HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-13 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 13, 1995 1. Appointment to the Public Art Commission .............. 77-234 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 77-234 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 1995 .................... 77-235 2. Contracts for the Eleven Extended Day Care Sites at Palo Alto Unified School District Elementary Schools - Refer to Policy and Services Committee ................ 77-235 3. Revisions to Rental Rate Structure at Cubberley and Need for a Long-Term Financial Plan for the Cubberley Community Center - Refer to Policy and Services Committee ............................................. 77-235 4. Remodel of Main Library at 1213 Newell Road to Comply with Americans with Disabilities Act Regulations ...... 77-235 5. Resolution 7551 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to their Proposed Destruction or Removal ................................ 77-236 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 77-236 6. Resolution Adopting and Authorizing Execution of Program Supplement No. 007 to the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Proposed Traffic Signal Timing and Controller Replacement Project ............. 77-236
11/13/95 77-232
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommends approval of (a) an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.94.070(b) for property located at 3200 Park Boulevard, 340 Portage Avenue, and the adjacent former railroad right-of-way with Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue frontage, extending the nonresidential use amortization schedule for the former Maximart site for 20 years beyond 1999; (b) approval of resolution amending the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from Single-Family Residential and Light Industrial to Multiple-Family Residential; (c) adoption of ordinance rezoning a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from R-1 and GM(B) to RM-30; and (d) amendments to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.24.040 and 18.26.040, which would allow (with a conditional use permit) the development of parking facilities on abandoned railroad right-of-way properties located in the RM-30 and RM-40 zoning districts ...................................... 77-237 7A. (Old Item No. 9) Ordinance Amending Section 2.31.040 of Chapter 2.31 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Disposition of Unclaimed Property Other than Vehicles ......................................... 77-269 7B. (Old Item No. 10) Juvenile Curfew Ordinance Evaluation 77-270 8. Mayor Simitian, Vice Mayor Wheeler, and Council Member McCown re Initiation of an Area-Wide or Specific Planning Process for Properties between Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Lambert Avenue (continued from 4/10/95) .............................. 77-281 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:32 p.m. .......... 77-281
11/13/95 77-233
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment to the Public Art Commission Council Member Kniss said there had been many good candidates who had applied for a number of the vacancies on the boards and commissions. She would support David Chow on the first ballot. She was very impressed with his earnestness, and he would bring a better balance to the Public Art Commission (PAC). Council Member Schneider would cast her first vote for Honey Meir-Levi. She had strongly supported her the first time she applied for the PAC. Ms. Meir-Levi had a great background, particularly in fund-raising which the PAC was interested in doing more of, and her background would lend itself well to the existing PAC. She was a long-term member of the community. Mr. Chow was also an impressive candidate, and she encouraged him to reapply in the future if he were not appointed that evening. Council Member Andersen echoed the comments of Council Member Schneider and would also support Honey Meir-Levi. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR CHOW: Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR JENKINS: VOTING FOR MEIR-LEVI: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR PALMER: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Honey Meir-Levi received five votes and was appointed on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 323 Byron Street, spoke regarding big beer can caper late breaking news. Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding Palo Alto Police Department's citizen complaints, etc.
11/13/95 77-234
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic accountability (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Tina Gutierrez, Human Relations Commissioner, 2850 Middlefield Road No. 224, spoke regarding human services needs. Nancy Pleibel, 301 Bryant Court, spoke regarding the Farmers Market. Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, spoke regarding support for the coordinated area plans. Claudio Martinez, P. O. Box 213, Palo Alto, spoke regarding archaeology and San Francisquito Creek. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of October 10, 1995, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 5. Refer 2. Contracts for the Eleven Extended Day Care Sites at Palo Alto Unified School District Elementary Schools - Refer to Policy and Services Committee 3. Revisions to Rental Rate Structure at Cubberley and Need for a Long-Term Financial Plan for the Cubberley Community Center - Refer to Policy and Services Committee Action 4. Remodel of Main Library at 1213 Newell Road to Comply with Americans with Disabilities Act Regulations Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Admond Construction Inc. for Remodeling the Main Library; change orders not to exceed $12,500 Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C5074407 between the City of Palo Alto and CSS Associates, Architects, for Construction Stage Services for Remodeling the Main Library; change orders not to exceed $1,700
11/13/95 77-235
5. Resolution 7551 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to their Proposed Destruction or Removal" MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 - 5. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Simitian announced that Item No. 6 had been removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of a member of the public. 6. Resolution Adopting and Authorizing Execution of Program Supplement No. 007 to the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Proposed Traffic Signal Timing and Controller Replacement Project Eric Gilbertson, 215 Oakhurst Place, Menlo Park, said the cross-section, design of intersections, and how they operated could set a city's scale of whether the city was friendly to people or machines. He felt that signal phases should be limited. They had reached over two minutes which created problems, but the minor streets that crossed the big arterials were getting shorter and provided a minimum of green time. Traffic engineering was moving toward the optimization to make things tight, and cities needed to put a stop to that. Another issue was knocking off pedestrian crossings at certain legs of intersections, which was primarily done on the state routes of El Camino Real. A city that took livability seriously should say "no" to that kind of situation. If an intersection allowed a car to make a movement, then a pedestrian should be allowed the same movement. He wanted simpler intersection designs. Freeways were originally built to get cars off the city streets, and recently there was discussion of moving freeway cars back onto the city streets in some sections. He warned about oversized signal hardware. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the Council adopt the resolution approving Program Supplement No. 007 to the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for federal-aid projects relating to the proposed traffic signal timing and controller replacement project. Resolution 7552 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting and Authorizing Execution of Program Supplement No. 007 to the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Proposed Traffic Signal Timing and Controller Replace-ment Project" MOTION PASSED 9-0.
11/13/95 77-236
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommends approval of (a) an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.94.070(b) for property located at 3200 Park Boule-vard, 340 Portage Avenue, and the adjacent former railroad right-of-way with Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue frontage, extending the nonresidential use amortization schedule for the former Maximart site for 20 years beyond 1999; (b) approval of resolution amending the City of Palo Alto Compre-hensive Plan land use designation for a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from Single-Family Residential and Light Industrial to Multiple-Family Residential; (c) adoption of ordinance rezoning a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from R-1 and GM(B) to RM-30; and (d) amendments to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.24.040 and 18.26.040, which would allow (with a conditional use permit) the development of parking facilities on abandoned railroad right-of-way properties located in the RM-30 and RM-40 zoning districts. (continued from April 10, 1995) Council Member Fazzino explained that he had previously asked the City Attorney to explore the possibility of a possible conflict of interest of the item as a result of his employment with Hewlett-Packard. The City Attorney had explored the issue and had contacted the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). He asked the City Attorney to report on his findings and the findings of the FPPC regarding possible participation in the item by him. Council Member Kniss indicated that the City Attorney's findings would also apply to her participation in the item as well since her husband was employed at Hewlett-Packard. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he had submitted an opinion to the FPPC. The FPPC reviewed that opinion and generally concurred with his conclusions that there were not conflicts of interest and pointed out that an appraisal would be necessary to confirm that opinion. An appraisal had been done which concluded that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the Council's decision on the former Maximart site would affect the Hewlett-Packard owned property at 395 Page Mill Road. On that basis, he had concluded that neither Council Member Fazzino nor Council Member Kniss would have a conflict of interest. The distinction between the two at that stage was that since Council Member Fazzino sought formal advice from the FPPC, he had the additional benefit of legal immunity from the FPPC in the event a question arose about the propriety of participating. Council Member Fazzino thanked the City Attorney for his efforts. He said on the basis of the City Attorney's advice, he would
11/13/95 77-237
participate in the item that evening. Council Member Kniss said she would also participate in the item that evening. She appreciated the efforts of the City Attorney and staff regarding the matter. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said two environmental reviews had been prepared for the former Maximart site which went along with the following actions recommended for Council approval: 1) to extend the nonconforming use status of the commercial uses on the site, including Fry's Electronics, other commercial uses, and Cable Co-op for 20 years from 1999 to 2019; 2) to change the land use designation for the adjacent former railroad right-of-way which was currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan as single-family residential and light industrial to multiple-family residential; 3) to approve related zoning ordinance amendment that would allow parking as a conditional use in multiple-family zoned land that constituted former railroad right-of-ways which would be the only situation in the City that it would apply; and 4) to rezone the railroad right-of-way from the current single-family residential R-1 zone and general manufacturing (GM) zone to the RM-30 multiple-family district. In addition, there was the Architectural Review Board's (ARB) recommendation for design approval for the changes to the former Maximart property. There were two items that related to the parking on the former railroad right-of-way which would need to occur, assuming the first set of actions were approved, after the Council completed its action. First, the Zoning Administrator would need to process, hold a public hearing, review, and act on a use permit for the parking. Second, if the use permit were approved, the ARB would need to review the design of the parking layout and give design approval for the parking lot. Both the use permit and the design review were included as part of the material before the Council that evening. The Council's comments regarding those issues should be directed to the Zoning Administrator and the ARB for their guidance in the subsequent processes. He noted that Jack Wheatley, owner of the former Maximart site, had a concern regarding turning islands and trees as referenced on page 4, Exhibit 7, of staff report (CMR:182:95) that indicated a specific layout of the reconfigured parking lot and the entry off of Park Boulevard. Mr. Wheatley was concerned about truck access to the site for one of other uses. He referred to page 3, Section 18.94.070(E), of the proposed ordinance attached to the City Attorney's report dated March 27, 1995, which was the extension for the site, and said the Planning Commission added a provision regarding truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities being limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Wheatley had raised a concern about the hours of operation and truck deliveries, the impact on Cable Co-op's truck activities on the site, and the deliveries that began before 9:00 a.m. When the Council previously reviewed the issue in March 1995, the status of the lease between WSJ Properties and Fry's Electronics had not
11/13/95 77-238
been resolved. He understood a lease had been signed. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing reopened for the limited purpose of hearing from people who had not previously addressed the Council at the previous hearing. Jeff Vaillant, President, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said a business decision had to be made by Fry's Electronics about how to expend capital and improve the property. He encouraged the Council to extend the lease for 20 years so capital improvements could be made and amortized over a reasonable period of time. The revenue generated by Fry's Electronics was important to the City's General Fund. He pointed out the many job opportunities that existed at Fry's that helped the jobs imbal-ance. He encouraged the Council to act positively on the first two points of the proposal for three reasons--the business decision, revenues to the City, and job opportunities to the City. Harvey Miller, 255 Town and Country Village, spoke against rezoning the site from its residential intent. Fry's Electronics might be able to locate in East Palo Alto's redevelopment area which would continue to provide job opportunities. Palo Alto had a critical need for housing, and the lack of land for housing would impose limits on the growth of the City which was more important than the need for more retail establishments. He recognized the revenue to the City was important and that state laws forced cities to attract retail establishments. Fry's should not have special dispensations and should compete on an equal basis in a different location. Lawrence Lovercheck, 1070 McGregor Way, said the enforcement of amortizations over the previous years had not been consistently or equitably enforced. The extension should not be granted because it was Fry's Electronics. The Council needed to fulfill its promise to residents of the neighborhood. He believed if the Council granted the extension, its integrity would be seriously damaged. The extension would send a message that money talked. Rachel Goldeen, 2130 Birch Street, wanted Fry's Electronics to remain at the site because of the tax revenue, conservation of the energy required to set up and organize a successful store, and her own convenience of being able to ride her bike to Fry's to purchase products. Robert Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, said an argument in favor of leaving Fry's in its present location for an extended period was that the store contributed a lot of sales tax to Palo Alto. The right thing to do was to honor the City's commitment to allow housing on the site, but the question was whether it was the prudent thing to do to give up 1 percent of the City's budget to fulfill that promise. With a population of nearly 60,000 people, it represented about $10 per citizen that would be lost each year.
11/13/95 77-239
If Fry's moved to a location outside Palo Alto, many things would still be purchased in Palo Alto at other stores so the City would not be deprived of the entire revenue. The Council had to choose between the loss of some sales tax or the loss of confidence in the City's commitment to keep its promise. He asked the Council to keep its promise of housing on the site. Leland Alton, P. O. Box 213, Palo Alto, said the City needed multiple-family housing as much as single-family housing. The homeless population needed housing in the City. The land in the City was being used for commercial interests rather than Below Market Rate (BMR) housing. Margaret Ash, 965 Forest Avenue, said the property was zoned for potential housing, but the Council had not provided the housing that had been promised on the site for 20 years. She referred to previous comments of Herb Borock regarding groundwater contamina-tion. Any housing issue in the City was crucial to the homeless. People were more important than money. The right thing to do was not extend the amortization. Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, said 30 years previously he was instrumental in preparing documents to abandon the Southern Pacific branch line which had not been used since that time. He wanted to encourage people to take the train. It only took about 12 minutes to walk from the CalTrain station to the entrance to Fry's Electronics. The location was very valuable. He hoped the Council used a time perspective of 50 to 100 years. Charisse Domingo, Stanford student, spoke against the extension of the zoning. Fry's Electronics provided jobs, but the employees did not earn enough money to buy a house in Palo Alto. Many homeless people had jobs but could not afford housing. The Council should stay with its commitment of providing housing. Mayor Simitian declared the reopened Public Hearing closed. Council Member Kniss said there had been some indication that evening that if housing were placed on the site, it would be low- income housing. She asked how the site was zoned and what could or could not be placed on the site. Mr. Schreiber said the site was zoned RM-30, excluding the railroad right-of-way, which was the second highest multiple-family zone density in the City and allowed up to 30 units per acre. It would be market rate housing, and there would be a BMR component consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan in the range of 10 to 15 percent of the housing. Council Member Kniss clarified the site could be built with single-family to RM-30, and the developer would decide what the market would bear at the time.
11/13/95 77-240
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The RM-30 zone allowed single-family, duplexes, and multiple-family housing up to a maximum density of 30 units to the acre. Council Member Kniss asked how many housing units had been added during the previous four to five years. Mr. Schreiber could not provide the information that evening. Council Member Rosenbaum asked what the purpose was of the revised Ordinance before the Council that evening. Mr. Calonne said the revised Ordinance would be substituted for Exhibit 3. The revisions added some confirmation that the Council's action that evening was not an attempt to change the legal minimum amount of time necessary for amortization. He clarified that amortization was a concept used to avoid undue economic hardship on a property owner. Staff wanted to make sure from a legal standpoint that it was clear 15 years was enough from an economic standpoint notwithstanding the policy decision that the Council made that evening. The revised Ordinance also reflected the action of the Planning Commission and related to conditions on the use following 1999. Council Member Huber referred to the revised Ordinance and asked, should the amortization be extended, whether the present Council or any future Councils would have the right to bring the issue back and proceed in a different direction. Mr. Calonne said yes, subject to policy direction that evening. Council Member Huber clarified if Fry's Electronics left the site in the Year 2001, the Council would have the right to bring the issue back at that point and make a decision regarding the use of the property. He asked whether the amortization could be dropped at any point in time. Mr. Calonne said the language on page 3 of the revised Ordinance set up some specific conditions necessary to continue beyond the Year 1999, and if those conditions were followed, then Council would need to go through a rezoning process. The extension of the amortization was not the vehicle to bind future Councils as to the use of the property. The amortization was a 15-year period necessary to avoid taking a property. Once the 15 years had expired, absence a statutory development agreement, there was no way to prevent a future Council from undertaking any particular zoning action that it might wish. The revised Ordinance stated expressly a legal conclusion that would have been drawn anyway on the other documents before the Council that evening. The intent was not to create a substantive change but to make it clear what could and could not be done under the circumstances.
11/13/95 77-241
Council Member Huber referred to the language "or repeal this extension" and asked whether a Council in the Year 2002 could bring the issue back and repeal the extension if the extension went to the Year 2019. Mr. Calonne said yes, with or without the language. The language clarified a function of the limit on the Council's power in the absence of a development agreement. Council Member Huber asked what would happen if a Council chose to bring the issue back and repeal the extension. Mr. Calonne said the property would be amortized within a reason-able period of time from that action. Council Member Huber asked what a reasonable period of time was. Mr. Calonne said it would probably take less than a year to enforce the action. Council Member Andersen referred to a letter received by the Council from Maria Spalietta and Douglas and Patricia Dixon dated August 17, 1995, which indicated that many of the concerns that they had previously expressed during the public hearings had been worked out by the owners of the Fry's Electronics property. He asked the status of some of those earlier concerns that were expressed during the public process. Mr. Schreiber said the concerns raised by Ms. Spalietta and Mr. and Mrs. Dixon last spring related to their anger over the loss of the manufacturing/commercial zoning of their property and potential unfair treatment by the City. Their concern was an understandable policy concern in terms of the actual impact of the former Maximart site and railroad right-of-way on their property. The issue raised was a fair treatment question. Council Member Andersen asked whether the properties had been purchased by WSJ Properties. Jack Wheatley, partner, WSJ Properties, 2240 Cowper Street, said WSJ Properties had purchased three of the homes upon request of the owners. The intent was to purchase other homes if requested by the homeowners. Council Member Andersen said the Planning Commission had requested delivery hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the site. He asked what the implications were of that request in the area and asked the status of the concern expressed by neighbors regarding other equity issues. Mr. Wheatley said he had submitted the hours of operation of the
11/13/95 77-242
existing businesses to the City. Fry's Electronics opened at 9:00 a.m., but the employees arrived at 8:00 a.m. The Cable Co-op trucks were already moving at 8:00 a.m. One of the tenants brought a large truck onto the site at 7:00 a.m. to avoid a dangerous situation for people going to Fry's. He requested that the operational hours be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in order for the businesses to operate properly. In addition, a mitigating sound wall would be built. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she had previously expressed some concerns about the parking layout shown in the plans, particularly in the area against the back fences of the residential neighbors on Olive Avenue. She asked whether any consideration had been given to either losing that amount of parking or reconfiguring the parking. Mr. Wheatley said everything possible had been done to provide as much landscaping as possible along that area. A lot of parking would be lost if there were certain limits inside with parking only on one side. A fairly large island had been left in the center so the planting would be visible from the residents' standpoint. He had tried to be as thoughtful as possible and still meet the requirements for the tenants and the parking for the employees. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the employees would be parking in that area earlier and later than other people and could cause a disturbance for the neighbors. Mr. Wheatley said the employees began arriving at about 8:00 a.m. Employees who arrived early usually parked as close to the building as possible, and the late arrivals parked near the wall. Council Member Rosenbaum said before the previous City Council took action on the Maximart property, it changed the zoning on the adjacent properties with the intent of maintaining the single-family homes on that street. He asked whether the homes that were recently purchased would be rentals or sold. Mr. Wheatley said the homes would be rentals. There was no plan to ask the City for a change in zoning on the properties at the present time. Council Member Schneider said WSJ Properties had previously indicated a strong commitment to maintain the underlying zoning of housing for a future date. She asked whether WSJ Properties still had that same commitment in the future. Mr. Wheatley said yes. He was aware that an area-wide change would take over 20 years, particularly when there were multiple parcels of land. The amortization would provide the time to complete the area plan, including a large strip on El Camino Real which could start a change in that part of the City. It would
11/13/95 77-243
take time, patience, and work on the part of the property owners and incentives by the City in order to have a change happen. He mentioned that there was a loading dock that would need a route for the truck and the cars so that the one-way traffic pattern would be maintained. Council Member Huber clarified if the proposal were approved, there would be some investment in landscaping, and he asked whether the level of investment would impact the Council's ability to function under the clause that allowed the Council to repeal the action if it desired. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member Huber said the traffic issue was raised by a number of citizens and that a considerable amount of traffic came out of the parking lots onto Park Boulevard which tended to isolate the neighborhoods rather than improve them. He asked how staff planned to deal with traffic on that specific amortization or in the short term. Mr. Schreiber said when staff analyzed the traffic impacts of continuing and modifying the commercial use on the site, it did not find any locations that received enough additional traffic to warrant technical concerns from the Transportation professionals. The project included landscaping along Park Boulevard which was responsive to the neighborhood and comments that came out of the workshop to make Park Boulevard a more pedestrian-friendly, walkable street. There were other things that could be done regarding traffic in the immediate area, and he expected that if there were a broader area planning process, traffic and vehicle movements would be a major topic for discussion. Staff had looked at the possibility of putting speed bumps on Olive Avenue, and property owners had been contacted; but there was no consensus at the present time to move in that direction. Council Member Andersen clarified there were several businesses in the area, including Cable Co-op, and he asked what the implications were for Cable Co-op's relocation if the Council did not proceed with the extension. Mr. Schreiber said the General Manager of Cable Co-op strongly supported the extension of the commercial use time frame. He understood Cable Co-op's concern related primarily to the electronic equipment. The present site was selected as the best location in Palo Alto due to its technical considerations. The equipment was very large and complicated, and moving it would be quite difficult and expensive. Council Member Andersen asked whether the Council needed to make specific exceptions regarding the trucks and the traffic flow movement.
11/13/95 77-244
Mr. Schreiber said the Council's action extending the commercial uses would not preclude the City from conducting transportation studies and taking appropriate actions in the future, i.e., modification of streets or working with property owners regarding access for trucks. The City would not give up any of its long-term options for the neighborhood. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff and Planning Commission recommendations: 1. Adopt the two (2) environmental assessments (94-EIA-32 and 94-EIA-32a), finding that the proposals will not result in any significant environmental impacts; 2. Introduce the Ordinance extending the nonconforming use amortization schedule for the former Maximart site from 1999 to 2019; 3. Adopt the Resolution amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designation of a portion of the adjacent, abandoned railroad right-of-way from Single-Family Residential and Light Industrial to Multiple-Family Residential; 4. Introduce the Ordinance amending Sections 18.24.040 (RM-30 District) and 18.26.040 (RM-40 District), permitting the development of parking facilities (with a conditional use permit) on abandoned railroad right-of-way properties located in these districts; and 5. Introduce the Ordinance rezoning a portion of the adjacent abandoned railroad right-of-way from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and GM-B (General Manufacturing-Combining) Districts to RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residen-tial) District. Further, to approve the staff and the Architectural Review Board recommendations: 1. Approval of environmental assessment 94-EIA-92 and a design review (ARB) application for property improvements to the former Maximart site, including conditions attached to this report, as amended by the ARB and staff. (See Exhibit 7 of CMR:182:95 - Revised design review application findings and conditions of approval. Note that findings and conditions of approval related to the proposed parking lot on the former railroad right-of-way have been deleted from this Exhibit and are included in Exhibit 8 of CMR:182:95.) Further, to transmit comments to the Zoning Administrator for consideration in the future processing of a conditional use permit
11/13/95 77-245
and comments to the ARB for consideration in the future processing of the design review application for a new parking lot on the adjacent former railroad right-of-way (Exhibit 8). EXHIBIT 7: Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval for Improvements to the Former Maximart Site FINDINGS Recommended Design Review Findings for property improvements to the former Maximart site (94-ARB-242): 1. The property improvements, as proposed and as conditioned, would be consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan given the following: a. The proposed improvements would not be inconsistent or in conflict with the property's Multiple-Family Residential land use designation adopted in the Land Use Element as the proposed improvements are limited to new landscaping, parking and circulation, which could be easily altered in any future residential redevelopment of this site. b. The on-site circulation and landscaping improvements as recommended would reduce possible "through" traffic on residential streets in the area and reduce employee parking in the contiguous residential neighborhood, consistent with policies 4 and 10 of the adopted Trans-portation Element. 2. The design and nature of the proposed property improvements as conditioned are harmonious with the surrounding environment in that they: a. Take into consideration the scale of the site, surrounding land uses, and improvements and nature features; b. Are designed to enhance the appearance of the subject property without discouraging or inhibiting property redevelopment with a more appropriate, long-term residential use; c. Would result in new landscaping improving views of the site from adjacent properties, as well as improved quality of life through noise buffering by the proposed masonry sound wall along the northernmost property line; and d. Would require the preservation of existing, mature
11/13/95 77-246
trees which screen the large metal structures, loading docks and delivery zones and would provide visual relief in both southern (customer) and northern (employee) parking lots. 3. The amount and arrangement of on-site and off-site (Park Boulevard) landscaping and open space, new circulation, and improved access, as proposed and as conditioned, would meet the standards required under the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. 4. The landscaping and plant materials, as proposed and as conditioned, are appropriate and compatible with the site and the surrounding properties in that recommended conditions of approval require that modifications to the proposed landscap-ing be made along the Matadero Creek drainage channel so that this landscaping can mature and be incorporated into future redevelopment of the site. It is appropriate not to require significant exterior improvements to the existing buildings to discourage their long-term use and encourage redevelopment of the site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Recommended Design Review conditions of approval for property improvements to the former Maximart Site (94-ARB-242) Prior to the submittal of a Grading Permit and/or a Building Permit for Site Improvements 1. A detailed property survey of the former Maximart site and the contiguous abandoned railroad right-of-way shall be prepared and submitted identifying the following: a. Property boundaries and existing grades/topographic information; b. The location of existing buildings and structures (including finished floor elevations and other improve-ments, fence lines and immediate adjacent improvements found on the adjacent properties); c. The location of existing storm drainage improvements, utility lines, services, and improvements; d. The location of all driveway curb cuts and streetfront (public right-of-way) improvements; e. The location, size (trunk diameter) and species of existing trees; f. The location of all easements; and
11/13/95 77-247
g. The location of all on-site groundwater monitoring wells. 2. The following shall be submitted for ARB review and approval: a. Plans/drawings presenting exterior building improvements for the two large metal buildings. Per the direction of the ARB, building improvements shall be modest, limited to exterior painting with design changes to the pedestrian building entrances, ramps and railings. b. Detailed specifications of the proposed sign program. These specifications shall include sign dimensions, size, precise location, materials, colors and illumination. 3. Detailed specifications shall be submitted on the proposed bicycle racks and lockers demonstrating compliance with the City's Class I, II and III bicycle parking requirements. These specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit and/or a Building Permit for Site Improvements 4. The project sponsor shall either prepare a detailed drainage study of the area or present "worst case" mitigation measures addressing on-site retention of peak flow run-off. If the latter is proposed, the final grading plan shall be designed so that portions of the parking lot and landscape islands serve as areas of retention during periods of peak rainfall. These areas shall be sized so that post-development peak run-off is not increased over existing conditions. Final design shall be based on drainage calculations prepared by a licensed engineer demonstrating that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from the adjacent properties are not altered. This final design shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Engineering. 5. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared identifying the following: a. Proposed grading for the southern (main) parking lot entrance at Portage Avenue. Grading shall be in accor-dance with the proposed plans (Attachment 1 of 94-EIA-32) for the purpose of improving on-site drainage and reducing flooding during peak periods. b. All cut fill shall be balanced on the former Maximart and former railroad right-of-way sites.
11/13/95 77-248
c. Protection of all on-site groundwater monitoring wells. 6. All site work and improvements within 50 feet of the Matadero Creek channel are subject to review and approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. All necessary approvals shall be secured from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, with proof of approval presented to the City. 7. The proposed improvements are located within a special flood hazard area. The project sponsor shall provide certificate to Public Works Engineering that the proposed construction meets all FEMA requirements. Flood water openings shall be required on all structures. 8. Site improvements shall be designed to maintain and protect the existing groundwater monitoring wells onsite. 9. Adjustments shall be made to the on-site circulation and parking plan to improve flow, parking use/distribution and access. The following adjustments shall be provided on the final plans presented for issuance of a grading permit or a building permit: a. Redesign the two Park Boulevard driveways serving the main parking lot, per Attachment 8 of 94-EIA-32, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. (Redesign driveways for ingress and egress only, introduce diagonal parking and increase landscaping.) b. Increase the amount of compact parking spaces (sized at 7.5 feet wide by 16 feet deep) to 25% of the total on-site spaces. The compact parking spaces shall be relatively evenly distributed throughout the site. c. Provide one van-accessible parking space adjacent to the entrance ramp to Fry's Electronics, in addition to those proposed elsewhere. d. Detailed specifications shall be provided on the Class I, II, and III bicycle parking facilities. The Class III bicycle parking facilities shall be relocated to within 30 feet of the main customer entrance to Fry's Electronics. e. Two delivery vehicle loading spaces shall be provided immediately adjacent to the two loading ramps located on the north side of the main building, per Attachment 9 of 94-EIA-32, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
11/13/95 77-249
f. Details on signage for employee parking shall be provided for the northern parking lot, at the Park Boulevard driveway entrance and at the Acacia Avenue entrance. The signage shall indicate that the lot is restricted to employee parking and service loading/unloading. g. No parking spaces shall "straddle" the property line shared by the former Maximart site and the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The parking and circulation plan shall be modified per Attachment 9a and 9b of 94-EIA-32, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. h. A permanent concrete curb or bumper wheel stop shall be installed around all planting islands and strips to protect existing trees and proposed plantings from vehicular damage. Where a concrete curb is designed to serve as a wheel stop, the stopping edge shall be placed no closer than two feet from the edge of the required sidewalk, building or tree trunk (required per Section 18.83.100(h) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code).
i. Road Αhumps≅ shall be installed throughout the main (customer) parking lot. The location, number and
design of the Αhumps≅ shall be in accordance with the specifications of the City Traffic Engineer. 10. Final landscaping and irrigation plans for all on-site improvements shall be submitted to the City for approval. Modifications to the landscaping plan shall be made to include the following: a. Adjustments shall be made to the circulation and parking layout to preserve 3 of the 5 redwood trees located in the main parking lot, per Attachment 8 of 94-EIA-32, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. b. A minimum 5-foot-wide perimeter landscape setback shall be provided at the southwest corner of the property (behind the Ash Street office), and along the north side of the Matadero Creek channel. c. Additional trees shall be planted (between existing trees) in the 5-foot-wide strip along the north side of the Matadero Creek channel. A large canopy tree (moraine ash, sycamore or similar) shall be selected for use in this area, as approved by the City Arborist. One-gallon-sized shrubs shall be installed between trees, extending from the Park Boulevard frontage to
11/13/95 77-250
the southwest property line. An identical five-foot-wide planting strip shall be provided along the south side of the channel (area of the property utilized by Cable Co-op). Tree and shrub amounts, arrangements and species for the south side of the channel shall be the same as that proposed and required for the north side of the channel. Final tree and shrub species selection shall be reviewed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District to ensure that there are no conflicts with their use, access and maintenance of the drainage channel. d. Landscape islands proposed along the parking lot entrance driveway from Portage Avenue are evenly spaced, providing a tree-lined effect. One additional island shall be installed on the north side of the driveway (located west of the Fry's Electronics entrance) to complete the "regimented" island/planting pattern. Two additional landscape islands (of identical size) shall be provided along the frontage of this main building, between Fry's Electronics entrance and the Park Boulevard building corner. These additional islands would assist in extending the tree-lined effect along the main (southern) parking lot. e. Fifteen (15) gallon sized trees shall be required along the north side of the main metal building to provide height and screening of the dock. A total of eight trees shall be planted along this strip, planted at intervals of 1 tree per 50 feet. A species providing tall growth and requiring limited area for "spread" shall be selected and approved by the City Arborist. f. Final modifications to the parking/circulation and landscaping plans shall introduce a total of 25% compact spaces, while maintaining a total on-site parking space count of approximately 600 spaces (com-bined total for both the former Maximart site and the adjacent abandoned railroad right-of-way). This may require extending the northern parking lot westward, along the Acacia Avenue frontage. g. The final plans shall include the installation of parking lot lighting standards equivalent to those specified in this application (fixture type Gardco Form Ten EH). Parking lot lighting shall be limited to those areas where required to meet minimum security and safety. The final lighting plan shall show the location of all exterior lighting fixtures and a photometric diagram showing light pattern and intensity.
11/13/95 77-251
h. The final tree species plant list shall be amended to exclude fraxinus uhdei (shamel ash) and liriodendron tulipifern (tulip tree). Tree species to be added shall be quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) and quercus lobata (valley oak). i. 50% of all trees to be planted as part of the property improvements and as required by conditions of approval are to be 24-inch box size. This quota shall be indicated on the final plans. 11. A final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted for installation of the street tree planting and bulb-outs along Park Boulevard. The final location for these bulb-outs shall be per the revised site plan submitted by the project sponsor, dated March 1, 1995, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment, as approved by the ARB. The final plan shall include the following specifications. a. A total of seven bulb-outs shall be installed along the south side of Park Boulevard, between Olive Avenue and the southern property boundary. b. Each bulb-out shall be a maximum of six feet wide, measured along the curb face. Each bulb-out shall be bordered by a raised concrete curb meeting the design standards of the City. The five smaller bulb-outs shall be 35 feet in length. The two larger bulb-outs shall be 55 feet in length. c. Tree species shall be sycamore or other similar species, approved by the City Arborist, installed at a size of 24-inch box. The smaller bulb-outs shall contain two trees; the larger bulb-outs shall contain three trees. d. Ground cover species shall be star jasmine, or other similar species approved by the City Arborist. e. Extending from the sidewalk and curb, the bulb-outs shall be designed with an adequate drainage system and easy maneuvering of street sweeping equipment/vehicles. The radius of the bulb shall be 10 feet. The final drainage improvements shall be designed to the specification required by the City Engineer. f. All installation work within the public right-of-way shall require a City encroachment permit and a Permit for Construction in the Public Street, issued from Public Works Engineering. g. The final soil mix used for the landscaping bulb-outs
11/13/95 77-252
shall be to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 12. The project sponsor shall enter into a maintenance agreement to ensure adequate maintenance of the on-site landscaping and irrigation for on-site improvements, and for the Park Boule-vard street tree island improvements. 13. All existing utility meters, transformers, backflow preventors, fire hydrants, and other utilities, shall be shown on the on-site parking and circulation plan, and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and the proposed improvements (e.g. location of new parking and driveway curb cuts will require the relocation of a fire hydrant along Park Boulevard). Any relocation of a fire hydrant or backflow preventor shall require a permit from the Fire Department, at the cost of the project sponsor. 14. Any modification to the existing underground fire service line will require a separate plan and permit from the Fire Department. Prior to Issuance of a Building or Demolition Permit for Tenant Improvements (Conversion of ABC Storage to Fry's Electronics) 15. All future tenant improvements within the existing main building will be subject to City building permits, consistent with the current Uniform Building Code (UBC). Applications of UBC standards will require that measures be imposed to minimize seismic risk. 16. The "as built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage must be certified on the City's Elevation Certificate and accepted as meeting the Special Flood Area requirements. This shall be done at the stage of construction when the "as built" elevation of that floor is first established and still correctable with minimum effort. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for interior improvements, a FEMA elevation certificate (or copy) must be submitted for City files. (Section 16.52.) 17. Final remediation of any remaining Durabond soil contaminants shall occur when the main metal building is removed and the site is redeveloped. This remediation shall be completed in accordance with the regulations imposed by the RWQCB. Should the expansion or interior improvements of Fry's Electronics (or any present or future tenants), result in the removal of or significant changes to the building floor or grade under the building, the property owners may be required to complete the final remediation. This requirement would be determined when final plans are presented for the expansion of Fry's Electronics or for other existing or future tenants.
11/13/95 77-253
18. Safety and lighting measures will be required for any interior tenant improvements, to include illuminated exit signs, emergency lighting, and portable fire extinguishers. Prior to Commencement of Construction 19. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at a minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City. 20. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from the Public Works Engineering Division for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for the identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work on the site, the applicant shall contact the Underground Services Alter, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 22. The contractor shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. 23. The contractor shall contact the CPA Public Works Inspector prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 24. All existing trees in the area of construction shall be marked or tagged. Those trees that are to be preserved as required by the approved plan shall be protected during construction. Tree protection measures shall include appropriate fencing and setbacks to ensure that there is limited damage to tree trunks and roots. 25. Final plans and the location of any new water meters must be approved by City Utilities. 26. Signs shall be posted as to construction activities so that the visibility of motorists and pedestrians is not obstructed. 27. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventors, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities.
11/13/95 77-254
During Construction 28. Dust control measures shall be implemented by the contractor during construction to ensure that temporary air impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance. Measures shall include: a. Watering all areas of exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (early morning and early evening). b. Avoid overfilling of trucks so that potential spillage in the public right-of-way is minimized. The contractor shall be required to clean up all spillage in the public right-of-way. c. Implementation of a logistics plan as required under condition 21. 29. A storm drainage fee adjustment shall take place in the final month following approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 30. The project sponsor shall require its contractor to incorpo-rate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. 31. Stop signs, stop bars and red curbs shall be installed at the Ash Street/Portage Avenue all-way intersection, to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 32. A new sidewalk shall be installed along the Portage Avenue frontage of the property. This sidewalk shall commence at the corner of Portage Avenue and the public alley (southwest corner of the main metal building), extending eastward to the building stairway (which leads to the covered walkway). Two curb ramps for the disabled shall be required at the corner of Ash Street and Portage Avenue. 33. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. 34. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of the Public Works Engineering Division. 35. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utilities Departments.
11/13/95 77-255
36. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscaping. The meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. 37. Construction activities are required to conform to the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, which restricts hours of activity and levels of noise produced by individual pieces of equipment, as well as noise produced generally, as specified in Section 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 38. All work shall be in accordance with the Palo Alto water, gas and wastewater utility standards. 39. The utility customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. Rules and Regulations 3D. 40. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrad-ing the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. Prior to Final Inspection 41. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 42. Approval of this application includes approval of mitigation monitoring and reporting program (94-EIA-32). The conditions of this ARB application reflect the mitigation measures presented in this program. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.94.070 (Nonconform-ing Use - Required Termination) to Change the Required Termination Date for the Use at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage/Olive Avenue" Resolution 7553 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for Property at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Zone
11/13/95 77-256
Classification of Property Located at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue from R-1 and GM-B to RM-30" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.24.040 and 18.26.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (RM-30 and RM-40 District Regulations), Relating to Conditional Use Permits for Parking Facilities on Abandoned Railroad Rights-of-Way" Mayor Simitian suggested the Council Members speak to both the main motion and the issue of timing and at the end of the discus-sion, the motion could be severed for the purposes of a vote. Council Member Kniss referred to Mr. Schreiber's previous response that the outstanding issue in 1983 and 1984 was housing and that the impact on City revenues was not irrelevant at that time. He also stated that the City knew more about what made a good housing site at the present time but that particular site had had some significant problems. She recalled that since 1990, there had been at least 300 housing units completed or near completion, including Jacobs Court, the Times Tribune site, The Hamilton, and the Promenade. Another approximately 250 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing units had been approved on Alma Street. The Hyatt hotel site was moving forward as well as the Hohbach site which would be close to California Avenue. Additionally, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's 10 acres might be available for housing in the future. Stanford West would have several hundred units if approved. A number of issues in the housing area had been addressed over the previous years. The traffic issue regarding the site had also been previously discussed. The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) had recommended that during Council's review of the draft Comprehensive Plan that Council try to reduce traffic trips. The number of short traffic trips made in the City was significant. The issue that evening was not about Fry's Electronics or Cable Co-op; it was about extending the amortization of a commercial site. For many people involved in the computer industry, that type of store was used to purchase products and as a gathering place and brought an added value to the community. She would support the extension for 20 years since a company would be more inclined to provide major improvements to the site with a longer use. Council Member Schneider would support the motion. Her decision did not indicate that she was not a strong housing advocate, but housing was not appropriate at that location at the present time. A Council 15 years previously made the right policy decision to convert the area to housing. Unfortunately, the decision had caused both homeowners and business owners who were forced to move or close their businesses a lot of pain. The present Council had to right the wrong and lay the groundwork for a predictable future. As a Council Member, she was bound to research, reflect, study, and after thoughtful deliberation reach a decision that she
11/13/95 77-257
believed best served the interests of the entire community. She believed extending the amortization for commercial usage was the best decision. The property owners who purchased homes in the surrounding area with the speculation that retention of the housing would increase their property values would not realize that gain. The people who brought their homes without the desire to reap financial gain but instead envisioned a quiet residential neighborhood would not have their expectation met either. She wanted to believe that in the future the site would be an ideal location for housing; but in the meantime, she was anxious to put in place a planning tool such as the coordinated area plan which would provide real expectations that everyone could count on. She would also support the extension for 20 years. Council Member Andersen would support the extension of the amortization. He pointed out that it was not just the zoning for a housing site but the willingness and ability to move forward with housing on a site. He had not been persuaded that the groundwater contamination was serious, but he had been persuaded that the financial community might be afraid of the site. He did not believe there would be a rush to build housing on the site even if the Council did not extend the amortization. He acknowledged that one of the reasons he supported the proposal was because the property generated a great deal of tax revenue, which the Council needed to consider. He queried whether the previous Council would have approved the site for residential if Fry's Electronics had been in place at that time and generating the same level of revenue. He assumed there would be an active effort in the future to deal with the groundwater contamination issue and that the Council would proceed at that time with the intended use for the site. He supported a 20-year extension because he did not believe any tenant would put in the described capital improvements without a long-term depreciation. A burden to future Councils and a detriment to the community would be an approximate $500,000 reduction in the budget which would probably affect the infrastructure development before the social services in the community. He referred to the Planning Commission's recommendation for the hours of operation and suggested that the delivery hours be changed from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. He was concerned that if the delivery hour remained at 9:00 a.m., there might be a backup of traffic due to truck deliveries. Planning Commissioner Kathryn Schmidt said there were comments by the neighbors that there was considerable noise in the early morning hours. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended the delivery hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., but there was no detailed discussion of the time frame. Council Member Schneider suggested the delivery hours be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. rather than a 13-hour delivery schedule of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
11/13/95 77-258
Council Member Andersen preferred a 13-hour delivery schedule and did not feel there would be a lot of noise between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Council Member Fazzino supported the concept of maintaining retail on the site. He recalled the Council's previous commitment in favor of housing in 1983 was a bitterly divided 5:4 Council vote with at least one Council Member struggling with his/her decision the entire evening. He voted against the motion to rezone the site at that time. It was an ideal site for commercial use given its 60-year history as a commercial site and its ability to serve the community with reasonably priced high-tech products. Since 1983 the site had been primarily occupied by Fry's Electronics, a very successful high-tech retail establishment which served the people of the community and prevented many people from driving to a neighboring community for similar products exacerbating regional traffic problems. High cost of land in Palo Alto along with Fry's square footage needs made it extremely unlikely that Fry's could locate another economically competitive site in the City. The site was unique. It had been nearly abandoned after the closure of Maximart, and the development on it was made more complicated by environmental issues. He believed the site could remain vacant for years if the Council did not extend the amortization. There were several abandoned sites along El Camino Real that had been designated for housing which had similar environmental concerns. He suggested housing redevelopment be focused on those sites first and then the possibility of housing at the Fry's location be addressed later. As indicated by Council Member Kniss, several hundred affordable housing units had been added to the housing stock in the community over the previous years, and more needed to be done. The economic and environmental reality was that if the Council decided not to approve the extension of the amortization, housing would not be built on that site for many years. He believed the only practical way over the next decade to clean up and improve the site would be to support the proposal with necessary economic incentives for design and landscaping conditions which was a major concern of a number of neighbors. He was also pleased with the proposal to limit truck access to the site as well as the proposal to cap retail use. Revenue of approximately $500,000 annually for the City was a relevant issue, but it was not the most important issue. The state's current sales tax formula should be changed because it encouraged cities to chase retail instead of housing and manufacturing which provided higher paying jobs. However, after deciding that the best use of the site was for community-serving retail given the alternatives, $500,000 annually did support many valuable City services, including several police officers, firefighters, extended hours for City libraries, and/or at least two elementary child care centers. He shared Council Member Schneider's concern about the impact on neighbors, and his greatest difficulty with supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation was that neighboring property owners had expected a change in use even on
11/13/95 77-259
the basis of a 5:4 vote. However, he believed that a more attrac-tively designed and landscaped retail site with strict noise and other controls was a far better near term alternative than an abandoned site with environmental and economic issues preventing housing for many years. WSJ Properties' purchase of neighboring properties resolved some of his concerns, but most of his concerns could not be addressed before completion of the area wide plan that protected residents which was the Council's next course of action that evening. He would support the 20-year amortization. If Fry's left the site during that period and environmental issues were resolved and economic climate improved for housing, he would support Council action to initiate the opportunity to shorten the amortization period and move forward with housing at that time. For the near term, he believed continued use of the site by Fry's best served the citizens of the community. Council Member McCown had focused on why the Council should make a different decision on the property from the decision the previous Council made in 1983. There were some things that were the same as in 1983; and in the broader context, it was an area where changes in use were expected and desired and the Council had an opportunity to decide what direction it wanted to go with the changes. She believed the broader area presented the Council with one of the most extraordinary opportunities in the community to create a plan to design and redevelop a new neighborhood with a predominant housing focus but with a mixture of other uses. A fact that was true in 1983 and true at the present time was that there was a relatively modest financial investment in the physical buildings of many of the surrounding properties, including the proposed site. The result was that it had allowed a variety of businesses and services to stay in the community that would have otherwise been pushed out because of the increase in value in other commercial areas. A previous decision that had not changed was not to push the CS zoned uses out of the City. Another decision that had not changed was the fact that it was a smaller scale modestly priced residential neighborhood surrounded by many uses that were not compatible with residential use. What was true in 1983 was still true in 1995; it was an incredibly complex and challenging planning area for the community. There had been some changes. After the amortization decisions were made in the 1980s, changes were made in the Downtown area later in the 1980s which followed a different principle of grandfathering in existing uses. Underlying zoning was not changed if there were a vital community serving business and businesses were not forced to leave before a natural end of that business. The Council did not want to force the businesses out of the community, but it wanted a change to happen. For example, the Peninsula Creamery site would eventually change, but a different decision made later in the 1980s did not force the business out via an amortization. The Council had approached the issues differently in the succeeding years. Another obvious difference was that the City could not ignore a unique, totally unexpected use of the business of Fry's.
11/13/95 77-260
Fry's provided a tremendous service to the community, and the point had been well made that if Fry's had been at the site in 1983 and had a 5-year successful track record, it might have affected the decision made at that time. Also, a fortuitous and desirable home had been found for Cable Co-op and the public access station in that building. Another change was the fact that the Stanford Research Park was currently known as a national hazardous waste super fund site which was not true in 1983 either and involved long-term cleanup issues for the entire area. She recognized that property owners responded to that issue differently in terms of how quickly a change could be made. She believed it was a given in the present situation that the particu-lar property owner involved in the control of the former Maximart property was extremely risk adverse about moving forward with a change in the face of the contamination issue. She also believed that the traffic circulation issues of the greater area were even more challenging at the present time than it was in 1983, and the traffic circulation patterns as it connected the area to the California Avenue train station needed an integrated approach of how the area would redevelop rather than isolate uncoordinated zoning changes of particular properties. She believed it was a legitimate opportunity to consider the issue again due to the changes articulated. She favored the extension of the amortization because she believed an area plan needed to be developed with new and active participation by the property owners, business owners, residents, and the broader community interests. It was a classic example of the older approach of assigning certain zoning, and expecting the marketplace to figure out how to make it work did not work. She was not optimistic that if the amortization date were not changed, the Council would see the kind of change that it wanted in that area. The Council needed to pursue the area in a more integrated way which would take time to put the plan together and see the changes implemented. She wanted to accept the offer that the Council had received from the owners of the site that they were committed to housing on the long term, and she wanted a plan in the next few years that would figure out what incentives could be created to fulfill that promise. An interim continued use of Fry's Electronics was acceptable, but she was concerned about the 20-year time frame. To meet her goals, she did not believe 20 more years past 1999 were needed and a more reasonable extension was 10 years past 1999 which would not rule out a plan from the area planning process that would allow the extension further. A shorter initial extension of the use was more reasonable. Vice Mayor Wheeler associated with the comments of Council Member McCown, including the length of time for a potential extension of the amortization. She was opposed to the basic philosophy that Council Member Fazzino espoused earlier about the short- and long-term solutions for the property, and she was in total agreement with the policy decision that was made by the Council 10 years previously. She believed the previous decision was the correct
11/13/95 77-261
philosophical decision, and she maintained it was still the right thing for that neighborhood for the long term. She felt the Council in the past had taken the easy action and rezoned pieces of property but had not been effective in making the rezoning work. One of the reasons that the City was successful in the Downtown area was that instead of merely rezoning, the City also found a way to build in incentives to the property owners to do the right things. That magic ingredient had not been found for housing, and so the City had significant pieces of property along El Camino Real which were rezoned for housing more than 15 years previously that currently remained vacant. She feared that without a very careful and studied look at that area, the City could end up in the same position and have 11 acres of useless land. The Council needed the time to do a rational plan for the neighborhood, and an amortization period was needed that was sufficient length to allow the completion of that rational planning process for the greater area. The Council needed to consider what was fair for all the neighbors of the site and other significant sites within that larger planning area, and it needed to be fair to the owners of the parcel and the business owners that were located on the parcel. The owners needed to have sufficient time to make rational business plans for the foreseeable future, and if investments were made in that location, the owners needed to be given an opportunity to recapture that investment. Speakers had asked the Council to do what was right, and she believed the right decision for the neighborhood was to take the time and do a thorough job of planning for the larger area and incorporate into the planning Council action that would actually bring to fruition the plans that the neighborhood agreed to for its own future. She supported the amortization extension and would support shortening the time frame from its 20 years to a period of time that would allow the criteria that she had suggest-ed. She continued to have a concern about the ARB's consideration of the parking layout and the impact on the residents on Olive Avenue whose backyards abutted immediately along that last fork of parking. She preferred that the ARB consider removing the row of parking that was immediately adjacent to the backyards of the residents where there was no ability to put in a significant landscaped buffer between the backyards and the parking strip. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the motion. He saw it as the same actions that were taken along Middlefield Road many years prior. In the late 1960s, the Council zoned what was currently the Century Market and the Arco gas station to residential with a 15-year amortization period. When the end of the amortization period came near, the surrounding residents decided that the gas station and the market were more valuable uses to the neighborhood; the residents petitioned the Council, and the Council reversed the zone change from residential to commercial. The current situation was similar in which a use had developed since the original action was taken which was of value to the entire community. He emphasized that it was a simple extension of
11/13/95 77-262
the amortization, and the Council could exercise its right should a less valuable use to the overall community occur which might exist somewhere else in the community. The Council had a special obligation because of the homes along Olive Avenue to make sure that the conditions in the Ordinance were enforced and that the general Noise Ordinance was enforced. A second code enforcement officer had been added which should help the enforcement of such conditions. He made a commitment that the Council would look very seriously if a situation occurred. Council Member Huber had struggled with the proposal since its inception. When the proposal initially came before the Council, he leaned toward opposing the amortization because of his concern for the immediate neighbors and the businesses that had been amortized out. However, he came to a different view when the suggestion was made that the Council look at an area plan for the entire area and when the Ordinance was amended. The amended Ordinance clearly stated that the Council or a future Council on changed circumstances could bring the issue back and repeal the amortization and proceed with the original zoning. For those two primary reasons, he would support the extension of the amortization. However, he wholeheartedly concurred with Council Member McCown's suggestion that it should be for a shorter period of time which would give the City enough time for adequate reasonable planning for that area. The amortization period could be extended at that time if necessary. Mayor Simitian clarified some Council Members had argued how important it was to extend the amortization for 20 years to give the assurances to the tenant that the building, once improved, could be amortized over a 20-year period. On the other hand, some Council Members had indicated that if it turned out that there was no beneficial use on the site, the Council could, within a moment's notice, repeal the 20-year amortization. He said it was important for the applicant to know whether he/she had a 20-year amortization extension or not. Mr. Calonne said the Council would not have the power to guarantee that future Councils would not change the amortization period. Once the original amortization went past 1999, the amortization was no longer necessary to protect any property right interest. The Council could use its power to protect the health, safety, and general welfare to grant some additional period of time for the reasons set out in the staff report (CMR:182:95). A future Council might have a different set of health, safety, and general welfare considerations that it took into account. He could not accept a "moment's notice." The amended Ordinance raised the issue of anytime the Council wanted to terminate the amortization, but there would need to be some reasonable period of time. Mayor Simitian asked what a reasonable period of time was.
11/13/95 77-263
Mr. Calonne said it would take less than one year to evict a tenant who resisted the decision. Mayor Simitian asked whether 10 or 20 years made any difference if that were the basis for any Council to take any action in the future. Mr. Calonne said the difference would be that while the Council had that right, there would be nothing to trigger it, e.g., a future Council or City administration would have to raise the issue. A shortened time period would put the burden on the property owners and/or users to come forward and seek an extension beyond the 10-year period. Council Member Andersen asked whether the lease would be altered based upon the Council's decision on the length of the amortiza-tion period and whether the tenant could terminate the lease because of some circumstance. He assumed the only thing that would cause a future Council to make a decision that would immediately foreclose on that amortization was in the event that Fry's left and the property owner wanted to put an unacceptable facility at the site. If the Council shortened the amortization period, it might put a trigger mechanism in the lease agreement that would cause Fry's to leave earlier. He saw some potential consequences if the amortization period were shortened. Council Member McCown clarified Fry's Electronics had a 20-year lease effective immediately that went until 2014 with a 5-year option. The lease did not have the time frame, but the option would take Fry's through the same amortization period. If the amortization period were 10 years and the amortization ended 10 years after 1999, there would need to be a further decision at that point to extend it or not through the remainder of the lease term. Mr. Calonne said the amortization extension was an unusual means of achieving the desired policy result. The only difference between a rezoning and the amortization extension was that another 15-year amortization would not be needed should the Council change its mind after the original 15 years had expired. If the Council rezoned the property, it would be back to trigger another 15-year amortization should the Council change its mind. Mayor Simitian opposed the motion. He felt the discussion had been mischaracterized for the better part of the previous one and one-half years and had been repeatedly referred to as a discussion about Fry's Electronics. During his recent campaign, he had been asked by citizens his opinion on the issue of Fry's. The Council was not voting on Fry's but an amortization extension for a 12.5-acre site which was known as the former Maximart site. Fry's Electronics was not the subject of the Council's decision that evening. Fry's represented approximately 40,000 square feet on a
11/13/95 77-264
12.5-acre site or less than 10 percent of the total site. The discussion was not about an individual use or some small component of the 12.5 acres but was about the Council's vision, plan, and commitment for the entire 12.5 acres. He had previously suggested that the amortization extension include a mixed-use component. There might have been a way to make housing and Fry's work on the site given the fact that Fry's represented less than 10 percent of the total site. He had offered a motion to that effect at the time because he believed Fry's had value both as an institution for the community and also as a generator of tax revenue; but the second was withdrawn, and the Council never received the consideration of a mixed-use possibility on the site. The discussion was not about whether Fry's stayed or left but about a desire to make sure that there was no housing on the site. The concern was not about whether Fry's stayed or left given the fact that during the Measure R campaign, he heard about all the existing commercial development available in the community and the 3 million square feet of commercial development potential in the existing Comprehensive Plan. He looked at all the available commercial space in the community and the 3 million square feet that the Comprehensive Plan provided, and to suggest that there was no place in Palo Alto where a 40,000-square-foot facility might find a home if the Council put its efforts in that direction was an unreasonable conclusion to reach. Whether or not Fry's was at the site as a mixed use or whether Fry's was at another location in the community, the Council should put aside the question of whether it wanted Fry's to stay or leave and discuss what was the most appropriate use for the former Maximart site. He believed the question was whether or not housing or continued commercial use was the better use for the site. He did not believe the integrity of the Council was at risk that evening, and each Council Member was elected to make the best possible judgment he/she could make at a particular time. The Council could not bear the burden of previous Councils. His Council colleagues might reach a different point of view about the right decision to be made, and he did not fault them for making an independent judgment based on their assessment of the circumstances. However, he had reached a different conclusion. The first issue that had been debated at great length but had faded from the discussion was whether housing was doable on the site. Housing was doable on the site because the Promenade project down the street was not only financed but also built and sold in the same neighborhood with the same groundwater contamination problem. The Hohbach site had been financed and was under construction which was also down the street from the former Maximart site. The Mayfield Apartment project was recently refinanced which was across the street from the site. Lenders, builders, and buyers had found a way to make it work in an area that had the same problems. An appraisal that was recently done for the City read, "We have also considered the impact of the groundwater contamination on a developer's capability to construct underground parking on the WSJ property for redevelopment for residential use. We have identified two
11/13/95 77-265
multiple-family residential developments recently approved in the vicinity of the WSJ property which are affected by higher concentrations of groundwater contamination from different sources in the area. Both were approved and both were being built with underground parking." There were three individual case studies in the neighborhood, an appraisal from a respected local appraiser, and City staff indicating housing could be built on the site. The property owner had expressed a concern about the potential for litigation, but it should not be the driving force for the Council's decision about land use. The Council should ask itself the question of whether housing should be done if it could be done on the site. There had been a lot of discussion about money. He did not believe money was the issue because Fry's did not have to leave if the extension were not approved on the site. Fry's could have been a happy neighbor in a mixed-use development or at another location in the City. There was no guarantee that Fry's would stay in that location; therefore, money should not be the factor. The Council had not discussed the kind of financial benefits the City might derive if there were a multi-family development on the site. If 300 housing units were built, the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) would receive a considerable amount of property tax revenue. There would be an additional demand for services and facilities, but there would be substantial property tax revenue which was not being realized at the present time. It was not about dollars and being business friendly. Business friendly did not mean that the Council turned a residential neighborhood into a commercial neighborhood. Business friendly meant the Council did a better job working with identified and appropriate business districts. The Council needed to look at Midtown, neighborhood shopping areas, the Stanford Research Park, South El Camino Real, and Stanford Shopping Center and ask itself how it could do better in areas that had been identified as substantial business districts. The Council should not march into an area identified as a residential neighborhood and take a different course in the last few years of an amortization. He recalled that the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group had testified and correspondence had been received from the Bay Area Council about the importance of providing housing in communi-ties. The local businesses and industries had repeatedly stated that if the housing were not in place, it could not get the job done. The Council needed to consider economic impact, but it had to make a decision about what the best land use decision was for the site. He believed housing could and would work on the site, and the Council would miss an opportunity to provide up to 375 housing units. The jobs/housing imbalance had not changed. There were two and one-half to three jobs for every housing unit in the City, and there were consequences to that imbalance. It was not an abstract issue when housing was scarce and expensive because of the jobs/housing imbalance. It was not an abstract issue when local industries struggled to attract quality employees because there was no place to house them at a reasonable cost. It was not
11/13/95 77-266
an abstract issue when all the housing was in one place and the jobs were in another place and people spent their days driving back and forth between the housing and jobs. It was not an abstract issue when economic diversity was lost in the community in greater and greater levels with every passing year. The City was not the place it was 10 years prior and it might never be that City again, but the Council should do something to create an opportunity for more families to live in Palo Alto and to have the same opportunities that many people had previously. The Council was stepping away from an opportunity to design, create, and unify a neighborhood on the 12.5 acres that was under discussion; was stepping away from an opportunity to give 300 plus families a chance to be a part of and contribute to the community; and was stepping away from its responsibility to look beyond the parochial interests and do its fair share in the regional context to address the jobs/housing imbalance. The most disconcerting thing to him was that the Council had had a conversation about how it took time to achieve housing on the site and it had been 10 years with another 5 years remaining. He queried how much time it would take. If everyone agreed that the site ultimately should be a residential community, then the Council should start about that task sooner rather than later. If it were the herculean effort that everyone had suggested it was, progress should be made sooner rather than delaying it for 20 years. He supported the 10-year rather than the 20-year extension. All of the Council Members campaigned against Measure R and stated during the debate that 20 years was too long a period of time to plan without the flexibility the Council and the community needed to adjust to changes in the scene. He did not believe the 20-year argument was any different that evening and believed that 10 years gave plenty of opportunity to realize any returns necessary on a capital investment. It would give the Council the flexibility to make an informed judgment about the progress made and give the Council the inducement to move forward rather than wait 20 years and finesse the issue. Council Member McCown concurred with the underlying policy commitment that Mayor Simitian's comments reflected with respect to the ultimate direction of the area. She believed 20 years was not necessary. She believed there were some other amortization extension decisions made on other properties on El Camino Real after the amortizations were put in place and that the maximum extension was 10 years beyond the amortization date. Mr. Schreiber said the various amortizations processed had ranged from as short as 5 years to as long as perpetuity. Council Member McCown felt that 10 years past 1999 was a substan-tial additional time frame for a business to be in place and for the Council to plan where the further implication of change in the neighborhood would come from.
11/13/95 77-267
AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the time frame of the amortization period be reduced to 10 years from 1999 instead of 20 years from 1999. Council Member Schneider supported the 20-year amortization and opposed the amendment. As a business owner, she recognized that 10 years went by very rapidly and that 20 years was a more reasonable amount of time for that type of amortization. Council Member Andersen said the Council had used a different procedure and had grandfathered in some areas in the Downtown. He felt that the 20-year amortization provided a short-lived grandfa-ther clause. The Council needed to recognize that it was a similar kind of alteration and represented the same kind of procedure used in the Downtown. He felt the additional time was needed for that kind of capital investment. Council Member McCown said the one difference was that most of businesses that received the benefit of grandfathering in the Downtown area were already there for a substantial period of time before the zoning change. The present situation was slightly different and was a use that arrived after the change was already well known. She believed that Fry's had only been at the location for approximately 4 years. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-5, Huber, McCown, Simitian, Wheeler "yes." Council Member Andersen suggested the truck delivery hours be changed to 8:00 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m. Council Member Rosenbaum suggested that the hours be changed for the weekdays, not the weekends. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the hours for truck delivery shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Council Member Kniss suggested that holiday deliveries use the weekend delivery time. Mayor Simitian asked how staff dealt with legal holidays. Mr. Schreiber said holidays were treated as weekdays and weekends, not sorted out as a weekday versus a weekend holiday. MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING 1ST PART OF THE MOTION regarding the hours of truck delivery 1ST PART OF THE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Fazzino, McCown "no."
11/13/95 77-268
Mr. Schreiber said the Council had not addressed the issue regarding the ultimate treatment of parking spaces and landscaping island for the Park Boulevard entrance. Mr. Wheatley had raised the concern about the difficulty of truck turning movements in that area. He suggested the Council provide the ARB with flexibility in its final review of the landscape parking layout for the Park Boulevard entrance with regard to truck access issues. It would clarify for the ARB that it did not have to stay with the exact diagram that was included with the environmental assessment as the condition was currently worded. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the Architectural Review Board be given flexibility regarding the treatment of the landscaping parking layout for the Park Boulevard entrance with regard to truck access issues. Mayor Simitian asked whether any further clarification of the issue was needed. Mr. Calonne clarified that the second reading of the Ordinance would include the entire Section 18.94.070. 2ND PART OF THE MOTION regarding the remainder of the motion 2ND PART OF THE MOTION PASSED 8-1, Simitian "no." Council Member Fazzino asked how Agenda Item No. 10 regarding evaluation of the Juvenile Curfew Ordinance would be handled due to the late hour. Mayor Simitian suggested the Council move forward after the recess. Council Member Kniss said that she and Council Member Fazzino would not participate in Agenda Item No. 8, "Initiation of an Area-Wide or Specific Planning Process for Properties between Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Lambert Avenue," which dealt specifically with Hewlett-Packard. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to move Item Nos. 9 and 10 forward to precede Item No. 8. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS: 10:10 P.M. - 10:20 P.M. 7A. (Old Item No. 9) Ordinance Amending Section 2.31.040 of Chapter 2.31 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Disposition of Unclaimed Property Other than Vehicles
11/13/95 77-269
Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin said the staff's recommendation for an amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) was in response to a request made to the Council by a representative of the Major Taylor Cycling Club which had begun programs designed to enable young people to learn how to repair, maintain, and ride bicycles properly. As a result of meeting the requirements of the training program, the students were given the bicycles they had repaired. The Ordinance would enable the City to donate to the program some of the bicycles that the City gained possession of through bicycles that were lost or unclaimed and would otherwise go to auction. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.31.040 of Chapter 2.31 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Disposition of Unclaimed Property Other than Vehicles" MOTION PASSED 9-0. 7B. (Old Item No. 10) Juvenile Curfew Ordinance Evaluation Police Chief Chris Durkin said on July 18, 1994, staff requested the Council to amend the Juvenile Curfew Ordinance as a means to assist the Police Department with the problem of youth violence and gang activity. The rationale for requesting the Curfew Ordinance included acts of violence between members of the "A" and "V" Street Gangs which involved the use of weapons, including baseball bats and firearms. The Council adopted the Curfew Ordinance with the condition that it would sunset on October 31, 1995. Consistent with the Council's direction, the Curfew Ordinance had sunset, and all enforcement activities had ceased. Based upon the existing situation and the Police Department's experience during the previous year, he was not recommending that the Curfew Ordinance be renewed. The recommendation was based on the following: during the period of October 1, 1994, and October 31, 1995, 66 underage youths were stopped during the curfew hours. Of the 66 incidents, about half could have been stopped for some other legitimate law enforcement reason. Therefore, only 33 underage youths, or 3 underage youths per month, were actually stopped under the authority of the Curfew Ordinance; and none of the 33 underage youths were engaged in any violent or gang related activity. During the previous year, the number of juveniles arrested for various offenses rose from 82 to 89; however, the seriousness of the offenses was significantly less than the prior year. The number of minors arrested for violent crimes during curfew hours decreased from 8 to 3. In addition, the number of crimes reported during the curfew hours dropped by 5 percent compared to the previous year. The number of minor victims of
11/13/95 77-270
assault or battery increased from 6 to 8 by way of five separate incidents, and it appeared that 4 of the incidents might have been gang related. However, the fact that a curfew was in place did not prevent the incidents. The total number of calls for service in the Ventura area dropped by 18 percent compared to the previous year and 16 percent during the curfew hours. The total number of calls for service in the Addison area dropped by 60 percent compared to the previous year and 87 percent during the curfew hours. He and Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson heard public testimony and discussion at the October 12, 1995, Human Relations Commission (HRC) meeting that caused him to believe it would be reasonable to monitor the situation at the present time. Should the situation or circumstances change, he would, with the City Manager's concurrence, return to the Council with a request for a curfew ordinance. Council Member Fazzino said a number of other jurisdictions in the area had enacted curfew ordinances as a result of the City's Ordinance. He asked whether enactment of an ordinance in surrounding cities would have any impact on Palo Alto and the level of youth activity after 11:00 p.m. as a result of elimination of the City's Ordinance. Mr. Durkin said the only neighboring agency that had a curfew ordinance was East Palo Alto. Mountain View, Los Altos, and Menlo Park did not have a current ordinance. The ordinance in San Carlos would sunset next year. He could not speculate whether young people would drive from San Jose to avoid a curfew ordinance. Council Member Andersen asked what would trigger reconsideration on the Police Department's part to come before the Council. Previously, there had been great concern by the Police Department because of gang related activity that could affect young people who were under 18 years of age and that there were people 18 years and older who were interacting with the youngsters and the City needed a mechanism to help remove them from that situation. He asked whether the problem had been resolved. Mr. Durkin said the problem had decreased significantly. He would return to the Council if there were an increase in gang violence or if young people under 18 years of age became the victims of crime during the curfew period. Council Member Andersen clarified the concern expressed one year previously was no longer apparent. He asked what had brought about the change. Mr. Durkin said it had decreased significantly due to a combination of issues, e.g., some people were no longer in the area, a change in behavior, reduction in crime, or parents had become more responsible regarding the whereabouts of their
11/13/95 77-271
children. Council Member Andersen said some people had suggested that it had been helpful for parents to have a City Curfew Ordinance which provided them greater ability to enforce their own curfew. He asked whether the Police Department had had similar conversations with parents whose children were out after the curfew. Mr. Durkin said yes. He was troubled that the Police Department would recommend a curfew ordinance because a parent could not instill a curfew with his/her child. He would be more concerned about what was happening to the child outside as opposed to having an arbitrary curfew. Council Member Andersen asked whether any parents complained when the Police Department brought their children home and indicated they had been out after the curfew. Mr. Durkin said most of the parents were grateful. Council Member Schneider said on a recent ride-along, she had the opportunity to question the police officer about the Juvenile Curfew Ordinance. He indicated that the Ordinance gave police officers an opportunity to relate to juveniles who were stopped and also provided a tool that would no longer be available. She asked whether the police officers had been surveyed for their opinion on the Ordinance. Mr. Durkin said no. The Ordinance had only been in place for one year, and he recalled that after the previous Curfew Ordinance expired, police officers still had opportunities to stop and converse with young people. Council Member Schneider clarified police officers would not be able to question juveniles. Mr. Durkin said police officers would be prohibited from detaining juveniles in the absence of some other probable cause, but it would not prohibit a police officer from talking to juveniles. Council Member Kniss said she had heard comments from parents who indicated they liked the Ordinance and wanted it to remain in effect, but she had also heard comments from young people who indicated they did not need the curfew. She asked whether the Police Department had heard the similar comments. Mr. Durkin said it was apparent to the Police Department that most of the younger people did not support the curfew. He had spoken with a number of parents who did not support the curfew. The original purpose of the Ordinance was specifically for gang violence which were the conditions approved by Council. He understood the Ordinance would only continue under those condi-
11/13/95 77-272
tions, and the conditions either no longer existed or had dimin-ished immensely. Council Member Kniss said it appeared to be unwise to eliminate a good deterrent and wait until something happened. Mr. Durkin said the current situation would be an opportunity to test that hypothesis over the next several months. The Police Department would return to the Council with a recommendation and request to reinstate the Juvenile Curfew Ordinance if the situation changed. Council Member Huber said the staff report (CMR:479:95) indicated the number of young people who were stopped and were found to be in compliance was unknown. He asked the percentage in relation-ship to the 60 to 80 people contacted as noted on the staff report. Mr. Durkin said the consensus was that there were very few people. Mayor Simitian said the item came to the Council with a concern expressed by the Police Chief and the Police Department about the ability to deal with a problem in two particular areas. He said the Council had received 13 reports over the previous year that detailed the approximate 60 incidents. He recalled that the incidents were in a number of locations and were not focused particularly on those two areas. Mr. Durkin said that was correct. Mayor Simitian said he surmised from the reports the inference that the curfew had been used as a tool throughout the community but had not been used as a tool with particular effect in the two neighborhoods where the problem existed. It appeared that the Police Department had used other tools and experiences because the 60 incidents were not focused in those two areas. He had expected a lot of curfew activity in those two neighborhoods because that was where the problems were and that was where the tool would have been used, but the reports had not reflected that use. Mr. Durkin said the calls for services decreased in those areas, but he was uncertain whether it related directly to the Curfew Ordinance. Mayor Simitian said when he opposed the Ordinance previously, he indicated that he believed there were other tools that might be more appropriately used such as increased enforcement in the two neighborhoods where there was a particular concern or the possibility of some nuisance abatement assistance by a stricter City Ordinance. He assumed there had been increased enforcement and asked whether it occurred within the limits of the existing staffing.
11/13/95 77-273
Mr. Durkin said a special task force was formed in July 1995. City Manager June Fleming said the Police Department had taken a different approach when dealing with the issue that caused them to ask for the Ordinance originally. The Ordinance was a tool that was used, but the Police Department worked very actively in a positive way to develop programs and positive alternatives for youth, tried to respond to some of the needs that young people had, and provided them with constructive outlets. She believed that had a great deal to do with the change in behavior of the young people. The youth had asked for some activity that the City had not been able to provide, and the City had found a way to provide that activity which created a different climate for young people. During the previous year, there had been unprecedented cooperation between the Police Department and the Recreation Division in response to those needs. Mayor Simitian asked about the issue of nuisance abatement. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there had been a preliminary discussion with the Police Department about one particular residence where nuisance abatement might be appropriate. The issue resolved itself through other means so there was no need to come forward with a new version of nuisance. The issue remained on his agenda for the next fiscal year but it was not associated with a particular problem. He said that the City of San Jose was currently seeking review by the Supreme Court of its Rockridge Gang abatement order that the local Court of Appeals found significantly violated the First Amendment in several respects for different gang members who loitered about with implements of various kinds of crime. Mayor Simitian asked whether there was some value in considering a stricter nuisance abatement tool. Mr. Calonne said definitely. The Police Chief had often reminded him that in red light abatement, the civil remedies were more effective than the criminal remedies. Council Member Andersen recalled that some of the Council Members wanted a sunset clause to make certain there was a judicious kind of restraint on the part of the Police Department. There was also concern among members of the community about whether or not there would be an effort to single out a particular group. The data reflected that that had not occurred, and there had been great restraint demonstrated by the Police Department in an effort to live by the spirit of the Council's intent. He had anticipated that because it had been done so well, the City would continue the process without difficulty because the fears anticipated did not materialize. The Police Department had suggested not to continue the Ordinance and that the original situation had changed.
11/13/95 77-274
Mayor Simitian clarified that some of the Council Members wanted a sunset clause because they felt that if the City imposed the law on all the young people and their parents, they wanted to know after one year whether or not it had been a useful and necessary tool in addressing the problem that generated the curfew originally. He never doubted that the Police Department would enforce the Ordinance fairly. He wanted the sunset clause to determine whether the tool was necessary and essential to doing an important job that needed to be done and whether it should remain a City Ordinance. Human Relations Commission Chairperson Janet Stone, 2225 Ramona Street, said the HRC had had extensive discussion and hearings about the curfew when it was proposed. The HRC was not in favor of that alternative and had suggested that the City consider other proactive means of dealing with youth behavior. The HRC was pleased that the Police Department had worked very collaboratively during the year with other sections of the community and organiza-tions to pursue other positive alternatives. The HRC heard from members of the community and some youth at its previous meeting in October regarding the curfew. Both Police Chief Durkin and Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson participated in the meeting which gave them another opportunity to hear from the public. The HRC felt, but not unanimously, that the Curfew Ordinance should be allowed to sunset and that positive alternative actions should continue. The HRC was pleased that the Police Department agreed with that action. She thanked Police Chief Durkin, Assistant Police Chief Johnson, and the Police Department for their reports throughout the year and their cooperation in allowing the HRC to discuss the matter before it returned to the Council. Paul Gilbert, 785 Barron, said he was a 40-year member of the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.) and read a portion of A.C.L.U.'s statement on curfews; "Because the union believes that the Constitution guarantees a virtually unqualified right of interstate and intrastate travel, curfews on adults are presumptatively unconstitutional and could be justified only in the most extreme circumstances of civil disturbance or imminent danger related to the public safety...the union also opposes juvenile curfew restrictions as unjustifiable government intrusions on the rights of children and young people and on parental rights to control and direct movements of their children." He felt the Council should not place a significant portion of the citizens under house arrest for part of the day unless there was a significant reason. There were better ways than limiting their freedom. The staff report indicated that not many of Palo Alto's young people were on the streets during the hours prescribed by the curfew which did not lessen the offense of limiting the rights of young people. William Tucker, 360 College Avenue, said he was also a long-term
11/13/95 77-275
member of the A.C.L.U. He said an attorney from the A.C.L.U. in San Francisco wrote a letter to the Council dated July 13, 1994, that stated the assumption under which the Ordinance was deemed constitutional was wrong. The Dallas ordinance was declared constitutional because it satisfied strict scrutiny rules and applied to people under 16 years of age. The ordinance was declared constitutional based on over 5,000 juvenile arrests in 1989, 40 murders committed by juveniles in 1990, and 21 murders committed by juveniles during the first 4 months of 1991. The situation in Dallas was extremely different from Palo Alto's. Palo Alto's ordinance was not constitutional. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, recalled that when the Ordinance was enacted, he stated it was one of a number of tools used to address the problems of the youth in the City. He agreed that the conditions were much calmer than before, and the need for a strongly enforced Curfew Ordinance had been significantly reduced. However, he suggested the Council reenact the Ordinance because if something happened, the Council would have to act precipitously. The Barron Park Association had its monthly meeting with Lieutenant Sue Mace who mentioned that gang activity was currently at a low point in Palo Alto because the gangs did not have any autocratic leaders. There were serious gang problems in surrounding cities, and he felt it was prudent for the City to have the law in place so the Police Department could react appropriately and promptly. Jacob Ballon, President, Youth Council, 3366 Ross Road, recalled that the Youth Council had previously opposed the passage of the Curfew Ordinance. The main arguments against enforcement of a curfew was that the law was created for specific groups of people and imposing a curfew on all the youth of Palo Alto would punish them unjustly for the actions of a small group. It was also felt that laws which kept youth from going places were not productive and that a place that was safe, fun, and constructive should be established for the youth. The Youth Council was grateful that the Council had approved the creation of a Teen Center which had been talked about and needed for over 10 years. The Youth Council felt it had designed a place that would be inviting for teenagers. Since the passage of the Curfew Ordinance, many teenagers had spent time debating and analyzing the Ordinance. In recent weeks, the Youth Council had devoted several meetings to the issue and had concluded that nobody wanted to be told where he/she could or could not go; everyone needed limits over what was allowed and not allowed, but the curfew had gone too far. Many youths felt the City should not impose its values of where young people should go in the community. The decision of a child's whereabouts should be restricted to the child's parents. It took the job of parenting away from the parents and put it in the hands of the City. There were several reasons to keep the Curfew Ordinance that had been sunset. Unfortunately, not every child received the attention he/she deserved at home, and everyone agreed that a 12-year old
11/13/95 77-276
should not be walking the streets at 3:00 a.m. The curfew gave the Police Department the chance to recognize a bad situation and turn it into something positive. The curfew had not stopped people from continuing their plans even though it might be late. It was difficult to determine whether the curfew had a direct correlation with the decrease in youth crime, but if there were the slightest possibility that it made the City safer, the curfew had done some good. If the curfew had a positive effect on the City as a whole without disrupting the social lives of teenagers, then the curfew should be kept. The members of the Youth Council had mixed opinions on the issue. If the Council decided to adopt another Curfew Ordinance, the Youth Council felt there was a need for education about the curfew. Many people were not aware of the exceptions that existed. If an outreach police officer could go to the schools and explain the complete law to students, less people would be upset. It was also important to keep close tabs on how the curfew would be carried out in the City. The Youth Council was concerned about the possibility that a future curfew could be enforced in a biased way. The Youth Council asked that if another curfew were adopted, the Police Department continue to file monthly reports. In addition, the Youth Council wanted the issue to come before the Council annually to make sure no abuses took place. Will Beckett, 4189 Baker, said not all parents monitored their children. He had been frustrated when the curfew was first enacted that nothing could be done for three months until the tool was available. At that time, his neighborhood had a problem with youth being out late at night and being told that nothing could be done because there was no curfew. He believed it would be better to keep the Ordinance in place, especially because it did not seem to be causing any problems for people. The reenactment of a new ordinance could take a considerable amount of time to be agendized and enforceable. Susan Stewart, 1550 Middlefield Road, was a high school teacher and had worked with young people for over 30 years, and she did not believe a curfew law showed any disrespect for young people. She believed good laws reflected values of a society, and a curfew law represented the concerns of a community that parents should know where their children were late at night and that young people were safe. As long as the law was not enforced in a discriminatory way, there should be some reluctance not to leave something in place that might be very helpful. She recalled that the law was proposed after some disturbing incidents in the community. There was a full-day meeting in which representatives of the City, school staff, and a variety of social service agencies, including Adolescent Services, participated and families expressed concerns about how the City could help them help young people. She had often heard from parents that they needed help with their children, and there was no way to know how many families the curfew had helped. She did not want the community to
11/13/95 77-277
be in a position again when it could only react if there were a crisis. The Police Department's work was excellent, and everyone was pleased with the decrease in violence. Council Member Andersen believed the Curfew Ordinance was one tool in a series of tools that had contributed to the success referred to by the Police Chief. He was reluctant to set aside the Ordinance and wait for the crisis and then wait for the Police Chief to return to the Council with a recommendation to adopt another Ordinance. He felt the City would be better served to have the Ordinance in place and use it judicially or not at all when an occasion occurred. He was delighted the Ordinance was not needed very often. The overwhelming majority of the young people in the community did not need that kind of control mechanism. He was delighted that the previous Ordinance had so many exceptions that a parent could have his/her child out until 2:00 a.m or 3:00 a.m. if he/she wanted. The exceptions allowed any young person with a legitimate purpose to be out late at night. However, he was disappointed that not every young person received a copy of the pamphlet and he hoped a better job would be done in the future. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct staff to return with an ordinance to enact a juvenile curfew ordinance. Council Member Andersen said the Council needed to consider some of the comments made that evening regarding how the things that did not happen could be documented. He had discussed the issue with many young people, and it was clear to him that the majority of young people would not be impacted by the Ordinance. The Ordinance would provide the police officer on the street an opportunity to enact with young people; and in the event it was a 12-year-old hanging out at a store, the police officer could tell the young person to call his/her parents to go home. There was not one occasion when a young person violated the curfew twice which suggested to him that 33 young people modified their behavior to some degree as a result of the curfew. He said one community in the immediate area had also provided its own community with curfew, and he did not want to send a message that Palo Alto did not need a curfew which might make it more difficult for the other community to continue its curfew. The Ordinance was a nonintrusive portion of a larger package and would give the Police Department who had demonstrated restraint and sensitivity a tool for aiding the young person who had not received the kind of parental direction and guidance desirable. He did not believe the Ordinance would have negative impact on the youth and their activities but it addressed the needs that were still in the community. Council Member Schneider congratulated the Police Department on a
11/13/95 77-278
year with the curfew. Every comment that she had heard from parents had been in support of the continuance of the curfew. She would support the motion, but she could not do it as wholeheart-edly as she wanted to because of the Police Chief's desire not to continue the Ordinance. All of the concerns that the parents and the community had prior to the institution of the Ordinance did not come to pass. The Ordinance was not selectively enforced and did not criminalize any activity. No one was contacted more than once. A special relationship was developed between the Police Department and the youth that was very important. Even though the Police Department could not indicate that the Ordinance was a secondary factor in the reduction of crime rate, the benign success that had been seen was important to continue. When the issue was before the Council previously, there was a hue and cry from the HRC and many other people that there had been no discussions on the issue because there was a sense of urgency to put the Ordinance in place. Because the Ordinance was used very judicially in the past, she believed it would continue to be used judicially in the future. Council Member Kniss said she was surprised that her daughters strongly supported the Curfew Ordinance. Her daughters said that there were times when a teenager felt very unsafe. Sometimes it felt safer if rules were in place, and when children were 14 or 15 years old, the world could seem like an unsafe place to function in. The Ordinance was an extremely lenient law and she asked whether the law was the most lenient of all the curfew ordinances. Mr. Durkin said yes. Young people used that leniency to lie to the police officers, and the officers had no way to verify their story. Council Member Kniss said prevention was the most difficult, and it was always easier to deal with a current problem. It was difficult to judge what the Ordinance did. She recalled the comments from people around the Family Resource Center who said it was very different living in Palo Alto in the 1990s from living in Palo Alto in the 1960s or 1970s. She said the Downtown had changed dramatically with more activity and there was more potential for young people to be in the Downtown area. She echoed the comments of Council Member Schneider. The enactment of such an ordinance was always unpleasant. Council Member Fazzino did not support the previous proposal for a curfew ordinance, and each Council Member would probably cast a vote based on his/her own experience. He was a teenager in Palo Alto in the late 1960s and early 1970s and recalled selected enforcement of the curfew law at that time and feeling resentful about the law. He still believed that most young people in Palo Alto were responsible and should be treated in that way. He believed the curfew law criminalized an entire group of people on the basis of age. There were concerns about specific behavior,
11/13/95 77-279
the law needed to be directed at that specific behavior. The Police Department had had other tools available during the previous year to address gang and other youth related problems in the community. He admitted that it was very difficult when parents and teachers supported that type of ordinance and he recognized that there were some very strong arguments to be made. The most legitimate reason to support the Ordinance might be concern that the law would prevent youth from becoming victims of crime. If he felt that were the case in Palo Alto, he would support the Ordinance, but so far the issue had been a nonissue. There were very few young people who roamed the streets of Palo Alto late at night with or without curfew. If the Police Department felt the Council needed to resurrect the Ordinance to address concerns about children becoming victims of crime, he would enthusiastically support that recommendation. At the present time, he did not feel the Ordinance was necessary. He thanked the Police Department for an outstanding job of enforcing the curfew in a very nondiscriminatory way over the previous year. Council Member McCown referred to a statement in the staff report (CMR:479:95) that read "absent probable cause that another crime had been committed or that a minor's safety was in immediate jeopardy, officers will not have any legal probable cause to detain minors who are out..." She felt that statement was appropriate absent evidence of some other criminal activity or that there was jeopardy to a minor, and she did not feel a police officer should have cause to detain a person because he/she was a minor. The argument that the Ordinance was not harmful and would probably not be used was a terrible reason to put a law on the books. It sent a terrible message that the City would put something in place that it did not need and did not expect to enforce. The community had smart young people who would not worry about the law because they could say their parents sent them out late. The reasons the issue was brought to the Council the previous year were the appropriate reasons to consider the issue, and those reasons were not an issue at the present time. She appreciated Police Chief Durkin's willingness to step forward and indicate that the City did not need the Ordinance and that he would bring it back to the Council if a problem arose. She referred to the survey information that indicated 67 percent of the 39 youths stopped by a police officer believed they were treated disrespectfully by the Police Department. She was not saying the youths were right, but from the receiving end of the contact, the experience was not perceived positively. The City needed to move forward with the other steps identified by the HRC and the Police Department as measures that would probably in the long term have a more positive effect than the message the Ordinance would send if it were kept in place. Council Member Huber said he had previously supported the Ordinance but did not support the Ordinance at the present time. He previously felt that there was concern regarding teenage gang
11/13/95 77-280
activities and that it was appropriate to enact the Ordinance at that time, but he strongly supported sunsetting the Ordinance. At the present time, based on the information the Police Department had provided, he felt the Ordinance should not be reenacted. Council Member Rosenbaum said he had previously supported the Ordinance, and he was surprised but not disappointed at the staff's recommendation. He had never been concerned that the law would be applied in an unfair manner, but he did have the same concerns expressed by the people from the A.C.L.U. He felt the problem had disappeared, and the staff had indicated it would return to the Council if a problem developed. He supported the staff's position and would oppose the motion. Mayor Simitian agreed with the comments of Council Members Fazzino, Huber, McCown, and Rosenbaum. There were 3,000 young people in the community, and there had not been a single citation during the course of the year which suggested to him that it was not an essential tool for the Palo Alto Police Department. Given the number of opportunities, he felt 66 incidents over the previous year was very modest. The reports the Council had received over the course of the year reflected that the curfew was not the tool that brought about results in the two particular neighborhoods. The facts before the Council did not support that conclusion. In one neighborhood the drop in complaints was greater during the daytime hours than it was during the evening when the curfew law was in place as a vehicle to use. There was no data before the Council to suggest that it was an essential tool in resolving problems either prospectively or during the previous year. He believed if there were a genuine emergency, the Ordinance could be adopted immediately. There were 3,000 young people and 5,000 parents who would be subject to a law with no apparent purpose. Council Member Fazzino's comments about the distinction between status and behavior were on point. He would not support the motion which was the same position he had previously on the issue. MOTION FAILED 3-6, Andersen, Kniss, Schneider "yes." 8. Mayor Simitian, Vice Mayor Wheeler, and Council Member McCown re Initiation of an Area-Wide or Specific Planning Process for Properties between Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Lambert Avenue (continued from 4/10/95) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to continue Item No. 8 to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-1, Simitian "no," Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:32 p.m.
11/13/95 77-281
ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
11/13/95 77-282