HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-12 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 1. Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition re Findings of U. C. Berkeley Study on Housing Shortfall in Santa Clara County.......................................................80-47 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Paul Grimsrud for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Utilities Advisory Commission....................................80-47 3. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to James R. Brown for Outstanding Public Service as Superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District................................80-49 4. Mayor Wheeler re Appointments to the Canopy Steering Committee 80-50 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................80-50 5. Ordinance 4366 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Midtown Revitalization Project"................................80-51 6. Resolution 7616 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 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7567, 7578, and 7600 to Amend the Salary and Benefits for Council Appointed Officers to Authorize Advance Payment for Accumulated Sick Leave for the City Manager"80-51 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................80-51
08/12/96 80-45
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Development Project Preliminary Review Application at 525 University Avenue for a Possible Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urban Design Element80-52 8. Alma Street Bike Bridge and Path Project (continued from 8/5/96)................................................80-56 9. Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project - Rejection of Bids (continued from 8/5/96)..............80-57 10. Ordinance Amending Chapters 22.04 and 22.08 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Parks (continued from 8/5/96)................................................80-57 11. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Seasonal Jobs for the Homeless Pilot Program (continued from 8/5/96).........80-59 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment=s approval of a driveway parking plan for Units No. 1-6 (fronting Bryant Court) of a new, 13-unit single-family residential Planned Community (PC) development for the property located at 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court..................................................80-62 14. Historic Resources Board Recommendation to Extend the Moratorium.............................................80-71 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........80-74 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m............80-74
08/12/96 80-46
08/12/96 80-47
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:11 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, McCown, Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition re Findings of U. C. Berkeley Study on Housing Shortfall in Santa Clara County Leslie Coleman, representing the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group, spoke regarding the findings of the University of California (UC) Berkeley's study on the housing shortfall in Santa Clara County (the County). The study, which showed employment and incomes in the County skyrocketing, also showed a lack of housing and rentals resulting in an impediment to economic growth. Palo Alto was encouraged to: 1) streamline its permit and review process; 2) make the project review process more timely and responsive; 3) improve the quality of permit applications; and 4) provide regulatory relief to small developers and property owners. Mayor Wheeler thanked the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group for its study. 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Paul Grimsrud for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Utilities Advisory Commission MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7614 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Paul Grimsrud for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Utilities Advisory Commission" MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent. Council Member Rosenbaum said Mr. Grimsrud had played an important role on the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). As one of the original members, Mr. Grimsrud and the others had been faced with the task of defining the role of the UAC, which had been well accomplished. The City had been fortunate to have had Mr. Grimsrud's ability and contribution. His comments had always been thoughtful and incisive. Council Member Andersen agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum. Mr. Grimsrud had been able to give Council a new appreciation for
08/12/96 80-48
Utility issues. Mr. Grimsrud's comments in the UAC minutes had always been helpful and his ability to analyze issues and provide a thorough and thought-provoking response to each issue had been well-appreciated. Council Member Kniss said the formation of the UAC had resulted in individuals such as Mr. Grimsrud making an enormous difference through the minutes, challenges, and thoughtful comments which allowed a great degree of comfort on the part of Council. Mr. Grimsrud's contributions were greatly appreciated. Council Member Simitian agreed with his colleagues. For five years of Mr. Grimsrud's service, the UAC had proceeded without incident, yet shortly after his departure, the power had gone out in eight western states. Utility Advisory Commission Chairperson Paul Johnston supported and endorsed the Resolution, not only as UAC Chairperson but as a citizen of Palo Alto. Mr. Grimsrud had served with much experience, knowledge, and a balanced and insightful approach. Utility Advisory Commissioner Fred Eyerly said Mr. Grimsrud had given the UAC much expertise and energy which would be missed by both staff and the UAC. Mr. Grimsrud had contributed to many major projects under the purview of the UAC. He was smart, articulate, energetic, young-at-heart, considerate, and his comments always had substance. Paul Grimsrud said it had been a privilege and pleasure to work with Council and staff over the past few years. He thanked the Utilities staff for its responsiveness and his fellow UAC members. Staff had exceeded his high expectations for technical quality, depth of reports and presentations, and leadership in addressing the complex issues. The role of the UAC had become very important to the City in its contribution to ensuring the continued financial health of the Utilities and City. Particular tribute was given to Council for not letting political agendas hamper Utility decision making and for being even-handed and wise in its Utilities dealings. He suggested the City assure uninterrupted power to Palo Alto through a tightening of its transmission agreements with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and he encouraged Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) members to build a transmission system or some form of disbursed generation within Palo Alto's own territory. With the strong partnership of Council, staff, and the UAC, Palo Alto would be successful in meeting the challenges ahead. He had enjoyed his involvement with the UAC. 3. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to James R. Brown for Outstanding Public Service as Superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District
08/12/96 80-49
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7615 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to James R. Brown for Outstanding Public Service as Superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District" MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent. Council Member Simitian said as a Palo Alto Unified School Board member, he had been involved in the interview process of Mr. Brown for Superintendent many years previously with Council Member Kniss. Every member of the school community and broader community under which Mr. Brown had then served in Lompoc had held him in highest regard. Mr. Brown had come to Palo Alto with a goal to make sure every child in the district would be taught. He had been a major factor in the increasingly effective and cooperative relationship between the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and Palo Alto. Mr. Brown would be missed. Council Member Kniss said that Mr. Brown was highly commended and recalled the City of Lompoc's reluctance to let him leave. Mr. Brown's involvement with the bond issue would have a very long-lasting effect on the City. He would be greatly missed. Council Member Andersen said educators in the community would truly miss Mr. Brown, who had been an inspiring leader with a profound influence throughout the PAUSD. Mr. Brown would be missed. Mayor Wheeler had known Mr. Brown as a community member and as a leader who exhibited a very different style of leadership, not only with the PAUSD itself, but in the relationship between the PAUSD and the larger Palo Alto community. Mr. Brown and City Manager June Fleming had made a tremendous impact in the way the City and PAUSD functioned, bringing a closer, more unified relationship than ever in history. A good deal of the credit should go to the two chief staff people, and it was a legacy Mr. Brown would leave behind. Former Superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District James Brown hoped he had been able to contribute in some small way something to a community which had given him so much over the time spent in Palo Alto. His relationship with Council and City staff was unique. The quality of the teaching staff ensured high quality student learning. The support of the community for education was evidenced through people like the Council and City staff was meaningful and had made a big difference. He was thankful he had been able to be involved in the community. 4. Mayor Wheeler re Appointments to the Canopy Steering Committee
08/12/96 80-50
Mayor Wheeler announced the members of the initial nonprofit tree group, the Canopy Steering Committee: Marge Abel, William Courington, James Crawford, Rita French, Tim Fuller, Martha Greene, Barbara Lilley, Mary McCullough, Forest Preston, III, Kevin Raftery, Kathleen Roberts, Susan Rosenberg, Sarah (Sally) Sakols, Arnold Soforenko, and Susan J. Wilson. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding accountability of the City with regard to the Sea Scouts property. Sam Sparck, 302 Poe Street, was at the current meeting to represent the Palo Alto Civic League. Dena Mossar, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 400 Channing Street, spoke regarding the "Spare the Air & Save the Bay Campaign" which kicked off with a Downtown Art Fair on August 24, 1996 and would run through October 1996. Encouragement was given to using public transportation, especially the shuttles which would run on August 24th and 25th for the art fair as an experiment. Eric Doyle, 322 Laurel Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the Lytton Avenue Traffic Report (chart on file in the City Clerk's Office), particularly with regard to the traffic barrier between Menlo Park and Palo Alto on Chaucer Street, the vast reduction of vehicles on Palo Alto Avenue and increase on Chaucer Street, and encouraged removal of the barrier. Gladys E. Woodhams, 601 Melville Avenue, spoke regarding the failed effort to save the historic house located at 1201 Webster. The Palo Alto City Charter regarding historic homes had been so modified to only protect 500 buildings in Palo Alto and The Council was encouraged to do something about the deplorable situation. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the Arastradero Preserve structure removal. Concern was expressed for staff's direction in direct opposition to The Council policy to provide Request for Proposals (RFP) and violation of the Charter provision on park dedication. Low intensity use of the preserve was encouraged. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 5 - 6. 5. Ordinance 4366 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Midtown Revitalization Project"
08/12/96 80-51
Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. S6083343 between the City of Palo Alto and Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 6. Resolution 7616 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 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7567, 7578, and 7600 to Amend the Salary and Benefits for Council Appointed Officers to Authorize Advance Payment for Accumulated Sick Leave for the City Manager" MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 13, PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the
decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment=s approval of a minor modification to the public benefit for the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance 4268, allowing the elimination of four (4) rooftop figures as a public benefit and substituting it with artwork in the project's public plaza for property located at 200 Sheridan Avenue, had been removed from the Agenda at the request of the appellant. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. 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 (continued from 7/22/96) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the options before The Council were either to refer the application for additional review, in which case staff recommended referral to both the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning Commission, or the Council could provide comments to the applicant with no further review, allowing the applicant to make a decision as to whether or not to pursue a formal application. The project proposed a considerable amount of square footage in relation to what had occurred Downtown over the past few years. The project contained positive aspects as well as concerns in terms of the public benefit and adequacy of the park.
08/12/96 80-52
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council's preliminary review process had been established to provide an opportunity for applicants and the public to gain a sense of the concerns about projects early in the process. The review process had not been designed to allow an applicant direct access to the Council, unless the Council so desired. The two steps of the process involved Council initiation of the prescreening review and a definition of how it would occur. Various Council options were outlined. Council had made a decision with the Ordinance that unless specifically directed otherwise, the Planning Commission would be involved. Staff had recommended a variant of Item Nos. 2 and 5 by recommending that in addition to Planning Commission review, the ARB be included after which the project would return to the Council. The Ordinance did not limit the amount of information an applicant could provide. Council could legitimately resist the temptation to be drawn into the information prior to Planning Commission or ARB review and recommendation. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Steve Player, 8274 Guinda Street, representing C. M. Capital Corporation (CM), said CM had owned 525 University for almost 20 years and had been in charge and responsible for the major office building Downtown. An opportunity was being afforded the City to improve a building which many considered a disappointment. CM presented a project which would make the building pedestrian-friendly, less massive, and more like a public gathering place as a gateway to the Downtown. More detail had been presented because the building was very unique to Palo Alto and had policy implications with the present size and existing location. The proposal addressed the issues in an attempt to receive early feedback. CM hoped general comments from the Council would be voiced early in the process. CM's package was consistent with the urban guidelines, provided a public benefit package which was attractive, and sought flexibility, creativity, and guidance to bring forth a project which would be a positive addition to the Downtown. Dick Campbell, Hoover Associates Architecture and Planning, spoke on the design features of the project. Issues CM had attempted to address in examining the project included: 1) the lack of presence on University Avenue, 2) user and pedestrian unfriendliness, and 3) the unpleasant, unusable aspects of the rear courtyard. CM proposed moving the entrance of the building to University Avenue and including an arcade along the front of the building to bring the scale of the building to pedestrian-level as well as other changes. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, voiced concerns about problems related to the project, including traffic in the adjoining neighborhoods, resultant parking deficiencies, the lack of sufficient public benefit, and the disproportionate use of Downtown
08/12/96 80-53
growth limits. He questioned the percentage of office versus retail space. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, said the present building was not pleasant in appearance and needed to be made more user-friendly. However, she was concerned about the scale and intensity of the proposal. The Downtown had begun to suffer from being so vibrant it was almost frenetic such as the inability to keep it clean, constant traffic, etc. She queried the capability of the infrastructure to support such a structure and the spill-over activity level. The building was already an anomaly, and the enlargement could cause more commercial spreading into the surrounding area. The variety of activities between Sand Hill Road and Downtown north was being squeezed. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the proposal was another example of a large project coming before the Council for approval prior to adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). If the 52,000-foot addition were built and the proposed transfer of development rights approved, the City would still be below the 250,000-square-foot ceiling for the Council to consider limits on development Downtown. Both parking and traffic estimates used to set the growth limits Downtown had underestimated both the need for parking and the amount of traffic. The Downtown study and subsequent ordinance had placed a 25,000-foot cap on new projects to ration development among various property owners. Council was faced with making a choice concerning which properties would be allowed to expand because not every project could be chosen. Robert MacElroy, 641 Forest Avenue, said the project sounded very interesting. An article in the Palo Alto Weekly estimated there would be an additional 800 trips per day as a consequence of the project. The City should carefully consider the consequences of the project. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Rosenbaum thanked the applicant for its proposal, which deserved serious consideration. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to initiate the preliminary review process by referring the applicant for Development Project Preliminary Review to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board for "public study sessions" as identified in Chapter 18.97 (Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures) of the City's zoning regulations, with the results of the study sessions to be reviewed by City Council in a study session. Council Member Kniss said the project deserved to go through the full process. Questions had been raised concerning the prescreening process, i.e., the current meeting was a precursor to
08/12/96 80-54
prescreening. Council needed to clarify the issue for the future. A number of guidelines were already in place and work was being done on the Comp Plan toward a conclusion. Council Member Andersen said the questions raised by the staff report (CMR:350:96) with regard to policy and consistency should be clearly addressed. He was concerned about the 17 percent of the 250,000 square feet already designated for the Downtown area, and the massive project would require input from residents in the Downtown area and other property owners who might be interested in expanding. Additionally, consideration would need to be given to the impact of such a massive development, the urban design elements, etc. He would need to be persuaded that the project was a good idea. Vice Mayor Huber said the issue was whether the project was worth prescreening. Any suggestion for changing the building was worth prescreening. However, he suggested future applicants not provide so much materials to the Council merely to decide whether or not to consider a project. Council Member Simitian said the prescreening process had been created to provide the Council the flexibility to handle situations in whatever manner made the most sense. The amount of work product
submitted was an applicant=s decision. Council was well advised not to make decisions at the meeting that evening, but Council Member Andersen had taken the right approach in suggesting issue areas which should be addressed when it came before the Council. The applicant's argument was that with good design, architecture, and appropriate uses, while there would be more building, it would look and feel like less. Advisory bodies needed to focus on the issues. When the item returned, the Council would have the kind of tools to assist in reaching a conclusion such as perhaps something three-dimensional. Artist renderings were helpful, but a model or video graphic would give the Council the ability to assess whether or not the architecture and design "made more feel like less," which was the fundamental premise of the argument. If the applicant were successful, having received some substantial benefit as an applicant as a result of the City's willingness to consider the issue of allowing more in an effort to alleviate some of the design concerns, the question then became what was the appropriate public benefit. He wanted counsel from the advisory bodies on two issues: 1) how much was appropriate and 2) where there was focus. The public benefit package lacked focus in the applicant's presentation. If the project were being pushed as a public benefit because of the "gateway" effect, there should not be a "false front." Focus should be placed on connecting the gateway to the rest of the Downtown. He had not been impressed with the $180,000 shiny glass pyramids. The point made by Ms. Dolkas regarding vibrant becoming frenetic had been good. The issues of traffic and parking had to be addressed. People came to Palo Alto because it was "charming," not because it was impressive. The issues of
08/12/96 80-55
design and mass should be discussed, along with the public benefit issue. Mayor Wheeler said no one applauded the existing design of the building which was a good deal of the reason the City was willing to have an applicant examine possibilities for change. The stated goal of the applicant and others had been to "humanize" the building. The City should consider the amount of square footage minimally necessary to "humanize" the building. Some of the comments by members of the public and Council Member Simitian had been absolutely correct in terms of the need for advice from the Planning Commission on the contextual issues, the location Downtown, the relation to surrounding land uses, and whether significantly increasing the amount of activity in the building as designed both in a design sense and proposed use sense would have a negative impact on properties surrounding the building, particularly on the Downtown north residential neighborhood. Regardless of the design proposed for implementation in the next presentation, it was imperative for the project to meet its Downtown parking requirements and to address alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles. The building was already large and had a very large work force. Measures should be pursued vigorously to reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles to and from the site. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent. 8. Alma Street Bike Bridge and Path Project (continued from 8/5/96) MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to: 1) Reject all bids received for construction; 2) Direct staff to reduce the project scope and rebid the work; 3) Adopt a resolution authorizing application for a $98,000 Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and 4) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with the City of Menlo Park extending the agreement to September 1997. Resolution 7617 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Funds Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 44225 and 44241 for the Purpose of the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge and Path Project and Authorizing the Implementation of Same if the Application is Approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors" Amendment No. 2 to Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Menlo Park MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent.
08/12/96 80-56
9. Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project - Rejection of Bids (continued from 8/5/96) MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to: 1) Reject all of the bids received for consideration; 2) Approve the following two-stage approach: Stage 1 - delete the proposed new bridge, bid the project again in the winter, and construct the path portion of the project next spring, and Stage 2 - pursue funding for, and implementation of, the proposed new bridge portion of the project; and 3) Confirm the Council's intent that the use of the existing railroad bridge is an interim measure and that it is the intent of the City to pursue alternative funding sources for the construction of the proposed new bridge. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent. 10. Ordinance Amending Chapters 22.04 and 22.08 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Parks (continued from 8/5/96) City Manager June Fleming corrected page 3 of the staff report (CMR:328:96) under hours of operation which should read 8:00 a.m. Council Member Andersen asked whether staff had considered evaluating the $2 entrance fee. Ms. Fleming replied no. Staff was still working under the Council's direction regarding the $2 charge. Council Member Andersen questioned the cost benefit. He understood the original intent had been to pay off the costs of the dam. Considering the cost of a ranger at the gate every moment of the day, the charge of $2 might not be justified. The issue deserved future consideration. Ms. Fleming said even if the charge were removed, staffing would not change because there were other duties and responsibilities. However, staff would examine the issue if the Council so directed. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to page 2 of the Ordinance and the definition of open space and the open space zone. He asked the usage of such terms since parks were zoned PF rather than OS. Pages 5 and 6 of the proposed ordinance deleted language regarding application for permits to use buildings and removal of buildings pursuant to Article 8 of the Charter. Any substantial construction required an ordinance and might be worthwhile to retain in the ordinance. He questioned the rationale of replacing uniformed park rangers with any authorized City employee. Page 11 discussed amplified sound in open space areas which might be more stringent than in the other parks. Either page 9 or 12 might include a regulation concerning horses as part of the ordinance similar to what had been done with Byxbee Park. He referred to page 20 and
08/12/96 80-57
asked whether a change had occurred in the nesting area which required such a change in the duck pond. He noted Arastradero Preserve had been changed to "park" on page 27 and 28 and the correct name was Arastradero Preserve, not Arastradero Property. On page 28, the Hewlett Mullen property had always been considered an addition to the preserve, and he suggested name be changed to "the Hewlett Mullen property addition to the preserve," with conforming changes on pages 29, 80 and 87. Mayor Wheeler had previously asked staff about the names given to City-owned properties. She asked whether names which appeared in the ordinance corresponded with recorded deeds or whether the City had the option to change names. If an opportunity were afforded the City, a change had been suggested for the Yacht Harbor to refer to the entire area of the Baylands as Byxbee or the Byxbee Addition. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff appreciated the comments and if, after examining the suggestions, the changes made sense, staff would recommend the changes for a second reading. With regard to names, a policy and procedure had been examined concerning City-owned land and facilities which called for review by the historical association of any proposed names. Council direction would be needed for staff to examine the possibilities of a name change for the Yacht Harbor or the Arastradero Preserve. Ms. Fleming supported Mr. Calonne's statement concerning Mr. Borock's suggestions regarding matters of clarifications which did not make a significant difference to what had been presented to the Council that evening but could be brought back in a second reading. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to introduce the Ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 22.04 and 22.08 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Parks" (continued from 8/5/96) MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent. 11. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Seasonal Jobs for the Homeless Pilot Program (continued from 8/5/96) City Manager June Fleming said the Seasonal Jobs for the Homeless Pilot Program had been developed by staff based on comments heard from the Council and work that had been conducted by an extremely innovative group over the past year. The project should not be considered a panacea but as one way of helping some people re-enter the work force. The recommendation contained some unique elements not traditionally included in the temporary work program. However,
08/12/96 80-58
staff considered the elements essential to the success of the program. Staff had worked very hard and consulted with a number of individuals in order to bring the program to the Council prior to the end of summer. Flexibility would be necessary in implementing the program. Staff had been as precise as possible, however, the experience was unique in terms of supervision and in securing the labor force. The program addressed needs expressed by the public and the Council. The staff report (CMR:365:96) had indicated staff's unsuccessful attempts to contact the Urban Ministry for assistance essential to the program, but Mr. Lundin had since contacted staff and had stated a position of assistance which would be invaluable to the City. The City was faced with the challenge of finding a way to deal with liabilities associated with a work force. Every effort had been made to work with different organizations within the City to assist with the liability. Staff had suggested Roberta's because of a willingness to work with the City and an understanding of the need. Although using Roberta's involved high overhead, there was also a high liability risk for Roberta's. She thanked staff for pulling everything together and being responsive in working on the program. Council Member Andersen thanked staff and the City Manager for a very creative and positive contribution to the community with such a proposal for involving members of the community which had lacked employment opportunities in the past. He asked whether Phase 2 would see a reduction in costs through use of other resources in the community. Ms. Fleming was unsure whether reductions would materialize. A number of things could be accomplished after the City had gained experience. Others would be encouraged to participate and some recommendations might not need to be continued on a regular basis. Staff was committed to finding ways to reduce costs and had been as innovative as possible, e.g., realizing transportation might be a problem, recovered bicycles had been used as a way to recover costs. Council Member Andersen said cost was one of the areas of greatest anxiety about the program and he encouraged staff to continue seeking reductions. Council Member Simitian said the program description on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:365:96) concerning the number of proposed "employees and types of assignments which could be made available for this work program," had fairly loose language in terms of the assignments; however, no mention had been made of the Downtown in the five assignments. He asked whether the facilities were contained in the Downtown. Ms. Fleming said the assignments were contained in the Downtown.
08/12/96 80-59
Walt Lundin, 418 E. Charleston Road, said the Urban Ministry staff had reconsidered its original position and believed the Urban Ministry might be of some assistance in the process of reviewing and screening applicants for the eight positions being offered. If agreeable to all concerned, the Urban Ministry proposed meeting with Roberta's and any involved staff in order to begin work on the ground rules, i.e., an eligibility pool, means test, job descriptions, required work skills, eligibility regarding previous work history, etc. All determinations should be made so the process of selecting, referring, or recommending people for the positions would be seen as evenhanded and objective. The ground rules would be made available to all concerned, including the possible applicants. The Urban Ministry staff would be better acquainted with many of the potential applicants for the positions than either Roberta's or City staff. The program would be useful. Staff was lauded for its initiative and assistance. Monty Black, 1120 Byron Street, had worked with the homeless in Palo Alto and was a member of the Stanford Homelessness Action Coalition (SHAC). Several meetings had been held with the homeless concerning the proposed program and excitement for the possibilities had been apparent. SHAC was also excited about the possibility of homeless people being involved in the process of how the project played out. The staff report (CMR:365:96) had mentioned questions about how late arrivals, drinking prior to arriving to work, etc., would be handled, but had not fully addressed the issue. Any job development program for jobless or low-income individuals in the area had to be on a continual basis. Concerns had been expressed concerning the apparent conjunction of the program with the sitting and lying ordinance, and SHAC was fearful of it being used as a political means of overshadowing a more negative side. The project was very small and should not have too much emphasis placed on it. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Ordinance and approve the pilot trial project for a 12-week period. Ordinance 4367 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Seasonal Jobs for the Homeless Pilot Program" Council Member Kniss said she, the City Manager, and the Mayor had met with the Executive Director of the CHRYSALIS with a program which re-trained the homeless. The program was sponsored primarily through private organizations and had a fairly good track record. The proposed project was not merely a jobs program but would work with people who had not worked for quite some time and who were frightened about that experience. In many ways, the program rounded out what had been termed "the homeless situation" in Palo Alto. At one point, the problem had been considered single-
08/12/96 80-60
faceted; however, the City had become more able to examine the problem in a way which allowed for finding appropriate programs. Any number of services in Palo Alto could address the problem, but none had involved hiring the homeless apart from county and state programs. Staff was commended for the work which had been accomplished. The process would be difficult, was not a panacea, and would not solve problems overnight. Patience and understanding would be necessary. Council would need to support staff as the project was developed further, moving the City in a positive direction. Vice Mayor Huber commended Ms. Fleming for bringing the program before the Council which had been a long time in coming. The program, however, should not be loaded with process and paper but should be allowed to move forward. Mayor Wheeler also commended staff. The project had been staff-driven and had been in progress for some time, long before the sitting and lying ordinance. Much internal discussion, preparation, and training had gone into devising the program and would need to be carried forth as the program was implemented. Many of the issues shared by the Executive Director of CHRYSALIS in their meeting concerning her own experiences had been issues which had been addressed by staff in preparing for the project. The manner in which the program had been set up would result in success. The added dimension of having the Urban Ministry involved was of great value to the program. The Urban Ministry was in a unique position in the community to render the services agreed upon. She thanked Mr. Lundin and his staff for the offer of assistance which would result in a better project. At the end of the project, it was hoped the Council would receive a positive evaluation report. Although not an ultimate answer, the project was a good beginning. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment=s approval of a driveway parking plan for Units No. 1-6 (fronting Bryant Court) of a new, 13-unit single-family residential Planned Community (PC) development for the property located at 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court. Council Member Simitian said, with due respect to applicant and neighbors, that in examining the materials in the packet which represented approximately 40,000 to 50,000 words on an issue of parking configuration for six homes, staff and others speaking to the issue should attempt to bring some focus. He hoped the framework of the discussion would be more narrow.
08/12/96 80-61
Mayor Wheeler explained that the appellants had requested a continuation of the item until a full Council was present in September. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said in the past Council had addressed the situation by opening the hearing and then continuing the item. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said development of the parking solution had been based on an Architectural Review Board (ARB) condition of project approval which required the applicant to study alternative parking solutions along Bryant Court and for the ARB to approve a preferred solution. After analysis of four different alternatives, the ARB had approved a preferred solution which modified the original parking solution by maintaining the parallel parking space in front of the unit but reversed the building footprint and modified the landscaping such that the parallel parking space were easier to access. An optional nose-in space had been included as a secondary uncovered parking space. Several neighbors had appealed the preferred solution based on the six points addressed in the staff report (CMR:374:96). However, staff believed the applicant had met the ARB condition and that the ARB had selected a preferred alternative. Staff recommended the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether considering the parking spaces as "independent" parking spaces, i.e., one vehicle had to be moved to access the other, had been of concern to staff or the ARB. Ms. Grote said the solution was unique to parking, however, it had been reviewed by the Transportation Division and approved as a viable parking arrangement. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the ARB had expressed a desire to try something other than parallel parking which had, in part, motivated the desire to create two independent parking spaces. Architectural Review Board member Julie Maser could not recall the issue having been addressed in any of the three meetings in which the parking situation had been discussed. The tandem arrangement had been accepted from the very beginning. Mayor Wheeler opened the public hearing. Steve Frankel, 351 Bryant Court, clarified he was not the sole appellant but was working in conjunction with his neighbors, Carol Francis and Mark Nanevicz. Carol Francis, 321 Bryant Court, voiced concern with the project, without removing support therefor. The project should meet the
08/12/96 80-62
needs of current and future residents and the City. The appellant group was concerned about safety and adequacy of the parallel parking plan, parking in the Bryant Court neighborhood and the immediate area, and aesthetics of the single-family homes in Downtown north and how the plan as approved was no less than repugnant to the Downtown south single-family home feeling. She addressed the adequacy and safety aspect of the plan. At the February 1996 ARB meeting, a motion was made to require a study of nose-in parking; however, after discussion the term "alternative plan" had been used. Council Member Kniss asked whether Bryant Court was an alley. Ms. Grote replied yes. Council Member Kniss clarified alleys were handled differently from a street. Ms. Grote said Bryant Court was considered an alley because of its width which also affected the project in that the setbacks would be considered the rear setback for the parcels across the alleyway. The sites would then have a ten-foot setback along Bryant Court. Council Member Kniss asked about speed limits for alleys. Ms. Grote said speed limits for alleys were less than regular streets but she was unaware of the specifics. Ms. Francis said the parallel aspect was of concern. Adequate parking for two cars should be provided on Bryant Court, particularly considering the existing severe parking situation. The proposed options had not addressed the concerns. In general, the project sponsor appeared to understand the intent of the ARB to consider alternative parking plans, however, no alternative to the plan had ever been presented. The most important issue was not the abuse of the parking spot, but safety. The alley was very narrow and could result in access problems. The applicant had said the problem was a traffic enforcement issue when confronted with the aspect of safety, speeding, etc. The project sponsor should be compelled to promote a viable, safe, and effective parking plan. Mark Nanevicz, 228 Waverley Street, said an objective in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Program 15 was to use PC developments to increase affordable housing in consideration of which "the City shall assure that the number of units allowed will be compatible with the surrounding land uses, that the traffic and the public services will not be adversely impacted, and that the development will not result in an adverse off-site parking impasse." The parallel plan encouraged two-car families to use Bryant Court for parking, since the garage was blocked by a second car. Bryant Court was an alley with no curbs. Parking only on the north side of the street would reduce the effective road width to
08/12/96 80-63
13 feet which had been acknowledged by the project sponsor. Downtown north parking had become more problematic. The houses on Bryant Court would not have on-street parking in front of the individual units. During the May 1996 ARB meeting, staff had been asked to study elimination of on-street parking on the north side of Bryant Court due to the possible interference in backing distances for the project from the existing parking arrangement, and it had been recommended that the street parking be maintained as it was used by residents. A letter and survey had been sent by the Chief of Police asking how residents felt about permit parking in neighborhoods, exemplifying the parking situation. The term Planned Community (PC) had been used as an excuse for not having backup requirements such as single-family housing units had, not
requiring abiding by particular guidelines. City staff=s original conclusion concerning the development's parking had been "the parking arrangements for Options 1, 2, and 3 developed by the project applicant do not provide minimum acceptable parking spaces for these units due primarily to back-up/entry distance limitations. If the units along Bryant Court were built according to Option 1, 2, or 3, the tight parking arrangements could lead to residents of these units in the future, to request that the City prohibit parking on the north side of Bryant Court. This on-street parking will probably be needed from time to time by the new Bryant Court residents, just as it is not needed for current residents. Option 4, based on a proposal by some Bryant Court residents could provide usable parking. Either Option 3 or 4, with the modifications described above, is recommended to create the proper space needed for parking for two vehicles per unit." Mr. Frankel requested the Council overturn approval of the final parking plan for the project. Concerns were based on aesthetics and legitimate grounds. The planning process had not protected the residents' interests and, if left unchallenged, the developer would create a factionist atmosphere on Bryant Court, degrading the quality of life. The staff report for both the December 1995 Planning Commission and January 1996 ARB reviewed the project for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) regarding the urban design element, the main objective of which was to promote improvements which were of high aesthetic quality and variety as well as being considerate to one another. Although most of the immediately surrounding properties were developed with higher density, multi-family units, the proposed use would be consistent with existing single-family homes used on the north side of Bryant Court. Single-family residential guidelines recommended following the distinct style of the neighborhood and, although there was no distinct style of neighborhood in Bryant Court, the proposed single-family residential units would follow the use pattern of properties north of Bryant Court. Furthermore, the units would be in scale with existing improvements and were designed to respect the character of the existing street scape. Removal of most of the landscaping and amenities would make the property uninviting.
08/12/96 80-64
Council Member Kniss asked that pictures of the area in question be shown. Mr. Frankel showed houses on Bryant Court and the alley area. Scott Ward, 1068 East Meadow, applicant for the project, read the conditions for approval of the PC. The issues for the project had been approved previously with no appeals. The only discretionary action outstanding on the project involved the second on-site guest spaces. The ARB and staff had examined the proposed spaces in great detail. The Transportation Division, as well as Planning staff and the ARB, had found the proposal not only in compliance with the requirements but functional. The obligation had been met to present alternative parking plans, some of which had included elements not reliant upon the parallel parking option and the approved option had a space which measured 10 feet by 20 feet in length. The project had been the subject of a fair amount of public input. For the 13-unit project, 9 public hearings had been held over a 10-month period. Collectively during the period, over 7 votes had been taken, the collective total of which had been 40
Αayes≅ and 1 Αnay.≅ In addition, a series of meetings had been held with the neighbors, independent of the public hearings, in an attempt to respond to each issue put forth by the neighbors. A more than good faith effort had been made to resolve the issues. The property had been down zoned from RM-30 to a PC, effectively reducing the density by 50 percent. After meeting with the neighbors independently of the public hearing, the site plan which had all of the traffic accessing from Bryant Court, had been adjusted so less than half of the traffic accessed from Bryant Court. Additionally, the public benefit requirement demanded reconstruction of Bryant Court with a number of elements to calm traffic, and other amenity improvements. The results would be very hospitable. The inclusion of the six homes would have a positive impact on traffic speed control. Transportation Division had set up cones and driven the approved alternative and knew it worked. In addition to a parallel stall, an option for a nose-in stall was included. The backing movement was assisted with 10 feet of private property. Council was urged to act on the matter that evening. The housing filled a gap in the supply of housing choices in the community and was important in the development community, which needed to be able to rely on the determinations of the ARB and staff. Council Member Andersen asked Mr. Ward whether the construction phase of the project had been moved from September 1996 to December 1999. Mr. Ward replied no. PCS were time-specific, requiring construction to begin by date certain, and the date of the project had been September 1996. The delay associated with the appeal application accounted for the need to amend the date for which the PC was effective. The ordinance restricted the extension of the
08/12/96 80-65
time period to one year. The applicant's intent was to move forward with the project as soon as possible with no intention of delays. Council Member Andersen was unclear about the December 1999 date. Mr. Ward said a request had been made to extend to December 1999 and the applicant had been informed that start of construction in the PC could only be extended once and only by a term of one year to December 1997. Wayne Surdam, 360 Bryant Court, owned a home on the south side of Bryant Court with nose-in parking. Pulling out of his driveway would be impossible if a car were parked opposite his driveway on Bryant Court. If parallel parking existed on the north side of Bryant Court with nose-in parking in new residences, a significant impact would result on the ability of individuals backing into and entering driveways. Mr. Frankel said the appellant group had appealed to staff, which had disagreed with the opinion of alternatives. A list of alternatives was submitted at the previous ARB meeting (copy on file in the City Clerk's Office). The appellant group had been mislead with the wording. At no time had an alternative been proposed which contained other than parallel parking as the primary parking space. All of the nose-in parking spaces had been rejected by traffic as unusable and unsuitable. The ARB had chosen not to take the Transportation Division's recommendation at its previous meeting in an attempt to provide the option for nose-in parking. An alternative should examine something besides the parallel. To make parallel parking work, fences and landscaping would have to be removed for minimal acceptable spacing. Alternatives had not been considered and nose-in parking was an alternative the ARB meant to have studied. Mr. Ward said the appellant had suggested the only option previously submitted provided for parallel space exclusively. However, the first option submitted had relied exclusively on the space perpendicular to the right-of-way, i.e., nose-in space, but it had not met the standard dimensions for the parallel stall adjacent to the right-of-way. The option had been submitted for evaluation to the ARB and staff. The ARB had requested additional options in addition to the first option. The current meeting was not the appropriate forum in which to evaluate other options, but was for the ARB and staff examination. Additional width between the buildings would be necessary which would have the effect of decreasing setbacks to neighboring properties. The Planning Commission and some members of the Council had been concerned about violating standard R-1 setbacks to neighboring properties. A side yard would also effectively be eliminated which could provide a functional outdoor space. It would also result in a vehicle being parked immediately adjacent to a dining room window.
08/12/96 80-66
Vice Mayor Huber confirmed that the Council had sent the issue back to the ARB for a recommendation on the best possible parking solution under the constraints of other conditions. Ms. Grote replied yes. Vice Mayor Huber clarified no other restriction had been given under the ARB recommendation except to come up with the best possible solution. Ms. Grote replied yes. Vice Mayor Huber said one parking space was in the garage with the other vehicle blocking the garage. He asked about the third front-in solution. Ms. Grote said the third option was an optional nose-in stall which was not one of the required stalls which might never be used. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the option would be built. Ms. Grote replied yes. Mayor Wheeler closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether newer projects had come up with similar solutions to parking problems which blocked the garage. Ms. Grote replied not with a parallel space. Vice Mayor Huber asked about tandems. Ms. Grote said there were driveways in R-1 districts where people often parked a vehicle in the driveway, but not any new projects. Council Member Simitian said the option had been permitted in a recent remodeling job at his home. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved to continue the item at the request of the appellant to a date certain. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Simitian, to approve the staff recommendations to: 1. Find that the driveway parking plan approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment to be consistent with the following findings made by the City Council in approving the Planned Community (PC) District for this development
08/12/96 80-67
project. See Attachment #2A of the staff report (CMR:374:96), Standards for Architectural Review: Draft Finding Denying Appeal and Upholding the Approval of the Director of Planning and Community Environment 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court Approval of the driveway parking plan, as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and as recommended by the Architectural Review Board would not effect or require changes to the findings made by the City Council in approving the Planned Community (PC) District for this development project (Ordinance No. 4339). Specifically, approval of the driveway parking plan for Units #1-6, fronting Bryant Court, would comply with required conditions of project approval and as such, would be consistent with the findings supporting approval of this project. Furthermore, the driveway parking plan would be consistent with the findings that were made to approve this residential development project, in that, the plan would maximize use of land for parking without impacting or compromising the ample, private outdoor area that has been provided for each dwelling unit. 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment's approval of the Bryant Court driveway parking plan, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board. Vice Mayor Huber explained he was not present at the April 1996 City Council meeting on the particular project and was uncertain how he would have voted at the time. Council had sent the item to the ARB to find a solution. The result had been a solution which, although not particularly great, had been considered by the Transportation Division as minimally acceptable. It was probably as good as possible. More and more difficult decisions would be faced by the Council in attempting to meet the needs of parking and development. Council Member Andersen indicated he had spoken with the appellant prior to the meeting. Council Member Simitian indicated he had visited the site and received a call from the applicant, but had had a non-substantive discussion. Vice Mayor Huber indicated he had spoken with Mr. Frankel prior to his having read the material and was familiar with the site. Council Member Rosenbaum indicated he had had a discussion with the appellant and made a site visit. He referred to Council Member
McCown=s comments, who had expressed the most concern about the parking situation, on page 78-392 of the City Council minutes dated
08/12/96 80-68
March 18, 1996, which stated the intent of the Council was that something would be worked out and not left "dangling." Vice Mayor Huber had read the comments but queried where it left the Council. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the Council had intended something other than what had occurred. The applicant had submitted some alternative plans, which was all that had been formally required, on which basis the applicant was correct. Mayor Wheeler had been under the impression that when the Council approved both the PC application and the map, approval had been given to lot lines and footprints of buildings. If correct, the Council had left itself in a position which was less than optimal, with a very constrained site on which to work. If the Council had visualized a major rework of the parking which entailed the actual movement of buildings and lot lines, it would not have taken the action it had taken. The action was irrevocable because of not having been appealed. Ms. Grote said Mayor Wheeler was correct. Mayor Wheeler indicated she had had a conversation with Mr. Frankel regarding the process and continuations. MOTION PASSED 5-1, Andersen "no," Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent. RECESS: 10:41 P.M. - 10:49 P.M. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 14. Historic Resources Board Recommendation to Extend the Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 1531 College Avenue Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the Historic Resources Board recommended the Council extend the moratorium on issuance of a demolition permit for the single-family residence at 1531 College Avenue for one year until July 5, 1997. It was a Category I on the Historic Inventory, and several members of the neighborhood and a professor at Stanford University was interested in working with the property owner on a solution or alternative to demolition. Architectural Review Board member Carol Murden said the HRB recommended a one-year moratorium on 1531 College Avenue. The home was located in College Terrace, an area considered to be
historic, and was a Category I on Palo Alto=s Historic Inventory. The Queen Anne structure of that type of house was coming to an end in Palo Alto and was being replaced, in large part, with the shingle-style construction familiar in Professorville. For a short
08/12/96 80-69
period of time, Queen Anne cottages had been built in Palo Alto. Consequently, not many existed. The cottage located at 1531 College Avenue had the distinction of abundant and elaborate detailing on its exterior. The gable and bay ornamentation had been described as having been done with great delicacy and detail. The ornamentation and detail made the cottage extraordinary. The cottage was also part of the visual landscape of the neighborhodd in that at the intersection of College Avenue and Columbia there were two other Victorian-style houses. Having the three houses within close proximaty increased the individual impact of each, giving the area a definite character of its own. Palo Alto should not lose such an outstanding example of a Queen Anne cottage with its virtually unaltered exterior, ideal location, and historical and architectural heritage. Every effort should be made to work with the owner to find a way of preserving the cottage. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) requested an extension on the moratorium to give the owner, the HRB, members of the public interested in restoring the cottage, members of the community interested in preserving the cottage, or any other concerned individual the time to find an alternative solution to demolition. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke in favor of extending the moratorium. Palo Alto should remember College Terrace as an area in which many professors from Stanford University had lived. The cottage at 1531 College Avenue, although small, had value and should be retained. Destruction of historic homes decreased the value of neighborhoods. Vladimir ("Val") Taft, 1551 College Avenue, said the cottage at 1531 College Avenue had been a beautiful example of Queen Anne style architecture but had been abandoned for many years. Although not in favor of demolition, he was in favor of finding a resolution and not leaving the situation open-ended. One year would probably not assist in making a decision which had not been made since 1978. The current owner had no funds to restore the property, which was a safety and health hazard. If faced with a $20,000 demolition cost, the owner might reconsider selling to someone interested in restoration. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa, spoke on the condition of the house at 1531 College Avenue, which was not a hopeless situation, urging the Council to follow the staff and HRB recommendation. Although restoration might appear an overwhelming task, other houses in Palo Alto had been brought from destruction-by-neglect to beautifully restored homes. David Haskin, 1575 Stanford Avenue, said one year was a lengthy time for a resolution, and the Council should approve the recommendation. The house could be saved but would require a tremendous amount of work. Architectural drawings should be made of the house and the Gingerbread saved, regardless of the decision.
08/12/96 80-70
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, recommended the Council grant the moratorium, which could be shortened in the future if necessary. The cottage could be restored to its once pristine condition. Caution was expressed for what could occur on the very large lot should demolition occur. The neighborhood would be altered and physical history removed should the cottage be removed. Martin Bernstein, P.O. Box 1739, Palo Alto, said when the house had come before the HRB in July, the owner's representative had not appeared. The one-year moratorium would ensure sufficient time for the applicant and HRB to speak. Stephen Haigh, 1487 College Avenue, spoke in favor of the moratorium since the loss of the cottage would be a major loss to College Terrace. At the last HRB meeting, a discussion had taken place about rezoning College Terrace as an historic neighborhood. Even if the house could not be saved within a year, at least the lot could be preserved from being subdivided. Historic Resources Board Vice-Chairperson Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, said the parcel had come before the HRB five or six times and contact had never been made with the owner or a representative. Concern had been expressed about the loss of the house, and some people had suggested the house might be older than inventoried. Financing restoration of the house could be made through building another house on the property which could be sold. Council was urged to support the one-year moratorium. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to extend the moratorium on issuance of a demolition permit for 1531 College Avenue for a period of 12 months from the date of application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until July 5, 1997. Further, that the Mayor be directed to send a letter to the owner which acknowledges the importance of the home to the community, and to offer to facilitate in a transfer of the home to someone who would be willing to take care of it. Council Member Kniss said the cottage on 1531 College Avenue was in very bad condition. The problem was that the homes were privately owned and the City had made the decision not to interfere with property owned by private owners, other than to create a moratorium. The moratorium would hopefully allow time for some good decisions. In the meantime, she cautioned not to save the home unless more was done during the coming year. The ability to work well with the owner would make the difference in the end. The only solution was to allow the period of time to be extended in order to work within the system and save the home. Council Member Simitian recalled the role Mayor Wheeler had taken with the Byxbee house, and he encouraged Mayor Wheeler to express to the owner that the City had worked cooperatively with other owners who thought resotration was impossible.
08/12/96 80-71
Mayor Wheeler said she had visited the house and the situation was sad. However, beneath the sad exterior were many possibilities. The condition in which the Byxbee house had been at the time the City had first examined was not dissimilar to the cottage under question. By prolonging the moratorium, the City was not asking the property owner to invest any funds into the project. Offers had been made by individuals desiring to contribute to the property owners to achieve the aim of fixing the house. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Fazzino, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kniss asked about the electricity blackout in Palo Alto, suggesting the City prepare a press release or information regarding the occurrence. Council Member Andersen expressed regret in being unable to participate in some of the activities scheduled for the month of August. Mayor Wheeler said the City Council would be on a formal vacation from Tuesday, August 13, through Sunday, September 8, 1996. City Manager June Fleming said she had personally been in contact with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). There were no problems with Palo Alto's service, but the City relied upon the transmission services provided by PG&E. She apologized to the citizens of Palo Alto for any inconvenience that they experienced. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 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.
08/12/96 80-72