HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-16 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting January 16, 1996 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with Labor Negotiator..............................................78-3 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m..............78-3 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ralph Abel Upon His Retirement..............................................78-4 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ralph Lindmark Upon His Retirement..........................................78-4 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................78-5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 1995.....................78-5 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Environmental Care, Inc. DBA Arbor Care for Tree and Stump Removal Services................................................78-5 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and U. S. Elevator for Elevator Maintenance and Services at the Civic Center78-5 5. Alma Street/West Meadow Drive and Alma Street/Charleston Road Easements Purchase from Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - CIP 19073................................78-5 6. Resolution 7567 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7531 to Amend the Salary and Benefits for Council Appointed Officers................................................78-6 7. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of contract form for four providers of extended day care services at the 11 Palo Alto Unified School District elementary school sites.................78-6 8. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval for additional funding in the amount of $186,200
01/16/96 78-1
for the Utilities Customer Information System Capital Improvement Project (CIP 9357)..........................78-6 9. Ordinance 4324 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Accept a Grant from the California Arts Council for the Department of Community Services........78-6 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ....................78-6 11. The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Historic Resources Board recommendation re Generic Traffic Circle..........................................78-6 12. The Historic Resources Board recommends to the City Council approval to place property located at 819 Ramona Street (former AME Zion Church) on the National Register of Historic Places.....................................78-16 13. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1996-97................................................78-26 14. Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.60 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Concerning Civil Penalties and Administrative Review for Parking Violations and Declar-ing the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately....78-27 15. Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Budget to Authorize a Domestic Partners Registry".....................................78-27 16. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Planning and Attorney Support to Continue Preparation of the Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance........................78-30 17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........78-30 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m............78-30
01/16/96 78-2
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 6:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiators: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Lanie Wheeler, Joe Huber, Dick Rosenbaum) and City Attorney Ariel Calonne Unrepresented Employee: City Manager June Fleming
Authority: Government Code ∋54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Wheeler announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
01/16/96 78-3
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, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ralph Abel Upon His Retirement MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7565 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Ralph Abel Upon His Retirement" MOTION PASSED 9-0. Police Chief Chris Durkin said Ralph had had a very demanding job that required very specials skills. He was a 911 Emergency Dispatcher. Ralph was a very special person who on countless occasions had helped citizens, firefighters, and police officers in distress. Ralph was a dedicated employee and had set a wonderful example for others, and he leaves a long dedicated history of service and caring about his job. Ralph was truly an unsung hero. Mr. Abel thanked the City of Palo Alto for 31 years of service. Council Member Schneider had the opportunity to spend time with Ralph recently and she learned a lot about dispatching. She congratulated him on his retirement. Mayor Wheeler also had the opportunity to meet Ralph recently. He taught her what dispatchers did and it bolstered the faith she already had in the Communications Department. She was convinced that Palo Alto had the best Communications Department in Santa Clara County. People such as Ralph would continue to keep those high standards for Palo Alto. Ralph also shared her passion for youth sports which he was active in and shared his talents with the future citizens of Palo Alto as well as the City. She congratulat-ed him on his retirement. 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ralph Lindmark Upon His Retirement MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Resolution.
01/16/96 78-4
Resolution 7566 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Ralph Lindmark Upon His Retirement" MOTION PASSED 9-0. Police Chief Chris Durkin said Ralph Lindmark had done almost every job in the Police Department with the utmost of care and profes-sionalism. He understood the meaning of service and consistently gave that "extra effort" to ensure that his work was thorough and complete. Ralph set high standards for himself and served as an example to others and was recognized by his superiors for his dedication to duty, his knowledge, and professionalism. It had been a pleasure and honor to work with him. Mr. Lindmark thanked the City Council and said it had been an honor to work for the City of Palo Alto. Council Member Fazzino had known Ralph for almost 21 years and had enjoyed his association with him. His outstanding service personified the customer service oriented nature of the Police Department. Everyone who had dealt with Ralph said he was an outstanding employee. He congratulated Ralph on his retirement. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of November 13, 1995, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 9. 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Environmental Care, Inc. DBA Arbor Care for Tree and Stump Removal Services 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and U. S. Elevator for Elevator Maintenance and Services at the Civic Center; change orders not to exceed $650. 5. Alma Street/West Meadow Drive and Alma Street/Charleston Road Easements Purchase from Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - CIP 19073
01/16/96 78-5
Grant of Easement and Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Alma Street/West Meadow Drive Turn Lane Grant of Easement and Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Alma Street/ Charleston Road Turn Lane 6. Resolution 7567 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Manage-ment and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7531 to Amend the Salary and Benefits for Council Appointed Officers" 7. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of contract form for four providers of extended day care services at the 11 Palo Alto Unified School District elementary school sites. 8. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval for additional funding in the amount of $186,200 for the Utilities Customer Information System Capital Improvement Project (CIP 9357). Further, direct staff to return during the 1996-98 budget process with a recommendation for permanent staffing to support both Customer Information System develop-ment and long-term system maintenance, as well as $340,000 for consulting services, in order to complete the Phase I develop-ment efforts, expand the data modeling function, and support the interdepartmental focus groups working on the definition of requirements and enhancement. Ordinance 4323 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project 9357 - `Customer Information System'" 9. Ordinance 4324 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Accept a Grant from the California Arts Council for the Department of Community Services" MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3 - 6, 8 and 9, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 for Item No. 7, Wheeler "not participating," Rosenbaum absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Wheeler announced that Item No. 9a, Conference with Labor Negotiator - Unrepresented Employee: City Manager June Fleming, had been removed by staff. She also announced that Item No. 10, PUBLIC HEARING: re Decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny
01/16/96 78-6
the application for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) for property located at 2160 High Street, had been removed at the request of the applicant. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 11. The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Historic Resources Board recommendation re Generic Traffic Circle Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said staff recommended that Council approve the generic traffic circle as illustrated in the staff report (CMR:113:96). In addition to the general design of the circle, staff suggested the approval of implementation guidelines that would give staff and other people some direction as to how the traffic circles would be used. The generic cycle was intended to be fully-landscaped and irrigated similar to the circle used by the City of Portland. As possible options to that design, staff had included cost estimates and direction about how to proceed with a hardscape circle which had no landscaping or a circle that had not been finished at the cost and expense of a hardscape circle and would provide an opportunity for the inclusion of art into the circle. The estimated cost of a fully landscaped irrigated circle was $37,000. Also, similar cost estimates had been included for the variations. He emphasized the cost was directly related to the size of the circle and would vary depending on the actual size and configuration of the circle. A circle had been selected that was the same size as the one that was presently in a temporary fashion at the Bryant Street/Addison Avenue intersection. Public Art Commissioner Susan Wexler provided sketches done by an artist that showed what could be done with art in a traffic circle. If the Council decided that art could be part of the solution to the traffic circles, the artist would work with the neighborhood to address the specific locations and come up with a solution that would be an asset. She referred to the comments of Public Art Commissioner Gerald Brett who called the idea of including art as "regenerative" rather than "generic." Public Art Commissioner Judith Wasserman said part of Public Art Commission's (PAC) concept was that the artist would work with the community, neighbors, and traffic engineers because public art was a public process that should involve the community early in the process so that the work would be appropriate to the place where it was put. Ms. Wexler said the idea of a traffic circle was to slow the traffic down, so the idea was to have a series of concrete slow animals, e.g., a turtle or snail circle. Concrete could be treated with different surfaces in the generic circle.
01/16/96 78-7
Council Member Kniss asked whether a precedent for that concept had been set in another city. Planning Commissioner Sandy Sloan said she first thought about temporary art in temporary circles when she heard about the Lytton Avenue circles. She said it seemed logical to have art in circles that was reflective of the neighborhoods. Ms. Wasserman said in many cities those kinds of issues were expediently done by public works and many times artists were asked to solve the problems. She referred to the sketch of a bicycle circle provided by the artist and said the cost was significantly less than a circle that required lighting and irrigation. The idea was that each neighborhood might want a different solution. Planning Commissioner Sandy Eakins said the Planning Commission unanimously supported the idea of a generic traffic circle. There was discussion about the possibility of including art, but the Commission wanted a standard traffic circle design so that it would happen without delay. The proposal did not include or exclude art. Architectural Review Board Member Julie Maser said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) was against the idea of the generic traffic circle by a 3:2 vote. There was general support for the concerns expressed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) that if the project could not be done well, it should not be done at all. The generic design fell short, particularly for the intersection in Professorville. There was a concern that because of the underground utilities in certain areas, there could be situations where not even one tree could be installed in the circles which would result in a circle that no one would want in their neighborhood. Most of the ARB members felt in varying degrees that the designs needed to be site specific. Concern was expressed regarding the cost, and stop signs were much less expensive and were the most effective system for not only control-ling right-of-way but also speed. A circle controlled speed but not as well. Circles presented an obstacle course, particularly when shoehorned in as an afterthought, and did not allow for a comfortable and safe flow. The ARB was concerned that the makeshift traffic circles were not safe and were not in compliance with ARB Standard No. 10 which called for safe designs for pedestrian, vehicles, etc. All of the ARB members agreed that the proposal made by the artist and the PAC would be great if it were folded into the picture and also agreed that it was a critical factor among the neighbors as well as designs that met site line and movement criteria. The consensus among the ARB members was that approval of the generic design would encourage its prolifera-tion, and it preferred maintaining the grid system that currently existed in many of the neighborhoods and the use of stop signs, not circles when such devices were necessary.
01/16/96 78-8
Historic Resources Board Member Mildred Mario said the HRB unanimously opposed the generic traffic circle because the design for the circle was an inappropriate design for a historic neighbor-hood. There was no historic identity in the proposed traffic design and it was not consistent with the historic district. There were seven distinct neighborhoods within the City, and each had a different character. It was unrealistic to believe that a generic design would fit all of the neighborhoods. The traffic circles needed to be site specific. The HRB agreed with the ARB proposal. The HRB preferred traffic signs at the intersection which con-trolled traffic and were not as visible or onerous as a traffic circle. Council Member Fazzino asked how generic the generic traffic circle would be. He wanted an appreciation for how the process would work, how the neighborhood would be involved, and what kinds of alternatives would be available. Mr. Overway said staff would prepare a proposed landscaping plan for the landscaped circle version of the design. Neighbors would be notified one block in each direction on both sides of the street that a meeting would be held to share the proposed landscaped version of the circle and that there was the possibility of an art version of the circle or a hardscape version if appropriate. The first choice to be made was whether it was an area that art should be chosen as a substitute for the landscaping. A specific landscape solution would be provided at that point, but not an art solution. If it were determined that art was not the appropriate solution for that particular circle, staff would discuss variations in the landscape plan if there were interest. There was flexibili-ty in the kind of landscaping the could be used, but all the landscaped circles would look the same except for the type of landscaping. If the art option were selected, the variation and the ultimate art solution to that particular location would be unique. If art were the preferred option, staff would contact the neighbors on each of the four corners to verify that at least three of the four neighbors supported that decision. If there were an opposition, then art would not be pursued at that particular location. If art were supported at that location, the appropriate steps would be followed to make certain that some kind of art solution was incorporated. Council Member Fazzino clarified under the proposal before the Council, that only the possibility of art would take the cost beyond the amount listed in the staff report (CMR:113:96). Mr. Overway said no. The cost of the fully landscaped circle was $37,000. In order to build a base that served the traffic function for the circle, it would cost approximately $25,000. The differ-ence between the $25,000 and the $37,000 was $12,000 which could be available for both the design and installation aspects of the circle.
01/16/96 78-9
Council Member Fazzino asked the cost of a tree. Mr. Overway believed one tree was included in the cost, and the cost per tree was $200. Council Member Fazzino asked what options would be available if neighbors wanted to create something which was different in design than the fully landscaped and irrigated option. He asked whether the neighbors could raise money themselves and put in place a different circle. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the City had procedures in place that dealt with public/private partnerships and a modification of those procedures could be used in a situation where the neighborhood wanted to increase the size of the budget to accommodate a particular design solution. Staff believed the City should not be responsible for additional expenditures above the basic landscape circle design; and if the circle went beyond that basic design, there would be design and construction costs. If the costs went beyond the $37,000 for a landscape circle, the additional money would have to be obtained from the neighborhood up front in two phases. Neighborhood support for the design work would be necessary to work through their ideas and then there would be construction costs beyond the City's estimate. There might be differences in maintenance. For example, the Bryant Street traffic circle previously reviewed by Council had the likelihood of increased maintenance because of the specialized brickwork. The City's costs versus neighborhood costs for maintenance would have to be addressed. The major costs were design and construction. Council Member Fazzino clarified the City would be open to the possibility of a public/private partnership to provide additional funds for a uniquely designed circle. Mr. Schreiber supported that type of arrangement cautiously. City staff should not be expected to try to facilitate some type of neighborhood cost-sharing arrangement which could become very time consumptive or to decide which neighbors should contribute to the design. The City should not get into a quasi-assessment procedure to pass the cost back to people. There would need to be a strong indication from the immediate neighborhood that they were willing to work with each other and staff should not be asked to figure out how something could be done differently. He expected a lot of neighborhood involvement, not only from the planning standpoint but from a cost standpoint. City Manager June Fleming said issues outlined by Mr. Schreiber would have to be considered carefully. Staff understood from the previous Council meeting that Council wanted staff to pursue a generic design so that concept was not considered. The City had
01/16/96 78-10
had some experience with public/private partnership endeavors, and the most successful were where people other than City staff did most of the work and then additional costs were not incurred. Council Member Fazzino did not believe it was within the purview of the ARB to discuss safety issues, i.e., whether traffic circles were better than stops signs or barriers. He did not want the Council pulled back into a debate about the issue of barriers versus stop signs. He believed traffic circles were tremendously effective. He wanted an appreciation for the ARB's emphasis on design issues rather than circles as a traffic device. Ms. Maser said the safety issue was within the ARB's purview since Standard No. 10 stated that the ARB should assess applications with regard to safety. The ARB had an unfavorable feeling about the design of the proposed generic circle which had one tree. The ARB felt the sign was unattractive and more attention should be paid to the design. Most of the ARB's concerns were based on the HRB's concerns about that particular circle in that neighborhood. The ARB was persuaded that that circle would not be suitable in that neighborhood. More emphasis was placed on the issues of safety; and the ARB was afraid that if it sanctioned a generic design, it would result in a proliferation of those installations into a situation that was not suitable for them. She had nothing against traffic circles if they were designed properly. The traffic circle was difficult at Bryant Street and Addison Avenue. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the ARB discussed any safety data from Portland, Oregon, or other cities regarding traffic circles. Ms. Maser said no safety data had been provided to the ARB. Council Member Andersen clarified $12,000 would go toward landscap-ing, and he asked whether it would work if the City gave the neighborhood association a fixed period of time to raise another $10,000 to $20,000 if it wanted another design, assuming all of the assumptions mentioned previously by Mr. Schreiber. Ms. Fleming said if a neighborhood organization wanted to do something beyond $37,000, the entire additional cost would have to be financed. The City would still strongly recommend the ARB review and approve the process and that there was agreement by the neighbors on the four corners as outlined earlier by Mr. Overway for the generic design. Council Member Andersen clarified the cap would be at $37,000, and he asked whether there could be some latitude with the $12,000 that would be used for landscaping. Ms. Fleming said no, based on staff's understanding of the Council's direction.
01/16/96 78-11
Council Member Andersen clarified maintenance was still the City's responsibility regardless of which design was chosen. He asked whether a neighborhood association could take on some responsibili-ty for maintenance of a more demanding design than the generic design. Ms. Fleming said the City had had a variety of responses by neighborhoods regarding the maintenance of items that were put in by the City. For example, flower pots were well maintained at first by members of the community, but the neighborhood changed and the flower pots deteriorated. There were other areas that were beautifully maintained by the neighborhood. She had seen it work and not work. Staff was not opposed to maintenance by a neighbor-hood but the concept had not been investigated because that was not the assignment staff was responding to. One design might be low cost, easy maintenance and another design might attract vandalism that was not easily maintained and it would be difficult to pass the cost onto the community so it increased the maintenance cost to the City. The Council would have to make the decision regarding priority of funding. She clarified the cost would have to be above the basic cost that had been authorized. Council Member Kniss asked how many traffic circles would the City consider over the next five years. Ms. Overway said in addition to the traffic circle on Bryant Street/Addison Avenue, the Council had recently approved the trial installation of another traffic circle in the Lytton Avenue neighborhood area. There were no further studies. He understood the Council was interested in a trial period for traffic circles. He could not imagine over a five-year period that there would be more than two or three traffic circles. Council Member Kniss asked whether traffic circles were a basic part of Portland, Oregon's, and Seattle, Washington's, traffic plan. Ms. Overway said traffic circles were used extensively in both cities. Council Member Kniss did not consider Palo Alto a generic community and asked whether the community would tolerate a generic traffic circle. Every neighborhood had its own flavor and might want to adapt the traffic circle to its own neighborhood. Mr. Schreiber reviewed the previously process regarding a traffic circle at the intersection of Bryant Street and Addison Avenue. He said staff had previously been directed by Council to come up with a prototypical traffic circle that could be used throughout the City with minor modifications. The generic traffic circle had two advantages. Most of the engineering work would be done once
01/16/96 78-12
which would save time and money, and it would set out a basic design at a cost maximum that could be established as a policy if approved by Council. The use of the word "generic" conveyed to the public and the reviewing bodies that it was one design that could be tweaked but not radically changed. Discussions with the PAC had provided good input and another alternative. He was uncertain whether the neighborhoods would accept the design, but he was certain that if traffic circles were designed neighborhood specific, the costs would be in excess of the cost estimate for the generic traffic circle. Council Member Kniss asked whether art work would be described as "tweaking." She asked how the circles could be individualized and what the cost might be. Mr. Schreiber said there were a wide variety of landscape solutions that could be modified to reflect themes in the area. He said art was an alternative, not "tweaking." Art was a good alternative to build into the process, but staff had been cautious and had recommended that three of four corner properties needed to agree on the art solution. An art solution should not be forced on a group of neighbors. Council Member Kniss clarified the art alternative proposed that evening appeared to be adaptable to the generic traffic circle. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Discussions with the PAC had been to take the basic traffic circle design and treat the center part of the circle as a platform upon which art could be placed in place of landscaping. Ms. Fleming clarified the basic design was a simple circle with a basic cost. Staff was pleased that the PAC had suggested the appearance of the traffic circle could be made dramatically different to the basic design inexpensively through a creative artistic approach. If the traffic circle were different than that approach, it would be similar to the previous proposal that the Council rejected. If the traffic circles were specifically designed to meet the character of the neighborhood, the basic approach should not be used. Vice Mayor Huber felt there was nothing wrong with the City taking over the maintenance after five years if a neighborhood stopped maintaining the circle. Mr. Schreiber said one of the concerns with a specially designed traffic circle was that the materials might not be part of the City's regular material stock. Maintenance would include accident repair and safety issues, and specialized materials might require a notable expense.
01/16/96 78-13
Ms. Fleming said if the design were intricate, it might be difficult and dangerous for residents to make repairs. The Council could make a policy decision that the City would maintain the circle. Joan Jack, 1005 Bryant Street, said it really helped when the neighborhood was put on the National Register for Historic Places, and it gave the community an awareness of the prestige and historic value of the area. The neighborhood had become an asset rather than a liability and was unique in Palo Alto. She encouraged the Council to approve the recommendations of the HRB and ARB. It was the gateway into a historic area and deserved something more than a generic traffic circle. Historic Resources Board Member Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, said the City had chosen Professorville as its preeminent historic distinct, and it had a duty to preserve and respect the area. A concrete circle in the middle of a rectangular intersec-tion would send the wrong message to the people who were being asked to respect Professorville. The Council needed to be cautious and understand that the traffic circle would set a precedent for the entire area. Historic Resources Board Member Linda Scott, 1057 Ramona Avenue, said the HRB felt the generic traffic circle design was ugly. There was nothing generic about a historic district. The City was too diverse to have a "one size fits all" approach. She strongly believed the generic traffic circle would not be acceptable as a standard for other private parties, and she queried why the City would consider it as a possibility for the public sector. The issue went back to the bicycle boulevard, and the neighborhood indicated at that time it did not want the circle. The Council decided the area needed a circle but that the neighborhood would be able to participate in the process and help design the circle. The neighborhood spent one year designing the circle. She was upset about the examples being presented that evening. A tree could not be put in the middle of the circle in that location in Professorville. The picture of the traffic circle in Portland, Oregon, was very deceiving. The curb radius at the corners was much greater than the location at Bryant Street/Addison Avenue. The location was not generic and was very site specific. Professorville's infrastructure was just as much a part of the historic district as the buildings. The City had a grid system and it was not designed to have a traffic circle. If the area had to have a traffic circle, it should have some historic precedent and should not be treated generically. She asked the Council to take preservation seriously; it was the City's only historic district of any magnitude. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the generic Citywide traffic circle design with the following implementation guidelines: 1) A decision to install a
01/16/96 78-14
traffic circle at a given location will be a separate specific action by the Council; 2) The basic cost will be established as the actual cost to build a fully landscaped and irrigated, 22-foot diameter circle (currently estimated at $37,000); 3) Adjustments to the basic cost will be necessary for larger or smaller sized circles, as well as inflation; 4) Alternatives that substitute hardscape or art for the landscaping will be considered but only within the basic design and basic cost parameters of the generic design; and 5) Staff will work with residents within the immediate area of the traffic circle to establish the type of landscaping or the possible use of hardscape or art within the circle. Council Member McCown said there had been previous public input on various topics where the dominant testimony before the Council had been to find a way to slow down or calm the traffic that people felt impacted their neighborhood streets. She believed a traffic circle, whether it was unique or generic, could be used infrequent-ly and appropriately in the community to low traffic down where stops signs were not the appropriate solution. Staff had noted that stop signs served a different purpose than traffic circles. The Council had asked staff to strike an appropriate balance between the uniqueness argument and the importance of aesthetics and the cost associated with that approach against the basic goal of a rational amount of money to be spent on several situations in the community. There would be predominantly one situation where the circles might be used, i.e., neighborhoods such as the Lytton neighborhood that had come to the Council asking that such a device be employed to make the streets safer. In those situations, there would be a lot of participation by the neighborhood and the neighborhood would try to work within the parameters that the design concept set out. Most of the comments that evening had been about the unusual situation with a broader public policy goal of something like the bicycle boulevard. The issue went back to what the Council had tried to accomplish with the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. The Council was not willing to redebate the issue of whether or not stop signs versus another way to slow traffic down so that it was a safe place to encourage people to use bicycles was appropriate. The Council needed to move forward with the traffic circle it had committed to in that location. She hoped it would move forward with the open-mindedness, creativity, and constructive input that had been received from the PAC, which she greatly appreciated. She was confident that that approach could be successful within the price range indicated. Council Member Andersen echoed the comments of Council Member McCown; but he wanted to allow neighborhoods through an association to make modifications to a basic traffic circle design that would be funded entirely by the association, that the design would be subject to ARB approval, and additional maintenance costs would be the responsibility of the neighborhood association. Neighborhoods would be allowed to provide additional aesthetics that were unique for their neighborhood. The traffic circle issue had already been
01/16/96 78-15
discussed and resolved as an appropriate traffic calming device. It was awkward that the first traffic circle would be in an area most sensitive to it for reasons other than traffic calming. He did not want to be distracted from the main objective to provide a bicycle boulevard that worked effectively. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to allow neighborhoods through some association to make modifications to the basic traffic circle design that would be funded entirely by the association, that the design modifications be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, and that the additional maintenance costs would be the responsibility of the neighborhood association. Council Member Kniss enthusiastically supported traffic circles and believed it was a good device to help control traffic. However, she could not support the motion that promoted a generic traffic circle. She believed the traffic circle issue would come up many times in many neighborhoods. The neighborhood had worked very hard on the circle and had struggled to have a neighborhood the community could be proud of in Palo Alto. The neighborhoods throughout the City were distinctly different, and a generic circle would not allow enough flexibility. She strongly supported neighborhoods working together. There might be five traffic circles in the future and the generic traffic circle made it easier to move forward with that approach. She reminded the Council that it had made a promise to that neighborhood that the City would work with the neighborhood but then the Council indicated the cost was too expensive. She recalled that most of the funding would have come from other funds available at that time. Council Member Rosenbaum recalled that the Council had secured as much input as possible from the neighborhood but the cost was $84,000 and the Council was not willing to spend that much money. Staff had found a fair compromise that would cost $37,000 which would not be a cheap circle. He felt $37,000 was the limit, and within that limit, a neighborhood was free to propose changes. Council had reached a point that the cost would not be unlimited. He felt the Council should proceed with the proposal. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. Staff had brought back to the Council exactly what it asked for. The input of the PAC had been very positive, and each neighborhood would be given options to enable them to exercise their own creativity. She felt it was an ideal solution, and the only generic part was the circle. It was up to the neighborhoods to make as much of it or as little of it as they wanted. The traffic circle would provide what the Council wanted--safety and slower traffic in the neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Huber associated with the comments of Council Member McCown. The Council began the process with a primary goal to find a solution to the stop signs on the bicycle boulevard, and it had finally decided that the traffic circle was the best solution. He
01/16/96 78-16
agreed with Council Member Kniss when the process began that the neighborhoods needed to be involved, but he would have voted against the $84,000 figure when it came back to the Council if he had been present at the time. He was uncertain that the cost estimate provided by staff was appropriate, but he felt it was time to move forward and make a traffic circle work. If the traffic circle were done well, it would be a nice landscaped area that would slow traffic down and allow the bicycles to flow. Council Member Fazzino said the primary issue before the Council was traffic safety. The community had previously expressed serious concerns about the problem of traffic safety in the City. The purpose of a traffic circle was to slow traffic down. He embraced the concept of traffic circles completely and believed traffic circles could work in Palo Alto. The City had a serious traffic problem and Professorville had a traffic problem. The Council had heard from many members of that community regarding stop signs and barriers, particularly potential problems for school children in that area. It was extremely important for the City to find a solution which resolved traffic safety concerns. Although not everyone was enthusiastic about traffic circles, he believed there was a general agreement that traffic circles represented a good compromise. He did not like the term "generic traffic circle"; but at the same time, he did not like the idea of an $80,000 traffic circle either. He wanted to think of the circle as the basis for the development of a beautiful and neighborhood specific traffic circle instead of trying to impose the same traffic circle on each neighborhood. He wanted to put a system in place which allowed neighborhoods to design traffic circles that were appropriate for that particular neighborhood. He was excited about the concept of a public/private partnership, particularly in an area such as Professorville. Professorville was a different area, and whatever was done with respect to public/private development or infrastruc-ture needed to reflect the unique nature of the area. Some concerns had been raised about the nature of the public/private partnership; and the City had just embarked on a very exciting public/private program by agreeing to put in place the new tree program. He believed it might be possible to incorporate the traffic circle management eventually into the Citywide tree program. He was not as concerned about what might result from approval of the item that evening. The Council was approving the foundation of a traffic circle concept and was providing flexibili-ty for neighborhoods to design traffic circles which met their specific neighborhood needs. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Kniss "no." RECESS: 9:05 P.M. - 9:20 P.M. 12. The Historic Resources Board recommends to the City Council approval to place property located at 819 Ramona Street
01/16/96 78-17
(former AME Zion Church) on the National Register of Historic Places Council Member McCown said she would not participate on the item due to a conflict of interest because the property was owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation which was a client of her law firm. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the staff report (CMR:114:96) addressed the nomination application which had been made by a private citizen, Ruth Ann Gray, to place the former University African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church on the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination application would be reviewed by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) on February 2, 1996. Staff recommended the Council not recommend to the SHRC and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that the nomination be approved and forwarded to the National Park Service for further consideration and action. Staff felt the actions could be inconsistent with the policy in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's (PAMF) Specific Plan and future actions that the City might take in that area. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommended that the Council recommend the nomination be forwarded to the National Park Service for final action and inclusion. Historic Resources Board Member Mildred Mario said the HRB unanimously supported the application to place the former AME Zion Church on the National Register of Historic Places. The HRB strongly recommended that the Council approve the application and send it to the SHPO and SHRC and that the nomination of the former AME Zion Church be approved and forwarded to the National Park Service for final action and inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The HRB believed that the religious institution could be considered eligible for the National Register because it derived its primary significance from historical importance as documented by Ms. Gray, not only as the first African-American church built in Palo Alto but also because of the multi-cultural cooperation and unity and the positive racial and ethnic harmony and goodwill of Palo Alto. The staff report suggested it was less significant because of its Category 3 status which indicated that it had little architectural historic value and that the categories in the Palo Alto Historic Preservation Ordinance focused on the physical or architectural significance of buildings and did not address the social or cultural aspects of historic preservation. The category definition described by staff was correct, but that was the reason the HRB was in the process of rewriting portions of the Ordinance. The staff report failed to mention that in Section 16.49.010 entitled "Purpose," Section (a), stated: "Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those historic struc-tures, districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Palo Alto," and Section (e) stated: "Enrich the educational and cultural dimensions of human life by serving aesthetic as well as material needs and fostering knowledge
01/16/96 78-18
of the living heritage of the past." The intent was always in the Ordinance but it had not been property described in the defini-tions. The staff report suggested it was not the appropriate time for the application and that the structure was in serious disrepair and might be dangerous. The HRB had been sympathetically looking at the property since 1989 and had persistently called upon the owner to do remedial repair work. The HRB believed it was the only way to save a significant piece of Palo Alto history. The HRB suggested the Council mention in its letter to the SHRC that the HRB unanimously recommended approval of the application. Council Member Simitian clarified the staff recommended one direction and the HRB recommended another, and there was an application from an individual citizen to a body which had a certain set of standards that it used to measure applications. He asked whether the Council needed to comment on the application. City Manager June Fleming said the application was not initiated by staff and the Council could use the option to not make any comment. Council Member Simitian asked whether a Motion to Table would be an appropriate means if that were the desire of the Council. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said yes. In December 1993, the City advised the HRB about its authority to change the designation and that the HRB could change the designation during the life of the Development Agreement entered into between the City and the PAMF, but that change in designation would not have any effect on the property owner's rights, i.e., the City was not in a position to change the rules that were in existence in the 1991 Development Agreement. Council Member Simitian said he had recently taken a five-minute tour of the inside of the building. Council Member Kniss referred to a statement on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:114:96) that read: "A more appropriate time to reconsider how to approach the possible preservation of the former AME Zion Church and its contribution to the culture and history of the area would be after PAMF vacates the area and during the time when a new plan is developed..." She asked whether there was any problem waiting until that time. She said the people voted on the Specific Plan and asked how that issue would be addressed. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the 1990 Specific Plan was approved by the Council and the voters. The Specific Plan and the related Development Agreement between the City and PAMF were currently in effect. The PAMF had currently applied for a new campus to be located elsewhere in the City, and if the new project were approved and built, the existing Develop-ment Agreement and the Specific Plan would become inoperative. The Specific Plan would be put on hold and the PAMF's right to pursue
01/16/96 78-19
it would cease because of PAMF's commitment to the new site. The Council would soon be reviewing an amendment to the Development Agreement which would address not only the cessation of the previous approvals but what to do about the existing site if and when the PAMF decided to relocated. The PAMF had agreed to have an intensive planning process that involved the community and staff. There would be a process to establish a new set of uses for the vacated PAMF property. Staff felt the appropriate time to consider the proposal for the AME Zion Church would be when the Specific Plan and previous Council actions regarding the site had been voided. The problem with a delay was the condition of the building, but he did not believe the placement on the historic inventory would stop the decay of the building. Council Member Andersen said he had visited the church. He asked what was the likelihood that a property would be placed on the National Register of Historic Places if an owner objected to that placement for his property. Ms. Lytle said the likelihood was poor, but it could still be included in a separate list of qualified registered status which would give the property a higher level of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status. Mr. Calonne clarified it would be deemed eligible for listing, although not formally listed. He recalled the eligibility for listing triggered additional environmental review requirements for the Varsity Theatre. Mr. Schreiber referred to a letter from the PAMF to the State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, dated January 16, 1996, that indicated the property owner's opposition to the designation. Council Member Andersen asked whether anything could be done either by the community, city, or federal government to force the property owner to improve the property if the property were registered. Mr. Calonne said the City had property maintenance standards in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), but he wanted to leave open the question of how far the City could go with those standards. There was nothing currently in the PAMC that would apply. Council Member Andersen clarified the building could not be demolished if it were placed on the National Register. Mr. Calonne recalled with the Varsity Theatre that those types of constraints were a function of the local ordinance. The issue would return to the Council to determine whether the existing category designation of the property should be changed. As the property rose up through the categories in the City's ordinance, it was entitled to a higher level of protection. He did not believe
01/16/96 78-20
there were any self-executing provisions of state or federal law that would constrain demolition. Council Member Andersen clarified even if the property were approved, subject to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the building could still be demolished. Mr. Calonne clarified the eligibility for listing would trigger a finding of significance with respect to demolition that would result in some enhanced environmental review. Mr. Schreiber said the situation was complicated by the presence of the existing Specific Plan which required that certain actions occur such as zone changes prior to physical changes on that site. A request for a demolition permit would be against the provisions of the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission's recommendation for amending the Development Agreement included a recommendation that would prohibit demolition of structures on the PAMF property unless the Chief Building Official and Fire Chief determined that there was a public safety hazard in connection with a building. The community's concern regarding demolition was triggered by the church. Council Member Andersen said there appeared to be extensive damage to the building. He asked whether the City had done an inspection to determine whether there was a health and safety hazard in the structure. Mr. Schreiber said the Building Inspection Division did not become involved in the assessment of building safety except as it related to occupancy or as an immediate threat to sidewalks, etc. The Chief Building Official had casually looked at the building and the property owner had looked at the building in a more significant, consultant/structural/engineering way. The Chief Building Official had concluded the building had significant problems. The City might end up in a situation where the building would meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code regarding an unsafe building, but the City would have to do additional inspections and evaluations beyond the exterior evaluation that had been done. Vice Mayor Huber said it had been suggested that the PAMF had allowed the building to be treated with benign neglect. He clarified that if the building were on the National Register, short of the normal code provisions that the City would enforce on any structure, there was no particular advantage given by the listing to compel anyone to do repairs. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Staff was not aware of any provisions that would apply. Mayor Wheeler clarified under the present agreement, one of the options that was open to the City and the PAMF was the potential to
01/16/96 78-21
relocate the building to another site. She asked whether the inclusion of the building on the National Register would make it more difficult to relocate the building if a suitable site could be found. Ms. Lytle said the first choice in historic preservation was the preserve in its setting and on its original site, and there was potential for that to become complicated through the National Register status. Mayor Wheeler clarified there was a Development Agreement between the City and the PAMF that related to the property on which the church was located. She asked whether there was a legal downside for the City if the Council elected to accept the HRB's recommenda-tion that might be in conflict with action taken by a previous Council in reaching that agreement with the PAMF. Mr. Calonne did not believe the recommendation would cause conflict. An issue would arise if the Council directed staff to take further action to impact the development rights of the PAMF. He distinguished the kind of academic change in designation from the impact on development rights and he believed the pieces could be split into those segments. The recommendation would not create concern with the Development Agreement. Ms. Mario asked whether the eligibility for the National Register designation would trigger Section 16.49.080 of the Ordinance, "Maintenance of historic structures in the downtown area" which would not allow the owner to allow the building to deteriorate any further. She believed if the building were eligible for national historic eligibility, it would upgrade the category automatically. Mr. Schreiber said his interpretation of the section was that it referred to the Downtown area as defined in the 1986 Downtown Study and that area was not part of the study. Ruth Ann Gray, P.O. Box 575, Palo Alto, said a nomination had been submitted to the National Register of Historic Places for the former AME Zion Church located at 819 Ramona Street, and she asked Council to support the nomination and forward a letter of approval to the State Office of Historic Preservation for the National Register of Historic Places. There was little dispute that the edifice had played a significant historic role in the community of Palo Alto and that it had roots that went back to 1896. The building was unique and was the only public building representing the 100-year plus history of African Americans in Downtown Palo Alto. It was the first African American church in the Mid-peninsula and the contribution of the church, the people who supported the church, and the members of the church were well documented. The City had benefitted from the historic contribution made by the former AME Zion Church. The goal was to recognize and preserve the totality of Palo Alto history. She referred to the
01/16/96 78-22
staff report (CMR:114:96) and said the historic value of a structure should not limited to one aspect such as architecture and should include cultural and social contributions. The building and landscaping had been allowed to deteriorate by the owner, but the foundation of the building was still intact. She referred to Attachment 3 of the staff report and said the application had been revised and the State had the revised application. Relocation of the building would detract from its historic purpose. She reminded the Council that the HRB had unanimously recommended approval of the building for nomination to the National Register. David Jury, Real Estate Manager, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 330 Town & Country Village, said the PAMF had been the owner of the building since 1964. He referred to a letter from the PAMF to the Office of Historic Preservation dated January 16, 1996, that objected to the nomination. The PAMF recognized the history and the value of the building to other people; but unfortunately, it could not afford the financial responsibility for permanent preservation and renovation of the building. The building had no present functional use and a doubtful future economic value for the PAMF. The 1991 Specific Plan and EIR considered the property carefully, and nothing had changed the history or the circumstances of the property. The PAMF had tried to find a user who would move the building to another property; but unfortunately, the building was too wide to fit between the street trees and would have to be cut into sections to be moved and a new structure rebuilt inside the building in order to hold it up while being moved. The cost of renovation and preservation of the building was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He had been unable to find a contractor who was willing to put a roof on the building. Contractors were unsure the building would support the weight of new roofing materials and a crew and were not willing to risk their crews to put the roof up. The building's foundation had cracked and the pony wall had also failed. A civil engineer had explained to him that the floor was shifting the pony wall which resulted in the stucco bulging out from the building. The PAMF was a nonprofit foundation and did not have the funds to preserve the building. Funds were donated for research, education, and health care, and it would be a breech of the PAMF's fiduciary responsibility to its donors to take money donated for those purposes and use it on the building. The PAMF regretfully requested that the Council not recommend approval of the nomination and to not be considered by the state. Trevor Burrowes, Director of East Palo Alto Historical and Agricultural Society, 1955 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, requested support for the nomination of the former AME Zion Church to the National Register of Historic Places. The Council's support for the nomination would increase the availability of tools, money, and technical support for the building. He believed the building could be restored by the will of the community. The Council's support would be one step toward preservation of the structure and would be an important symbol of mutual respect. There was a
01/16/96 78-23
symmetry between his organization and what Ms. Gray was trying to do and what the Council could do that evening. The Council should be responsible and inclusive to the major issues of the region and show that the history was important to a community where African- Americans were a distinct minority. The Council had an opportunity to make an important gesture by supporting the nomination for the building. The building could be the shining star in a development plans. Linda Scott, 1057 Ramona Avenue, said the building could be saved. She felt the Council would want to know whether the building was eligible or not when it considered the site in the future. If the building were a National Register building or was considered by the state to be eligible, the City would regret that it had been torn down. She encouraged the Council to ask the question soon. Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, said it would be easy to ignore that there were many different cultures in the community. The church offered the City a unique opportunity in the community to maintain something that had always been there and had shown the differences and similarities between people. The Council was being asked to recognize the church's importance and approve its nomination to be on the National Register. It would be nice to have the building remain on the site in future or to have a visual reminder on the site of how the community had been integrated in a different way. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, representing the Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage, said the organization supported the recommendation of former AME Zion Church for designation on the National Register for Historic Places. Dennis Backlund, 488 University Avenue, Apt. 503, supported the former AME Zion Church being eligible for the National Register. The latest CEQA amendments stated a building did not have to be listed on a local registry to be considered significant in the long run after further study. He believed the building deserved a higher rating than Category 3, and he felt the serene simplicity of the architecture was completely expressive of its social and cultural past. He said studies indicated that churches and theaters were the two main representatives of the spiritual life of a community. The history of the building was truly unique and represented a level of diversity that might not ever be captured again in Palo Alto. The Council should preserve the spirit of diversity by preserving those historical examples of diversity that the City still had. There was an infinity of possibilities for the use of the building, e.g., a future destination for school children or a cultural center for the celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday or other memorials of black history, which might be the key to finding money for the building. He appreciated the objections of the PAMF, and a nonprofit organization could not irresponsibly put money into a project, but other sources should be
01/16/96 78-24
sought. The Council should not move too speedily toward demolition of the building. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to recommend to the State Historical Resources Commission and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that the nomination be disapproved and not forwarded on to the National Park Service for further consideration and action. Council Member Rosenbaum believed the staff argument was compel-ling, and a previous Council during difficult negotiations with the PAMF had come up with a Specific Plan that stated what that Council believed was appropriate for the building. He felt it would be inconsistent for the Council at the present time to suggest an action which was contrary to that decision. If the plans of the PAMF came to fruition at the other site, it might offer the possibilities of other uses as suggested by the Mr. Backlund which would be the time to consider the listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Council Member Schneider echoed the comments of Council Member Rosenbaum. She felt it was the wrong time for the Council to consider a site specific plan, and it should proceed at a much later date. Council Member Simitian could not support the staff recommendation. He agreed with some of the comments of the previous speakers about the cultural importance of the facility. He understood that a request from a private party would be submitted to state and federal sources to determine whether the building should or should not be placed on the National Register. He believed those specific agencies and individuals rendered a judgment based on their expertise and their application of the facts to the criteria. He did not believe the Council was well qualified nor was it the Council's role in the process to tell those people what their conclusion should be. He believed the Council's role was to allow the process to move forward and let the people at the state and federal level tell the City whether or not they felt that particu-lar structure met the criteria. He felt the issue should be tabled. Council Member Kniss associated with the comments of Council Member Simitian. One issue was the Specific Plan, and if the building went on the National Register of Historic Places, the Council would have to consider what use it would be given, how it would be supported, and what group would support it. She did not disagree that it was a worthy building; however, she was surprised that there was not a group of people from that church organization who supported the application present that evening. She would be more inclined to approve the application if there were a large and supportive group who would be willing to raise the funding necessary to support the building. She believed the correct
01/16/96 78-25
direction would be to table the issue. The Council should not address the issue before the PAMF proposal had been presented to the Council. Council Member Fazzino was sympathetic to the approach by Council Member Simitian, but one of his biggest regrets during the previous discussion of PAMF's Specific Plan was the fact that Council did not do more to preserve the former AME Zion Church on the site. Former Mayor Gail Woolley and many others were frustrated by the inability to identify individuals or groups who might be willing to move the building. The building's use as a religious institution by the African-American community during the City's early years and its social and cultural impact on the community were reasons just as important as the building's design to preserve the structure. Regardless of the area's future, he would support moving forward with the recommendation to place the building on the National Register. It might be a signal to prospective groups that the community was interested in preserving the structure, particularly if the PAMF departed for another location. Until the Urban Lane alterative were approved, he appreciated that the PAMF was concerned about any action that might create inflexibility for PAMF's expansion on the site according to the Specific Plan. He agreed there were other groups at both the state and federal level who had specific criteria with respect to what qualified a building to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, he felt the Council was in a unique position of making a case that the building provided certain historic and cultural values to the community and that should be the argument used in a recommendation to both the state and federal government. Council Member Andersen did not believe preservation of the building would happen on that site regardless of what action the Council took. He could visualize the building being preserved in an area where elementary school children might have greater access to it, and there had been a lot of possibilities suggested. He did not believe it was the responsibility of the PAMF to preserve the building, and he was afraid that if the building were registered, the issue would become more complicated. He believed registering the building would lock the building to that site. He hoped that tabling the issue would send a significant message not to put the building on the National Register. Vice Mayor Huber recalled being on the Planning Commission when the PAMF project was discussed in the late 1980s and early 1990s and the efforts of Ms. Gray to preserve the church. At that time, the sense was that the church would ultimately be demolished. With the new PAMF proposal for Urban Lane and the discussions that would include the neighborhood, the Council would have an opportunity to consider the situation again which would be a more appropriate time. He would support a motion to table the issue rather than send the wrong message to the state and preferred to wait until the
01/16/96 78-26
PAMF process had moved forward and then look at the issue again at that time. Mayor Wheeler recalled several previous presentations by Ms. Gray and that she had contacted several members of the community with the hope that she could help to preserve the structure, either in its present location or at another location across the street that the PAMF had made available as part of the Development Agreement for community use. She said her feelings toward preservation and the importance of the history of the building were in conflict with the reality of the situation to actually preserve the structure in its current location. She associated with the comments of Vice Mayor Huber and wanted to preserve the structure. The best opportunity to do that would be during the future discussions with the neighbors which would occur after the Council had dealt with the issues of the relocation of the PAMF to determine what the future plans for the current PAMF site might be. MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to table the issue. MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE PASSED 5-3, Rosenbaum, Fazzino, Schneider "no," McCown "not participating." Council Member Simitian recognized that there were members of the HRB that felt strongly about the application and asked whether the HRB took a position independent of the Council on behalf of the City. Mr. Calonne said the Charter made it clear that the Boards and Commissions were advisory to the Council. He would recommend that the Council could make its position absolutely clear by an action to direct the Boards and Commission not to take action on the item. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved that the City Council direct the Boards and Commission not to take any action on this item. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Simitian said the reason many people were appointed to Boards and Commissions was because they were strong advocates for the concerns addressed by the Boards and Commissions. He asked the City Manager and the City Attorney to provide some clarity for both the Council and the members of the Boards and Commissions about the nature of the relationship when a situation occurred that the Council took a different position than the recommendation provided by a board or commission. Mr. Calonne said he would follow through on the advisory language in the Charter to determine how it was interpreted in the past.
01/16/96 78-27
Council Member Andersen wanted to know whether the Council's tabling action would be communicated and asked for reconsideration of the previous action. MOTION TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE: Council Member Andersen moved that the item be taken from the table. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Fazzino clarified that individual members of the HRB could communicate their personal point of view to the federal government and could identify themselves as members of the HRB. Mr. Calonne said that was correct as long as the members did not attempt to mislead the recipient that they were acting in some official capacity. RESOLUTIONS 13. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metro-politan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transpor-tation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1996-97 Senior Planner Gayle Likens said the Council had been provided with a list of recommended projects for application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency for Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. Staff had worked with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee to identify four projects: supplemental funding for the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge; preparation of a bicycle plan and bicycle route map; renovation of the Wilkie Way Bike Bridge; and installation of bike lanes in the vicinity of Gunn High School on Arastradero Road. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7568 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1996-97" MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. ORDINANCES 14. Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.60 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Concerning Civil Penalties and Administrative Review for Parking Violations and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately
01/16/96 78-28
Council Member Andersen asked whether the Council's action that evening would approve the existing standard based on the criteria of the current examiner or whether there was a new standard contained in the Ordinance if the person were replaced. City Manager June Fleming said staff was considering recommending that the position be a regular position as a part of the following year's budget and a job description would be written and reviewed by the Council. The job description would remain consistent for any person that occupied the position. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said his office was comfortable with the language on page 3 of the Ordinance which specified that "the parking examiner shall not be employed, managed, or controlled by a person whose primary duties are parking enforcement, parking citation, processing, collection or issuance." It was a new feature of the state law that was designed to prevent conflicts of interest within the parking examiner position and the superior positions. That section of the state law did not appear to be written about municipal government since it referred to chief executive officers and a person being an employer. Staff had done a brief survey of other cities, and some cities had taken the position entirely out of the Police Department. He believed that was an overreaction to the law, but it was not free from doubt and there might be some guidance by the Attorney General in the future on the issue. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Ordinance and approve the City's current parking examiner's training and experience as a substitute for the training required by statute for parking examiner. Ordinance 4325 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.60 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Concerning Civil Penalties and Administra-tive Review for Parking Violations and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately" MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. 15. Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Budget to Authorize a Domestic Partners Registry" City Clerk Gloria Young said the Council had before it the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) amending the Municipal Fee Schedule establishing a $35 fee for the Domestic Partners Registry (Regis-try). The requested action responded to Council's previous direction that the City Clerk establish administrative procedures and a cost for services. The administrative procedures were included in the packet as an information item only. If the fee were approved, the Registry would commence on Monday, January 22, 1996. She noted a correction on page 1 of the staff report, the
01/16/96 78-29
second to the last sentence should read "the amount of $15 to $30..." Dana Hopkins, 430 Webster Street, said the Registry was a symbolic gesture by the City that made her and her children feel safe in Palo Alto. She applauded the Council for its previous action and hoped the Council would have the courage to continue. Antoinette Reed, 436 Palo Alto Avenue, echoed the comments of the previous speaker. The Registry was important and would allow her and her family to have legitimacy. Robert Greeley, 21391 Columbus Avenue, Cupertino, was previously an active Palo Altan in the community and was proud that a lot had been done to make the City safer for its gay and lesbian popula-tion. He hoped the Council would continue its support of that population. Palo Alto was a very welcoming town. Kathy Levinson, 471 Channing Avenue, said the most important thing was that it was a fully self-funding proposal and had no fiscal impact on the City. She thanked the City for having an optional service that could be used if people wanted and had no impact on offering other services to any other citizens. Aubrey Covner, 260 Ringwood Avenue, Menlo Park, was an attorney and one of the drafters of the statewide domestic partners bill. The budget analysis prepared by the staff was correct, and the $35 fee was a good balance. The comments heard at the statewide level were that there was no fiscal impact in the places that it was being done. She urged Council to approve the Ordinance. Colleen Hawke, 731 Ellsworth Place, urged the Council to support the Registry which would have no cost to the City. She intended to raise a family in the City and was glad the Council was considering the issue. James Lewis, 1498 Edgewood Drive, was concerned about the process of governance by which the issue had undergone (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). He believed the Council's December 1995 decision was based on inaccurate information and a huge lack of relevant and factual information (citizens report on file in the City Clerk's Office). The Council was providing a solution for a problem that did not exist. He asked the Council to delay its decision that evening to allow the issue to be discussed more fully in a forum in which it belonged. The issue was not time sensitive. Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue, No. 302, believed gay partners should have access to benefits, but the Registry was not the proper venue of the City. He felt the Council had made a mistake and its endorsement would put the City in the same category as the City of Berkeley.
01/16/96 78-30
Karen Lewis, 1498 Edgewood Drive, strongly opposed the Registry. The proposed program deviated dramatically from what she felt Palo Alto should do. She said Governor Pete Wilson had vetoed a similar program. She urged the Council to reverse its decision. Elliott Bolter, 286 Walter Hays Drive, introduced the Reverend Louis Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition, who spoke by cellular phone. Reverend Sheldon said the Coalition was concerned when a sexual behavior became a political issue. He referred to Governor Pete Wilson's statement that the social order and the need to bring about marriage and the importance of marriage was his rationale for vetoing the bill. He encouraged the Council to seriously look at the damage that would be done from a cultural standpoint to the social order of the family unit and marriage. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Ordinance. Ordinance 4326 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Budget to Authorize a Domestic Partners Registry" Council Member Simitian clarified the item agendized for the City Council meeting of December 11, 1995, was timely placed in the packet and was distributed on the Thursday preceding the Council meeting. The agenda was posted at City Hall, was available at five libraries throughout the community, was available on the Internet and the Cable television scroll, was on the City Council hotline, and was published in the Palo Alto Weekly. The item was properly agendized and was widely distributed and readily available to anyone that followed City business. In addition, the San Jose Mercury News published a story on the item on the Thursday before the packet was distributed and also published a story on Friday on the front page of the Peninsula Section of the newspaper. The San Francisco Chronicle also published a story on Saturday. The fact that the item was on the Council's agenda was also broadcasted on television and radio. By the time the Council heard the item on Monday, it had been one of the more widely discussed and publicized agenda items. He pointed out that the Council was discussing the item 35 days after it took action on December 11, 1995. He said without a BAO and six votes of the nine-member City Council, nothing would happen to implement the Registry. The process that the Council used was to first give direction to staff which had been done but then there was the built-in check and balance of a BAO which required a two-thirds vote approval by the Council. The Council had the benefit of the 150 pages submitted by a member of the public and the public testimony that evening on the second round of discussion which was the way the process should work. He said he was the Council Member quoted as saying he could not imagine any objection to the issue, and the reason he took that view was that he believed it was important to clarify how modest
01/16/96 78-31
the proposal was--it was value free and gender orientation free. He understood the questions raised at the previous Council meeting, but he felt it was important not to get into discussions of values, gender, and sexual orientation, but to simply have a service that had been requested. The City was prepared to provide that service to people who wanted to use it without impact on any other members of the community as long as it was fully cost recoverable. It had no legal authority and invaded no legal status, and he believed it was overstating the case dramatically to suggest otherwise. The City had taken a modest step to accommodate a simple request. He said the community valued tolerance, mutual respect, personal accountability, and commitment to the responsibilities as individu-als and members of the larger community as well. He believed that was the interest acknowledged by the Council's previous action and was the interest that would be acknowledged again that evening. He believed the action was appropriate and asked that the Council support the BAO that would put a process in place for anyone that chose to use it. Council Member Schneider felt the Council's action was the right thing to do. Council Member Rosenbaum said on December 11, 1995, he opposed the direction to staff because he felt it should be limited to same sex couples. He would oppose the BAO for the same reason. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Rosenbaum "no," McCown absent. 16. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Planning and Attorney Support to Continue Preparation of the Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the Ordinance. Ordinance 4327 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Planning and Attorney Support to Continue Preparation of the Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, McCown absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler acknowledged the tremendous efforts of the Police Department during the past several days.
01/16/96 78-32
Police Chief Chris Durkin also acknowledged his staff for their efforts. Mayor Wheeler reminded Council of the Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 17, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. 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.
01/16/96 78-33