additions. The plans were approved by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, as well as the Greenmeadow Community Association Board of Directors and the Greenmeadow Architectural Review and Covenants Committee. He expected that the Palo Alto Council also would approve the plans. He had known the Groners for a long time, and the Groners had been very community-minded and active in the Greenmeadow Community Association's committees and activities for many years. The Groners had tried from the very beginning to do things correctly according to the existing rules and covenants. The whole process had taken far too much City staff time and money as well as added delays and expenses to the applicant. The series of appeals were essentially without merit. Mark Christine, 202 Parkside Drive, said he moved into his current residence in 1954. The house next to him had a room added exactly like what the Groners were trying to add. The design would be a super addition to the neighborhood. The Groners were covering the outside hallway which would become part of the inside of the house, and that in itself was a very big improvement. At the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 1995, his neighbor Charles Rundell had spoken. The next day Mr. Rundell passed away. He wanted to thank and remember Mr. Rundell. Ken Crittenden, 342 Parkside Drive, said he lived one block away from the Groners. He was past president of the Greenmeadow Community, had served on a number of committees, and currently was serving on some. He had been on committees with Mr. Groner, who
07/17/95 76-368
had a great deal of interest in the Greenmeadow Community and had served it very well. He visited the premises and thoroughly and carefully reviewed the blueprints of the improvements the Groners wanted to make. The improvements were well designed for both the interior and exterior and blended well with landscaping and neighboring homes. Similar changes in exterior appearance had been approved and made for other homes in the same block. He urged Council to approve the Groners' HIE. Karen Smith, 2777 Lombardy Road, San Marino, said she was the daughter of the appellant and had grown up in Palo Alto. She wanted to review the criteria for granting the HIE, which she and her mother believed had not been met. Regarding the first criterion, unique was defined as "the only one of its kind, solitary, solar, being without an equal or equivalent, unparal-leled." It was not a unique piece of property. There were 6 other lots at 6,000 square feet on the block on Parkside, and 4 of those homes were the same footprint as the Groners' house. One had been modified, which was 270 Parkside. She referred to the attachments of the set of documents (on file in the City Clerk's Office) distributed at Council's places. Attachment B had a synopsis of all of the lots on Parkside, including the floor plans and the square footage of the lots. She did not believe 230 Parkside Drive was a unique lot because there were three more just like it. Three other houses on Parkside with the same floor plan had been modified, besides the Lim house at 270 Parkside, and they had all met the code. When a small lot was bought, a lower price was paid. The Groners wanted to have all the advantages of a larger lot without buying a larger lot. The second criterion dealt with the Eichler style. There were pictures in Attachment D of all of the different original Eichler styles in the Greenmeadow neighborhood. It was a matter of opinion whether the Groners' proposed modification of their home was within the Eichler style. In the pictures, there was only one house where there was a 10-foot tall ceiling in the front, and her mother did not want the same thing to happen next door to her. The house next door at 208 Parkside was modified, maintained Eichler style, and was within the guidelines as were 290 Parkside Drive and 372 Parkside Drive. She and her mother preferred those modifications more than the modifications the Groners had proposed, and they were all under the code. She and her mother were requesting that Council follow its own guidelines, which were designed to protect all the citizens of Palo Alto. They hoped Council would vote to reject the Groners' proposal. Her mother was going to address the third issue of detriment to her plum tree. Changing the house from a 3-bedroom house to a 5-bedroom house was an issue. The Groners had stated that they planned to live there for as long as possible, but her mother was concerned if the Groners decided to sell their house. With a 5-bedroom house, more people could be accommodated, e.g., 6 college students or a large family of 8 could move in next door, and that would increase the density of the neighborhood. If Council granted an exception to 230 Parkside Drive, Council would be creating a precedent, and everybody would want to ignore the setback rules where half of the house was allowed to be built.
07/17/95 76-369
Phyllis Hilton, appellant, 220 Parkside Drive, said she was a botany major at Duke University and worked for the national park service as a ranger naturalist. She taught people about trees and the importance of ecology and the environment. She was currently a Sierra Club member, and she led tree hikes at Mitchell Park. She was concerned about the effect of the Groners' addition on her landscaping, especially the plum tree which was about 30 years old. Mr. Groner said the tree was dying, but her arborist believed the tree was in excellent condition. With proper preservation methods, it would survive many more years. It also provided privacy from the neighboring house and made her side yard attractive and pleasing. She passed a photograph around and said at the Planning Commission meeting, her request was denied for a continuance. At first the Planning Commission said it would grant a continuance and then decided to present the issue that evening. Therefore, she was not well prepared and did not have the arborist report. Her arborist commented on the McClenahan arborist report submitted by Mr. Groner. She wanted to compare the two reports, which were very different. The McClenahan report claimed that the construction areas currently covered with concrete created a poor environment for root growth. The foundation footings to a 20-inch depth would not encroach within 8 feet of the tree and would not cause any harm, and the buttress roots would be preserved. She was aware that the root hairs of the tree were all over the drip line of the tree and were at maximum level from 8 to 10 inches. The root hairs took in nourishment, etc. Any compaction caused by construction could cause damage. It was not logical to think all that construction would not affect the tree. The McClenahan report further said that no tree preservations were recommended at the present time. Her arborist, Patrick Loehrer, recommended a tree preservation plan which was standard for any construction. Mr. Loehrer suggested the tree was currently in good health but that construction close to trees could have a devastating effect if precautions were not taken. Often the results of improper care were not realized for three to five years following construction. Compaction of soil and severing of roots within the drip line were often the cause of construction-related stress. Compaction could be the result of extra traffic equipment around the drip line. Mr. Loehrer recommended that at least the area not essential to the construction be walled off to minimize impact. As a result of the exception, there would be damage to her plum tree. Palo Alto had a tradition of being concerned about its trees and was one of the most beautiful cities in the world because of the trees. She hoped that at the minimum, if the project were approved, Council require the Groners to have an agreed upon tree protection plan. Elaine Hatfield, 377 Diablo Court, said she had lived in Greenmeadow for 32 years and objected to allowing the variance on the lot at 230 Parkside Drive. The Planning Commission had set up codes for Palo Alto to keep the suburban feeling and prevent over-building. The rule in the code allowed homes in Palo Alto to cover no more than 35 percent of a lot. Greenmeadow as a whole was already allowed a variance at 40 percent lot coverage. She felt that amount should not be exceeded. The rule under the Palo
07/17/95 76-370
Alto code also required that front yard encroachment greater than a 20-foot required setback be allowed for only half of the width of the house. The current portion of 230 Parkside was 17 feet from the street, and thus the new portion should only be allowed to extend out to 20 feet from the street. She felt the addition should have a setback of 20 feet. To allow the variance, it was claimed that there was exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property at 230 Parkside, which included that the lot was smaller than the adjacent lot. To allow a larger house to be built on a smaller lot did not make sense and made it even more overbuilt than a larger lot. There were many lots of that small size in Greenmeadow, and if that variance were allowed, it would establish a precedent for all the small lots in Greenmeadow. She believed a variance should be disallowed or the rules should be complied with. Nancy Karp, 221 Parkside Drive, said every house in Greenmeadow had to have a variance to be built in the first place. Those setbacks were at a variance when the houses were built in 1954. She did not believe the plum tree would be damaged. She lived across the street from the Groners and would be looking at the house for many years. The setback at three feet from the garage would look silly and misportioned; she preferred that Council grant the exception, and she believed it would make Greenmeadow properties more valuable. Gee-Gee Lenhart, 3850 Magnolia Drive, lived in Barron Park where there were many trees and different sizes of the unique houses. If a small lot with a small house were purchased, that was what one had. If one wanted a bigger house, one could move and buy a bigger house. Eichler homes were a unique group of homes. They were well planned, allowing for landscaping, shade, and sun balance. She believed the future was tampered with by allowing more and more variances to take over more space on each lot. The style of the Eichler homes needed to be kept. The issue affected someone's home and sense of well being. She respected all the people who supported the Groners, but they did not live next door. She did not see that there were extraordinary circumstances in the situation, only that the Groners wanted more. She believed the neighborhood character included gardens, not just buildings. It was a detriment to the community to fill up all the lots and to set the precedent for going further into the variance area. Mr. Groner said the 230 Parkside lot was unique because it was one of the six smallest lots and was the only lot that had an enclosed concrete-covered patio. Only that patio was being covered up, and so no landscaping would be lost. He understood the current Planning Commission had put an exception process into effect. Whether or not it was an Eichler style could be judged by looking at the model. The reason for the exception process was that guidelines applied in general but did not always apply in specific cases. They would not have a 5-bedroom house. They currently had a 3-bedroom house, and one of the rooms was being opened up very widely 6 or 8 feet to the new hallway and would be impossible to use as a bedroom. The new room would be an office but could be converted to a bedroom, making it a 4-bedroom like many other
07/17/95 76-371
houses in Greenmeadow. He too was a Sierra Club member, and he cared about trees. The McClenahan family of arborists had been in the business since the early 19th Century and was recommended by one of the Planning Commissioners. Ms. Hilton had pointed out that the root hairs went out to the drip line. The photographs showed that the drip line coincided with their house so that the maximum extent of the root hairs was approximately where the digging of the foundation would be. Ms. Hilton's letter said she needed time to get an arborist to show that her plum tree would be shaded and to get the shadow study. Ms. Hilton had two or three weeks, and the issue changed from shade to roots. Every reasonable precaution would be taken to protect the roots, but he did not want to lose another six months so the tree could be fertilized. Ms. Hilton said Charles Rundell, who wrote the original request for a hearing on the Groner residence because he objected to the plan, thought it would be oversized, and would look like 270 Parkside Drive. Mr. Rundell was opposed to the Groner addition. She said the tree was actually 15 feet high according to her arborist. The house that the Groners proposed would have a 10-foot roof so the plum tree was right next to the roof; therefore, it was going to be shaded at certain times of the day and at certain times of the year. With the 10-foot roof, the lower branches would not receive as much light. She wanted to emphasize that she hoped the Council would request a tree protection plan for the plum tree. Mr. Rundell had attempted to negotiate with the Groners to avoid confrontation, but their architect did not want to deal with him. She appreciated Council's attention and interest. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. RECESS: 9:25 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of the application. Further, that the Planning Commission recommendation be added as an additional condition which required that the foundation immediately adjacent to the plum tree on the neighboring property be hand trenched to avoid damage to the tree. Findings from Approval granted 4/20/95: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that this lot is smaller than adjacent lots (6,000 square feet instead of 6,600 square feet) and cannot accommodate an equal amount of square footage as adjacent lots without exceeding the maximum allowed lot coverage; 2. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be
07/17/95 76-372
accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that the architectural integrity of the original Eichler house and surrounding Eichler neighborhood will remain intact. The addition will align with the existing garage, which projects three feet into the front setback, and will allow the existing horizontal orientation of the house to be carried across the front facade. The ceiling of the new hallway will align with the existing living room ceiling and will create an unbroken ceiling plane extending back to the existing glass wall in the living room. The ceiling height in the new office will allow for clerestory windows to let in light while maintaining privacy from the street. The minor two foot encroachment into the side yard is needed to continue the plane of the existing side wall. Breaking the existing plane by placing the side wall an additional two feet back from the side property line would disrupt the architectural style of the original house; and 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the addition will not encroach further into the front setback than the existing house and will not violate the daylight plane or significantly impact the amount of sunlight available to the adjacent parcel. All other zoning requirements such as floor area ratio, height, rear setback and parking have been met. The addition will maintain the architectural style of the existing house and neighborhood and will not substantively increase the intensity of the use on the site. Conditions from Approval granted 4/20/95: 1. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved plans, received January 25, 1995, on file in the office of the Planning Department. Council Member McCown said Council heard a number of issues raised with respect to the desirability of granting any variances for smaller lots that she understood as a more general concern. The HIE process was created and designed specifically for a situation like 230 Parkside Drive in which somebody might find him-self/herself with a slightly smaller lot than typical and a process was desired to allow for small exceptions without the same criteria for variances. She believed 230 Parkside was a classic case for the HIE. With respect to the three main findings, she believed the exceptional circumstances did relate to the size of the lot, particularly in relation to characteristics of lots in the neighborhood. The 2 percent additional coverage that was the principal point of controversy was 120 square feet more coverage and would go in an area that was already covered by concrete. She believed 2 percent or 120 square feet, relative to a 6,000-square-foot lot as compared with a more typical lot pattern in the neighborhood, created the conditions for an exception. The architectural treatment of it convinced her of making a second finding that it was a desirable use of the HIE because it was going to create a desirable improvement to the residence in the
07/17/95 76-373
architectural style. The last point which was clearly the most critical and of legitimate concern on the part of the appellant was the potential detrimental impact to the plum tree. She believed the Planning Commission's modification was headed in the right direction. There might be some suggestions for a couple of additional tree-related protections which might be appropriate. She believed the findings were supported. The Zoning Administrator's decision was correct, as was the Planning Commission's upholding of it. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she was also a resident of the Greenmeadow community. Based on her discussion with the City Attorney, it was determined that she did not live close enough to the specific project that was being discussed to pose a conflict of interest; therefore, it was permissible for her to participate in the discussion. She had spoken with the applicant and the appellant during the process, knowing that the matter would likely become the subject of a quasi-judicial hearing before the Council. She confined her conversations with both parties to matters related to procedure, and she gave them some general insights and advice on how things would proceed as they came through the process. She said she would support the motion. The case had been well made by the applicant, and the preponderance of evidence that had been presented throughout the process came down on the side of the applicant. As the model came around, a couple of people who knew the neighborhood said it was hard to see in Greenmeadow what the difference was between the larger lots and the smaller lots. She believed Mr. Eichler was very careful to proportion the houses so that they looked correct on the lot and fairly uniform throughout the community. The fact that the design did not push the exterior walls of the house to the sides of the lot and impinge on the side yard setback would preserve the relationship between the house and the neighboring houses. The design was sensitive for the house, would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood, and fit in with the Eichler designs. On the other hand, she felt that Ms. Hilton had raised legitimate concerns about another aspect that made the neighborhood so appealing, which was the very mature, well tended landscaping. She knew how much fruit trees were cherished. The plum tree had been a valued resident of Greenmeadow for about 30 years, and it was in the interest of the plum tree's owner and neighbors that it continue a long and healthy life. Council Member Kniss said the HIE process was a new and unusual process for the Council. In the staff report (CMR:350:95), there was consensus from the Planning Commission that the process was a somewhat different process for them. The conclusions that were reached were very reasonable, and the process was an interesting exercise. She would support the motion. Mayor Simitian said he would support the motion. He believed that the policy and political judgments were made that evening, and Council looked to the Zoning Administrator to make independent judgments. Therefore, he appreciated the fact that the indepen-dent judgments came to Council. The toughest issue for him on the matter was with respect to the smaller lots being an exceptional
07/17/95 76-374
circumstance and, therefore, justifying some additional lot coverage. He believed the City could get into a bootstrap argument on the size of the lots because smaller lots would be encountered; however, the case was made that a smaller lot could present a set of circumstances more difficult to resolve design issues with. That was the case that had been made by Council Members that evening. It was just a cautionary note on the size of lots, and he hoped not to see that becoming a rationale for additional lot coverage or additional floor area ratio (FAR). Council Member Fazzino said he supported the motion. Considering the somewhat difficult current relationship between the neighbors, he wanted to understand who was going to supervise the use of the arborist, and he did not want to make that become a contentious issue between the neighbors. He assumed that the Zoning Adminis-trator was the logical person to implement the recommendation of the City Council and handle any potential disagreements that might occur over the use of the arborist. City Manager June Fleming said staff might need some clarity about who was going to select the arborist since there had been some discussion about it. Council Member McCown said the tree was on the other side of the fence, and the fence would not be moved. She understood that protection was placed around the tree because there might be bulldozers, etc., in the vicinity but was unclear whether that condition was really necessary because there should not be any physical work on Ms. Hilton's side of the fence at the base of the tree. She wanted clarification as to what other protection on the Groners' side of the fence was possible or necessary with respect to the tree. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she would look to some guidance from staff. She clarified sometimes people were asked to demarcate the drip line around the tree. Ms. Grote said that was correct and was often done as a standard condition. In the 230 Parkside case, the fence probably would be located within the six-foot setback on the Groners' side of the fence at the drip line of the tree. It would not be necessary to go all the way around onto Ms. Hilton's property because there would not be construction occurring there. Mayor Simitian clarified a fencing condition did make sense in staff's view but with the understanding that it would be on one side of the fence only. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked, as to the issue of the arborist, whether it would work to simply have the arborist selected be someone approved by the City Arborist. Ms. Grote said that would work.
07/17/95 76-375
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said that once the standard tree protection measures were put in place, there was not much difference of opinion among arborists about how roots were cut cleanly. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that when the foundation was dug up near the plum tree that a certified arborist who is selected and approved by the City Arborist be present to assure proper root pruning; and that ground beneath the drip line, between the new addition and the property line, be protected around the plum tree prior to and during the excavation and construction. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 11. Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board re Park Improvement Ordinance for an Entrepreneurial Homeless Garden Project in the El Camino Park Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said the proposal was for Council to approve a Park Improvement Ordinance to allow for a homeless garden project in the El Camino Park area, which would include construction of a fence and a toolshed for that site. The project was meant to provide a positive situation for the homeless, and it would be managed by the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto (UMPA). The stipends for the people who would be working at the garden would come from the Another Way Campaign, which was a City Downtown project that had raised about $28,000. The plan was to raise the vegetables and then resell them to the businesses in the area. Any profits would go back into the project. The City's role was to help by putting the contract together and having it approved. The City would provide water service and basic tools. The water cost would be paid out of the Community Services budget. Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) had reviewed it and approved it. There were two conditions that came from the Planning Commission. One dealt with having the fence be a wooden fence that had slats to see through so the public could view the project. The second condition was to provide an outdoor rest room. Staff supported the first condition from the Planning Commission. Staff did not support the second condition because there was an outdoor rest room within 50 yards of the site behind the Red Cross building. Council Member Kniss was concerned that evening when Litsie Indergand of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) indicated there were some problems with the ongoing funding of UMPA at the present time. The City would take on the upfront cost, and then the longer term cost for that period of seven years would be absorbed by UMPA. She asked if staff wanted to respond. Mr. Thiltgen said a representative from UMPA would provide feedback on that later on. Council Member Huber asked whether Stanford, Red Cross, and other
07/17/95 76-376
businesses located nearby had any opposition to the proposal. Mr. Thiltgen said not at the present time. Staff spoke with Stanford and the other businesses in the area, and they had all proposed agreements, two of which were in writing. There had to be a final signoff on the contract with Stanford, which was being reviewed by their legal department, but Stanford had given verbal agreement on the project. Council Member Andersen asked whether the rest room facilities located at the Red Cross were maintained by the Red Cross or by the City. Human Services Administrator David Martin said they were maintained by UMPA. Council Member Andersen asked if the rest rooms would have any increase in usage as a result of the project. Mr. Martin did not believe so. The client population was already in the area. He did not see use of the rest rooms being exacerbated by the garden project. David Powers, P. O. Box 213, said he was in favor of the project. He was a professional recovery counselor and urged Council to endorse the project. The situation for the homeless was that it was not a project thought of and created by the element out on the street as making money. The idea was much more complex and constructive than that. The idea had a recovery aspect to it, other than just growing something, cultivating it, bringing it to fruition, and marketing it. Residents in Palo Alto loved their trees and foliage, which made it a lovely area. It was enlighten-ing and satisfactory to work with plants and food. The food would be marketed, and the funds would come back into enhancing the project itself. He did not panhandle, he made his money legiti-mately, and the project was another opportunity to make money. The project would be a measure of improvement for his own life, and he was sure Council would hear that from other people participating in the project. There were spiritual aspects, enhancement of self-worth, satisfaction of productivity, an element of structure, and discipline to the project. There was no reason why the concept should not be approved. It was a win-win situation for the people who wanted to participate and for the people who would be observing it. The project was a commitment on the part of all the people participating. Nancy Samelson, 841 Esplanada Way, Stanford, said seeing the City moving in the direction of the project was very exciting. She had been discouraged before with negative approach. The community was beginning to be what Palo Alto really was. Palo Alto had a tremendous tradition of not making distinctions and having a strong total community. She could see much hope for the future. Michael Bracamonte, Street Minister for the First Christian Church, said he had been working with the homeless for approximately six months. He was very excited about certain
07/17/95 76-377
concepts that were part of the project. Many of the services in Palo Alto had been basically hand-out services. One of the most important concepts in the garden project was that it was an empowerment project. A document of empowerment was signed by UMPA agreeing that poor and homeless people in Palo Alto were going to have a very important partnership in the garden project and that jobs available in the garden project would go to homeless and poor people. The project was a genuine opportunity to develop an entrepreneurial enterprise that the homeless and poor people of Palo Alto could participate in. He believed that was a fantastic direction. The community had to continue to work to help the very bottom of the economic structure to move out of that area. Working in concert with UMPA and the managerial services of UMPA eventually would mean the project could be owned and held by the people in the street. The project could provide employment opportunity and training on many levels. People were already excited about it, and they wanted to buy the products and contrib-ute things to the project. The spiritual aspect was important, and the project would help the poor and unhoused community continue to develop a spiritual unified community. They would learn to get along and learn to get things accomplished. Members of the street community, some who were present and stood, were in support of the project. Olaf Lidums, Director of Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, wanted to underscore what Reverend Bracamonte said about an empowerment project. UMPA would do everything in concert with the low-income community to help make that happen. He wanted to respond to Council Member Kniss's earlier comment about a heartfelt concern made with respect to UMPA's finances. When he joined UMPA in October 1994, UMPA had been in a declining pattern of collecting revenues but had decided not to cut services or staff. UMPA dipped severely into its reserve funds by over 80 percent. Through management decisions and hard work by staff, UMPA had been able to raise during the first five months of 1995 approximately $54,000 more than the previous year. The treasurer did an analysis of trends as compared to 1994 and 1993 and advised at a recent board meeting that UMPA was 20 percent better in terms of revenue curve. The overall picture looked good. In March and April 1995, UMPA acquired a couple of special grants given with the recognition that UMPA was in transitional crisis. One foundation which knew the nonprofit world very well analyzed carefully where UMPA had been, where it was, and what its plans were. That foundation recognized that UMPA was clearly in transitional crisis which happened to all agencies. The founda-tion supported UMPA and invited UMPA for a grant request. Unfortunately, UMPA could not meet the foundation's July docket but expected to be in the September docket for a small assistance grant. As of May 31, 1995, UMPA was still $5,000 on the positive side when comparing revenues to expenses. Much had to do with the early success of the 4,300 group project, which was based on the idea of a person of means sponsoring a poor person with $100 for all the services for a year. That raised about $15,000 more over April through June than the previous years with the same period. However, starting in May and typical of all the years past, UMPA came to its first severe deficit month. Ms. Indergand of the HRC
07/17/95 76-378
referred to it when she made her remarks. She had spoken with a board member, and he was a bit concerned that some misconceptions could come from the remarks, although they were good-hearted. There also had been turnover of staff. UMPA was not replacing staff and had been able to reduce the monthly expense budget by 20 percent. However, the board constrained him to try to save another 10 percent on the expense side. The question was whether UMPA had to make some severe cuts. He wanted to assure Council that UMPA would not cut services unless it was in the most dire, disastrous straits. UMPA staff had gone on record to support its willingness to make sacrifices at the cost of family budgets in order to keep programs going. The bigger picture was what Council Member Kniss had in mind, which was whether one could be assured that the basic financial structure of UMPA was on solid ground so that the project continued. UMPA had already committed money to be transferred to a garden project account which would be separately administered from the other accounts. UMPA was also aggressively seeking other kinds of grants and funding which UMPA optimistically believed would happen. The low-income community finally would become empowered to fish for themselves and market the fish. He was really excited about the project. Council Member Andersen wanted to know what the rationale for UMPA's request for an additional rest room was besides conve-nience. City Manager June Fleming said the request was made by the Planning Commission. Trina Lovercheck, 1070 McGregor Way, said on behalf of the HRC, she supported the staff recommendation to establish the homeless garden project. David Martin had kept the HRC informed throughout the plan as it had evolved from an idea last summer. The project could be beneficial to those who were homeless or near homeless. Referring to her earlier comments related to the Aggressive Panhandling Ad Hoc Task Force, during those meetings, there was much discussion about providing more opportunities for the homeless population in Palo Alto. The project was a good example of that. It would provide an economic and beautification project that could help people who were interested in participating in the effort as a way to become more self-sufficient. The project was a positive response which would help build self-esteem as well as skills. As a follow-up to Mr. Lidums comments, she said, "Give a man a fish and he can eat for day, but teach him to fish and he can eat for a long time." She urged Council to support the project. Council Member Fazzino asked what HRC's perspective was on the rest room issue. Ms. Lovercheck said the rest room issue was not something the HRC had heard about in any detail. She would side with staff's recommendation, but she did not have any other information to comment on whether HRC saw a need for additional rest rooms. Mary Ann Morgan, 2087 El Camino, said the garden should not cost
07/17/95 76-379
UMPA money. After initially tilling and fertilizing the garden and planting seeds, the cost of the garden should be minimal except for the labor. With regard to the rest room issue, it would be a waste of time to put a rest room on a place so small when there was one within 20 feet. Tom Pirkle, Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, had been involved with the garden project for almost a year. He had not been associated with an idea that had had a more positive or such an outpouring of response from the community at large, based on a small amount of press coverage. UMPA had received calls from San Jose and San Francisco offering volunteer help and seeds. There was at least one firm contract to supply a local caterer with salad greens, and there was potential for two or three other contracts. Someone from the Emergency Housing Consortium in San Jose called and wanted to negotiate a package, including the possibility of establishing single-room occupancy (SRO) housing and supplying vegetables to a restaurant that was located in the old hotel that would be converted to an SRO. It was an idea that had a chain reaction. He urged Council to approve the project. Victor Frost, Spokesperson for the Street People, Telephone Pole 1139, P. O. Box 213, Palo Alto, wanted to thank the people of Palo Alto, UMPA, Stanford, and everyone else involved in the work put into the garden project. Someone had mentioned earlier that there was no change in the panhandling ordinance in Palo Alto. However, there had been a serious change. There were also good changes in the City Council and in UMPA of getting things done. Two or three years ago, that did not happen in Palo Alto. Papers were pushed, things were said; but things were not done. The street people of Palo Alto had mixed feelings about the garden project. He believed that after the startup happened, the fence was built, and the ground was tilled, the street people's attitudes would change. The project was important because it provided self-esteem and hope when people were drunk or high on drugs. There could be a place to go to for four or eight hours where work could be done. There were people who did want to work and get their hands dirty. The people on the street wanted the project to work. While the plants were growing, he believed the community would be growing together. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to introduce the Ordinance and approve the Sublease Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to El Camino Park" Sublease Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto for El Camino Park Council Member Fazzino said it was an excellent project, and everyone associated with it deserved tremendous credit. He was certain it would be a great success.
07/17/95 76-380
Council Member Schneider said she was very enthusiastic about the project. In the Downtown area, she had seen the changes that Mr. Frost alluded to, which had to do with self-policing. She was confident that a project such as the garden project would lead to more of the spirit in working together and providing for each other That kind of bond not only would improve the lives of the homeless and the lives of the rest of the community but also would make the Downtown feel safer for people. She was confident and hopeful that would be one of the many results seen as the project continued. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 12. Development Project Preliminary Review Application for Expansion and Relocation of Victor Aviation, Palo Alto Airport, 1901-1925 Embarcadero Road - Refer to Planning Commission Mayor Simitian emphasized that the item was not a project applica-tion. What Council had was a request from staff who would provide some direction on the desire to use the prescreening process and how the prescreening process might be used. Paul Jensen, Contract Planner, said the item involved an applica-tion for development project preliminary review, which was authorized under Chapter 18.97 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The process required that the Council provide an initial screening of the application before a noticed public study session would be held. The initial screening was intended to review the process for the public study session, not the details of the application. An application had been filed by Victor Aviation, which was an existing aircraft maintenance facility located at the Palo Alto Airport. Victor Aviation was looking to expand its facility and to build a new structure of about 45,000 square feet. The existing facility totaled about 20,000 square feet. Victor Aviation was considering two possible sites at the Palo Alto Airport. The details of the proposal would be reviewed during the public study session process. Staff recommended that the applica-tion be referred to the Planning Commission for a public study session. Following the study session, the matter would return to the City Council for additional review and comment. Also present that evening was Victor Sloan of Victor Aviation, the applicant, and Larry Feldman from the Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports. Assistant Planning Official James Gilliland wanted to make a correction on page 9 of the staff report (CMR:340:95). Information in the paragraph that described 1995/1996 projections for approximately 252,000 flight operations was taken from a 1991 noise study. The projection had not proven to be correct. Opera-tions in 1994 were 215,000, and they were not expected to be much greater than that in 1995/1996. City Attorney Ariel Calonne emphasized that Council's action that
07/17/95 76-381
evening was nothing more than a scheduling matter and the determi-nation of how the item should be heard. In the future, he hoped it could be a consent type of action. The procedural options for the Council were laid out in the last sentences on the first page of the staff report (CMR:340:95). The Council should not feel compelled to discuss substance that evening. Council Member McCown asked, if Council approved staff's recom-mendation, what kind of timing there was in terms of how soon the item would be ready at the Planning Commission level and when it would return to Council. Mr. Jensen said that tentatively, the item would go to the Planning Commission on August 23, 1995, and to Council on September 18, 1995. Council Member McCown suggested that, since the item was the first of its kind before Council, it would be useful to keep track of how much staff time it took to prepare for the study session and go through the process so there could be an idea of what the cost benefit of using the process was. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to: 1) Refer the application for Development Project Preliminary Review to the Planning Commission for a "public study session" as identified in Chapter 18.97 (Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures) of the City's zoning regulations; and 2) Direct that the application return to the City Council for a public study session, following the public study session with the Planning Commission. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian asked the City Clerk to address the process regarding the submittal of the Initiative Petition regarding Growth Management. City Clerk Gloria Young said the petitions were filed in the City Clerk's Office on Friday, July 14, 1995. She explained the process and noted that if the petitions qualified, a resolution calling for a special election would be agendized for the Monday, August 7, 1995, City Council meeting. Council Member Huber requested the City Attorney to report on the Human Relations Commission's item regarding the Aggressive Panhandling Ad Hoc Task Force. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
07/17/95 76-382
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.
07/17/95 76-383