HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-22 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting July 22, 1996 1. Joint Session with the Architectural Review Board.....79-437 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................79-438 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 13 AND MAY 20, 1996.............79-438 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Financial Staff Resources for Temporary Employment Services...........79-439 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation for Canopy Program Services79-439 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and City of Los Altos for Animal Control Services...........................79-439 4. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and City of Mountain View for Animal Control Services......................79-439 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ..................79-439 6. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................79-440 7. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................79-440 8. Midtown Revitalization Follow-Up......................79-440 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Development Project Preliminary Review Application at 525 University Avenue for a Possible Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urban Design Element79-452 12. Ordinance Prohibiting the Removal of Specified Oak Trees, Imposing Penalties for Such Removal, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately...................79-467 13. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Capital
Improvement Project 19410, ΑCivic Center Garage Improvements≅ 79-469
07/22/96 79-435 79-435
13A. (Old Item No. 5.) Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Alcoholic Beverages to Add Section 9.04.030 Prohibiting Possession of Open Containers of Alcoholic Beverages Within or Adjacent to Businesses Licensed for Retail Package Off-Site Sale of Alcoholic Beverages; and Ordinance Repealing Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Distribution of Handbills, Advertising, and Samples on Public and Private Properties and Enacting a New Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Prohibiting Solicitation of Employment, Business, or Contributions Within Public Parking Lots...................................79-470 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........79-471 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. to a Closed Session...............................................79-471 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m......79-471
07/22/96 79-436 79-436
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:55 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 5:57 p.m.), McCown (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 6:29 p.m.), Wheeler Architectural Review Board Members: Maser, McFall, Peterson, Piha, Ross SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Session with the Architectural Review Board A. Sign Ordinance B. City Sponsored Projects - Architectural Review Board Submittals
C. Standardization of City=s Infrastructure D. The 50-Foot Height Limit in Palo Alto E. Staff Reports ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
07/22/96 79-437 79-437
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:22 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 7:25 p.m.), Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, spoke regarding the Urban Design Project. Remy Malan, 685 High Street No. 5B, spoke regarding use permits. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Architectural Review Board membership. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility. Dick Geiger, 714 E. Charleston Road, spoke regarding the tree protection ordinance. Gladys E. Woodhams, 601 Melville Avenue, spoke regarding historic preservation. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding projects in the Downtown North area. Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding projects in the Downtown North area. Mark Stillman, P. O. Box 1527, Campbell, spoke regarding homelessness/sitting law. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 13 AND MAY 20, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of May 13, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of May 20, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4.
07/22/96 79-438 79-438
1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Financial Staff Resources for Temporary Employment Services 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation for Canopy Program Services 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and City of Los Altos for Animal Control Services 4. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and City of Mountain View for Animal Control Services MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1 - 4. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming said Item No. 5 had been removed from the Consent Calendar and would become Item No. 13A. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue Item No. 9 to the Monday, October 7, 1996, Regular City Council Meeting, and to continue Item No. 11 to a date to be determined by staff. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will review and consider the Historic Resources Board recommendation for an application to reclassify the property located at 819 Ramona Street (former
AME Zion Church) to a Category 1 building on the City=s Historic Resources Inventory. The property is currently listed as a Category 3 historic building. (Applicant Has Requested the Item Be Continued) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider a request for proposals for a Stewardship of the City-owned Arastradero Preserve and the Hewlett-Mullen Property herein referred to as
ΑPreserve.≅ Terms of the agreement include a 5-year term with a 5-year option to renew. The Steward will provide education and research programs and a variety of maintenance and habitat restoration activities on and for the benefit of the Preserve. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Michael Jackson, Rodger Jensen, Susan Ryerson, Tony Sandhu, Larry Starr, Paul Thiltgen, John Walton)
07/22/96 79-439 79-439
Represented Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (SEIU) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 7. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: 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 section 54957.6 Public Comments None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. Midtown Revitalization Follow-Up (continued from 7/15/96) City Manager June Fleming said the item before the Council that evening for consideration was the joint effort of Carol Jansen, Manager, Economic Resources Planning; Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment; Emily Harrison, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services; and Glenn Roberts, Director of Public Works. Consultants were also available that evening to assist with any questions. Manager, Economic Resources Planning Carol Jansen pointed out that the Midtown process started in July 1994, and the project culminated a successful endeavor of working with the Midtown property owners and residents to bring back the neighborhood center. In December 1994, the Council considered the Midtown Market Analysis, and in June 1995, the Council directed staff to embark upon public/private partnership to assist commercial owners in making investment decisions and to work residents, merchants, and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to develop a viable plan for Midtown revitalization. The retained consultants to facilitate meetings, provide per forma analyses for the commercial owners, and to prepare the traffic study. The property owners retained the services of John Northway to prepare the site plans for the Midtown core area. She introduced Tim Kelley, Keyser-Masten Associates, who worked on the per forma analyses with property owners, and Larry Patterson, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, who prepared the traffic analysis.
John Northway, Stoecker and Northway Architects Inc., said the beginning stage had been completed. He wanted to discuss that
07/22/96 79-440 79-440
evening what was wrong with Midtown and some of the planning concepts that the Council should consider and hopefully approve for further action. He explained a diagram that showed the existing conditions at Midtown: 1) the Co-Op Market, 2) the area from the
ice cream store to the coffee area, 3) Victoria Emmons= building, 4) the common garden, 5) the Midtown Market, 6) the florist/juice
bar, 7) the abandoned Bergmann=s building, 8) the Midtown Realty, 9) the office building that housed Bay Area Action, and 10) the former Wells Fargo building. There were 12 different properties, and within the confines of those 12 properties, there were multiple ownerships. There was an overlay of a Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone that had a number of restrictions and required on-site parking. Some of the buildings were built in the 1950s and did not have seismic upgrades that even met the 1971 standards. The Zoning Ordinance referenced retail, office, or residential uses, and the discussion about change of use meant big shifts. The
Uniform Building Code=s (UBC) reference to uses was different from the uses referenced in the Zoning Ordinance. For example, an idea
to rehabilitate Bergmann=s with retail shops, fitness center/juice bar, office suites, and common areas seemed feasible. There would be no problem with the retail or office uses, food service, or a face lift; but there would be a big problem with the fitness center because under the UBC that was a change from B2 use to an A3 use. If there were a change in the UBC use, it triggered a seismic upgrade. The restrictions currently on the property because of the Zoning Ordinance, which was floor area ratios (FAR) and parking requirements, and the restrictions on the properties because of the UBC, which had to do with changing uses defined in the UBC that triggered major expenditure of money but no increase of FAR, had to be considered in the use of the buildings in Midtown. The problems with parking in Midtown were self evident in terms of each site being able to support itself. Many of the sites had maximized their coverage, so the use could not change without supplying parking. The UBC could not be changed locally to ease the restrictions, but the Zoning Ordinance could be utilized as a tool to overcome some of the problems that Midtown had faced that made the buildings become empty and not financially feasible to refill.
Bergmann=s was an example since there were no uses that could be put in the building that did not trigger a seismic upgrade. In addition, the building would have to meet current CN standards and supply all parking on site which could not be done. The economy
was vigorous enough that if there were good uses for Bergmann=s, it would have happened already. Nothing could be done with the UBC, but the zoning restrictions could be changed. The first concept idea was not to look at the area as 12 individual parcels but as one parcel in terms of zoning. If that concept were approved, the parking could be shared which would take the burden off of each individual property to supply its own parking which was impossible under the current configuration. It would allow the site to support the amount of parking that the use demanded. The circulation patterns should also be considered. The goal was to
07/22/96 79-441 79-441
have the Co-op Market, which was a very important part of Midtown, be integrated into the center. Currently that could not be done because there was no way of going from the Co-op Market to the rest of the center without returning to Middlefield Road and going all the way around. The shopping center should feel integrated, and the circulation into the center and inside the center should be corrected. The traffic analysis had looked at Middlefield Road and traffic on-site and made a recommendation to move the stop light so the pedestrian traffic could be accommodated and to close off some of the driveways that caused the traffic problems, which would help with the exterior circulation and create a sense of entry and place. An interior circulation plan should be considered for both pedestrians and automobiles. By creating an internal circulation system, the configuration of the buildings would change as remodeling took place because retail uses would have more. The Council was being asked to authorize the zoning to be changed so that the entire quadrant would be one zone. The zone would have its own parking requirements, FAR requirements, and would designate where types of retail and office activity could take place. It was important that the gathering spaces be oriented around human activities. He reviewed the master plan which still had a lot of flexibility. A final ultimate destiny might be to remove the building at the rear which would create a more efficient parking situation and the square footage could be transferred to another building. Everything could be done under the type of zoning that the staff wanted to put together. He thanked the staff and the City for putting the process together. Larry Patterson, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, said three basic questions had been asked: 1) Was there a way to improve on-site circulation in the Midtown commercial area and improve the access to the future retail uses; 2) Was it feasible to reduce the width of Middlefield Road so that a more pedestrian-friendly environment could be provided which would have positive effects on the retail environment without adversely affecting traffic conditions; and 3) Was there a feasible way to move the pedestrian traffic signal located at the Co-op Market to a location where it would serve more effectively both pedestrian and vehicular access into the center? He presented graphical representations of the traffic volumes on Middlefield Road. There was the traditional a.m. and p.m. peaks, and the peaks were around 700 to 800 vehicles per hour level. There was also a significant amount of mid-day activity. Another interesting feature was the traffic conditions and demand on Middlefield Road was very similar on the weekends. The peaks were different, but the magnitude of traffic on Middlefield Road was fairly consistent with weekday conditions. In conjunction with the collection of the traffic volume data, an origin destination survey was done of traffic along Middlefield Road that identified how much of the traffic was being generated by local residents and how much was being generated by commute pattern traffic. One of the reasons the level of traffic was fairly consistent between the weekday and weekend was that the predominance of traffic on Middlefield Road
07/22/96 79-442 79-442
was locally generated. Residential routes were compared with Middlefield Road. The travel time for each direction along Middlefield Road was compared with the time it took to travel the same general distance on parallel streets. The travel time was also impacted by how the streets connected to Oregon Expressway. There clearly was an advantage in both speed and capacity on Middlefield Road that made it an attractive route for both local and some commute traffic. Information had been provided to Mr. Northway regarding whether the parking and circulation patterns could be improved on the site. There were trade-offs between what a traffic engineer might want to do and what needed to be done to arrange the buildings and the parking on the site. The trade-offs were location and width of driveways and how many parking spaces were provided. There were ways to improve the internal circulation on the site. It was found that the level of service could be maintained at the intersection of Colorado Road even with the reduced cross section with one lane in each direction. The potential for diversion to other parallel undesirable routes through the neighborhoods was not highly likely. The suggestion was that if the Council elected to proceed with any change in the cross section on Middlefield Road, that it be done cautiously and with some demonstration that it would be acceptable to the people who would use the street. Staff had recommended the issue be considered through the Comprehensive Plan update. When a cross section of a street was changed, it changed its ability to satisfy its function. Reducing the capacity of an arterial street could reduce its function, and in the process of the Comprehensive Plan, Council needed to be evaluated against other goals for neighborhood and retail areas. The advantage of changing the traffic signal was not just access but safety. The elimination of driveways to and from Middlefield Road could also have some significant safety advantages as a by-product of the analysis. The signal at that location was in proximity to the one at Colorado Avenue, and one of the issues was whether the two signals could operate that close together without significant impacts on each other. The analysis showed it was feasible but it needed additional analysis. All the questions would not have to be resolved to meet the basic objectives for Midtown. The on-site circulation and parking could be improved without moving the traffic signal near the Co-op Market; and improvements could be made on-site with the access, including a signal relocation, without changing the cross section of Middlefield Road. The objectives were independent of each other. Duane Bay, 2261 Columbia Street, representing 9 Midtown core owners and 20,000 plus Co-op members, said all the owners had an intense interest in the City and Midtown, and the average ownership tenure in Midtown was over 30 years. The Co-op Market had done business in the City for over 60 years, and in Midtown for 28 years. The Midtown planning process had been remarkable in the cooperation and enthusiastic efforts of the residents association, the merchants, and the City. The owners of longstanding would make sure that the
07/22/96 79-443 79-443
private properties in the core were upgraded and maintained, but the owners wanted the flexibility to make it economically viable to serve the retail needs of the neighborhood. The current plight was
due to the City=s policies that no longer facilitated vitality. The residents encouraged the Council to support the staff recommendation and move forward quickly to capitalize on the recent positive crest as well as recover from retired retail sales and
long-term vacancies (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Ron Wolf, San Carlos Court, representing the entire Midtown Revitalization Committee, gave an overview of the six meetings held. All parties involved learned that their common interests were stronger than their differences. The Committee had reached an enthusiastic supportive consensus. One significant breakthrough was at a meeting last winter when the property owners came forward with an agreement to work together to form an assessment district and build common improvements in the area. He read the consensus recommendations from the Committee dated July 10, 1996 (Exhibit D, staff report (CMR:331:96). He thanked all participants for their time and energy in the process. Mayor Wheeler said there was a significant number of members of the public who wanted to speak that evening, and she hoped the Council would keep in mind both the interests of the public and the big picture items that the consultants had brought forward. Council Member Andersen said it was exciting that the process had involved representatives from various interest groups coming together and sharing a consensus statement in advance of the
Council taking action which was the direct result of the City=s
role as a Αconvener.≅ Initially, the group was adversarial, but the more frequently the group met, the more the group realized that there were far fewer differences than there were areas of agreement. He acknowledged the students and faculty members from Stanford University who initially brought the group together to
talk with one another. He also acknowledged Mr. Northway=s excellent efforts. He believed the process could be a model for other parts of the City where people were brought together in advance to work through some issues. The process had taken away many of the adversarial approaches. He asked whether the traffic analysis would include whether or not there could be a left-hand turn lane into the shopping center and still retain the four lanes. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said yes. There would be a left-hand turn lane with either two lanes or four lanes. Council Member Andersen said the letter from the Midtown Revitalization Committee had many significant points of agreement, but Item No. 6 indicated the residents were willing to go ahead with the project. After the project was completed, the City was being asked to analyze and determine if there had been an impact on
07/22/96 79-444 79-444
certain residential areas and to take appropriate mitigations if necessary. He wanted that information on the record since it was not part of the staff recommendation. Council Member Schneider said staff had stated previously that office use generated approximately one-third less income than retail. Ms. Jansen said if Class A retail were compared to Class A office, Class A office would generate approximately one-third less on a per square foot basis than Class A retail. Council Member Schneider clarified the project would be Class A office and Class A retail. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. Council Member Schneider asked what were the parking requirements for office versus retail. Ms. Jansen said under the standard CN zone, parking was 1 for 300 square feet of office and 1 for 200 square feet of retail. Office required less parking under the Ordinance. Council Member Schneider asked the income generated from retail
versus office for the City=s sales tax revenues. Ms. Jansen said there was no retail sales tax revenues generated by office use. Council Member Schneider asked the traffic generated by retail versus office use. Mr. Patterson said the traffic varied, and the range of rates for trip generation for retail was very wide and depended on the type of retail. Retail on a daily basis generated more traffic than office. Office use tended to generate very heavy traffic in the morning and evening. It was difficult to compare without specific uses. Council Member Schneider asked what happened if a retail user could not be recruited for a particular site.
Roxy Rapp, 373 University Avenue, said the Bergmann=s site was a good example. The goal was to find a retail use for the entire site, but if that were not possible, there would definitely be
retail along Middlefield Road. The back half of Bergmann=s could be developed as lower than market office space for start-up companies or Stanford University.
07/22/96 79-445 79-445
Council Member Schneider asked whether the zoning would allow flexibility for retail versus commercial use. Retail was clearly the preferable use for any of the buildings. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the process that was envisioned to move forward if the Council concurred with the staff recommendation would have the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) wrestling with those types of issues. It was too early in the process to have a definitive answer in terms of the retail/office split. Staff wanted the community and the property owners input in the process. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff looked at other communities that had done something similar, and if so, did it work and how long did it take. Ms. Jansen said there were a number of other communities that had embarked upon neighborhood commercial revitalization and some were more successful than others. The difference in the process versus the other communities was the way the conceptual master planning process would be created. It gave a great deal of control to commercial property owners in the planning of their properties; however, it also gave a great deal of focused input from residents and other interested members on the planning process. The process was highly interactive but with control of the actual land use planning on a site-by-site basis to the commercial property owners. From the standpoint of committee formation, a one-year time period was quick for Palo Alto. Council Member Kniss asked whether there was one particular community that would be considered a good example. Tim Kelley, Keyser-Masten Associates, said many communities were dealing with the issues, and there were many centers and neighborhood streets that were suffering under the same problems. Easy solutions had not been found, and many communities were still working on the problem two or three years later. The combination
of the City=s support for the concept, all the property owners
working together as a group, and the community=s strong feeling made the project unique. Most communities did not have that blend working together effectively. Council Member Kniss asked why the telephone surveys on the parking requirements were dramatically different. Ms. Jansen said Palo Alto and many other cities had required parking ratios that did not exist in reality, i.e., the required parking did not meet existing conditions. For example, the City of Menlo Park had exceedingly high parking requirements which were not met in many instances. The City of Berkeley had a very low parking ratio of 1 per 500 square feet. Center parking differed from standard CN zoning in Palo Alto and other cities. The City did not
07/22/96 79-446 79-446
have a shopping center parking requirement for CN at the present time but there was a requirement which only applied to Stanford Shopping Center. Many other communities had shopping center standards which required less parking than the CN standards. Palo Alto was in the middle of the shopping center range.
Mr. Schreiber concurred with Ms. Jansen=s comments and said it was important to recognize that most of the examples in the survey were individual parcel parking requirements. Each parcel had to function at a fairly high level of activity and the parking should still accommodate the use. When 8 to 10 different uses were put together, all of them did not function at the maximum level of activity at the same point in time. One of the great values of creating the shopping center zone was that there could be a play off of the flow of activity within the area. The parking needs of a particular use at a particular time could be absorbed recognizing that other uses would not be as high at that particular time and
would not generate the amount of parking. Palo Alto=s standards fell in the middle, but it was a per parcel middle. Staff believed the l for 275 square feet was a good standard when considering the shopping center rather than the 11 individual parcels. Vice Mayor Huber said the staff report (CMR:331:96) recommended the Council explore various funding mechanisms for the projects and also recommended something be appointed for the parking improvements that could cost up to $250,000. He clarified there was a risk that the City would lose the money if the project did not come to fruition. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said that was correct. Vice Mayor Huber asked when the City would have to provide the up-front costs. Ms. Harrison said Phase I, which had been completed, involved about $73,000 up-front costs, i.e., potentially recoupable through debt financing should that occur. There would be additional up-front costs as part of Phase II that the City would pay that would not be part of a joint payment with the property owners. The legal costs could be avoided if the debt issuance did not happen. Usually attorneys did not require compensation if the debt did not occur. The other debt costs would have to be paid even if the debt were not issued. The subtotal added to the $73,000 already incurred was the $250,000 that was discussed in the staff report as being up-front costs. In addition, there would be design required but that cost could potentially be shared with the property owners. Vice Mayor Huber said at some point, there would be an assessment district or some other mechanism in place.
07/22/96 79-447 79-447
Ms. Harrison said a lot depended on the complexity of the assessment formula and the ability of the group to come together on the plan. Staff assumed the assessment district would be formed in 1997. Vice Mayor Huber clarified if the project did not materialize, the City could stop the process at a subtotal of approximately $163,000. Ms. Harrison said at any point after the report from the financial and traffic consultants and contract planners, the City could decide not to go any farther before it went into creating a district and incurring the other costs for selling debt. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the City would not proceed into design or traffic without knowing whether there would be a district.
Ms. Harrison said an engineer=s report was necessary to spread the assessment for debt, so the City would incur some of the cost of the design consultant. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said there were two key issues with the design: 1) It was necessary to do the design so there would be an accurate cost estimate for the purposes of the debt issuance and to know how much the improvements to sell bonds for would cost. 2) There was an expression of interest to accelerate the process. Normally, the design was done after completion of all the land use reviews and approvals. There had been discussion about an alternative that would advance the design so it would be ready and the debt could be issued as soon as all the land use reviews and approvals were completed. December 1996 was anticipated as the accelerated time frame. Vice Mayor Huber asked what the future role was of the neighborhood groups or neighbors in the ongoing process. Ms. Jansen anticipated the committee would serve as an ad hoc committee in terms of advice to the architect as he/she proceeded in the further refinement of the conceptual master plan. Council Member Rosenbaum said Council Member Schneider asked the Director of Planning and Community Environment how the City could settle the issue of retail versus office use, and staff described a process with a lot of public input eventually leading to a zoning ordinance. He understood that one of the property owners might be interested in applying for a conditional use permit with respect to the current zoning to allow more office space than currently allowed under the CN zone. He asked how that application would fit in with the process described earlier. Mr. Schreiber said there was nothing to prevent a property owner from filing an application under the existing zoning because the process did not overrule existing zoning. Staff would process that
07/22/96 79-448 79-448
application absent some other direction from the Council. The processing would be a complicated endeavor in terms of making sure that the validity of the process envisioned by the Planning Commission and the Council was upheld. His first priority would be to make sure the broader process validity was maintained, e.g., referring the use permit to the Planning Commission for review and action and then to the Council for action. He would seek more neighborhood input regarding the use permit than normally would
occur at a Zoning Administrator=s hearing. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified normally when a conditional use permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator and not appealed, it never went to the Planning Commission or Council. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum said the suggestion was that that would be
at the Director of Planning and Community Environment=s discretion. Mr. Schreiber said the options of referral would need to be
discussed with the City Attorney=s Office. He said there was nothing that required a traditional public hearing with the Zoning Administrator at 3:00 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon. There were other ways the Zoning Administrator could involve the public in that process. Council Member Rosenbaum said there was a theme in two of the letters to Council that there was low-cost money available which the City should attempt to receive through tax exempt debt financing. Given the relatively small amount of capital to be raised, he asked whether it was possible that the up-front costs could make the overall process more expensive than simply attempting to find a commercial loan. Ms. Harrison said the possibility was good. It was a small amount of debt and there were up-front costs. There were restrictions
placed on the property owners= current use of the property which were necessitated by using public financing that was not quantifiable costs but might make it less than desirable should the discussions continue. Mayor Wheeler asked whether there was anything proposed in the improvements of both pedestrian and traffic circulation and the general usability of the parking layout that might give an owner of a large building that went front to back on the property assurance that the building could be remodeled to have more retail appeal both front and back.
07/22/96 79-449 79-449
Mr. Kelley said yes. If the plan were successful as envisioned, retail would outbid office space. The key in the process was that it would act as one center. Property owners were willing to invest
if other property owners invested too. The City was Αone of the
investors≅ in that process. Acting individually was not attractive to the property owners, and they wanted an overall plan that would come together which was also the key to the tenants that were potentially considering Midtown. The momentum of the plan and the investment coming together at one time was the key to the success of the plan. Mayor Wheeler said there were many members of the public who wished to speak on the issue that evening, and she asked whether the Council wanted to move forward with Item No. 10 that evening or continue it to a future City Council meeting. The Regular City Council meeting of August 12, 1996, would be the next available date for the item. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the action before the Council on Item No. 10 was to initiate the prescreening, and the Council would not need to have any substantive discussion that evening if it were not desirable. Council Member Schneider suggested Item No. 10 be continued to a later date or to refer the matter to the Planning Commission and the ARB. She had spoken to Steve Player regarding the issue and the group wanted comments from the Council. Council Member Simitian supported a referral of Item No. 10 to the Planning Commission and ARB for review that evening. He was uncertain whether the applicant or the public would benefit from having the item return to the Council on August 12, 1996, since only six of the nine Council Members would be present that evening
for comments. In addition, the Council=s comments would not be well informed because Council had not had the benefit of the
Planning Commission=s or the ARB=s input. He preferred the item return to the Council after background work had been done by the Planning Commission and the ARB. Hopefully, there would be a full Council present to make comments during the prescreening process at that time. Council Member Kniss understood the prescreening process was to provide feedback to the applicant before a proposal went to the Planning Commission and ARB. The referral would eliminate that process. She preferred waiting until August 12, 1996, and providing some feedback at that time. Mr. Calonne said the process was two steps. The Council had the opportunity to initiate the review or not. The Council was being asked to give feedback but that would ordinarily be done after the Planning Commission review. The item was set up as a public
07/22/96 79-450 79-450
hearing because of the site visit the previous week. It was an initiation process. The procedure stated the Council could refer an issue to the Planning Commission or have a joint meeting at which time the Council would give its comments. Comments were not necessary that evening. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to bring Item No. 10 forward for the purpose of a continuance. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Development Project Preliminary Review Application at 525 University Avenue for a Possible Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, a Zone Change from the CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District & Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to the Planned Community (PC) District, and construction of an approximately 54,400-square-foot office/commercial space addition, and relocation of another approximately 22,200-square feet of basement retail above grade, to an existing office/commercial building and related site improvements. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue the item to the August 12, 1996, Regular City Council Meeting. Council Member Andersen clarified that due to the Planning
Commission=s schedule, it would not be able to review the item until after August 12, 1996. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission would not be able to review the item until September 1996. Council Member Simitian asked whether the item would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at that time regardless of whether the Council acted on August 12, 1996, or referred the item that evening. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Simitian said no harm would be done in allowing the item to be continued to August 12, 1996, and the Council could make some observations and raise some questions at that time for the Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission and the ARB advised the Council, their views would have been prompted by the
Council=s view and the Council would be even better informed by the comments of the Planning Commission and ARB. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. RECESS: 9:25 P.M. - 9:40 P.M.
07/22/96 79-451 79-451
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 8, MIDTOWN REVITALIZATION FOLLOW-UP Sylvia Gartner, 824 Moreno, felt there had been good progress toward the revitalization of the neighborhood shopping center; however, she was concerned that there were no limitations on the amount of the proposed center that could be used as office space. The residents wanted convenient, small scale retail businesses so that they could do the bulk of their shopping in the neighborhood. Businesses in the neighborhood that did not provide products or services for the residents to use was not her idea of revitalization. If the existing zoning protections were given up so the property owners could better utilize their properties, what protection would the residents have in the future from having only consulting firms and real estate agents instead of restaurants, drug stores, and ice cream shops. Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, supported the consensus document by the commercial property owners and members of the Midtown Residents Association. She and the members of the Midtown Residents Association appreciated the opportunity to participate in the entire process. Members looked forward to working with the shareholders in the future as the revitalization process continued. The Residents Association recently held a town hall meeting attended by over 100 people, and the tone was very positive and supportive which she contrasted to previous Residents Association meetings on the issue that were hostile and demanding. A recent
survey of the approximate 4,300 households in the Association=s area indicated the main area of interest was what was happening at Midtown. She urged the Council to adopt the recommendation of the consensus document to move the traffic light on Middlefield Road. It would act as a visible signal that the revitalization process was moving forward. She felt it was important to continue the public process and felt the residents could play a role in the zoning area. In addition, the residents could negotiate with an organization such as Walgreens to bring the right kind of business to Midtown. She read a statement submitted by Adele and Holden Jessup that underscored the idea of addressing the traffic increases and limiting the parking on the adjoining streets. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber was pleased to be a part of the process and to see the plans take form and the consensus grow. The process was creative, thorough, and had near unanimous support in the community. She highlighted that the Chamber played the role of facilitator in the developer mentoring group, and the information that came from that meeting provided the foundation that brought the property owners together. The developers from Midtown and the rest of the community were there because of their interest and commitment to Midtown. Th Chamber was willing to play a similar role in the future. A defined process was important, and there was great value in pursuing that type of conceptual planning model
07/22/96 79-452 79-452
versus specific planning which would have been more lengthy and costly to the City. That approach should be considered for other areas of the City such as El Camino Real. Midtown was a unique situation that deserved a unique common sense approach. With the
Midtown residents= support and investment of time, patience, and commitment to the plan prepared by staff, everyone would reap the benefits of a robust, customer-friendly neighborhood center. Throughout the whole process, no one lost sight of the task which was revitalization of Midtown, an area that everyone had grown to love and appreciate and wanted to see survive. The center was severely under performing; and by supporting the staff recommendations, the City would receive a payback not only in revenues but in community services by providing a vibrant, healthy center that would truly be a gathering place and functional shopping center that the whole community would be proud of and enjoy. Lillian Tiernan, 732 Rosewood Drive, thanked the Council for giving the residents the opportunity to address a problem that only Council could solve. The problem was vehicle noise, gas fumes, and pollution and its disruptive effect on the residents living on Rosewood Drive adjacent to Victoria Emmons Catering Service and the Co-op Market. Despite continuing complaints to City officials and resulting calls for corrective measures, Midtown merchants had been reluctant, inconsistent, and totally inefficient in their efforts to solve the problem. The Council was elected to be responsible to the citizens of Palo Alto by enacting and enforcing codes and ordinances designed to ensure neighborhood peace. She asked the Council to take action to stop an unbearable situation by constructing a 12-foot soundproof wall along the alleyway facing Victoria Emmons to Moreno Avenue, posting City approved ordinance signs on the building wall of Victoria Emmons facing the alleyway prohibiting delivery activities at inappropriate hours, and strictly enforcing violators when signs were ignored. Kendra Fehrer, 885 Northampton Drive, said Midtown was a community and neighborhood center, and the new pedestrian circulation would promote walking, be more conscientious of the environment, and would have a nice community feeling. It should not be turned into a commercial shopping center. Patrick Siegman, 260 Palo Alto Avenue, understood the property owners wanted to create an entrance to Midtown, many of the residents wanted slower and safer circulation along Middlefield Road, and the rest of the residents in the City knew it was an arterial and needed to get through. He presented an overhead slide of a roundabout entrance used in Europe which was compact and would fit into any existing intersection, was safer, had a larger capacity, and was more pedestrian friendly. A good retail district needed cars to slow down so people would notice the shops and be a place that people remembered. Several shopping centers in Florida were using that type of entrance. He liked the Santa Barbara
07/22/96 79-453 79-453
roundabout because pedestrians only had to deal with traffic coming from one direction. The peak hour volume for Midtown was 2,100 vehicles per hour and the typical capacity for a roundabout was 2,500 to 2,800 vehicles per hour so stacking lanes would not be needed. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, was intrigued by Mr.
Siegman=s idea and she hoped the Council would give it serious consideration. It was new in the area, but Palo Alto had taken innovative steps before on various things and it had been proven in other places. Ron Wolf, 745 San Carlos Court, thanked the Council for creating a process that created significant forward momentum and provided for an inclusive role for residents. The process moving forward needed to recommend detail action and should continue to maintain an
opportunity for encouragement of residents= input. The key issue before the Council that evening was the process, and he felt the process needed consideration and the guidance of the Council. He was concerned that the plan as presented recommended the ARB first consider any details presented; however, broad guidelines and policy issues should be addressed prior to specifics, e.g., square foot guidelines should be determined prior to paint color. He understood the ARB was suppose to follow the Planning Commission in the process, not precede it. He felt no commission or the Council should be presented with the plan prior to the opportunity for public input and continued consensus. He urged all parties, especially Council, to create such a process. It was in the residents best interest to have the process move quickly but within the tenets of the Midtown Residents Organization. The Midtown Residents Organization stood for local scale, pedestrian-friendly, retail variety, and community spirit. Steve Player, Member, Board of Directors, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 1874 Guinda Avenue, was excited about being involved in the process which he hoped would bring Midtown back to the type of services it provided the community in the past. He urged the Council to adopt the staff recommendation that evening and move the process forward. There would be plenty of time in the future for discussion. He urged that the soft costs that concerned some of the property owners be maintained as minimally as possible. There might be alternative ways to solve some of the problems. The process of using the private/public partnership with the City as the catalyst and the small role the Chamber had played to provide mentors and working with both the property owners and business owners was a model that could be successfully used in other parts of the City. Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, preferred shopping in Midtown and wanted to make sure there would be retail services. She was concerned about office space which meant permanent parking all day and the retail versus office space parking ratios. She wanted the
07/22/96 79-454 79-454
Council to carefully consider how much office space would be viable versus retail. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said there was an agreement among the residents, the property owners, and the retailers about a high level of revitalization and the concept of sharing parking, etc. She was concerned about adequate public input, and the details should go to the Planning Commission before the ARB so a higher level could be worked out. She was concerned about l parking space for 275 square feet since it had not worked at Stanford Shopping Center which used 1 parking space for 234 square feet to cover all the activities. The parking was very tight on the other side, and Colorado Avenue was the only alternative when there was no parking in the center. She was concerned about the ground floor office displacing retail. In the existing center, there was a lot of parking in front of the retail areas and the most successful retail areas had parking adjacent to the retail. In the new proposal, the loading and delivery areas were adjacent to the buildings, and parking and access might not be convenient. In Phase I, the entire corner at Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue had lost parking that was currently utilized. Many of the loading areas were pedestrian areas. When a huge block of buildings was put together, there was a tendency for that to be more convenient for office use. There was no convenient parking for retail and office and restaurant would be more likely which required a higher level of parking spaces than retail. She hoped people would be able to discuss those kinds of details in the future. Roxy Rapp, 373 University Avenue, said the rent structure for retail was 30 per cent higher than office use. He and Mr. Northway
would not encourage office use over retail for the Bergmann=s
building. He promised at least 40 percent of Bergmann=s would be used for retail. There would be an investment of over $3 million in the project. He had heard the Council and staff question office use, the landlords and property owners favored office use, the majority of the homeowners favored limited office use, and the retailers in that area supported office use because office use helped support retail during the weekday and there would be extra parking on the weekends. He felt limited office use was a plus, not a negative. He wanted to know whether the Council was for or against limited office use. Council Member Andersen said a great deal of trust had been placed on the property owners in the process, and it would have been easy for the proposal to come forth with many stipulations. He was concerned about the possibility of a start-up software company locating in Midtown which was beyond anything that had been suggested in the past. He would be very disappointed if the property owners proceeded in that direction, and he felt the residents would be upset as well. There were no stipulations regarding office use; however, the agreement that came across at a
07/22/96 79-455 79-455
meeting clearly indicated that was a secondary effort. The Council recognized the economic issues, but there would be extreme disappointment if something of that nature were presented. Mr. Rapp said he and Mr. Northway were not 100 percent positive that the building would work for retail. A decision had to be made at some point because they did not want the building empty again for Christmas in Midtown. The building was falling apart, and he had been talking to many different types of retailers every day. He wanted assurance the Council would move forward if there had to be a limited amount of office use. He had not spoken to a software company, but he saw no reason why a software company would be wrong in that area for incubator space. There was no difference between that type of office use and another type of office use. Council Member Andersen said the interest was in something that served the community, and he did not see how a start-up software company would do that. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, was encouraged that the neighbors and business owners were able to come up with the framework for revitalization of Midtown. He emphasized that Item No. 2 in the letter from the Midtown Revitalization Committee stated the parking and overall coverage should be such so that overflow parking would not be encouraged on adjacent residential streets. He suggested a parking requirement of 1 space for 250 square feet with the difference between 250 and 275 square feet put into landscape reserve. There were potential impacts from different kinds of retail use as well as office use. The mix of uses would significantly affect both the need for parking and traffic mitigations. Because the center was in a residential area, it was safer to error on the side of caution than to be too ambitious. He urged the Council to adopt the staff recommendations. Dan Hanley, representing the owners of the Midtown Market, 2701 Middlefield Road, wanted to address the financing issue and said a self assessment of 15 cents per square foot per month per improved property for each of the 9 property owners would help pay off the projected infrastructure improvements and also provide for annual maintenance. All of the property owners had reached an agreement on that basis, and they trusted that the process would work out so that financially they would be able to adhere to that commitment. The figures presented earlier would not make that possible. Soft costs of $200,000 or $300,000 had not been considered. He urged the Council to move the traffic light immediately. He then might be able to secure a tenant for his building that would start the process of revitalization. He asked the Council not to discuss the soft costs yet and enable the property owners to work with the City to arrive at some low-cost alternatives that would fit into their 15-cent budget. His building had been vacant for over three years, and he had not had anyone call him for office space on his building. Mr. Rapp had indicated to them that the building might
07/22/96 79-456 79-456
not work for retail, and he had property in Menlo Park with mixed office use which had helped the merchants. Many of the property owners were concerned that office use would cause parking problems. Those issues needed to be addressed in a parking management situation so that the placement of the spaces could be controlled. He trusted the process and hoped his trust would not be breached. He wanted to continue to work with the Midtown Residents Association so there would be a resolution to the matter and the center would be brought into the 1990s. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the Council was being asked to enable a particular developer to increase the fair market value of a particular property which involved getting more entitlements for
vacant buildings. He believed both Bergmann=s and Midtown Market=s second floor mezzanine space floor area entitlement might have lapsed after one year of nonuse because the height of the ceiling was too low under the current building codes. Council was also being asked to lower the parking requirements and to provide more office space than normally allowed. If demand for office space was so low, he saw no reason why people would vote against a moratorium on conditional use permit applications exceeding the 5,000-square-foot office entitlement for a parcel. Former ARB Member Jon Schink previously envisioned for Midtown more offices to support the kind of retail that typically drove out neighborhood serving retail. Council was being asked to treat a particular block of Midtown as a unit which was different from changing the entitlements that might benefit particular parcels. He had previously asked the Council to treat all four blocks as a unit in the environmental assessment. Safeway wanted to expand and there was neighborhood commercially zoned property at Colorado Avenue and Middlefield Road that it
could extend into. The dentist=s office had an underlying land use of neighborhood commercial and was asking the San Carlos Court residents to provide access on San Carlos Court. He believed there would be continuing and larger traffic problems unless the Council treated the four blocks as a unit. The parking standard proposed was too small. Neighborhood commercial serving uses needed closer parking; but employees would walk several blocks to their offices, and destination or entertainment retail also did not need closer parking. Those other types of retail uses were brought in by increased office use. At Stanford Shopping Center, the requirement was 1 parking space for 275 square feet, but it only used 234 square feet so Stanford felt that even for the shopping center a parking ratio closer to 1 parking space to 200 square feet was needed. A traffic study was done the week before and the week of Thanksgiving week which was useless traffic data. There should be current traffic data for the local streets so that when the consensus document was implemented, there would be comparison data. The City should know whether it was the City or the property owners and the developers who would provide the mitigation. Council Member Simitian asked when the traffic data was collected.
07/22/96 79-457 79-457
Mr. Borock said the consensus document only referred to collecting traffic data after the fact and did not indicate whether the City or the applicant would provide the mitigations. It was good to have traffic studies after the development was done, but base numbers on the local streets would be needed before redevelopment so there would be an empirical comparison to determine post development and traffic counts. Mark Lawrence, 446 Marion Way, said it was outrageous to spend his tax dollars to study the idea of narrowing an arterial street. It was not a traffic improvement, but a traffic degradation. It would increase congestion, pollution, and delays and would divert traffic to neighborhood streets. The residents of those streets would then ask for speed bumps, circles, and other obstructions and there were too many of those in his neighborhood already. The traffic survey showed 17,000 vehicles per day on Middlefield Road which was a lot of cars for a two-lane road. There should be a study about widening Middlefield Road to include on-street bicycle lanes and left-hand turn lanes while retaining four lanes for through traffic. Pullouts should be provided for buses so that bus loading did not obstruct a traffic lane. He wanted the area revitalized, but he did not want the road he drove on to be destroyed. Council Member Andersen asked whether the proposal could go to the Planning Commission before the ARB.
Mr. Schreiber said staff=s intent was to start with the Planning
Commission discussion, followed by the ARB=s discussion initially in a workshop format before moving into more specific consideration of an ordinance. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to: a. Direct staff to return to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board to initiate a Neighborhood Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District Zone (CN-MSC). The zone would only be applicable to the Midtown core area (NE quadrant) and would be based on review and refinement of the Midtown Conceptual Master Plan developed over the past year. b. Direct staff to work with a subcommittee of the Midtown commercial property owners to identify financing mechanisms for implementation of on-site parking, sidewalk and circulation improvements within the Midtown core area. c. Direct Administrative Services Department staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to retain the services of a financial consultant to accomplish two distinct phases of work. First, assist staff in working with property owners to insure that the broad outlines of a financing plan are understood and continue to be supported by the property owners as the project progresses. Second, provide financial advisor
07/22/96 79-458 79-458
services to structure a debt package to bring to the financial markets. This second phase will not occur until near the end of the process, typically just before construction. The first phase with the property owners, however, will proceed as soon as a consultant can be hired. If so directed to proceed, staff will also return with a Resolution of Intent to Issue Debt to allow the City to recoup its up-front costs in the event that debt is ultimately issued. d. Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance and amended contract for the traffic consultant to provide an additional $15,000 for traffic analysis related to the installation of a new traffic signal on Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue; traffic analysis for the environmental review of the Conceptual Master Plan; and proposed new CN-MSC zone. e. Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for up to $20,000 of contract planner time to expedite review of the Conceptual Master Plan and the Neighborhood Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District zone. f. Council review and comment on the key elements of the
conceptual master plan prepared by the property owners= architect. g. Direct staff to draft a policy permitting the City-owned parking lot to be used as credit for parking required for reuse/redevelopment of structures within the Midtown core area.
Council Member Andersen appreciated the staff=s efforts and said it had been enjoyable working through the process. He said the staff report (CMR:331:96) indicated it would take two to three months for the traffic light, and he asked whether that was two to three months from the current date or after the consultant analysis. Mr. Schreiber said it would be longer than two to three months from the current date because the traffic work done thus far had not involved any traffic projections. That work needed to be done as part of the second phase of work. Those projections were necessary to finely tune the specifics of a signal. In addition, until specifics of the land use decisions were resolved and the entrance to the Midtown properties, the location of the traffic signal could not be done. The driveway would have to line up with the signal, and there were engineered plans at the present time. Council Member Andersen asked whether that phase could be done concurrently with the analysis of the potential impact of a light at a place that had already been identified. Mr. Schreiber said both cold be done together. The line up of the driveway was critical.
07/22/96 79-459 79-459
Council Member Andersen asked the earliest time the traffic light could be done. Mr. Schreiber said there was the planning process, the design of the signal, and the construction process. It would be impossible before 1997. He had heard from the public input that evening the high priority placed on that signal, and he would try to expedite the process. Council Member Andersen asked that the process be fast tracked. It was a critical element to many of the decisions that would be made about the tenants who would rent the spaces and when. There were financing questions, and there was no discussion about the 15 cents which was a tremendous sacrifice of property owners who had existing leases. He was concerned that if the rents went up dramatically because of soft costs, some of the services would be driven out that the community hoped to have. He encouraged staff to seriously consider trimming those costs. The proposal had the potential of making Midtown a dynamic, vital area that could serve the neighborhood and the community in a way that it did in the past. He believed it was appropriate to remember that the baseline should not be the traffic conditions in the area at the present time because that traffic was not the traffic that was generated by Midtown. There was 40,000 square feet of vacancy in Midtown. The baseline comparison should be on the place as a vital area and that was not possible because traffic conditions had changed. The
Council=s support would send a message to the businesses that were considering renting in the area which would help the merchants as well as the neighborhood. Council Member McCown clarified when the Planning Commission and the ARB, members of public, and property owners participated in the process, the further development of the mix would be part of the process of creating the new zone. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member McCown did not believe the Council needed to define that mix that evening, and she trusted that the participants who had taken part in the process previously would work through the issue. She asked whether the question raised about the implications of the sound impacts of certain properties currently being used could be addressed in a Neighborhood Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District Zone. Mr. Schreiber said the refined master plan would have to address setbacks, landscaping separations, and sound walls, etc. Council Member McCown said there was a set of distinct properties that were developed in a nonintegrated way and there was no provision for adjusting for the proximity of single-family
07/22/96 79-460 79-460
residences. It was important to take advantage of a planning opportunity to reconsider properties that had historically not worked well for the adjacent neighbors. She strongly supported the sentiments of a number of people who had spoken about keeping the process moving which was what the staff recommendation did. She acknowledged the efforts of her colleagues and encouraged everyone involved to keep moving forward with the same cooperation, energy level, and good debate and good policies would come forward. Vice Mayor Huber asked when the process was completed, whether the mix of retail and office use would be actually fixed. Mr. Schreiber said yes, but he did not want to speculate on the details in terms of the master plan and ordinance text. The process would need to resolve that issue, and the level of resolution related to the comfort that all parties needed to obtain. Mr. Calonne said it was a Council decision. He was uncertain whether it was contemplated in that way in the current report. Vice Mayor Huber referred to the up-front investment the City was making and said the staff report (CMR:331:96) presumed some recoupment based on an assessment district. Mr. Hanley suggested the property owners did not plan on covering all the costs. Ms. Harrison said the City was not as far apart as Mr. Hanley indicated with the up-front costs of 15 to 16 cents per square foot per month. Staff estimated the costs would be approximately $2.00 per square foot per year. Vice Mayor Huber supported the motion. The goal when the process started was to revitalize Midtown Shopping Center. He was concerned about the office space aspects of the plan because it was
peripheral to the Council=s goal to revitalize the retail section. The more it moved into office use, the less it would move into retail use. He believed it was critical that the neighborhood be involved. The City would not have gotten as far without the neighborhood involvement, he strongly encouraged the staff, property owners, etc., to involve neighborhood associations deeply in the process. He looked forward to a successful return from the Planning Commission and the ARB. Council Member Schneider enthusiastically supported the staff recommendation. Retail use was the preferable type of business to have in the shopping center. The City benefitted by increased revenues, the property owners benefitted by increased revenue for their properties, and the residents benefitted because the businesses would serve the residents. However, she said the Council needed to retain flexibility regarding certain properties and referred to Item No. 7 on page 10 of staff report (CMR:331:96)
that spoke to the Bergmann=s building. The City could be faced
07/22/96 79-461 79-461
with a building that was critical to the entire site that might be
left vacant because a tenant could not be found. Everyone=s intent was 100 percent retail, but flexibility was important. She agreed with Ms. Frank that the Midtown principles should be applied to the El Camino Real area and other undeveloped areas in the City. She understood from residents there was room for approximately 30-angled parking spaces on Colorado Avenue where cars currently parked, and she asked whether the traffic study would consider that area which had the potential to slow down traffic. Middlefield Road would not need to be reduced to two lanes to slow down traffic. The traffic must be slowed down on that portion of Middlefield Road. Retail would not survive with rapidly moving traffic, and the traffic issues were paramount and slowing the traffic down was the key. Council Member Kniss wanted to know more about the rotary concept and whether it had taken place anywhere in the area. In the past, Midtown was a thriving, vital center even with four lanes on Middlefield Road. She did not believe four lanes precluded a lively shopping area. She said the area needed an old-fashioned neighborhood shopping center, and the Midtown area could become once again an area where neighborhoods congregate. The group had done a terrific job. She supported the staff recommendation and looked forward to it possibly being a pattern that could be followed with other areas in the City. Council Member Fazzino enthusiastically supported the recommendation. Significant progress had been made toward revitalizing the neighborhood business district, and he believed Midtown needed to remain predominantly neighborhood oriented which was critically important to its success. He was willing to accept some office use, but the space needed to be neighborhood oriented. He did not want another Downtown in the Midtown area. It was extremely important that the Council take steps to make sure that Midtown reflected the needs of the neighbors of that particular area. He believed the traffic light was essential to the success of the entire plan, and he wanted to move quickly. He also believed it was appropriate for the City to participate financially in the renovation and revitalization of the Midtown area. Expenditure of funds for parking and other improvements in the area was no different than any other infracture funding effort in the City and was the core of why the City existed to assure economic vitaltiy and meet the needs of the neighbors of the community. He appreciated the collaborative efforts of the staff and the neighbors as well as the property owners, and he hoped it was a model for future efforts around the City. He was intrigued by the traffic roundabount concept, and it was something that could be considered not only with respect to Midtown but also Citywide. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the recommendation, particularly the planning aspect of it. He was concerned the Council was being asked to move forward, but the zone change ordinance was still
07/22/96 79-462 79-462
uncertain. He felt certain a satisfactory place would be reached but it take awhile. He disagreed with Council Member Fazzino regarding financing and said an assessment district of property owners was used for parking in the Downtown rather than City taxpayers. The project was small and there were upfront costs. He found the costs were soft with respect to financing, and he was certain when the matter returned to the Council there would be a clearer indication of the costs, which costs the property owners would be willing to pay and the City would pay. The Council would be in a better position at that time to make a financing decision. Mayor Wheeler said several members of the Council had urged the City to move quickly to affect the change in the location of the traffic signal. She did not disagree with that direction, but she repeated there was some very important work that needed to be completed by the property owners and their design consultants prior to the City moving forward. There needed to continue to be a joint cooperative effort between both the public sector and the private sector for that to work The issue of office use was the final point in the consensus agreement before the Council that evening, and it was important to the residents and agreed to by the property owners that office use would remain secondary to retail use. Hesitating to make pronouncements regarding any one particular property in terms of how it proceeded at that point was important in terms of looking at the center as a whole unit and the ordinance that would eventually be applied to that center. The hesitation and fear of making any commitments to any one building absent knowing more about an overall plan was that conceivably all the potential office use would be given to one building prematurely. She recognized the economic decisions that needed to be made by some of the property owners but hoped the process would be allowed to proceed because she felt the City would end up with a better shopping center. The City had played a role that had never been done before and staff was asked to step into a different role in the community. The City arranged some assistance for individual property owners and members of the community that was unprecedented, and in the long run it had cost the City fewer dollars and less time than the normal process. Property owners, merchants, and residents had determined that they had more in common than in difference. Everyone had come away from the initial period with a great deal of faith in each other and more knowledge about the economics of retail shopping areas. She commended both
the Chamber of Commerce=s volunteer mentors and the consultants for their efforts. Everyone on the committee participated at the highest and best level, and she supported the recommendation that would launch the next crucial steps. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES
07/22/96 79-463 79-463
12. Ordinance Prohibiting the Removal of Specified Oak Trees, Imposing Penalties for Such Removal, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Ordinance accelerated a permit process or something like a permit process that was in the main ordinance. The effect of the Ordinance would be to encourage people not to remove a tree unless it was moribund. Grady Maggard, 3818 Magnolia Drive, said he had already removed
half of his tree. The City Attorney=s Office indicated he would be in violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) if he continued to remove the tree. He asked whether the Council would consider a provision for work already in progress on the emergency measure or allow an exemption for him. Council Member McCown asked for a description of what was left of the tree. Mr. Maggard said the tree had been skeletonized. All the foliage had been removed from the lower limbs, and the limbs had been cut back to stubs. The top was the last portion to be removed. Council Member McCown asked why the tree was being removed. Mr. Maggard said he had planned for 10 years to replace the tree with another scheme of planting. Council Member McCown said the Ordinance did not apply if a tree were dead, dangerous, or constituted a nuisance and if it were located in the building area of a single-family lot. She asked whether the exemptions would apply to the tree and whether the tree
met the City=s size requirements. Mr. Maggard said the tree was a Valley Oak with a large trunk. Council Member Andersen asked when the removal of the tree began. Mr. Maggard said the initial cut was made in the spring, and he had been working on the tree every weekend since the Council put a limit on the removal of those kinds of trees. He understood the Ordinance would not become effective until the end of the year. Council Member Andersen clarified the cutting began as soon as the Ordinance was passed by Council. Mr. Maggard said no. He explained he had been making cuts since spring. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Ordinance.
07/22/96 79-464 79-464
Ordinance 4356 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibiting the Removal of Specified Oak Trees, Imposing Penalties for Such Removal, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately Council Member McCown said the City Attorney had brought the Council precisely what it had previously discussed which was an interim mechanism to preserve trees until the entire Ordinance was in place and yet allow for moribund trees to be removed and trees that would not be picked up in the Ordinance in the future because of being within a building area. She felt the Ordinance had the right elements in it. Council Member Schneider was concerned about the condition of Mr.
Maggard=s tree and said he needed an answer from the Council regarding the tree. Council Member McCown explained the Ordinance did not apply to trees that were dead, dangerous, or constituted a nuisance, so Mr. Maggard would be the first case in the new Ordinance for a determination. Council Member Schneider said the City Attorney indicated to Mr. Maggard that there would be a problem if any further cuts were made. Council Member McCown said the process was for the City to verify whether a tree was dead, dangerous, or caused a nuisance; and until that was done, Mr. Maggard could not continue removing his tree. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum Αno.≅ 13. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Capital
Improvement Project 19410, ΑCivic Center Garage Improvements≅ Council Member Simitian asked for staff to citizen test the parking signage before it went into place. City Manager June Fleming said a postcard survey was done previously before the project was proposed. Council Member Simitian asked that citizens who had never been in the garage before and who were the kind of people who would use the garage on a Saturday night, test the signage before it was put in place. The Council received many letters from citizens about citations, parking, and not being able to figure out where to go. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said design process plans had already been reviewed by the Chamber of Commerce and the Parking Subcommittee
07/22/96 79-465 79-465
Council Member Simitian said he was not reassured by the fact that everyone that knew how the system worked had commented about how the system should work. The Civic Center Garage drew a huge number of people on the weekends who had never been to Palo Alto before and who often looked baffled and bemused about where they were, where they were going, where to park, and for how long. He suggested that before a significant amount of money was spent on the finishing touches on the outstanding job that had been done at City Hall, a few signs be tried out in rough form to see whether people could figure out where to go. Ms. Fleming said staff would do everything possible to address that concern. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Ordinance and approve the contract.
Ordinance 4357 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Capital
Improvement Project 19410, `Civic Center Garage Improvements=≅ Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Mina-Tree Signs Inc. for Civic Center Parking Garage Signage MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 13A. (Old Item No. 5.) Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Alcoholic Beverages to Add Section 9.04.030 Prohibiting Possession of Open Containers of Alcoholic Beverages Within or Adjacent to Businesses Licensed for Retail Package Off-Site Sale of Alcoholic Beverages; and Ordinance Repealing Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Distribution of Handbills, Advertising, and Samples on Public and Private Properties and Enacting a New Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Prohibiting Solicitation of Employment, Business, or Contributions Within Public Parking Lots Paul Gilbert, 785 Barron Avenue, had previously questioned the admissibility of the sitting and lying ordinance. He had had discussions with some of the attorneys who associated with the
challenge to the Berkeley ordinance, and they believed Palo Alto=s ordinance would be unconstitutional if the challenge to the Berkeley ordinance were upheld. He asked if the conversations named in the ordinance, i.e., solicitations, were to be prohibited as potentially dangerous practices, why were other conversations on other topics in the City parking lots not also seen as potentially dangerous thus worthy of being prohibited. One conversation would be potentially dangerous and another one would not be. He was also 07/22/96 79-466 79-466
concerned the Council was considering an ordinance that was aimed
at a particular group of citizens. He had to trust the City=s honesty that the purpose of the ordinance was the safe and orderly flow of traffic and that parking lot conversations involving solicitation would be a threat to that safe and orderly flow and other conversations on other topics would not be such a threat. He was not persuaded by the findings and arguments put forth in support of the ordinance. He urged the Council to reject the ordinance as unconstitutional. If the Council believed it was a firm ordinance, he requested the Council set it aside until the Berkeley case was settled. Council Member Fazzino disagreed with the previous speaker and enthusiastically supported the ordinances. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Ordinances for a second reading.
Ordinance 4358 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Alcoholic Beverages to Add Section 9.04.030 Prohibiting Possession of Open Containers of Alcoholic Beverages Within or Adjacent to Businesses Licensed for Retail
Package Off-Site Sale of Alcoholic Beverages≅ (1st Reading 7/8/96, PASSED 9-0)
Ordinance 4359 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Distribution of Handbills, Advertising, and Samples on Public and Private Properties and Enacting a New Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Prohibiting Solicitation of Employment, Business, or Contributions Within
Public Parking Lots≅ (1st Reading 7/8/96, PASSED 9-0) City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the potentially live issue was whether solicitation was content. If it were content, any ordinances that tried to regulate solicitation would be content based and thrown out. He believed it had been decided that solicitation was not content, but he would inform the Council if there were a problem as soon as there was information from the Ninth Circuit. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler reported that the painting of the Cubberley Center was a successful event as a part of the Palo Alto Together Program. There were approximately 40 volunteers.
07/22/96 79-467 79-467
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.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.
07/22/96 79-468 79-468