HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-04 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting December 4, 1995 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator ...................... 77-378 1. Waiver of City Council Procedures and Appointment to the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors 77-379 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 77-379 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 30, 1995 .................... 77-379 3. Refinancing Geothermal Project ........................ 77-380 4. Resolution 7557 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining Properties Electing to Pay Cost Over a Period of Years, Determining and Classifying Unpaid Assessments, and Funding Loans to Property Owners from the Electric Reserve for Underground Connections - Underground Utilities Conversion, Underground Utility Assessment District No. 35 .................................................... 77-380 4A. (Old Item No. 2) Development Project Preliminary Review Application (Prescreening) for a Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Open Space to Single Family Residential, a Zone Change from Open Space to Residential Estates, and a Nine Lot Subdivision at 850 Los Trancos Road - Refer to Planning Commission ....... 77-380 6. 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 11/13/95) ............................. 77-381 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated ................................................ 77-392 8. The Historic Resources Board re Transmittal of Museum of American Heritage Amended Proposal for Williams Property located at 351 Homer Avenue .................. 77-393 9. The Utilities Advisory Commission Request to Review the Storm Drain Infrastructure Improvement Program ........ 77-399
12/04/95 77-376
10. The Planning Commission, Historic Resources Board, and Architectural Review Board re Alma Street Bicycle Bridge - Preliminary Design and Park Improvement Ordinance ............................................. 77-401 11. City Manager's Review of the Utilities Advisory Commis-sion .................................................. 77-406 12. Approval of Meadows Water Well Closure and Sale, and Delay of Sale of the Middlefield Well Site ............ 77-406 13. City Auditor's Status Report .......................... 77-407 13A. (Old Item No. 5) Resolution of Conflict of Interest Concerns with Watry Design Group Relating to Downtown Parking Structure Study ............................... 77-408 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 77-411 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in Memory of Nancy Ritchey, Human Relations Commissioner from April 1, 1992, to January 31, 1995 .................... 77-411
12/04/95 77-377
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Chairperson Joe Huber, Dick Rosenbaum, and Lanie Wheeler) Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City Auditor Bill Vinson, City Clerk Gloria Young, and City Manager June Fleming
Authority: Government Code ∋54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
12/04/95 77-378
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Rosenbaum (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Waiver of City Council Procedures and Appointment to the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to waive the City Council's normal procedure process regarding interviewing the candidate. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to appoint Ruth Lacey to the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation (MPAC) Board of Directors. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Francoise Netter, 127 Seale Avenue, spoke regarding rental raises and housing issues. Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding the big beer can caper. Joseph Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, spoke regarding traffic. Margaret Ash, 965 Webster Street, spoke regarding homelessness. Irvin Dawid, 3886 LaDonna Street, spoke regarding CalTrain electrification. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, spoke regarding Ms. Netter's comments, who faced eviction from her home, and that the Council's decision on the former Maximart site (Fry's Electronics) would result in more homelessness. Richard Gruen, P.O. Box 2351, Palo Alto, spoke regarding Matadero Creek. Edward Arnold, 1454 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding: 1) Cable Co-op's debt; 2) Measure R; and 3) the Council's slowing down on the increase of committees/commissions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 30, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
12/04/95 77-379
approve the Minutes of October 30, 1995, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Refinancing Geothermal Project Resolution 7556 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing and Approving the Execution and Delivery of One or More Agreements to Provide Certain Information as Required Under Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Authorizing Certain Other Matters Related Thereto" 4. Resolution 7557 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining Properties Electing to Pay Cost Over a Period of Years, Determining and Classifying Unpaid Assessments, and Funding Loans to Property Owners from the Electric Reserve for Underground Connections - Underground Utilities Conversion, Underground Utility Assessment District No. 35" MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3 and 4, Huber absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2 had been removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of a member of the public and would become Item No. 4A and that Item No. 5 had been removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Mayor Simitian and would become Item No. 13A. 4A. (Old Item No. 2) Development Project Preliminary Review Application (Prescreening) for a Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Open Space to Single Family Residential, a Zone Change from Open Space to Residential Estates, and a Nine Lot Subdivision at 850 Los Trancos Road - Refer to Plan-ning Commission John Queen, 810 Los Trancos Road, said his property directly adjoined the property in question, and he was not notified about the meeting that evening. He opposed the scope of the project and asked how the project would proceed from that point forward. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified that notifications were not done on referrals, but the Ordinance for preliminary review required the same notice for the preliminary review as for the underlying application for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mayor Simitian clarified a notice would be mailed when the project reached the preliminary review.
12/04/95 77-380
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The notice would be mailed to a certain area and would be published as well. MOTION TO REFER: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to: 1) refer the application for Development Project Preliminary Review to the Planning Commission for a "public study session" as identified in Chapter 18.97 (Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures) of the City's zoning regulations; and 2) direct staff to return the application to the City Council for a public study session following the public study session with the Planning Commission. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. 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 11/13/95) Council Member Fazzino said that he would not participate in the issue because of a conflict of interest due to his employment with Hewlett-Packard Corporation (H-P). Council Member Kniss said that she would not participate in the issue because of a conflict of interest due to her husband's employment with H-P. Council Member McCown said the proposal was raised previously for an area-wide or specific planning process for the larger area that surrounded the former Maximart site. She was influenced to bring the issue forward because of the concern about the integration of short-term, medium-term, and long-term changes and uses in that greater area and because of the output of the community design workshop that was done through the Comprehensive Plan process for the area which brought up an interesting set of medium- and long-term concepts developed for the larger area. The Council had an opportunity to take up as an example of a specific area plan one of the most significant change areas in the community. In light of the decision made by the Council recently, one of her goals was to work with the long-term future of the former Maximart site because it was a major player in the area and because there was a patchwork of zones in the area and a number of other properties that could benefit from that kind of process. Staff had provided information about how the process might be pursued in parallel or folded into the completion of the Comprehensive Plan process. During the Council's recent discussion regarding the former Maximart site, Council spoke about the linkage of its support of that decision with the necessity of doing that kind of a planning process. She believed it was a critical component as Council dealt with the challenges and medium- and long-term concepts of how changes would be achieved in the area. The Council owed it to the future of the community and potential for the area to move forward with a specific focus as the process called for.
12/04/95 77-381
Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the zoning map of the area that was suggested for study. It was one of the more interesting zoning maps within the City and had resulted from what had been over the previous 20 years a series of well-intentioned, but disjointed, actions on the part of Planning Commissions and City Councils. The actions had resulted in a zoning map that looked like a patchwork quilt rather than easy transitions from one type of zoning to another with boundaries between zoning districts which was more rational than in that particular area. Therefore, the Council was faced with issues, as it adopted and implemented the new Comprehensive Plan, in that area of the City that were more complex than the issues that the Council faced in other parts of Palo Alto. There were some unique opportunities in that area. The proximity to public transit and the CalTrain station was a wonderful opportunity to increase the connection between the community, the neighborhood, and the train station. It was also a large incentive for the Council to include more housing opportunity within the neighborhood. The proximity to the Stanford Research Park gave the Council an opportunity to design a desirable location for a number of uses which were supportive to the uses in the Research Park. She reminded the Council that within the context of any plan that was made for that particular area, there was a major constraint, i.e., the neighborhood was in proximity to the worst functioning intersection in Palo Alto. There was little, if any, physical or political way to significantly improve the functioning of that intersection. She hoped the Council would support the planning effort. The area called for attention above and beyond the normal planning processes. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff report (CMR:295:95) was prepared in June 1995 which addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process staff recommendations regarding coordinated area plans. The staff report was updated for the November 13, 1995, City Council meeting in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update as well as the discussion of the former Maximart site. The Council also had at its places that evening a letter from H-P dated December 4, 1995, regarding the state of its current planning for the site at 395 Page Mill Road which was an important element of the area under discussion that evening. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked how the information from H-P would fit in with the process as outlined in the proposal. Mr. Schreiber summarized that H-P owned a 10-acre site at 395 Page Mill Road which was on the edge of the area that the proposal addressed. In August 1995, the discussions with H-P staff and City staff had focused on the reuse possibilities that would involve amending the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance since H-P had planned to close the site. Since that time, H-P staff had indicated that it had reassessed H-P's internal needs for space in relationship to the rest of its operations, and the letter at places indicated that H-P wanted to pursue redevelopment of the site consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and existing zoning. Staff anticipated that if H-P
12/04/95 77-382
filed the type of application as outlined in the letter, it would be processed consistent with the way a number of other sites in the area had been processed over the previous years and would be subject to Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. The application would not likely require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) but would require a negative declaration, so the project would not be forwarded to the Planning Commission or the City Council unless there was an appeal granted. An assessment would be made after an application was received. H-P had indicated that it wanted to pursue a neighborhood input process and to hire a professional facilitator to design and implement a process that would design insights from neighborhood interests. The process could be compatible with an area planning process, but it would probably precede it. A subsequent area planning process would need to take into account H-P's action for the area, assuming the H-P proposal moved through the process as an approval. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified that if the status quo land use designation and zoning were retained, the situation presented the potential of a development moving forward that the Council might not want in place until a study of the area was completed. It was a classic situation that would support an imposition of interim zoning on the site which would restrain H-P from moving forward pending completion of the study. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, said Council was rational-izing a predetermined decision to keep a big revenue generator. The proposal had no human purpose and no vital City interest identified to spend the extra money for the study. WSJ Properties and H-P should not contribute to the proposal, and the Council should justify the expense of taxpayers' money if it believed the study was so important. There had been too much buying and selling of the public's interest on the issue. The area might be hodgepodge, but it functioned well; and ecological strength was measured by complexity. There were no incentives for housing in an area plan, and it was the Council's public duty to provide housing which could only be provided if the zoning were retained. She urged the Council to reconsider the expense and not to consider the proposal outside of the framework of the Comprehensive Plan. Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, was concerned that the proposal would set a precedent for a way to handle the zoning process in Palo Alto. He admitted the area was hodgepodge and tougher to reconcile than most areas in the City. The process was almost doomed to failure due to the lack of the fundamental power of condemnation inherent in a redevelopment agency. Specific plans had too much detail and too much planning that required the cooperation of adjacent property owners. There were so many property owners in that area, and to get that kind of cooperation necessary to bring the vision for the area to fruition would be very difficult without being able to rationalize the ownerships. It could be like another comprehensive plan process, and the property owners would have to address their private interests. He felt the area might need to be included in the zoning or the
12/04/95 77-383
Comprehensive Plan. He was concerned that the end product would be another Gruen & Gruen Study, and he would be more enthusiastic if there were a sense that the plan would end up achieving those great goals. Marcel Cohen, Real Estate Manager, Hewlett-Packard Corporation, 3000 Hanover Street, said the 395 Page Mill Road site was bought in 1947. Recently, all businesses that resided in the site had been closed and the site was essentially closed and vacant. The building was built approximately 50 years previously; and although major remodeling had been done periodically, the basic structure was old and fully depreciated. H-P intended to demolish the entire structure; and after handling the groundwater contamination issues that existed on the site, a new complex would be rebuilt on the site that would significantly improve the aesthetics of the area and the compatibility with the surrounding uses. H-P intended to build a new administrative office site which would house administrative, research and development, and related uses consistent with the current GM zoning and the light industrial Comprehensive Plan designation. No rezoning or Comprehensive Plan amendment would be needed by H-P. The site would have some mixed uses which might include some site-serving, pedestrian-oriented retail uses and open green space available to everyone. Although not required by the present zoning, additional multi-family residential use on the site would be considered following comple-tion of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Cal-Ventura Area planning processes. A professional facilitator would be hired to obtain input from neighborhood interests. The historical density and traffic generation on the site would be replaced with the modern equivalents. There was approximately 215,000 square feet of building space on the site. With the information obtained from the completed neighborhood process, the site plan would be completed, and soon after a formal ARB permit application would be submitted. H-P intended to fully participate in the Citywide Comprehensive Plan amendment and the area planning processes. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said a moratorium on development proposals in the area would be necessary to have the time to do the planning envisioned by the proposal. The proposal indicated an intent to develop 395 Page Mill Road at a maximum of 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that was allowed for nonresidential use in the GM zone, and the GM zone also permitted an additional 0.5 FAR for residential use. The site was one of five sites that was designated as a study area in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study; but neither staff nor previous Councils had done a study on the area during that time period. At the present time, the owner of the site could put in an application for what was allowed for residential use. The fact that the owners of the site wanted to wait for a study and completion of the Comprehensive Plan meant to him that the owners hoped for a higher entitlement. Given the fact the Council would have development proposals for two of the largest sites in the area in the future, the Council needed to choose very quickly. If the Council wanted to do an area-wide plan for the area, it needed to stop the changes in the area that would be there for a long time. The
12/04/95 77-384
Council needed to decide the best plan for the area. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the letter from H-P wiped out all the assumptions that had been previously discussed and the rationale for having an area plan. The site was the largest property that could be developed in the projected area study so there would be nothing left to study. The area was extremely congested, and redevelopment of the site would use up existing traffic capacity on the streets and intersections. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road could not survive two major developments in the area. If an area study determined that something else should be built on that site, it would take 25 or 30 years even if the building were amortized out. If the Council wanted an area study, it should prevent H-P from building on the site. The Council's decision should be based on what developments should or should not be allowed to proceed in the area. Boyd Smith, 3201 Ash Street, representing the owners of the former Maximart site, said the owners still believed that the best long-term use of the majority of their property was for housing. The owners would cooperate with an area plan but were concerned about the area surrounding the site. The Council needed to consider the other developments in the area which would have a huge impact on whether their site would be viable for housing in the future. The owners had repeatedly stressed that a quality housing project could not be built in the middle of undesirable developments. An area plan was one planning process, but he preferred the City to have the power of condemnation for a whole area and build something new in the area. Quality housing was the only thing that could be marketed regardless of the income class. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said if the Council proceeded with the second reading of the extension of the amortization, it would start a process that allowed for 25 years of the continuing existence of the present buildings on the former Maximart site. She did not believe anyone's current dream or representations about what he/she would personally do on a particular property was meaningful in terms of 25 years from the present date. If the Council wanted any meaningful planning in that area, it needed to look at the residential zoning on either side and major property sites that would be committed in the absence of a moratorium. The site was very critical to the City and was a change area where things could be affected. The reference to "junk" around the site might not recognize the full value of the area. Many things could be done to insulate the community that was built and did not have to relate to the surrounding properties. There was tremendous opportunity to upgrade the entire area. If the Council intended to put long-term housing in the area, it should put a moratorium on the area and pursue creative planning. WSJ Properties envisioned a much denser use of the entire area than what was currently permitted. The area had very serious planning problems that the Council should address if it were serious about the area. Peter Lockhart, 405 Olive Avenue, supported creative analysis of the area. The City had a tremendous potential for a unique area, but he was frustrated because, in spite of everything that had
12/04/95 77-385
happened, there was even more traffic, and his property values had taken a serious decline. He wanted something positive to happen in the area. The planning for the area would not be easy, but he felt there would be a consensus from the property owners if it were imperative that they follow through. Vice Mayor Wheeler believed the proposal should be done for the area. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to direct the staff to return to the City Council with an ordinance and procedures to implement a coordinated area planning effort for the Cal-Ventura area; that the timing be parallel to, but separate from, the Comprehensive Plan process; and that staff investigate financial mechanisms for the process including public/private partnerships. Vice Mayor Wheeler wanted to address the timing issue regarding the study. The Council initially spoke about folding that special planning effort into the comprehensive planning effort. Staff responded that in its estimation, that would push the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan into 1998. She did not find that time frame acceptable. She assumed any study of that area that took place along a parallel track would need to be compatible with what was done by the Council in terms of community design, environmental analysis, and draft policies and procedures in the Comprehensive Plan. She was comfortable with the motion based on that assumption. Mr. Schreiber said staff had suggested in its staff report (CMR:295:95) that when the Council initiated any type of planning study, it set out its expectations and policy framework for the area. He clarified that Vice Mayor Wheeler's comments were that the policy framework should be consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan. The most challenging part of running the process in parallel would be inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan EIR and the area plan EIR. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified the Council needed to lay out the parameters before a consultant was hired and staff would begin the area planning process, and the parameters needed to be in concert with the Council's comments in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan that related to that geographic area Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Simitian said the area incorporated a multiplicity of zoning and uses that should be noted in terms of a need for a plan. He said within an area that was bounded on either side by 1,500 square feet, there were many zones. He asked staff to explain the map designations of GM, GM with a "B" designation, R-1, RM-30, RM-40, PF blue and green, CC, CS, and CN. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle explained the map designations: GM was general manufacturing; GM with a "B" designation was a more restrictive overlay version of the general
12/04/95 77-386
manufacturing designation; R-1 was single-family residential; RM-30 was multiple-family residential with 30-unit per acre maximum density; RM-40 was multiple-family residential with 40-unit per acre maximum density; the blue PF was private public facilities and the green PF was public facilities; CC was community commercial; CS was service commercial; and CN was neighborhood commercial. Council Member Rosenbaum said several members of the public had mentioned that there was not a great deal to study in the area, and staff had indicated that the Council would have to establish certain parameters for the study. He suggested the Council could set some reasonable parameters such as retaining the R-1 area and the light industrial in the CS zoning which included two auto repair shops; or in contrast to what WSJ Properties suggested, the Council could indicate it did not want to increase the density of the existing zones. He asked whether there would be anything left to study if the Council set out those parameters given the fact that H-P intended to reuse the site. Mr. Schreiber said there was a variety of things left to study. The primary study area was the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real single-family area; and if the proposal went forward, the surrounding areas would be extremely important. The El Camino Real frontage had a variety of small parcels with somewhat less than modern and up-to-date uses. The access from the existing RM-30 area was a legitimate problem, and an expansion to El Camino Real might be necessary to create a sense of gateway to that area. There were under-utilized and vacant properties along the railroad tracks. There was also a variety of single- and multiple-family residential areas along the railroad tracks, and those properties were prime candidates for further investigation. There were also single-family and commercial lots along Page Mill Road which were not particularly attractive. The issues would be how the area interfaced with the surrounding area and how to maintain or modify transitions from single- or multiple-family residential to the area. It would be challenging to come up with a vision and policy guidelines for the area that set a direction but did not become so specific that options which might be valuable and acceptable to the community were precluded because of the process. Ms. Lytle said the area was no further from the California Avenue train station than City Hall was from the Downtown train station. There were only two areas in the community that had intermodal transit access. Because there were so many parcels in the area up for redevelopment, it was an opportunity to apply transit-oriented design guidelines to the area that had not been previously applied. Control of the form of redevelopment in order to encourage more pedestrian use in connection with the train station would be worth studying. Council Member Rosenbaum said staff had indicated the cost would be approximately $250,000, and he asked whether the study could be done for less money.
12/04/95 77-387
Mr. Schreiber said if the Council wanted to decrease the neighbor-hood involvement, facilitation, economic analysis, and design related work, etc., the process would cost less but would not have the elements outlined by Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and staff. Some notable outside assistance would be needed because there was a variety of things that needed to be done in terms of environmental review, traffic analysis, and other technical expertise that had to be brought to that process. The City's Attorney's Office had indicated a desire for assistance on the legal regulatory aspects of the study. The study could not be done for no additional cost beyond staff time, but it could be done for less if the Council wanted to sacrifice the process. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the City had a complete integrated reduced process which might cost less than the proposed process. Mr. Schreiber said professional colleagues who had reviewed the proposal felt that the cost estimates were conservative. Council Member Rosenbaum would not support a $250,000 project but would support the concept before the Council that evening. He suggested that his colleagues who shared his view on the matter to express it at that time so that staff would have a better idea of the Council's response when it returned with a proposal. Mayor Simitian liked the neighborhood and was troubled about the increasing tendency to homogenize the community. There was a multiplicity of uses and activities in the neighborhood, which he believed contributed to the diversity of the neighborhood, and he was baffled at the resistance to the suggestion that the integra-tion of the uses in a compatible and harmonious way would take some planning and effort to figure out the vision for the area. He wanted the area to become housing sooner rather than later, and his goal when he endorsed the proposal was that he shared the long-term vision if it could not be a short-term realization for housing on the site and in the area. The question was how to make it happen and how to make sure 15 to 25 years from the present that a group of property owners did not come before the Council and say that the area could not successfully accommodate housing. The Council would need to begin to define and articulate what its vision was for the future, how the pieces would come together, and the path it hoped to take to realize the integration of uses consistent with a primarily residential use on the site. In addition to being a strong advocate for housing, he had stated repeatedly that the Council needed to begin to be more flexible about the issues of compatibility. He believed different kinds of uses could work harmoniously, but the community had a long way to go in terms of realizing the potential for compatibility of somewhat different uses. He hoped the Council would support the proposal, and he believed it was essential both to ensure an integrated set of uses and to ensure the long-term realization of housing on the site. Council Member Andersen asked whether the H-P proposal, if approved, was inconsistent with the housing element as described
12/04/95 77-388
by Mayor Simitian. He asked whether the Council would have to have some rationale for making changes if there were a policy objective of increasing the number of housing units, but in order to do so the R-1 zoning would have to allow for increased density. He wanted the parameters to include serious consideration of earlier studies and input that had already been provided by members of the community. He felt the Council's recent decision to allow a revenue generator to remain in the area for a number of years would help justify the cost of the study, but he asked whether there was a more rapid approach that might be taken if housing were given a high priority in the area. Mr. Schreiber said one of the critical parts of doing that type of study was the involvement of a development-oriented economists and the establishment from the outset of an objective of having the product from the study be developable and economically realistic. Staff felt it was an important feature that should be part of the City's planning. Staff did not have the expertise to provide specific ways to create incentives to further the transformation of land into housing, but staff believed it had to be both economically feasible and realistic from a development standpoint. The question was very complicated so if it became part of the vision, the answer would not be easy answer. Planning Commissioner Jon Schink said the Planning Commission had been excited about the concept of specific area plans for several years, and he felt that the neighborhood would be the ideal location. The Planning Commission had a previous meeting with experts from other cities to discuss the value of a specific area plan and how it evolved. During that process, the budget for the study was discussed. He was also concerned about the high prices for the study; but after discussing the study in detail, it became clear to him that if the City wanted a document that was usable, a fair amount of money needed to be spent to sort out all of the complexities that were created by combining a multiplicity of uses. The Planning Commission also discussed some cost recovery options for the City in the future. Council Member Andersen asked about the time it would take to put the plan in place. Mr. Schink said a successful area plan would take some time to draw in all of the diverse elements. He felt 18 months would be a realistic time frame to return with a document for the Council's review. Mayor Simitian suggested if the Council moved forward immediately, something would happen sooner rather than later. One way to have moved the process along more quickly would have been to approve the 10-year rather than the 20-year amortization extension. That issue had been resolved, and that was not a remedy available given the desire of the majority of the Council to extend the amortization for a greater length of time. There were two factors that needed to be underscored in terms of trying to provide some surety that housing would eventually be built in the area. First, incentives could be built into a plan for people to make housing
12/04/95 77-389
happen sooner rather than later. Second, the extension of the amortization had cast some doubt on the Council's long-term commitment to housing on the site. People who had residential expectations might wonder whether the Council was serious about long-term residential uses in the area. If the Council wanted to encourage that that would happen sooner rather than later, the Council needed to find a way to reaffirm its commitment to housing opportunities in that neighborhood; and a plan that clearly articulated the desire for housing in the neighborhood was one way to give people some assurance that housing was a choice for the neighborhood. Council Member Andersen said it had been suggested by members of the public that the area was not large, particularly if H-P's proposal moved forward. He asked how much value the study would have before the dollars were spent. Mayor Simitian said it would be significant if the exercise communicated clearly to any future developer that any development that occurred in the area had to be compatible with the ultimate residential growth and development in the area. The Council had an opportunity to make sure that anything that happened in the area was compatible with the Council's end vision for that neighborhood of residential development which was an important piece of what the Council was trying do. Mr. Calonne said part of the state law theory was that the up-front investment recovered later on each individual application for development in the area was cumulatively less expensive and more efficient for both the public and private sector than doing that planning and environmental review process case by case. For example, he recalled that the EIR on the Varsity Theatre was over $100,000. One factor under the state law theory which he felt coordinated area planning emulated and extended was that there was an efficiency through the process. Council Member Schneider asked about the previous comment regarding interim zoning. Mr. Calonne said state law called it a zoning action that the Council put on a piece of property pending a further study. The zoning could range from a moratorium which would preclude any use to any other form of zoning that would allow some interim use during the period of the study. Council Member Schneider asked whether that zoning would not apply to H-P. Mr. Calonne said Mr. Schreiber's comments assumed that Council would not take some action to prevent H-P from moving forward with its proposal presented to the Council that evening. The Council had the authority to make that decision, based on his present knowledge of the record. From the legal standpoint, it was a classic situation in which interim zoning was used. The Comprehensive Plan was pending, the regulatory framework was presently a construction zone, there was a proposal for further
12/04/95 77-390
study in a certain area, and there was a development proposal which, depending upon the Council's policy decision, might or might not be inconsistent with what the Council might want to do in the future. Council Member McCown understood the reservations and concerns since the City was embarking on a process that had not been used previously. The staff had identified to the Council that it had to be willing to move forward with that kind of proactive planning process. The process was a risk and might or might not work. She felt the alternative was to do nothing which was an unsatisfactory approach for that area. Her criticism was not that the mixture of uses in the area or that the long-term housing goals in the area were undesirable but that previous and present Councils had made a series of individual decisions that were not always coordinated with each other. For example, when the Maximart site was rezoned to multi-family, the Planning Commission recommended that the whole CS area be rezoned; and the City Council at that time agreed with the Planning Commission on the Maximart site but did not agree with respect to the whole CS area. She supported the recent decision with respect to Fry's Electronics; but her criticism of that decision, which was why the item was initiated by some Council Members, was that it was also an ad hoc decision or an individual decision that did not consider the implications of the decision on the whole area. She felt an integrated look of the area was needed which did not mean the Council was trying to homogenize the entire area. When the staff returned with a set of procedures and implementation of an ordinance, the Council needed to articulate before it moved forward the basic parameters and vision that would be pursued. Many of her ideas came from the Community Design workshop for the area, and she recalled the parameters were a continued strong support for a housing component in the area and also a strong support for commercial elements. There was a great concern about how the circulation would be made to work throughout the site and how to create circulation that allowed the Ventura R-1 neighborhood to have a good interconnection through the area to California Avenue which did not presently exist other than on Park Boulevard and El Camino Real which were not conducive to nonautomobile uses. She said the H-P site was a good example of what came out of the neighborhood workshop. The south side of the H-P building fronted a residential neighborhood across the street and needed to be redeveloped in a way that facilitated or included residential housing ultimately on the H-P site as it backed onto the R-1 neighborhood. Unless the Council quickly indicated what it wanted in the area, the Council's ability to direct and guide opportuni-ties for change was limited without an overall vision for the area. The H-P site might be the first change opportunity for the area. She would withhold judgment as to whether, notwithstanding the Council's decision on Fry's Electronics, Fry's would still be at the site 15 or 25 years from the present time. There might be changes sooner in that area. The Council needed to have a plan in place that encouraged the change, did a better job of interre-lating, and had elements that built a strong mixed-use neighbor-hood. She felt the plan was a risk worth taking, but it should not take too long or too much money. The Council needed to move
12/04/95 77-391
forward and build on the strengths that were already in the area and put the vision in place that would guide the changes that happened over the 15-year time frame or longer. Council Member Andersen asked whether the staff had sufficient parameters to move forward. Mr. Calonne said the direction was sufficient at that stage in the process, and the parameter-setting stage would come when the staff returned with implementing procedure. Mayor Simitian clarified his parameters: plenty of housing, not to homogenize the neighborhood, make the pieces work, sooner rather than later, and less money if possible. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating," Huber absent. RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated Fire Marshal Phil Constantino said the weed abatement program began each year around November by adopting a resolution declaring weeds to be a nuisance and setting a public hearing which occurred on November 13, 1995. The Santa Clara County (the County) Fire Marshal's Office sent notices that informed all the property owners on the list of the program's commencement and approximate time of removal. Property owners had an opportunity to identify any concerns or objections to the program at the hearing that evening. During the months of March through July, the removal would take place for those properties that had not abated the weeds. Upon completion of that removal, the cost would be levied against the property owners by the County on their annual tax bill. The program was concluded in the month of August when the Fire Department came back to the Council with a staff report notifying all of the people who had incurred those expenses. Last year, approximately 43 property owners took advantage of the County's program, and the total cost of removal was $11,074. Mayor Simitian said it was the time and place set for a Public Hearing on Resolution No. 7551 declaring weeds to be a nuisance. The record should show that notice of the hearing had been given in the time, manner, and form provided for in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. He asked the City Clerk whether any written objections had been received. City Clerk Gloria Young replied no written objections had been received. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
12/04/95 77-392
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7558 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Kniss absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 8. The Historic Resources Board re Transmittal of Museum of American Heritage Amended Proposal for Williams Property located at 351 Homer Avenue Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said staff recommended that the Council approve the revised concept proposed by the Museum of American Heritage (the Museum) for the Williams Property at 351 Homer Avenue including rehabilitation of the existing garage and the construction of a new education building of approximately 1,565 square feet, affirm the need for the Museum to pursue alternatives to on-site parking, and direct staff to complete negotiations for an option to lease with the Museum based on the revised proposal. The Museum's proposal concept approved by the Council in November 1994 involved no major changes to the property other than the removal and replacement of the garage. In May 1995, the Museum submitted a revised proposal concept which included significant changes to the property in which the City Attorney concluded should be submitted to Council for consideration. On July 5, 1995, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the Museum's concept plan prior to consideration by Council and recommended that the Museum revise the plans to better protect the historical significance of the property. The Museum subsequently revised the concept plan and on November 1, 1995, the HRB endorsed the revised concept plan before the Council that evening. Meeting the parking requirements on the site was not possible without causing adverse impacts to the historic significance of the property, and therefore, staff recommended the Museum pursue alternatives to on-site parking such as off-site parking arrangements and/or a parking variance. At the November 1, 1995, HRB meeting, the Museum requested the assistance of the City Council in negotiating a new agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) to retain or acquire parking for the Williams Property on the PAMF's nearby property. The HRB supported that request. Staff believed that any negotiations on parking should occur directly between the PAMF and the Museum and that the City should not become involved. If Council approved the revised concept that evening, as directed by Council, staff would negotiate an option to lease, prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and return to Council for approval. Historic Resources Board Member Ann Barbee said when the Museum submitted its proposal the second time, the HRB had the benefit of an analysis of the issues regarding the Williams Property done by Senior Planner Virginia Warheit. The HRB supported the Museum's revised proposal and was delighted that the existing garage would remain and that the gardens would be renovated which was an
12/04/95 77-393
important part of the property. The HRB was concerned about the issue of parking, and it would be unfortunate if the Museum had to remove the gardens or buildings to provide parking. There were many possibilities in the area for parking. The HRB urged the Council to help the Museum negotiate with the PAMF if possible. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the City currently had an agreement with the PAMF which spoke to the provision of parking for public use during certain hours of the day. The use at the time was assumed to be for the Williams Property. She asked the status and length of the agreement and whether the City could invoke the provisions of that agreement to provide some of the parking necessary to satisfy the Museum's occupancy. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the existing development agreement between the City and PAMF required the PAMF to allow afternoon and evening parking at times to be more specifically identified by mutual agreement. He recalled that the term was for 50 years. The difficulty was that the PAMF hoped to get favorable consideration from the Council to move to Urban Lane, and staff had been discussing ways to reconcile the existing development agreement with the revised plans. The development agreement was in place at the present time, and there was an opportunity for further discussion about the parking need with the PAMF. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the development agreement would remain in place as long as the PAMF maintained some facilities in that neighborhood. Mr. Calonne said the City's development agreement with the PAMF could not be unilaterally terminated so the afternoon and evening parking requirement was in place until the City decided different-ly. It was unlikely that the City would want to have development approvals for two PAMFs. A discussion would need to take place, and the City was not in a position to unilaterally compel the PAMF to provide long-term parking. Monty Anderson, Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, 941 Emerson Street, said he had been working with the HRB to find ways to synthesize the preservation goals with the development and restoration of the Williams Property. The Museum had two program criteria besides the renovation of the interior spaces for exhibits. The Museum also held periodic lectures, workshops for children, and traveling exhibits that required a more flexible exhibit space. The Museum wanted its program goals met at one site. In order to meet those goals, the Museum needed a more flexible plan than the Williams Property provided. In order to preserve the Williams Property as a residence, a series of small residential rooms needed to be maintained which would work nicely with the Museum's current exhibits. The Museum felt the garage was a defining element of the site, and a review by a structural engineer and contractor determined that the garage was in good shape and would require minimal intervention to be used for an antique car exhibit and/or a modest shop facility. Currently, the Museum used volunteers to prepare the exhibits for display, and the garage could serve that program function. If an alternative
12/04/95 77-394
solution to parking could be obtained, then the gardens could also be preserved and enhanced. The Museum believed the proposed plan highlighted the garden by creating a courtyard at the rear of the house by the new education center. Any change of use required different elements of the house to be upgraded to facilitate handicapped accessibility, fire code issues, etc., which affected the house in some way. The goals with the standards of rehabilitation were to try to mitigate those impacts. One of the things in the design element that would have a great impact on the house was facilitating the inside floor plan with two handicap rest rooms. The two rest rooms required approximately 300 square feet and a rather large footprint so the new addition was designed to incorporate the 300 square feet for the handicap rest rooms. Joe Ehrlich, Chairperson, Museum of American Heritage Board of Directors, 1915 Oak Street, Menlo Park, said parking was the key issue. The initial site plan for parking impacted the gardens, and the HRB corrected that approach. The only parking onsite was for the handicapped and staff. He referred to several statements in the staff report (CMR:508:95): "Meeting the parking requirements on the site is not possible without causing adverse impacts to the historic significance of the property and, therefore, staff recommends that the Museum pursue alternatives to on-site parking, such as off-site parking arrangements...One possible alternative is an off-site parking arrangement with PAMF. PAMF's current Development Agreement with the City for expansion at its existing site allows public parking on not less than 35 PAMF spaces in late afternoons, evenings and weekends, for use in conjunction with the use of the Williams property...Staff believes that any negotiations on parking should occur directly between PAMF and the Museum, and that City should not become involved at this time." He said it was unlikely that the Museum would be able to negotiate a parking entitlement with PAMF. The City had an agreement and could use its influence to make it a condition if the new Urban Lane development were approved. Unless the Museum had that kind of assurance for parking, the Williams Property would not be a feasible site. He urged the Council, as recommended by the HRB, to consider negotiating with the PAMF for 35 parking spaces for public parking. Carl Schmidt, 250 Lytton Avenue, chairperson of the fund-raising element of the Museum, said that fund-raising had reached 80 percent of the Museum's goal of $500,000. However, it would not be practical if the budget expanded with a financial outlay for a parking requirement. Beverley Nelson, 3030 Country Club Court, said the Museum was excited and challenged by the gardens of the Williams Property. She assured the Council that the Museum would comply with the terms set out by the City for the restoration and maintenance of the Williams Property gardens and would follow the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. A historic preservation oversight team was being formed along with the garden committee to help with the restoration.
12/04/95 77-395
Council Member Andersen recalled that an earlier proposal showed the front hedge removed, but the current proposal showed that the hedge would be trimmed to 36 inches. He asked whether the hedge had historically always been there. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the previous historic report that was prepared when the property was being considered by various applicants always identified the perimeter hedges as very important historic features in the grounds. Council Member Andersen said there was a desire from a previous applicant to allow for more visual access to the property, and a 36-inch front hedge would not allow that access. Ms. Warheit said Lucy Tolmach, Garden Superintendent at Filoli Estate, had volunteered to advise the Museum on the restoration of the gardens, and the hedge was considered to be important and a key feature on the site. Lowering the height of the hedge, similar to the Gamble Gardens, would help make the property more visible from the street. Council Member Fazzino understood the request of the Museum to use PAMF parking spaces across the street. He felt a short-term resolution of the issue might be possible but he was concerned about the kind of limitations or restrictions that the City might place on its long-term planning process for the PAMF site if it moved forward that evening with a commitment with respect to the parking. He asked about other parking alternatives other than the Williams Property that might be available in addition to the PAMF site. Mr. Calonne concurred with the staff report that the PAMF parking might not be there in the future. The Council had the ultimate authority on the issue in connection with the Urban Lane approval. At the time the development agreement was negotiated, it was viewed as a no cost item to the PAMF because the parking lot referred to in the agreement was across the street on Homer Avenue. The development agreement would be in place until the relocation of the PAMF. Ms. Warheit said the parking on the PAMF site was not staff's sole advice to the applicant. Staff had advised the applicant to pursue a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) arrangement which would think through very carefully the program, who might come and go and do what they could with their program development to encourage people not to come by private automobile and as a last resort consider the possibility of asking for a variance for some of the parking. She said one possibility was the Roth Building which was the original historic PAMF building and it was expected by both PAMF and the neighborhood to remain. She believed the building was 10,000 square feet which would generate a parking requirement if it were used for offices of about 40 parking spaces. If the building were used partially during the daytime for nonresidential use, there might be an opportunity to explore possible sharing.
12/04/95 77-396
Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council's action that evening would be a short-term approach and Council would not make any long-term commitments in terms of parking which might limit the Council's ability to best plan the site. City Manager June Fleming said the recommendation before the Council addressed the interim use. The solution was for an interim period of time, and staff had encouraged the Museum to look for other long-range solutions. Council Member Fazzino asked for the Museum to clarify its request to the Council with respect to the parking issue. Mayor Simitian clarified the Museum wanted the City to handle the negotiations with the PAMF for parking in the immediate future and it wanted to be able to return to the Council in a few years with another plan for sorting out the parking. Council Member Kniss said the Museum had conformed to the City's fairly stringent stipulations for leasing the building; and for that reason, she felt the parking issue was also the City's problem. The Council would be dealing with PAMF for several years and could negotiate with the PAMF during that period. Council Member Fazzino wanted the Museum's expectation with respect to the Council's action on the issue of long-term resolution of parking needs. Mr. Ehrlich said the Museum wanted a commitment from the Council that it would help the Museum be assured that there would be some long-term parking available for visitors in the future. The Museum was in complete agreement with staff that it should encourage people to use alternate means of transit, but occasionally the Museum would need parking. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Museum understood that the PAMF might be a short-term resolution and that the entire issue might have to be revisited in two or three years. Mr. Ehrlich said yes. Mr. Calonne was concerned about a due process problem with respect to the PAMF and suggested the Council's action not be a policy commitment but a direction to staff to explore. Vice Mayor Wheeler recommended approval of Item Nos. 1 and 3 of the staff recommendation but offered a different recommendation for the parking issue. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to: 1) approve the Museum of American Heritage's revised proposal concept plan, including the retention and rehabilitation of the existing garage and the construction of a new education building and accessible restrooms of approximately 1,565 square feet; 2) direct staff to work with the applicant on a variance application for on-site parking requirements and assist the applicant in exploring
12/04/95 77-397
long-term off-site parking arrangements; and 3) direct staff to complete negotiations for an option to lease with the Museum of American Heritage, based on the revised proposal dated October 4, 1995. Council Member Schneider supported the variance but was concerned that the Council might set a precedent by assisting the Museum with long-term parking solutions because other organizations in the Downtown might seek the Council's help in negotiating parking. Council Member McCown said the staff report pointed out that a precedent had been set with the Byxbee House where a variance was granted from the 17 parking spaces that would have otherwise been required because of the finding of necessity to preserve the house as historic property. She felt the Williams Property was the same situation and that the right long-term solution was not to expect from the user, as the City would not have been able to realistically require of any other user, that parking should be provided on the site. The Museum should pursue the other suggestions about the manner in which large groups of visitors came to the site. She felt a significant distinction could be made between the present situation and commercial users in the Downtown. Council Member Andersen said Mr. Ehrlich's previous comments suggested that unless there was some resolution regarding the parking, the Museum might not be able to pursue its proposal. He asked whether the motion met the Museum's needs at the present time. Mr. Ehrlich said the parking issue was critical for a 20-year lease, but the Museum would accept the motion and had confidence that long-term solutions would be worked out with the Council in the future. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the property had had a lengthy history, and she was gratified that the Council had a real plan from a real organization before it that evening. She felt the plan would be successful and would give the City a place that everyone could be proud of in the future. She commended the Museum for all the hard work that had gone into the plan. She believed the plan before the Council that evening was in keeping with the spirit the Council had for the use of the property. She understood the concerns expressed by Council Member Schneider regarding parking, but the difference between that parcel and the Downtown area was that the house belonged to the City and the City had burdened any applicant who had come before the Council with a charge to do certain things to preserve the property, the house, and the gardens, and the City had created the problem of accommodating the parking. The combination of the City's stipulations and the property made it different from any other situation and dictated that it was appropriate for the Council to play a role in resolving the parking issue. Council Member Kniss commended the Museum, HRB, and staff on the
12/04/95 77-398
time, energy, and effort that was put into the proposal. She felt the proposed plan kept the integrity of the house, allowed the historical aspects to stay intack, restored the gardens, and allowed for a new building that would give the Museum a place for special exhibits. She was pleased with the plans to trim the hedge which would make the property more visible. She believed that putting the parking in the context proposed would allow the Council to stay abreast of what was happening with the PAMF and to have some time to plan for future parking requirements. There was nothing in the Downtown similar to the Museum, and it would make a major statement in the area. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. She believed the Museum's current proposal for the property was more in keeping with Rhona Williams' desires than their previous proposal. She was still concerned about the parking and felt that if the Council tried to solve the problem, it might create problems in the future. Council Member Fazzino joined his colleagues in support of the recommendations. He was most delighted that a historic museum would occupy the site which was his hope when the issue originally came before the Council. The Museum had worked very hard to preserve the house and the gardens. He was also pleased that there was a limited impact on residential neighbors which was of significant concern with previous proposals. He agreed with Council Member Kniss that the Council should support efforts to address the short-term need for off-site parking. He was convinced that it would not limit the Council's, the PAMF's, or the residents' ability to develop the property across the street from the Williams Property and at the same time the Museum's need for off-site parking could be addressed. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the motion. He commended the Museum and HRB for the work that had been done. He asked if a parking variance were required, when the item would come before the Council. Ms. Freeland said after the option to lease was approved by Council, the Museum would apply for the planning approvals including the parking variance. Mr. Calonne said the option to lease typically contained several conditions precedent to a lease, and the parking variance would be one of them. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. 9. The Utilities Advisory Commission Request to Review the Storm Drain Infrastructure Improvement Program Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the item before the Council that evening concerned the ongoing review of the proposed storm drain master plan and improvements. The item was referred to the Finance Committee in 1994, and the work was split into three phases. Council and Committee gave approval for the first two phases and the remaining issue involved the potential
12/04/95 77-399
upgrading of the existing storm drainage system which had been under review. A public outreach program had recently been conducted, and on October 4, 1995, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) discussed the item. Utilities Advisory Commissioner Paul Johnston said the UAC felt that portions of the issue could utilize the services of the UAC. Category C of the storm drain master plan involved an estimated expenditure of $42 million and involved many of the kinds of expertise and plumbing issues that the UAC already dealt with. The funding for the project would come from the utility bill, so while it was a Public Works project that did not fall under the purview of the UAC, it was a project that the UAC was interested in. The UAC felt the kind of technical review it could provide would be a good supplement to the public meetings that were being conducted in various neighborhoods. The UAC offered its services to provide a review of the program and sought Council's guidance on whether that was desirable or not. City Manager June Fleming said she was present when the UAC discussed the issue and wholeheartedly supported the UAC's involvement in that particular project. There was a larger issue around the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, but she believed the staff could benefit from the UAC's expertise. She asked the Council to consider giving that particular assignment to the UAC on an exception basis. Council Member Rosenbaum said staff was asked to engage in the public outreach effort which turned out to be a difficult assign-ment but it was successful in attracting the attention of several members of the UAC. The UAC had asked the Council to comment on the depth of the review. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to refer to the Utilities Advisory Commission Category C phase of the long-term storm drain master plan infrastructure improvement program for a thorough review and recommendation back to Council, and that the review should focus on storm drainage system master plan design criteria, appropriateness of the use of the 10-year intensity storm to determine capacity needs, and cost/benefit analysis of the proposed drainage improvements. Council Member Andersen referred to a statement in the Sacramento Bee by John Mitchell, Public Works Director of Lassen County and incoming president of the County Engineers' Association, that said "deferred maintenance for people in my line of work was two of the ugliest words in the English language." He said it was exciting that the Council was not deferring anymore than was absolutely necessary. Council Member Fazzino recalled that the City benefitted signifi-cantly by the UAC's previous work on the water reclamation project. He believed everyone would benefit from the UAC's technical discussion and evaluation of the proposal. He believed a better job was needed to understand the project and how it would impact the City so the cost associated with the project could be
12/04/95 77-400
justified. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was important not to give people the wrong impression. The issue was discussed at a 1994 Finance Committee meeting, but there was no Council discussion. The Finance Committee approved Category A and B at a cost of $18 million which responded to the concern about not accumulating deferred maintenance. It was the opinion of the Committee, and staff agreed that Category C was optional. It was a question of establishing priorities which was the information that the UAC would hopefully provide, not a question of deferred maintenance. Mayor Simitian recalled the original proposal reviewed by the Council involved a substantially greater expenditure, and the Council's direction to the staff was to "pay as we go" rather than finance to a significant degree in order to pare back the cost by eliminating significant financing costs. It was a wise decision that would have a significant impact in terms of the overall cost of the project. The second observation by Council was whether there were elements of the plan which could not be justified in terms of the cost benefit performance. Many tens of millions of dollars would be saved through the combination of "pay as you go" and the potential for a scaled-back project. He supported the motion without any notion that it was precedent setting. It was a specific request for a specific review authority. Council Member Fazzino said when the concept of the UAC came before the Council originally, he felt the Council should expand the charter of the UAC at that time. He felt the UAC's outstanding record of providing technical expertise justified the kind of expansion of charter which was being proposed that evening. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. ORDINANCES 10. The Planning Commission, Historic Resources Board, and Architectural Review Board re Alma Street Bicycle Bridge - Preliminary Design and Park Improvement Ordinance Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said if the Council approved the design concept that evening, the project would return to the Council in July 1996 for an award of contract. The budgetary issues would be finalized in the upcoming budget process as well. He said Project Engineer Debra Jacobs would present an overview of the project. Council Member McCown said there was a lot of discussion in the Planning Commission's minutes about the trusses, etc., of the bridge; but there was nothing in the Council's packet that showed what the bridge would look like. Mr. Roberts said project overview would show the bridge elevation. Project Engineer Debra Jacobs said Council's approval of the staff
12/04/95 77-401
recommendations would mean $57,000 in the Capital Improvement Budget for 1996-1997 for the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge. Full reimbursement for that portion would be from the Joint Powers Board, the City of Menlo Park, and Santa Clara County Transporta-tion Development Act (TDA) funds. There would also be an assessee for $15,000 in a Parks capital improvement project. The capital improvement project funding would be part of the budget process. The project was the first priority relative to bikeways for 15 years, and it was an important part of Palo Alto's overall commitment to bicycling facilities. The project was not selected by the Finance or Policy and Services Committees for review but had been through consultant selection. Palo Alto's Public Works Department and Transportation Division and Menlo Park's Transportation Department participated in the selection committee. Eight consultants were invited to submit a Request for Proposal (RFP), and three consultants responded and were interviewed. Council awarded the consultant contract in September 1994 and also approved the Menlo Park/Palo Alto cost-sharing agreement. She reviewed the project's unusual design setting in El Palo Alto Park and its historical interests. She summarized the Architectural Review Board's (ARB) and the Planning Commission's basic project concept approvals as stated in the staff report (CMR:504:95). Staff had reduced the scope to $313,000 which resulted in the most successful project possible within the funding constraints. There was a scheme to fund the additional costs over the initial grant. The Joint Powers Board had agreed to cover its expenses, and the Transportation Division would be asked to file an application for TDA funds in Santa Clara County. The amount needed was $11,000 which was less than the usual yearly allotment. A funding application for San Mateo County TDA funds would be discussed by the Menlo Park City Council in December 1995. Construction would begin in July 1996 with completion in the fall of 1996. A maintenance agreement with Menlo Park would be in place in time for the Council to consider the construction contract award and related consultant services. Staff would return to the Council for approval of the funding agreements with the Joint Powers Board and the City of Menlo Park. Council was being asked to approve the preliminary design with the ARB condition that path lighting be included and that bridge and path lighting return to the ARB for final review, to approve the mitigated negative declaration, and to introduce the Park Improvement Ordinance. Mayor Simitian asked the length of the bridge. Ms. Jacobs said the bridge span was 110 feet. Mayor Simitian asked whether the design was approved by the ARB and whether the ARB had the same level of detail for approval. Ms. Jacobs said yes. Mayor Simitian asked whether $313,000 was a lot of money for a bicycle bridge. Mr. Roberts said the bridge was among the more expensive of those kinds of facilities, but it was driven by the uniqueness of the
12/04/95 77-402
setting and the structure which had been designed and specified for that setting. The type of steel used for the structure and the colored concrete deck were more expensive features than ordinarily found in other locations, but he felt the expenditure was justified in that location. Mayor Simitian referred to page 3 of the staff report (CMR:504:95) and said the design fees were $73,000 and the remaining costs to complete the project were $240,000. He said the design fees were equal to one-third of the cost of the project which he felt was a high percentage for design fees for a project of that size. Mr. Roberts said the word "design" was less than totally descrip-tive. The actual engineering design and the technical aspects only represented about $25,000 or 10 or 11 percent of the total project cost. The total cost of $73,000 was for all the processes involved, i.e., consultant attendance at the meetings, review of the submittals from the various agencies involved, which was unique for the project at that location and the multi-jurisdictional aspects. Mayor Simitian clarified it cost $53,000 to talk about a $23,000 design. Mr. Roberts said it cost $50,000 to talk about a $200,000 project. Mayor Simitian said the Council was considering spending $313,000, and a major element of the approval was the design. He did not feel that the design of the bridge as shown in the overhead transparency presented to the Council that evening for the first time gave him a good idea of what the bridge would look like when it was completed. In theory, the Council was approving the design because it felt comfortable that after spending $313,000 it would have a great project. He wanted to know what the City would get by spending $313,000 other than the pen and ink drawing presented in the overhead transparency. Mr. Roberts said the design was a self-weathering steel truss structure that intentionally replicated the style of the adjacent Southern Pacific railroad bridge. The drawing attempted to show that style and line in the angularity of beams, members, and truss connections. Council Member McCown said she had previously commented on the same issue that Mayor Simitian had raised regarding the design of the bridge. The minutes of the ARB and Planning Commission indicated that most of the discussion was about design issues and alternatives and that the ARB felt the truss alternative was worth doing. She asked whether the truss would be added to the structure. Ms. Jacobs said yes. Council Member McCown asked why the Council did not receive a design of the bridge in its packet.
12/04/95 77-403
Ms. Jacobs said it was an oversight and the design was in the plans but the elevations were not. Council Member McCown clarified that Cortend steel would be used for the bridge, but Planning Commissioner Sandy Eakins raised a concern that it was almost impossible to remove graffiti from Cortend steel. She felt that would be a concern due to the lengthy span of the bridge, and she asked how graffiti would be dealt with. Mr. Roberts said if graffiti were placed on that type of steel, it had to be sandblasted off, and it took a period of time for the surface to reoxidize and cover itself with the rusting pattern. The surface could not be painted, and the graffiti could not be removed as quickly as a painted structure. The bridge was long, and the members were narrow so staff did not feel it would be an attractive graffiti site such as the adjacent Southern Pacific bridge that had wider members. Council Member McCown asked whether any other alternative was considered other than that type of steel. She clarified it was a prefabricated bridge and manufactured elsewhere. Ms. Jacobs said the bridge would be built elsewhere. A wood bridge was also considered but 110 feet was near the limit of what wood could span. Maintenance personnel in most cities were adamant that it was difficult to maintain wooden bridges. A Cortend bridge was more expensive, but for the long-term it was considerably cheaper because of the maintenance involved. Council Member Fazzino said it was difficult to approve the project that evening without a better appreciation about what the Council was being asked to approve. He hoped that in the future the Council would have a design which clarified the issues. He was concerned about the health of El Palo Alto and wanted to be assured that the plan would not represent a threat to El Palo Alto. Ms. Jacobs said City Arborist David Sandage had reviewed the site, and he wrote a letter as part of the ARB submission that stated that putting in a path off the roots of El Palo Alto would benefit the tree because there would not be so much compaction of the root zone. At the present time, the ad hoc path went over the roots, and the proposed path would be on the other side. Council Member Fazzino clarified people used the ad hoc path when they crossed the railroad bridge. Ms. Jacobs said that was the correct. Native plants would be planted around El Palo Alto, and a specific tree protection plan would be done for the trees in El Palo Alto Park that would be approved by Mr. Sandage. Council Member Fazzino said the map showed the path going through El Palo Alto Park, and he asked whether it would change the feel of the park. He clarified the path could not get any closer to
12/04/95 77-404
the railroad tracks until it reached the El Palo Alto area because of right-of-way and safety concerns. Ms. Jacobs said that was correct. There were comments that the path should be out of the Joint Powers Board right-of-way, but that would involve removing six redwood trees. The path could not get any closer to the fence that the Joint Powers Board had requested. Council Member Fazzino asked the height of the wrought iron fence. Ms. Jacobs said five feet. The Joint Powers Board wanted a six-foot fence similar to the one used on the path between Churchill and University Avenue. Staff pointed that a six-foot fence was difficult for most people to see over and that a four-foot fence was better for visual impact. The compromise was a five-foot fence since it was easy for people to jump over a four-foot fence. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there would be spikes at the top of the fence. Ms. Jacobs said no. The fence would be similar to the fence between the tracks at the University Avenue train station and would extend to the railroad bridge. Council Member Fazzino clarified the fence would extend to the railroad bridge so it would not be possible for people to get on the bridge. Ms. Jacobs said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino said the HRB raised concern that the fence design was not historic. He asked what other alternatives were considered, other than a wrought iron fence, in order to preserve a 1902 railroad bridge. Ms. Jacobs said the Joint Powers Board mandated the design of the bridge. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Joint Powers Board was not willing to discuss the issue. Ms. Jacobs said a split rail fence was suggested, but the Joint Powers Board did not consider that type of fence sufficient security. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, said there was specula-tion that over 100 people walked over the trestle which was hazardous. She encouraged the Council to approve the project. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to: 1) approve the Preliminary Design of the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge Project with the following Architectural Review Board (ARB) conditions: a) path lighting be included and b) bridge and path lighting return to the ARB for final review; 2) approve the mitigated negative declaration that the Alma Bike Bridge Project
12/04/95 77-405
would not result in any significant environmental impacts; and 3) introduce the Park Improvement Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to El Palo Alto Park" Council Member Kniss was disappointed that the bridge did not have more historic elements. She felt the cost of a bridge of minimal proportions was phenomenal but recognized that it cost a substan-tial amount of money to put such a mechanism in place. Council Member Andersen anticipated graffiti problems on the bridge. He was fearful that it would take a long time to sandblast the graffiti off the bridge, and graffiti artists would see it as a wonderful area because it would be there for awhile. Council Member Fazzino crossed the railroad trestle several times a week and believed the bridge was absolutely necessary. He was also concerned about the design cost and preferred a split rail fence or a fence that was more historic in nature that befitted a 1902 railroad bridge. He asked that wrought iron fence be painted grey to match the bridge rather than black that matched the existing bridges at the CalTrain stations. He was nervous about any activity in that area that would impact El Palo Alto's health but he was convinced that the path location was the right one and would protect El Palo Alto. Mayor Simitian would approve the project but had misgivings regarding design costs, graffiti removal, and the inability of the Council to feel well informed about the ultimate design and how the product would look when it was completed based on the material provided to the Council that evening. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 11. City Manager's Review of the Utilities Advisory Commission City Manager June Fleming said it had been a pleasure to work with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). She thanked the UAC and said the UAC had proven its value. She proposed not to return with any other annual reports except to respond to the one outstanding issue, the oversight consideration of the UAC being extended to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, as noted in the staff report (CMR:514:95). She would return to the Council with a final report on that issue when she received more input from the City's partners. No action required. 12. Approval of Meadows Water Well Closure and Sale, and Delay of Sale of the Middlefield Well Site Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said the staff report
12/04/95 77-406
(CMR:489:95) thoroughly covered the item. The Meadows Well site had deteriorated to a point that it was not operative. The well had never been a good producer, and staff recommended the well site be closed and that the property be returned to the City. Staff also recommended the sale of the Middlefield Well site be delayed until staff could conduct a study on how to bring all of the City's wells up to the level of emergency conditions. Council Member McCown asked about the timing of staff's response to the questions in a letter from the Walnut Grove Homeowners Association dated December 4, 1995, regarding the Meadows Well site. She suggested the staff could respond to the questions raised and then the issue could be returned to the Council for approval. Mr. Mrizek said staff could provide a response to some of questions raised that evening or could provide a written response very quickly. Council Member McCown asked whether there had been discussions with the Board of Directors of the Walnut Grove Homeowners Association. City Manager June Fleming said the questions raised by the Walnut Grove Homeowners Association were only made available to staff that evening. Staff had not been able to make contact with two people who were interested in the subject. Letters had been sent but one person did not receive the letter and was not aware prior to that evening that the item had been agendized. She suggested the public be allowed to speak that evening regarding their concerns and then the Council continue the item after public testimony so that staff could prepare a detailed report that answered the questions raised. Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, said she did not receive a notice that the item was being agendized for the Council meeting that evening. There had been major problems with the well for a number of years. She understood the Utilities Department had done a lot of work on the well and the well had been capped several times. She was concerned about the well being closed and the possibility of the property being sold to an unsuspecting citizen. She urged the Council to study the matter before it took action. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the staff report mentioned some planning issue regarding amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations and zone districts. He believed no changes were made in either the zoning map or the land use map when the Middlefield Well site was abandoned by the Utilities Department and that no such change was needed or desirable if the well were brought back into production. The previous Councils when they adopted the 1976 Comprehensive Plan and land use map and the 1978 zoning ordinance made the correct decision to apply the same land use map and zone district designations to wells site as the surrounding neighborhood. In 1990 there was no such change because the site was already single-family residential and R-1 zone. He asked the staff to review and correct the information. When the Middlefield Well site was abandoned, it was filled in so
12/04/95 77-407
there was that added cost to bring it back in and create a new well. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. 13. City Auditor's Status Report MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the item to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. 13A. (Old Item No. 5) Resolution of Conflict of Interest Concerns with Watry Design Group Relating to Downtown Parking Structure Study City Attorney Ariel Calonne said when the item came before the Council previously, a member of the public raised a concern about a conflict of interest involving work done by Watry Design Group for the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. When the issue was investigated further with Watry, staff concluded that that work did not present any issues but that work done for several other Downtown property owners did. Staff concluded from further investigation that Watry was not subject to the Political Reform Act as a consultant. Recently, the definition of a consultant had been changed to firmly limit the reach of the Political Reform Act to hire consultants; and the nature of the work Watry had done for the City was so heavily reviewed and filtered by staff that Watry was not a consultant. However, the standard contract conflict language went beyond the Political Reform Act. Because of the nature of the relationship and if Watry had been subject to the Political Reform Act, it would have presented a very clear conflict; staff felt it was appropriate to try to negotiate some changes to the standard approach that would give the City additional assurance that Watry would not trade off the work to the disadvantage of the public interest. A one-year prohibition was negotiated with Watry accepting work from people affected within the study area following completion of the work for the City. He felt the protection was the best effort to balance the cost of that protection, i.e., if the City insisted on a longer moratorium against work from other people in the Downtown area, the price of the contract might increase significantly. Mayor Simitian asked what kind of work Watry was being asked to do. Mr. Calonne understood the work being done was land use planning associated with location analysis. Mayor Simitian said he shared the City Attorney's concern and felt there was a conflict of interest situation not because of any individual contractor who had previously performed work for individuals in the Downtown area but because if the City retained
12/04/95 77-408
that firm to give the City advice as the client on the location of a parking structure(s), the City was asking for advice which might have adverse consequences on some Downtown property owners and beneficial impacts for other Downtown property owners. The contractor was suppose to be exclusively concerned about the City's interests in performing the job and that became a concern when in a relatively short period thereafter that same consultant did work for Downtown property owners who might benefit from the work done for the City. He felt the longer the delay from the time the work was performed for the City, the less likely there would be any question about conflicting loyalties; and he did not feel one year was a long enough period of time. The City did not want to be in a position where a contractor worked for the City and a year later the same contractor worked for a Downtown property owner who might benefit from the consultant's work for the City. He had no reason to doubt the expertise or impartiality of Watry, but it was a process question. His inclination was for a longer period of time; and if that were not acceptable to the contractor, then the project would be rebid. He felt the Council needed to feel comfortable that the people giving advice to the City were not compromised by the desire to please either past or future clients. He felt a two- or three-year period was more appropriate. Council Member McCown asked whether the one-year prohibition was parallel to other similar conflict limitations the City had proposed. Mr. Calonne said no. The closest match was the one-year concern in the Political Reform Act when the source of income remained a source of income for one year following receipt of that income. He reiterated that the nature of the work done would have been a conflict if Watry were subject to the Political Reform Act. Parking structures were the earliest examples of the phrase "public/private partnership" that benefitted property owners and were typically paid for by property owners. The committee that selected the consultant included property owner representation, so the situation was tough to characterize which he had factored in. Council Member Schneider was on the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors when Watry did the design for the Chamber. The nature of the work presented to the Chamber was simply to restripe existing parking areas. Mayor Simitian said he was not concerned about the work done for the Chamber but the work done for private property owners in the Downtown. The greater issue referenced by the City Attorney by the one-year delay in future projects was the work done for other property owners in the Downtown. The law spoke not only to actual improprieties but the appearance of impropriety and the importance of making sure that that was not an issue. He did not disagree with the City Attorney that parking structures benefitted property owners but it was for the benefit of all property owners as part of the assessment district. He was concerned that the perception or reality would be that one property owner or property owners would benefit in the Downtown area.
12/04/95 77-409
Rick Ferguson, 1037 Harker, agreed with the comments of Mayor Simitian. The parking problem deserved clear facts that the entire community could accept. The process of developing the facts and figures about how the benefits and costs would be distributed could be tainted at the beginning and good engineers needed to be protected from flawed political questions and processes. The City Attorney's investigation revealed that Watry did something less innocuous than the restriping study for the Chamber. He felt the best way to resolve the conflict question was to rebid the project rather than litigate it based on the absence of an adequate factual basis a year later when the decision was made. Council Member Fazzino said the issue raised some legitimate conflict concerns, but he was troubled that the Council was addressing the issue on a one-time basis. He queried whether there should be a provision in the Palo Alto Municipal Code which related to any and all conflict of interest possibilities of that nature. A revolving door approach might need to be considered. Mr. Calonne was sympathetic to the concern being raised, but it was costly to prohibit people from a substantial portion of the market for a period of time as the price they paid for working for the City. The Council needed a policy analysis about the probable or possible economic ramifications before moving forward. Mayor Simitian clarified the reason it cost more was that there was an economic loss to the party who did the work for the City who could not do work in the Downtown. The City would then know that the party who was doing the work for the City was planning to do work for the Downtown property owners and the City would know that the party would be concerned about how his/her work product for the City was perceived by the Downtown property owners he/she sought to do work for in the future which was the reason that there was some cost involved. He asked whether action needed to be taken on the matter that evening. Mr. Calonne said Council could direct him to investigate Council's concern with Watry. Council Member McCown had previously asked the City Attorney whether there was a benchmark for similar types of provisions. The City Attorney had given his rationale for why one year seemed to be a reasonable analogy. She wanted the Council to take action in a way that made it equal for everybody. The restrictions to that consultant had not been disclosed as a condition of the bidding process when bids were solicited. She supported the need, but she was not persuaded that two years rather than one year was the right approach. Council Member Kniss felt one year was ample. Council Member Fazzino recalled that Congress passed revolving door legislation which prohibited Department of Defense officials and members of Congress from lobbying their agencies respectfully
12/04/95 77-410
for one year after leaving the employment of the United States Government. He did not know of any current state or federal law that required two years as opposed to one year. He supported the concept but was uncertain of the right time period. Mayor Simitian referred to the City Attorney's previous comment that if the firm met the legal definition of a consultant, it would be barred from doing the work. Because the consultant was not really a consultant, the one-year rule was being proposed to give the City some protection. Council Member Andersen supported the motion but had some concerns about the question of consistency. Mr. Calonne amplified the issue raised by Mayor Simitian of why the consultant was not a consultant under the Political Reform Act. He had considered the fact that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) relied on the City staff to substantially filter and rework the product, and it was a transportation project that would be administered by City staff. He felt confident that staff's skill level would monitor and filter the work appropriate-ly. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the addendum to the Professional Engineering Consultant Services between the City of Palo Alto and Watry Design for Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study with a revision to Section 4.2.4 to require that the consultant not provide professional services for a period of two and one-half years following substantial completion of the Project. MOTION FAILED 2-6, Andersen, Simitian "yes," Huber absent. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the addendum to the Professional Engineering Consultant Services between the City of Palo Alto and Watry Design Group for Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study. Addendum to the Professional Engineering Consultant Services between the City of Palo Alto and Watry Design Group for Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study MOTION PASSED 6-2, Andersen, Simitian "no," Huber absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Andersen said the Palo Alto High School won the Central Coast Section Football Tournament. Council Member McCown announced that Nancy Ritchey had passed away. She indicated that Ms. Ritchey had served the City well on the Human Relations Commission. Ms. Ritchey's memorial service was scheduled for Friday, December 8, 1995, at Stanford Memorial Church.
12/04/95 77-411
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in Memory of Nancy Ritchey, Human Relations Commissioner from April 1, 1992, to January 31, 1995. 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.
12/04/95 77-412