HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-12 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 12, 1996 1. Joint Session with Utilities Advisory Commission......80-415 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Dianne McKenna for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors...........................80-416 2. Appointments to Architectural Review Board............80-417 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-419 3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S7088922 between the City of Palo Alto and Calzada, Cates & Patterson Investigative Services to Increase Compensation Authority for Police Background Services...................................80-420 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Joseph J. Albanese, Inc. for Sidewalk Replacement Project; change orders not to exceed $75,000..........................80-420 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Eley Associates to Provide Design Review Services for Commercial and Industrial New Construction Demand Side Management(DSM)Projects as part of the Utility Marketing Services Programs.....................................80-420 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Carducci Landscape Architects, Inc. to Evaluate Landscape Irrigation Systems Through Field Audit Providing Recommendations to Customers.............................................80-420 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ..................80-420
11/12/96 80-413
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Permit Streamlining Implementation Plan-- Consideration of staffing changes, budget amendments, and adoption of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Fee Table 1-A to Offset the Increased Cost of Providing Building Inspection Services. (continued from 10/28/96....................80-420 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Arastradero Management Plan and a Request for Proposals for a Stewardship of the City-owned Arastradero Preserve and the Hewlett-Mullen Property. The agreement includes a five-year term with a five-year option to renew. Under the direction of City staff, 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. (continued from 11/4/96)....................80-421 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Review to consider comments of the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission concerning a project including Planned Community rezoning and possible Comprehensive Plan amendment for an approximately 52,400-square-foot office/commercial space addition to an existing office/commercial building located at 525 University Avenue, and relocation of another 22,200 square feet of basement retail above-grade and related site improvements to the property. File No. 96-DPR-1......80-437 10A. (Old Item No. 7) Resolution Declaring its Intention to Amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District Number 37....................................80-449 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........80-452 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m............80-453
11/12/96 80-414
11/12/96 80-415
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:52 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Huber, Simitian Utilities Advisory Commission PRESENT: Chandler, Eyerly, Johnston, Sahagian ABSENT: Gruen SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Session with Utilities Advisory Commission a. Opening Remarks--Paul Johnston
Π Introduction
Π Objective b. Compliance with the Brown Act in a Competitive Environment--Mark Chandler c. Capital Improvement Program Funding Alternatives and Their Effect on General Fund Transfers--Paul Johnston d. Restructuring of the Electric Industry--Fred Eyerly and James Sahagian
Π Stranded costs
Π Marketing outside City limits
Π Competition transmission charge and exit fees ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
11/12/96 80-416
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino,(arrived at 7:55 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived 8:05 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Dianne McKenna for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by McCown, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7632 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Dianne McKenna for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Dianne McKenna, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, said she had represented District 5 for the majority of her term and it was with deep affection that she had represented the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto had been very kind to her including the residents, the Council, and the staff. She could count on service whenever she needed help with an issue. Council had met with her on an annual basis to discuss issues and had provided input on issues which impacted not only Palo Alto but the rest of the community. She always reminded the other cities in the District that Palo Alto was the one city in her jurisdiction which continued to be interested in countywide issues. She believed the Council was fortunate in that it had an electorate who knew the issues, understood the issues, and tended to vote accordingly. Even though she was not a resident of Palo Alto, one of her greatest joys was her ability to represent the people of Palo Alto on the Board of Supervisors. The only thing which completed her going out of office was there would be a Council Member from Palo Alto who would be taking her seat in January and who would have the same commitment and dedication to the issues. She accepted the Resolution with great thanks and great joy in serving the community of Palo Alto. Council Member Simitian said the world of county politics was
sometimes a bit more Αrough and tumble≅ than what Palo Alto was
11/12/96 80-417
accustomed to. He had observed over the years a fair amount of politics, personalities, healthy egos, and turf battles. Dianne McKenna had stood apart from all of that in a very special way. She was someone who cared more about people, policy, common sense, and good representation. Palo Alto had been well-served
during the 12 years she had been the City=s representative. Were it not for term limits, he had no doubt Ms. McKenna could have stayed as long as she wanted. He thanked her for all the good work she had done for those in Palo Alto, as well as for those in the entire county. Council Member McCown said she had attended the 25th Anniversary celebration of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), chaired by Ms. McKenna, which also was an acknowledgment of her service to MTC. The CalTrain Board and the County Board of Supervisors would be holding events in the near future. She had served with Ms. McKenna on various boards and believed she had set an extraordinary example for all elected officials. The Resolution had left out one important piece of information; Ms. McKenna had the greatest laugh and greatest sense of humor. She thanked her on behalf of everyone for the opportunity to work with her over the years. Mayor Wheeler said as a citizen of a community, it was gratifying to know you were represented by an elected official whom you could trust to do the job well and faithfully. She had appreciated that as a citizen of Palo Alto. 2. Appointments to Architectural Review Board Council Member McCown commented there had been an excellent group of applicants. She would support Cheryl Piha on the first ballot who had done an excellent job in her first term. She would support Francisco Alfonso on the second ballot who had been a previous applicant. She was pleased he had applied a second time. Council Member Andersen also noted there had been an excellent pool of candidates. He would support Ms. Piha on the first ballot Joseph Bellomo on the second ballot. He believed Mr. Bellomo would provide an interesting prospective on the total ARB. Mayor Wheeler echoed the comments regarding the general pool of applicants. Besides supporting Cheryl Piha on the first ballot, she believed one candidate had already demonstrated a level of service to the Palo Alto community through his work with the Palo Alto Unified School District. Therefore, she would cast her second ballot for Lee Lippert.
11/12/96 80-418
RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ALFONSO: VOTING FOR BELLOMO: VOTING FOR JOUSTRA: VOTING FOR LANGEVIN: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: VOTING FOR PIHA: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Cheryl Piha received seven votes, with Council Members Fazzino and Kniss absent, and was appointed on the first ballot. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ALFONSO: McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR BELLOMO: Andersen, Huber VOTING FOR JOUSTRA: VOTING FOR LANGEVIN: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR PIHA: Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that no candidate received five votes and a third round of voting was in order. RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ALFONSO: Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR BELLOMO: VOTING FOR JOUSTRA:
11/12/96 80-419
VOTING FOR LANGEVIN: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Andersen, Simitian VOTING FOR PIHA: Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Francisco Alfonso received five votes, with Council Members Fazzino and Kniss absent, and was appointed on the third ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Neil O=Sullivan, 362 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding Scott Park. Michael Midolo, 362 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding Scott Park. Tony Carrasco, 4216 Darlington Court, spoke regarding Green Acres I and Glenbrook Court access agreement. Dave Ramsey, 3817 Carlson, spoke regarding the Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) School relocation. T.J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding parking spaces. Michael Wollenweber, Green Street, spoke regarding the Institute for Research Learning concerning kindergarten children. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding Foothills Park. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Foothills Park trails used by bikers. Richard Ferguson, 1037 Harker, representing the Civic League, spoke regarding the first open session. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 6. 3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S7088922 between the City of Palo Alto and Calzada, Cates & Patterson Investigative Services to Increase Compensation Authority for Police Background Services 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Joseph J.
11/12/96 80-420
Albanese, Inc. for Sidewalk Replacement Project; change orders not to exceed $75,000. 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Eley Associates to Provide Design Review Services for Commercial and Industrial New Construction Demand Side Management(DSM)Projects as part of the Utility Marketing Services Programs 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Carducci Landscape Architects, Inc. to Evaluate Landscape Irrigation Systems Through Field Audit Providing Recommendations to Customers MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3 - 6. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 7 had been removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Simitian and would become Item No. 10A. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to bring Item No. 8 forward for the purpose of continuance to a date to be determined by staff. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Permit Streamlining Implementation Plan--Consideration of staffing changes, budget amendments, and adoption of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Fee Table 1-A to Offset the Increased Cost of Providing Building Inspection Services. (continued from 10/28/96) MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Arastradero Management Plan and a Request for Proposals for a Stewardship of the City-owned Arastradero Preserve and the Hewlett-Mullen Property. The agreement includes a five-year term with a five-year option to renew. Under the direction of City staff, 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. (continued from 11/4/96)
Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said
11/12/96 80-421
Council had approved the Arastradero Preserve Project Work Plan (the Plan) on May 13, 1996. Item 9 addressed Element IV of the Plan to explore the possibility of a public/private partnership for both the structural work and habitat restoration implementation steps with respect to the stewardship concept. The Arastradero Management Plan and Proposed Stewardship Agreement (the Management Plan) and Request for Proposals (RFP) before Council were closely linked. As staff had indicated when the Plan had been approved, the purpose of the Management Plan was to outline specific objectives and tasks intended to implement Council's direction for the Preserve. Council's direction had been for a "low intensity, minimal cost park with emphasis on the natural and open space amenities of the land and sensitivity to the fragile foothill ecology." The Plan had begun with the general policy direction as a foundation on which was constructed the proposed approach to implementation through interpretive services and research, open space management, habitat protection, and construction and maintenance of facilities. The Plan made specific the responsibilities and tasks of the proposed Steward, as well as detailing the responsibility of the City departments active on the Preserve, including the Community Services, Open Space & Sciences, Public Works, Utilities, and Fire Departments. The Plan recognized that Council was the ultimate source of policy direction for the use of the Preserve. A meeting had been held at the Palo Alto Cultural Center on August 21, 1996, (the public meeting) to review the proposed Management Plan, prior to which 350 copies of the draft Management Plan had been mailed to local and regional environmental organizations and agencies, neighbors of the Preserve, and interested citizens. The draft Management Plan became the final Management Plan. In addition, fliers had been posted and copies of the Plan had been made available at the Civic Center, Lucie Stern Community Center, Junior Museum & Zoo, Foothills Park, and the City's six libraries. The comments staff received at the public meeting had been summarized in the staff report (CMR:423:96), along with letters received from interested parties unable to attend the public meeting. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had also been performed and was attached to the staff report as an exhibit. The Stewardship RFP was intended to solicit a commitment for a five-year term with an option to renew for an additional five years. The Steward would operate under the direction of the Superintendent of Open Space & Sciences Division in carrying out the activities outlined in the Plan. Staff had presumed the activities would be undertaken at little or no cost to the City. Staff's understanding of the process for funding of the Preserve activities from the newly created Arastra Fund was important, since the question had been asked both in the public meeting and subsequent written
11/12/96 80-422
communications with staff. The process envisioned by staff was for Council to receive a proposed plan with each year's budget for activities to be carried out on the Preserve. Funding for said activities could come from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the General Fund operating budget, or requested from the Arastra Fund. The Steward was contemplated to perform both financial and volunteer support for activities on the Preserve, and would not petition the Arastra Fund directly for funding of activities. All such requests would come through the City after Council review and approval. The Plan referred to a modest gateway facility. Exploration of the concept of such a facility had been part of Council's direction for the Preserve. Staff had proposed a process involving a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) to assist in development of the concept. Staff would begin on the CAC element of the Plan after a Steward was selected and the agreement with the Steward was well underway. Following Council approval, the RFP would be circulated with a request for responses by December 17, 1996. Staff anticipated returning to Council in late January or early February 1997 with a recommendation on a Preserve Steward. An interdepartmental team composed of staff from Public Works, Community Services, Administrative Services, and the City Attorney's Office had been working since May 1996 to coordinate implementation of the five elements of the Plan. A report on December 2, 1996, would be provided from the Public Works Department regarding contracts to remove the structures on the Preserve and with regard to the recycling element Council had requested for inclusion in the dismantling of the structures on the Preserve. Vice Mayor Huber asked for a detailed account of the use of the fund and access by the Steward. Ms. Harrison said both the Management Plan and the stewardship agreement envisioned the Steward working under the direction of John Walton, Superintendent of Open Space & Sciences, who would be responsible to develop an annual plan for the Preserve which could receive funding from the City and/or the Arastra Fund. Having an independent Steward directly petitioning the Arastra Fund was considered inappropriate. Everything would be prioritized under Mr. Walton's direction. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the RFP contained any reference to the possibility of having funds available through the Arastra Fund, albeit through the City. Ms. Harrison hoped staff had been consistent throughout all documents in indicating the Steward would not have direct access to the Arastra Fund.
11/12/96 80-423
Vice Mayor Huber wanted to be sure the funding mechanism was clear to interested parties with funding difficulties. Ms. Harrison said the Arastra Fund was intended to support the activities on the Preserve and would presumably be one of the sources of funding for the overall activity, some of which would be handled by City staff and some by the Steward. Council Member McCown asked whether someone could realistically expect to respond to the RFP without a commitment from the City to assist with the costs of performing the function. Ms. Harrison said staff anticipated that anyone who responded would have resources from which to draw either from a volunteer service base or financial base and would be able to generate income from activities on the Preserve as long as the income generated was then used for the Preserve. People were not being precluded from generating income through the stewardship responsibilities. Council Member McCown was interested in how the public would respond to the financial aspect, since it seemed unlikely people would be willing to respond. Even volunteers needed a core-funded organizing element to organize volunteers. She asked whether staff had considered incorporating into both the Plan and the RFP at least the expectation, if not commitment, that the public/private partnership would contain an indication of the participation of both the City and the Arastra Fund in supporting the activities a Steward would propose. Ms. Harrison said no intent had been made to preclude such participation. The intent was to ensure the funds remained in the budget process and that Council was the one to approve activities on the Preserve and the related funding. Council Member McCown was unsure the document conveyed the availability of City participation in funding as part of an RFP response. City Manager June Fleming said Council Member McCown had raised a good point about the clarity of staff's plan and she indicated an effort would be made to ensure the RFP contained a better explanation. The sources were available for use for the Preserve. Staff had not anticipated, nor would it recommend, that funding take place outside of the budget cycle or that any group have access to the Arastra Fund other than through City staff. The resources, however, were available. If unclear,
11/12/96 80-424
staff would reexamine the documents to ensure clarity. Council Member McCown asked whether staff had a backup plan if no proposals were received in response to the RFP such as how removal of structures on the Preserve, etc., would occur if no public/private partnership resulted from the RFP. Ms. Harrison said removal of the structures was a separate issue. A nonprofit group would participate in the recycling element, which would occur whether or not a Steward was found. The Steward position was intended as a leverage to the City's very scarce resources devoted to the Preserve. If the response indicated leverage was impossible, staff would continue supporting he Preserve with what was available, with the additional financial benefit of the Arastra Fund. Council Member McCown thought a backup plan was necessary in order to proceed with the restoration activities if, for some reason, no response was received from the RFP. A substantial period of time should not lapse. Ms. Harrison said a backup plan would utilize City staff for the habitat restoration element through a request from the Arastra Fund to undertake funding of the activities. Council Member McCown understood the concept of timing in pursuit of the gateway facility related to the stewardship opportunity, but asked what would occur if the interest on the Steward's part was tied to availability of a facility out of which to run activities. The City might receive a response to the RFP indicating interest but only after a facility was available, i.e., a gateway facility. Ms. Harrison said feedback from the public meeting had indicated a difference of opinion among users of the Preserve and potential responders to the RFP concerning a gateway facility and its appropriateness on a low-impact natural preserve. The element of a CAC could be removed and staff could move directly into the planning stages for a gateway facility. However, given the lack of agreement during the public meeting, the process might be delayed later if people failed to have the vision for the gateway facility as a Steward might envision. Comments had ranged from not wanting a gateway facility at all, to a port-a-potty and drinking fountain. The vision of a natural preserve might be left behind by having a gateway facility. Ms. Fleming said staff's long-held recommendation, upheld by the original Arastra Committee which had brought the proposal to
11/12/96 80-425
Council and supported by Council, was for the Preserve to be a low-intensity park with low usage. The issue raised by Council Member McCown was discussed among staff when receiving direction for development of the RFP. Staff understood the desire expressed for the Preserve to be a low-key facility, which was a philosophical policy issue staff had maintained throughout the process. If responses to the RFP differed from the policy, there would be a real point of discussion and disagreement. Council Member Schneider asked how the increased usage with the proposed amenities such as drinking fountain, horse watering trough, restroom, trash receptacles, picnic bench, etc., would be monitored and controlled. Open Space & Sciences Director John Walton said staff intended to monitor the Preserve which was linked with the stewardship concept. Although the Steward would not have direct contact with visitors to the Preserve, the Steward would be staff's eyes and ears in terms of an increased presence on the Preserve. Council Member Schneider asked whether any measures would be taken to limit usage if staff found the increased usage moved beyond what had been envisioned as a low-impact park. Mr. Walton said one option involved removal of the amenities and returning the park to its existing status. Council Member Schneider asked whether Mr. Walton's suggestion was a possibility. Mr. Walton replied yes. The decision would be based on usage and whether the particular section of the Preserve was suffering adversely from an increased visitation. Council Member Schneider asked about the additional 35 parking spaces. Mr. Walton said staff proposed retaining the existing parking situation and had not proposed any gravel or improvements to the existing overflow parking area. Currently, staff was considering keeping the existing parking structure intact. Council Member Schneider noticed in the staff report (CMR:423:96) reference to at least three committees: the Arastra Fund Advisory Committee, the existing CAC, and an Arastradero Advisory Committee. Ms. Harrison said the Arastra Fund Advisory Committee was composed of three City staff members and two community
11/12/96 80-426
representatives which would ensure that requests for funding from the Arastra Fund were appropriate according to the donors' requests. The Arastra Preserve CAC had been responsible for the original conceptual master plan which had been disbanded. Staff proposed reconstituting another CAC to assist in the gateway issues and some of the other issues with which staff would need to deal in terms of Preserve policy. Council Member Schneider asked whether the CAC referred to on page 9 of the staff report (CMR:423:96) and the Arastra Advisory Committee referred to on page 13 of Attachment 1 were one and the same and no longer existed. Ms. Harrison said the two had somewhat similar missions but were not the same committee nor comprised of the same people. A new CAC was envisioned which was not currently active. Mr. Walton said the existing CAC referred to on page 9 of the staff report (CMR:423:96) was an ad hoc group of citizens who had been working with City staff on issues related to the Arastradero Dam spillway and creek CIP process. Staff anticipated the group would continue its involvement with staff on that aspect of the process, which was separate from other groups to which staff had referred. Council Member Schneider clarified the other group mentioned had been disbanded and a new group would be formed, resulting in two CAC groups on the Arastra Fund. Mr. Walton replied yes. Council Member Andersen asked about a breakdown of funds set aside for the modest structure, which had not yet been determined. Ms. Harrison said the rough estimate which had been given for the cost of moving the old structures down to the road had become the estimate for the gateway facility. However, nothing was contained in the Arastra Fund which would require a specific amount be set aside for the gateway facility. Council Member Andersen asked whether staff intended to ensure that Arastra Funds were not used to replace existing City resources currently being used to maintain Arastra properties. Ms. Harrison replied yes. Few resources were being directed toward maintenance of the Preserve currently. The Arastra Fund would augment current resources.
11/12/96 80-427
Council Member Andersen asked whether the existing Arastra funds included staff equivalents as well.
Ms. Harrison replied yes, to the extent a ranger=s presence existed on the Preserve. Council Member Andersen referenced the fact that if the facilities required repair to water, gas, and wastewater utilities, the City had the legal right to tear up the territory, as seen in the last paragraph of page 16 of the City of Palo Alto Management Plan for the Arastradero Preserve (corrected version dated 8/5/96). However, he questioned the extent to which such work could be avoided. Mr. Walton said staff would have to examine the issue on a case-by-case basis. Staff faced major problems in the Preserve because of the major utility lines for the upper foothills which went directly through the middle near the road. Within recent years, staff had been working with the Utilities Department and other City staff to examine environmental impacts and issues related to any Utilities Department activity on the Preserve. The dialogue and collaborative effort would continue, even if a major situation developed. Council Member Simitian said the Steward would want to know what the benefits were and the ability to access funds through Council and the budget process so the stewardship was reasonably well funded. The linkage between serving as a Steward and the use of a facility were less clearly delineated. The differing visions about the gateway facility had created uncertainty, and he questioned the relationship between the work of the Steward and the use of the facility. Ms. Fleming said staff's recommendations were consistent with Council's vision and direction and clearly stated in every document concerning Arastradero, i.e., that the Preserve be a low-intensity use with consideration given to a modest gateway facility. Council Member Simitian questioned the relationship between the Steward and access to and use of the facility, whatever its size, shape, or form. If the City were ambiguous about the use of funds and access to a facility, the question Council Member McCown had asked about why anyone would want to be a Steward without a facility would be relevant. Ms. Fleming clarified the Steward would have access to the modest
11/12/96 80-428
facility. Council Member Simitian thought the access question was unclear in the documents and might affect any responses. Ms. Fleming said staff would clarify the access issue in the documents, if necessary. Mayor Wheeler asked whether explicit or implied priorities were contained in the documents for use of the Arastra Fund, i.e., whether strings were attached. Ms. Harrison said the funds were to be applied to the removal of the structures, habitat restoration, and, to the extent funding remained, the creation of a modest gateway facility. Funding would exceed the "strings," which the donor apparently was aware would occur and intended, in order to preserve an ongoing fiscal relationship, to support the Preserve. Mayor Wheeler asked whether constraints on certain uses of the funds, in terms of practicality, would fit in with the time line in the initial presentation. She asked how comfortable a potential Steward applicant might be in the availability and to what extent there might be availability of funds, understanding the need to go through the normal budgeting process. If the level of the "pot" was $.5 million, she asked whether $200,000 or some other figure might be available to assist in supporting the ongoing activities of the Steward. Ms. Harrison said staff had received a fairly good estimate for the removal of the structures and the recycling element, which would be within or below budget. Staff had not obtained good numbers on the habitat restoration element once the structures were removed. Estimates could be made concerning a modest gateway facility, assuming anything beyond was unencumbered in the Arastra Fund. The remainder might not be available for activities of the Steward since the Preserve had a number of deferred needs. Council should see the entire plan for the Preserve and not merely allocate the excess in the Arastra Fund to the Steward until seen. Many needs at the Preserve had been neglected for want of funding, which should be prioritized in total and not designated for Steward activities only. Council Member Schneider asked whether the City still planned to use elements from the main house and/or the barn for the gateway facility. Ms. Harrison said the Public Works Department was very proud of
11/12/96 80-429
the plan for relocating the barn and recycling elements from the house which would be presented to Council a few weeks hence. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office) said restoration in the Plan should emphasize use of what was available rather than planting new foliage, encouraging habitat restoration prior to new construction, fencing, obstacles, proper signage, etc. The Utilities and Fire Departments should make contributions when damages occurred. The Steward should not be expected to clean up public facilities such as graffiti, litter, waste receptacles, etc. David Houston, 895 La Honda Road, Woodside, visited the Arastradero Preserve two to three times per month and had worked with others to plant and water Valley Oaks in the area, removing non-native thistle, etc., and had witnessed mountain bikers on non-bicycle trails which eroded the area. James Steinmetz, 886 Loma Verde, representing Bay Area Action (BAA), expressed support for the Management Plan, recognizing staff members who had worked on the Plan as being attentive to the BAA needs. A great many possibilities existed with the Preserve for which the Plan brought definition; however, the Plan fell short in the area of the facility. BAA had expressed interest in the stewardship position because the facility already existed and had only agreed to relocation of the house, not removal. The facility should be defined. Increased public use would not result from the Steward's presence. BAA was interested in a modest gateway facility. Council was encouraged to add definition to the issue of the asset of the Arastra house and how it would be replaced. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there would be any virtue in delaying the RFP until a policy decision was made concerning building a facility on the Preserve. Mr. Steinmetz supported of moving forward and wanted the process to keep moving along at its current rate so the work could be started. The replacement of the asset might be either a policy or community decision. Many people in the community were upset about the asset being removed. Replacement would alleviate some of the upset in the community. The issue would not rest until a decision about the Arastra house was settled. Council Member Schneider was surprised Mr. Steinmetz considered the Arastra house an asset, asking what type of facility was
11/12/96 80-430
envisioned as the best of all possible worlds. Mr. Steinmetz replied something between 2,500 and 4,000 square feet which included living quarters for either a Steward or ranger. The facility should be built with state-of-the-art, environmentally sustainable construction techniques using sensitivity without the extensive use of bulldozers and other heavy machinery, in an unobtrusive manner, and set so as to be hardly visible. Enough space should be included in the facility for research, education, and stewardship activities. Council Member Schneider asked where Mr. Steinmetz would site the facility. Mr. Steinmetz said the most appropriate location for any facility was the Bressler Property. He would head up any community effort to bring about joining the Bressler Property with the Preserve. A site which had already been built on would be preferred. Council Member Andersen asked whether Mr. Steinmetz' response had been for a "modest" facility which he had previously requested. Mr. Steinmetz said 4,000 square feet was the maximum size for a facility which could be considered "modest." A more appropriately termed modest facility would range in size between 2,500 and 3,500 square feet, if implemented by people concerned about the amount of traffic pertaining to an open space preserve. Council Member Andersen asked how much of the $350,000 initially offered was anticipated for use toward the modest facility. Mr. Steinmetz said when the negotiations had taken place, to the extent BAA had been included, the $350,000 had been mentioned as the minimum and efforts would be made to increase the amount. BAA had always anticipated more would be put into the structure. Council Member Andersen asked whether Mr. Steinmetz had anticipated all of the funds being used for the facility itself. Mr. Steinmetz said if true cutting-edge sustainable construction techniques were used, the entire amount would not be necessary. A 2,500 to 3,500 square foot facility could be built for less than $250,000, if done correctly with cutting-edge techniques, volunteer labor, and other donations BAA would assist in acquiring. Council Member Andersen clarified recycling the materials could also assist in the cost.
11/12/96 80-431
Mr. Steinmetz agreed. If the community process were followed and the Stewards were considered in whatever development took place, the Steward's input would lead to a facility which was inexpensive to build and to maintain while remaining highly utilitarian. Council Member Kniss thought the facility envisioned by Mr. Steinmetz was a bit grander than Council had planned querying whether using the recycled materials was the goal. Mr. Steinmetz said issues would arise on December 2, 1996, which might change some aspect of the use of recycled materials. BAA had planned to assist in support of an organization in East Palo Alto, known as "EPA Can Do," which was purported to begin a venture to start a business selling recycled and reprocessed construction materials and household goods. Originally, BAA had offered to donate materials which could not be sold or used to the organization. After discovering that a full-scale barn was located on the property which could be used as a facility for selling the reused materials, BAA had run the idea by the Public Works Department. Public Works had agreed to use the barn in its entirety as the optimal way to proceed. BAA advocated that the barn be given to the City of East Palo Alto, or EPA Can Do which was a nonprofit. Mayor Wheeler thought the discussion had moved beyond the scope of the agenda item at hand. Mr. Steinmetz said the Public Works Department was very concerned about the amount of lead paint and asbestos in the wall board at the Arastra house. BAA had not defined whether or not it would have access, although there was debate about whether the quantities of asbestos and lead paint would become airborne. Ms. Fleming said Council's December 1, 1996, agenda would contain the item about which Mr. Steinmetz had addressed. The issue before Council at the current meeting only dealt with the RFP. The enthusiasm of BAA was appreciated and respected but was not the item before Council. BAA was presenting information, which although sincere and genuine, should be drafted in a way to which other proposers could respond. Council Member Kniss understood whatever could be done would be done to salvage and reuse the facility and would be disappointed if the entire item turned out to be a ruse. Ms. Harrison said the Public Works Department would need to respond to the challenges which staff had encountered. Hazardous
11/12/96 80-432
materials testing on the house had come into the picture. In response to Council's direction about recycling and reuse, to the maximum extent possible, staff had come up with some creative extensions in a way to completely reuse the house in a nonprofit manner. Council Member Kniss asked whether the $350,000, which she recalled having been discussed, would be augmented. Mr. Steinmetz replied yes. The fund was growing and was well over $.5 million. No matter what happened with the hazardous materials aspect of the property, a good deal of the materials would go into a facility and could be reused. Council Member McCown asked about the size of the Interpretive Center in Foothills Park. Mr. Walton was unable to provide the exact figures but thought the Foothills Interpretive Center was substantially larger than the Baylands Interpretive Center. David Smernoff, 340 Palo Alto Avenue No. C, Mountain View, Chairperson for Bay Area Action and Director of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District representing Mountain View and Los Altos, had been working on Arastradero for over a year. Staff was commended for its great job in pulling together the issues to enhance the Preserve and providing for a novel public/private partnership. BAA's original proposal had included programmatics, funding, and facilities. Council's questions had addressed all three issues which were all necessary for BAA's programs. Without the facility, BAA's ability to conduct programs would diminish. Suggestions for language clarification were given regarding the facility. Ellie Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, representing the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Conservation Committee, spoke regarding the preservation and restoration of California native plants and the need for the removal of weeds. Aspects of the Plan which disturbed the soil would make the process of weed removal more difficult. Mowing was recommended rather than discing. The utilities should be routed in a different manner. The Steward should be supported and advised in weed removal by being encouraged to attend the California Exotic Plant Council. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said Council was responsible for approving the final language of the Plan. The RFP needed to describe how much money was available over a multi-year period, make a determination about the kind of work to be accomplished
11/12/96 80-433
with the money, and the responder should indicate how much the work would cost to accomplish. A Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) would be necessary to fit within the suggestion of the City Manager for the project to go through the budget process. In May, Council had indicated there might be a modest facility with emphasis on habitat restoration. Ms. Harrison had indicated the CAC would also deal with Preserve policy, which language should be clarified in the Plan. Rather than building the Utilities road, the utilities could be moved under Alexis Drive when it was being reworked to add the ducting. The trail system was discussed with regard to access to Foothills Park and closing off volunteer trails which had been created. Arastra Preserve was the wrong place for a residence. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member McCown said the language of the motion previously adopted by Council with respect to a potential facility had been worded in terms of exploring that potential and use of materials from existing structures. The motion was worded that way because it was not the center of the concept Council was debating. The suggestion to give a stronger direction to staff concerning reuse of materials might not have been correct. In terms of staff's next step, she asked whether a more definitive direction from Council along the lines of directing staff to actually pursue the development of a structure consistent with the prior action was necessary. Ms. Harrison said staff anticipated the next step as assembling the CAC and beginning work on the conceptual design which would move into the Public Works' CIP process. No plan had been made for a CIP project but, knowing there was independent funding, staff was not uncomfortable having it on the same CIP process. The project could be inserted into the process at some later point in time. Council Member McCown clarified staff's next step would be pursuit of the design and development of a modest public facility as an addition to the Preserve without changing the wording of the prior motion. Ms. Harrison replied yes. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Arastradero Preserve Management Plan, Request for Proposal for a Preserve Steward and the proposed agreement with the Preserve Steward. Further, the addition of making explicit in the Request For Proposals the opportunity for funding for
11/12/96 80-434
Stewardship activities through the City of Palo Alto budget process, including application to the Arastra Fund. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to pursue the development of a modest public facility to be used in conjunction with the stewardship concept in a manner consistent with existing policy for the use of the Preserve as a low-intensity park. Vice Mayor Huber said a substantial number of people had been prepared to move the existing facilities on the site without benefit of building anything else. "Modest" should be viewed from having nothing there. Council Member Andersen had not been persuaded to "give away the store," unless a modest facility was considered, similar to what had been mentioned in public testimony. The Work Plan which would come before Council would contain a defined structural recommendation, anticipating more definition as to location, and move away from the "gateway" notion in its connotation of added activities, suggesting the term "gateway" be removed. Support was given to the City making a commitment to provide an alternate facility which could accommodate research. Council Member Schneider agreed with Vice Mayor Huber about the Arastra house and preferred a facility with less "Taj" and more "to." Concern was expressed about overuse of the property, with the desire that it not become another Foothills Park because of its fragile ecology. With the added amenities on the property and the addition of a facility, additional use would probably be encouraged. While in support of the motion, strong misgivings were expressed about overuse. Council Member Rosenbaum said had it not been for opposition by the people on John Martens Lane, a hostel would currently be located on the property and regarded as a low-intensity use consistent with the Preserve. Council Member Kniss agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum in not wanting anything done. Use would be intensified with the changes. If the City had not had to cave in to the demands, a very low-intensity, low-use facility would be on the property which would not be substituted for another. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion, believing the motion reflected the commitment of Council to assure a low-intensity use of the Preserve. The approach being taken long-term would far better assure that the property remained in its most natural
11/12/96 80-435
state. The gateway proposal was a better long-term solution for everyone involved. The hostel proposal had not been approved unanimously by Council but was a split vote with much disagreement. The City was in a much better position than it had been ten years prior with the hostel. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS FROM 9:40 P.M. TO 9:58 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Review to consider comments of the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission concerning a project including Planned Community rezoning and possible Comprehensive Plan amendment for an approximately 52,400-square-foot office/commercial space addition to an existing office/commercial building located at 525 University Avenue, and relocation of another 22,200 square feet of basement retail above-grade and related site improvements to the property. File No. 96-DPR-1. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the item involved a preliminary review under the City's relatively new procedure by which the City was able to review projects prior to a formal application being filed. The City review would provide feedback to the applicant to assist in the decision as to whether or not to file an application. No motions or recommendations would be necessary. In Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission minutes, individual comments had been provided about the project. When Council referred the item to the Planning Commission and ARB, it had identified eight questions which needed to be addressed in the staff report (CMR:463:96). The Planning Commission and ARB generally expressed caution to strong encouragement to the applicant to proceed further. Council needed to provide its reactions and comments to enable the applicant to make a decision on whether or not to proceed to the formal Planned Community (PC) Zone change process and, should Council determine to move forward, make decisions on how to shape the application package and conduct community outreach efforts. Planning Commissioner Owen Byrd said the staff report (CMR:463:96) summarized the Planning Commission comments on each of the eight issues Council had identified. Three specific recommendations were highlighted. Under the issue of the public benefit package, uses for the atrium were identified. A long conversation had ensued in the Planning Commission in response to
11/12/96 80-436
the applicant's suggestion concerning public uses of the atrium which, while encouraging, caused the Planning Commission to desire to move further than the proposal in terms of creating a truly public space unique in Palo Alto. The atrium envisioned by the Planning Commission would provide a full range of possibilities including a food court, frequent performances, other public activities, etc. A proposed package of activities for usage of the space which could become an indoor park, used year-round, and truly public in nature was sought. With regard to public art, the Planning Commission was divided between individuals wanting to allow the artist full expression and individuals wanting to modify the proposal. Concern was raised about art-by-committee and equally strong concerns about the art as currently proposed. Regarding community involvement in the process, Commissioner Schink had raised the issue of having the applicant reach out to the community to assist the Planning Commission in gauging the sense of support, especially in the adjacent neighborhood, for changes to the existing site. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Steven W. Player, 1874 Guinda Street, representing the applicant, CM Capital, said the preliminary review process had included presentations to the ARB, Planning Commission, discussions with neighborhood representatives, discussions with the Public Arts Commission (PAC), members of City staff, and Chamber of Commerce, and he was encouraged by the responses. Consideration had been given to advice received, and the applicant was being responsive to those concerns. Richard Campbell, architect, Hoover Associates, 1900 Embarcadero Road, gave a brief presentation of the project, the original being designed in 1964 by Tally Mall had received the "First Honor Award" from the American Institute of Architects, and had been considered a very fine building. However, the building currently had many shortcomings. From a design standpoint, the building no longer worked and could be changed, but there were issues which could not be addressed. The amenities at the sidewalk level, which was the aspect most people saw, could be changed. Slides were shown to describe some of the problems with the building such as the lack of a presence on University Avenue, the existence of a plaza which was a missed opportunity, and the way the building turned its back on Palo Alto and presented a blank face toward the major commercial part of Palo Alto. The entrance would be moved to University Avenue and an interesting entry created with canopies and the courtyard converted into an atrium. The space could be used for any number of different options, including an art gallery. Treatment on the wall was
11/12/96 80-437
suggested. An arcade-type structure could be used to tie the entrance of the building closer to the surrounding commercial area to create an interesting element. He presented design suggestions on an overhead projector and a model. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the developer would have any options for beautifying the building if the proposal were not supported. Mr. Schreiber said the site was built out at a 3:1 floor area ratio (FAR). If the modifications added square footage, the only alternative would be a Planned Community (PC) Zone. Changes could be made at the ground floor level in terms of minor changes which would not involve square footage and would involve an ARB review as with other properties Downtown. However, enclosing the atrium created square footage and would require the PC Zone. Council Member Fazzino clarified the PC Zone was the only alternative before Council if interested in improving the look of the property, although the project could be changed in some way. Mr. Schreiber thought the tension in discussions between the applicant and staff about the project revolved around the fact that the cost of trying to address the pedestrian level problems was viewed by the applicant as significant enough that a notable amount of square footage was necessary as an offset. The building was fully leased at all times and was a high demand building. The applicant would not need to make any changes to the pedestrian facade, i.e., the applicant had little motivation to do anything in terms of the existing rental situation. The desire for additional square footage was a trade-off for the pedestrian-related upgrades and the cost of adding square footage. Council Member McCown asked whether the improvements contemplated for the ground floor would solve the applicant's definition of the problems of the building from a pedestrian standpoint, setting aside the economic questions. Mr. Campbell said the improvements would not alleviate the pedestrian problems entirely. If the third floor were not added, the atrium would be a much different kind of space. One side of the atrium was formed by the existing high-rise building and the other three sides were formed by the existing two-story buildings with the addition of a third floor and a new building in the rear. Council Member McCown asked whether making use of the existing
11/12/96 80-438
plaza space with a ground floor change only solved what the applicant viewed as the problems of the building, i.e., enclosing the plaza space to make it less subject to the wind problem, etc. Mr. Campbell said much could be accomplished with the arcades in the front and with treatment along the Cowper elevation, creating more of a presence on University Avenue. The atrium could not be created with concentration on the first floor only. Council Member Kniss said the large amount of square footage of the building had often been mentioned, and Council Member McCown had asked about solving the problem without adding the amount of square footage as proposed. Mr. Campbell said from a design standpoint, many things could be done. From an economic standpoint, a problem would arise. The project was the result of examining a number of schemes. One scheme added area to the main building which, in some ways, was very attractive because the same core could be used for a larger floor plate. The proposed plan seemed to work the best with the owner's objectives in terms of economics coupled with design. Council Member Kniss asked whether the applicant had an alternate plan if Council indicated the project created more square footage than the City thought the area could tolerate. Mr. Campbell said no scheme had been examined which had not involved adding space. Council Member Kniss asked whether only 25 or 30 could be added rather than 50. Mr. Campbell said schemes which added less space had been examined. In some cases, economics had been the governing factor. Council Member Kniss said no matter how much space was added, the more space, the more advantageous to the applicant. Mr. Campbell said as an architect, many of the design issues could be addressed. Whatever space was added, ways could be found to resolve some of the design issues. Economically, however, the plans might not be something with which the owner wanted to proceed. Dennis Backlund, 488 University Avenue #503, said Palo Altans had taken pride in construction of the 525 University building as its first skyscraper which had been deliberately forbidding to
11/12/96 80-439
achieve dominance, but architectural ideals had changed. Rather than addressing the base of the building, he suggested the Council encourage the Council to study economically feasible ways to improve the appearance of the tower and elevator superstructure which dominated and partially determined the character of Downtown, with suggestions including painting or resurfacing the structure to make it lighter or warmer, adding appropriate design elements to the elevator superstructure to mitigate the coldness, and pierced-brick structure built around the antennas. Mitigation of the forbidding appearance of the 15-story tower should be urged as a potentially great aesthetic public benefit to help justify a PC Zone for the project. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, spoke regarding the traffic problems Downtown and the effects of increased square footage, encouraging the applicant to conduct further discussions with surrounding property owners. She suggested Council review the EIR caps prior to approving any significant projects Downtown. Judith Wasserman, Co-Chairperson of the Public Art Commission (PAC), 751 Southampton Drive, spoke regarding the art proposals as part of the public benefit package of the proposed project. The visual art proposals had not formally been presented to the PAC, but several informal meetings had been held with the applicant. Approval was given to the glass sentinels, especially the scale and size. The public gallery had been presented as an annex of the Cultural Center, which was appealing to all PAC members. The concept and quality of the art elements were commended. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, spoke regarding the lack of contact with the Palo Alto North neighborhood by the applicant and that the project had not been changed to reflect public comments made during the initial Planning Commission preliminary hearing. The grossly oversized 52,000-square-foot project was disturbing with little or no retail, inadequate parking, located at one of the worst intersections in Palo Alto, traffic problems, and the complication of the valet parking concept. Allowing one project to absorb 15 percent of the potential growth Downtown was significant, and the project was seriously out of synch with the City's urban design, FAR, and public benefit guidelines and policies. He urged Council to seriously consider the implications of the project prior to allowing it to proceed. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, spoke regarding the design of the proposed project, which was not the right scale. The arcade would deaden the front of the building. The art, although interesting, was misplaced, and caution should be given to the
11/12/96 80-440
atrium. The increased traffic on University Avenue was ruining the street. She suggested closure of University Avenue to the freeway to preserve neighborhoods. Mayor Wheeler asked Ms. Wilson to comment on a basic planning premise that a selling feature of a building 15 stories tall was that it left much more open space for public enjoyment, while the proposed plan appeared to fill in the open space. Ms. Wilson said the building presented opportunities to leave the open spaces, which could be enriched with art, plantings, etc., and would draw people back into the space. The third story on the two lower elements appeared unnecessary. The building needed to be penetrable visually and physically. Density was offset by open space. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Schneider asked how many employees currently worked in the building compared with the projected number of employees with the additional 52,000 square feet. Henry Jong, CM Capital, said the current number of employees in the building was slightly under 700 employees. The project would add approximately 180 to 200 employees. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the focused EIR would respond to questions raised by members of the public such as whether changes in use had changed the situation sufficiently to cause the City to question whether it really wanted to add 50,000 square feet in the area. Mr. Schreiber said the EIR would examine environmental issues related to traffic, parking, wind issues, etc., as well as a number of alternatives. Clearly, a smaller project was one alternative. The challenge for Council, and the purpose of prescreening, was to provide clear sufficient information to allow the applicant to make an informed decision as to whether or not to proceed with the project and whether it was worthwhile to move into the EIR and planned development stages. Council Member Rosenbaum expressed mixed feelings about the project and was unprepared to provide a clear indication of a decision. The proposed 50,000 square feet seemed large; however, he preferred to work under the rules against which he had voted. The rule had been for a cap on building Downtown and, while the 50,000 fell within the cap, he was concerned that as the situation changed since establishing the cap the amount was too
11/12/96 80-441
much. Staff had raised a specific concern which had appeared in Planning Commission minutes regarding parking, i.e., whether people would use the valet parking, how much would be charged, etc. If Council decided on a residential permit system, or charged for on-street, all-day parking, the situation might become more attractive. Although desirous of having the building made more attractive, preference was given to a project of a great deal less than 50,000 square feet. Council Member Andersen was less optimistic about the project and was not persuaded adding square footage to a building with too much square footage was correct. Although the economic issues needed to be addressed prior to proceeding, he hoped the applicant would return with a more modest proposal in the context of the amount of square footage, in order to provide some of the changes all agreed needed to be made to the building for the kind of long-range goals the City had previously made for the Downtown area. The parking problem had not been adequately addressed and could not be without a reduction in square footage. The concentration of square footage cap in the area was greater than was appropriate for the entire Downtown area. Although anxious to see improvements in the conditions of the building, walkability, etc., he would not be willing to support a project with 50,000 square footage in return for such benefits. If the project returned with a considerable change in the square footage, he would consider it, but not the current proposal. Council Member Simitian asked whether Council Member Andersen was willing to sacrifice the other suggested possibilities for public benefits such as public art, performance arts, etc., if the size of the project was reduced. Council Member Andersen replied yes. The public benefits which had been described failed to justify the 50,000 square feet. The square footage was only being considered because of economic interests, which justified the project. He was not persuaded Downtown needed more office space. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said PC zoning sought intrinsic benefit about the way the site was used. Once achieved, nothing could stop people from proposing additional benefits. The first task was to find some intrinsic benefit about the proposal, as seen in the staff report (CMR:463:96). Council Member Kniss admitted the corner was unattractive, which had been written in the Downtown design guidelines. The proposed project was very tempting and appealing. At the same time, the project made a substantial move from a 3.0 to 4.0 FAR.
11/12/96 80-442
Regardless of the allowable amount of square footage Downtown, the FAR figure would be difficult to struggle with. The set point for economic viability was difficult to swallow. Traffic was clearly a problem Downtown and had been particularly noticeable over the past five to six days since Bloomingdales had opened. Although encouraged by what the project would do to the appearance of that end of Downtown, the impact would be distressing. She asked about the comment by Mr. Brennan regarding valet parking spilling over into surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Schreiber said according to the proposal, all valet parking would be held within the garage. Council Member Kniss asked whether the valet parking would be similar to Garden Court. Mr. Byrd said confusion surrounded the impacts. Even if all parking were contained in the garage, a line could snake out the door and impact traffic. The understanding was for valet parking to occur at the third and fourth levels, so a backup waiting for the valet would be contained underground. Mr. Schreiber said the applicant's traffic engineer had submitted a piece of correspondence which addressed all of the activities within the structure. The amount of parking provided on site would not cover the amount required by ordinance. The concern about overflow parking into the neighborhood, not valet parking but visitors, was a valid concern. Council Member Kniss asked whether valet parking or at least a space would be provided for the additional 200 employees. Mr. Byrd replied yes. All of the new space was at the existing ordinance ratio and the cost would not be passed on to the employees. Council Member Kniss said the table summarizing nonresidential PC projects appeared to indicate the project was not yet closing in on the public benefit or what it could be. Vice Mayor Huber said the building really needed help. The real issue was whether the benefits would offset the detriments which were clearly the traffic and parking impacts. While mindful the applicant would be able to account numerically for parking all of the vehicles, the reality was when pulling more people into a structure, more people would be parking on the streets. The City needed to come to grips with traffic impacts, especially the
11/12/96 80-443
issue of bringing people into the City on two-lane streets. The more viable Downtown became, the bigger the question of how many people the City wanted to bring in. The committee which made the recommendation for the caps, had not contemplated the night activity of the community. When discussing caps and growth, the group had only considered daytime activities. Before allowing more additional square footage, the activity needed to be considered. The proposed square footage was far too great for the end of town. The proposed benefits failed to offset the detriments in terms of traffic and overflow parking. While desirous of having the building look better, he preferred it looking bad rather than overloading street and parking. Council Member McCown was unenthusiastic about the concept. She said if not for the problems of the building's unattractive design, etc., the discussion would not be taking place. The building was already beyond the 3.0 FAR, and she could not conceive of the City allowing additional square footage. However, the building had valid problems. The applicant's willingness to attempt to address the problems was appreciated. However, the quid pro quo for addressing serious problems was out of balance for the nature of the problems. Other design solutions were available to solve the problems at issue without the necessity of the very significant square footage. The Grecian Health Spa had been in a deplorable state for years, and potential applicants had all indicated nothing could be done with the building without making it bigger which zoning rules prohibited. Someone came along willing to make an investment with a design solution to transform the building into a real success. Support would be given to the property owner's pursuit of good design solutions which would benefit the community and the building, but justification could not be given to the magnitude of additional square footage for the solutions. Other opportunities would arise for the property owner which would work for both the property owner and the community to solve the problems. Council Member Fazzino had been surprised to hear the building had received architectural awards since it appeared merely utilitarian for party officials in old Eastern block countries. Sympathy was given to the property owner for holding a building which was ugly but produced much revenue. An effort was being made, in part, to beautify, which was supported; however, the proposal was too massive for the City. The project would exacerbate an already bad traffic situation in the Downtown area and residential neighborhoods. Downtown had been overwhelmed by economic success in recent years. Although pleased with the success, a balance had to be created between economic vitality
11/12/96 80-444
and protection of residential neighborhoods. The proposal represented an imbalance at the current level. A much smaller project might be considered, but nothing on the proposed scale would be acceptable. Although the public benefits were nice, focus should be made to create real public space Downtown rather than faux public space, which was the case with the proposal. The proposal was unacceptable as it stood and needed to be down-sized. Council Member Schneider had been dealing with the proposal for three years and had initially considered it to be the biggest project ever. The public benefit, which had not changed
significantly over three years, would not meet with Council=s approval. The intrinsic benefits being offered such as additional parking, ground-floor improvements, arcade, public space, and public art failed to outweigh the impacts of the additional 52,000 square feet. The problems with parking, the intersection, the traffic, massiveness of the building, wind problems, etc., made the situation impossible and one the additional 52,000 square feet would not help. The number of customers, in addition to the 900 employees who would use the building, had to be considered. Support could not be given to even a smaller project. The building was unsightly and still filled completely with top paying renters. A bad situation should not be made worse. Council Member Simitian said while Council had struggled with the issue of 52,000 square feet, he asked Council to consider whether spending the square footage in a single project or in a relatively modest number of places made more sense than being nickled and dimed to death up and down University Avenue. The square foot cap could be used to change the entire face of University Avenue, which was far more worrisome than spending 17 percent of the square foot cap to improve the building in question. The threshold question needed to be asked and answered; that is, whether 50,000 square feet could be rendered to get what was essentially an aesthetic fix for a particular block. If not prepared to surrender the square footage, then the rest of the conversation was moot. The applicant had obviously heard that a smaller scale project would be accepted by Council. Both the applicant and City staff needed to perform a financial analysis by obtaining an urban economist to provide Council with some sense of surety about whether or not the project would pencil. Council had made it clear that the proposed amount of square footage was unnecessary to justify the aesthetic fix. A smaller scale, economically feasible project was the starting point for any realistic discussion. Council had clearly indicated traffic and parking were not negotiable. Whatever the
11/12/96 80-445
applicant proposed, the start and finish of the conversation had to be that traffic and parking could be fully mitigated. If not, Council would not trade for an aesthetic fix. If the applicant could get past the two issues, the performing arts space needed to be flushed out more fully than it had been. A great deal of difference existed between risers in the middle of an open facility and a genuine performing arts space with a sound board, light board, and the capacity to draw in quality productions dedicated to public performances. Concern was expressed for the "shopping list" before Council, which was too much of a package of items without sufficient focus. Focus should be given to transportation solutions or public improvements, which stood out as being areas for which focus could benefit and were intrinsic to the project, to connect the project with what it was--a gateway to the City which linked to Downtown. The four sentinels were entirely inappropriate. The point of the endeavor and approach was to create a warmer, more pedestrian-friendly environment. Four 16-foot glass shards at $180,000 on a narrow walkway was not warm or pedestrian-friendly. In summary, a financial analysis was necessary to make the project compelling to Council, a smaller project without some of the "bells and whistles" in terms of public benefit would clearly be more persuasive, and the public benefit elements should move beyond the intrinsic improvements to the structure and limited in focus. Council was kidding itself if it thought any improvement would come to the structure without some kind of accommodation in terms of square footage, which was the balance Council and the applicant needed to strike. Mayor Wheeler had been a firm believer in the "sugar cube" concept. The sugar cubes indicated the reasons she felt reasonably uncomfortable with the proposed solution. Every trace of open space which gave the building any kind of feeling of welcome was gone and enclosed with the proposal, which was not pedestrian or otherwise friendly. She was particularly disturbed that the entire building had to be brought out onto University Avenue and mimicked the other unattractive sides on Cowper and Tasso Streets. Other Council Members had alluded to and expressed concern about the amount of square footage to be added. Fifty thousand square feet was being discussed, but the staff report (CMR:463:96) indicated 50,000 plus 22,000 square feet, which meant the amount would be closer to 75,000 square feet of additional space and would be viewed by the public as too much additional space. Not only the amount of space caused apprehension, but the nature of the activities proposed for a good deal of the space. While having some appeal due to activities the community enjoyed, e.g., art galleries, large meeting or gathering space, etc., the suggestions were more
11/12/96 80-446
intensely used spaces than office spaces or the bank operations currently resident in the building. She was concerned it would generate not only the need for parking for an additional 200 employees, but for the visitors being enticed into the building. Agreement was given to other colleagues who had indicated the importance of parking needs being satisfied on-site. A project of such size presented to the owners and applicants a unique opportunity to employ methods by which employees and/or visitors to the site could gain access to the site by means other than single-occupant vehicles. Disappointment was expressed and agreement with Council Member Simitian given, concerning the public spaces which should be real public spaces. The uses, numbers of hours, types of activities, etc., suggested in the staff report (CMR:463:96) were token hours and activities for public use. Too many uses were being mixed; either the use was public or private. The Council had heard from only a few members of the public. Some neighborhood outreach should be conducted which was an unfinished piece of business with the project. NO ACTION TAKEN 10A. (Old Item No. 7) Resolution Declaring its Intention to Amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District Number 37 Council Member Simitian said Council was being asked to approve a Resolution of Intent to establish Underground Utility District No. 37, but no certainty had been given in the staff report (CMR:459:96) as to whether or not utility poles up and down Embarcadero Road would be removed as a result of the project. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said that for the most part, the poles on Embarcadero Road would remain because the 60 kV which ran down Embarcadero Road would remain overhead. Council Member Simitian thought some discussion should occur as to evaluating whether or not the 60 kV remained or was removed. Mr. Mrizek said staff had conducted the evaluation. An underground district generally cost the City $100 per foot to underground the primary, secondary voltages, communications, telephone, etc. To underground a 60 kV required $270 to $300 per foot; therefore, just to underground District No. 37 would require an additional $.75 million. The City had not undergrounded the 60 kV in any other district, and staff would not recommend doing so with the Embarcadero Road project.
11/12/96 80-447
Council Member Simitian said the City had service needs which were the central concern of Mr. Mrizek, as well as urban design, planning, and aesthetic issues. Embarcadero Road was an area of concern because of increased traffic and quality of life. He questioned pending a considerable sum of money to underground lines already well hidden, while the same unsightly telephone poles along the road remained. Mr. Mrizek said the power poles along Embarcadero Road in the Rinconada Park area, the southerly side of Embarcadero Road was the 60 kV line. The Rinconada Park area poles would be removed. A number of poles would be removed along Embarcadero Road. Council Member Simitian asked whether Districts 38, 39, 40 and 41 shown on the underground conversion map on the back of the staff report (CMR:459:96), were the areas Mr. Mrizek referenced. Mr. Mrizek said District 37 was the one currently under discussion. Council Member Simitian asked about the status of Districts 38, 39, 40, and 41. Mr. Mrizek said the other districts would follow District 37. Council Member Simitian asked whether the telephone poles would ultimately remain along Embarcadero Road the entire distance from Alma to Middlefield Road. Mr. Mrizek said District No. 37 ran from Lewis to Middlefield Roads. Council Member Simitian said the following areas appeared to run all the way to Alma. Mr. Mrizek clarified the lines ran to Oregon Expressway. Council Member Simitian asked whether the only choice was to spend $.75 million to remove the 60 kV power poles. Mr. Mrizek replied yes. Staff would not recommend undergrounding the 60 kV because of the high cost per foot. If only one section of the 60 kV were undergrounded, the remainder of Embarcadero Road would still have the 60 kV poles. Council Member Andersen thought Council Member Simitian had raised a good point, and he asked whether the $275 per foot was over and above the amount already budgeted.
11/12/96 80-448
Mr. Mrizek replied yes. Just to underground the 60 kV was around $275 per foot. Council Member Simitian clarified the $275 was over and above the $100 per foot to underground the other utilities. Mr. Mrizek replied yes. Future Districts 38, 39, 40, and 41 had 60 kV as well as along Colorado Avenue. In the district just undergrounded along Alma Street, staff had originally recommended the City not underground. Council had asked staff to take another look and staff had agreed to underground the area, keeping the 60 kV poles above ground. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue the item for further staff analysis and to return the item to the Council on a date to be determined by staff. Mayor Wheeler asked about the kind of information Council wanted staff to return with in order to make a policy discussion. Council Member Simitian asked how much it would cost to remove the poles and where. Mr. Mrizek said the cost estimate had been provided, i.e., the additional $.75 million to remove the poles in the one section. Council Member Simitian wanted information on how many poles, over what length of distance, and the context, i.e., another 10 miles of poles throughout the City. For most of the public, the issue of undergrounding was aesthetic. Therefore, he wanted information on location, visibility, and cost to remove. Council Member Andersen struggled with the cost-benefit question. Serious issues would soon come before Council concerning the possibility of increased rates. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the schedule which had been already laid out in connection with District 37 would be delayed and whether the issue was one of policy. Mr. Mrizek said staff could delay the project. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: 8-1, McCown, Αno.≅ COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
11/12/96 80-449
Council Member Simitian expressed his sincere thanks to the residents of Palo Alto and his Council colleagues for their varied support in his recent bid for the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Mayor Wheeler, on behalf of the entire Council, said it had been a good five years with Council Member Simitian on the City Council. Council Member Fazzino echoed the comments of Mayor Wheeler and congratulated Council Member Simitian on his recent outstanding victory. He was delighted that once again there would be a representative from Palo Alto serving the Fifth Supervisorial District. Council Member Simitian would be the fifth Palo Alto representative following on the heels of Charles Cooley in the 1920s, Walt Gaspar in the early 1950s, Bud Hubbard in the late 1950s, and Becky Morgan in the early 1980s. He was certain Council Member Simitian would live up to that long legacy of excellence and represent Palo Alto very well. Council Member Kniss said she had served with Council Member Simitian since 1985. She reiterated that the City Council was very proud of Council Member Simitian, and she knew he would serve Santa Clara County extremely well. Council Member Schneider echoed the comments of her colleagues. His colleagues would miss his presence on the City Council. Mayor Wheeler announced that the annual Snowmen and Sleighrides special event would take place on Thursday, December 5, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 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.
11/12/96 80-450