Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-22 City Council Summary Minutes 04/22/97 −46 Special Meeting April 22, 1997 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission.........................................83-48 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................83-49 APPROVAL OF MINUTES.........................................83-49 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Del Conte Landscap- ing, Inc. for Irrigation Improvements at Eleanor Park..83-49 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Electrical Contrac- tors, Inc. for Installation of a New Park Boulevard 60Kv Switching Station, Oil Pumping, and Pressurization Plant Control Panel and Instrumentation System...............83-49 4. Blanket Agreement with Power Engineering Contractors, Inc. for Emergency and Critical Repair Services for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant..................................83-49 5. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Hibbard Marine Services for Consultant Services to Inspect Large Diameter Sewers for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 83-49 6. Ordinance 4410 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of the Property Known as 400 Emerson Street from PC (4238) to CD-C(P)”...............................................83-50 7. Ordinance 4411 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designa- tion and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 by Adding a New Section 16.50.065 and Amending Sections 16.50.020, 16.50.080, and 16.50.120"...................83-50 8. Conference with Labor Negotiator.......................83-50 04/22/97 −47 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to approve a historic merit designation of Contributing Residence for the single-family residence located at 1171 Fife Avenue. 83-50 10. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 13.12.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Deleting Territory From Parking Assessment District Boundaries”........................83-62 11. Ordinance 4412 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 the Interim Regulations for Demolition of Residential Structures Con- structed Prior to 1940 and for the Permanent Historic Preser- vation Ordinance and Historic Inventory”...............83-63 12. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 by Adding Section 16.50.085".........83-64 13. Policy Direction on Mixed Paper Recycling Interim Expansion83-64 14. Council Members McCown and Wheeler re University Avenue Depot Rehabilitation.........................................83-74 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 9:25 p.m....................................83-75 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. in memory of Lou Goldsmith, a long-time Palo Alto resident who gave selflessly of his time to the community................83-75 04/22/97 −48 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission RESULTS OF THE VOTING FOR INTERVIEWS FOR PUBLIC ART COMMISSION VOTING FOR ABBOTT: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR BARTON: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR BRODERICK: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR CAMPANELLA: Andersen, Eakins, McCown VOTING FOR CARLETON: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR COOPER: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR DUNLEVIE: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR FOLEY: Andersen, Eakins VOTING FOR JACOBSON: Andersen, Eakins, Huber VOTING FOR LEVINSON: Eakins, Rosenbaum, Schneider VOTING FOR ZUST: Andersen, Eakins, Huber City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Lucinda Abbott, Bridget Barton, Timothy Broderick, Kathryn Carleton, Ron Cooper, and Kathryn Dunlevie had received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, April 28, 1997. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 04/22/97 −49 Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding dishonesty in government. T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding staff and Council not recognizing recommendations of controlling class scientists. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of January 21, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 through 7. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Del Conte Landscaping, Inc. for Irrigation Improvements at Eleanor Park 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Electrical Contrac- tors, Inc. for Installation of a New Park Boulevard 60Kv Switching Station, Oil Pumping, and Pressurization Plant Control Panel and Instrumentation System 4. Blanket Agreement with Power Engineering Contractors, Inc. for Emergency and Critical Repair Services for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Blanket Agreement with Monterey Mechanical Company for Emergency and Critical Repair Services for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Blanket Agreement with Marelich Mechanical Company, Inc. for Emergency and Critical Repair Services for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 5. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Hibbard Marine Services for Consultant Services to Inspect Large Diameter Sewers for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 6. Ordinance 4410 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of the Property Known as 400 Emerson Street from PC (4238) to CD-C(P)” 04/22/97 −50 7. Ordinance 4411 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designa- tion and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 by Adding a New Section 16.50.065 and Amending Sections 16.50.020, 16.50.080, and 16.50.120" MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item Nos. 1 - 6, Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. MOTION PASSED 5-1 for Item No. 6, Andersen “no,” Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. MOTION PASSED 5-1 for Item No. 7, Schneider “no,” Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. CLOSED SESSION 8. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Joseph H. Huber, Dick Rosenbaum, and Lanie Wheeler) Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City Auditor Bill Vinson, City Clerk Gloria Young, and City Manager June Fleming Authority: Government Code §54957.6 Public Comments None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to approve a historic merit designation of Contributing Residence for the single-family residence located at 1171 Fife Avenue. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said Council was faced with a decision to either uphold or overturn the decision of the Director of Planning and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to designate the residence at 1171 Fife Avenue a Contributing Residence pursuant to Chapter 1650. The three options before Council included: 1) upholding the HRB and staff recommendation to designate the structure a Contributing Residence; 2) overturning the Director's decision, upholding the appeal, and finding the structure had no merit; or 3) designating the structure a Landmark residence. Staff recommended the structure was not of Landmark status as delineated 04/22/97 −51 on page 8 and recommended upholding the decision of the Director based on findings in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:206:97), the findings of which indicated the residence satisfied criteria for determining historic significance, embodied the distinctive characteristic of a type, period, region, or method of construction particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the City. Staff had determined that the structure was of a Minimal Traditional architectural style important to the City since it had come into existence in the context of the Depression, housed prosperous working class families, and represented a compromise with the many eclectic styles which preceded it. The second finding indicated the residence fit the category of Contributing Residence in its scale and setting, supporting the historic character of the neighborhood grouping and district. The scale and setting of a Minimal Traditional residence was related to earlier period houses of which 1171 Fife was an unusually good and intact example. The appellants had provided a variety of reasons for the appeal included as Attachment 2 of the staff report (CMR:206:97) to which staff had responded on pages 5 through 7. Preservation Architect Barbara Judy provided technical background for the merit evaluation and historic inventory for the residence at 1171 Fife Avenue. An architectural description of the property began on page 1 of Attachment 5 of the staff report (CMR:206:97). Staff had concluded that the residence in its scale and setting supported the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. Historic Resources Board Member Martin Bernstein congratulated the owners' efforts in proposing to construct an English cottage style structure on the site, matching other homes in the area, while agreeing with Ms. Judy's comments about the structure. The HRB had not unanimously agreed to consider the structure of historic Contributing Residence merit. However, the structure was an intact example, and the ordinance had not spoken to the orientation of a structure on the site but the structure as one of the criteria. A challenge was possible if the owner elected to demolish the home and replace it with another structure. Use of the word "Minimal" in the style of the structure spoke to one of its weaknesses; however, the structure's style was recognizable and was incorporated into the definition of styles to which historic literature spoke. Council Member Schneider asked about the frequent use of terms in the staff report (CMR:206:97) such as "intact grouping," "neighbor- hood grouping," etc. Ms. Judy said the definition of "Contributing Residence" was the need to contribute to the neighborhood district. In making the designation of Contributing Residence, staff had found that the 04/22/97 −52 residence resonated with the other structures on the same block, which had been staff's finding for the block of Fife Avenue. Council Member Schneider asked whether the designation would have been the same if the structure had not been part of the neighborhood grouping and not surrounded by similar houses. Ms. Judy said in completing designation of some 85 structures to date, there had been instances where a residence had no relationship to surroundings, based on the HRB not finding the structure contributing to the neighborhood. Council Member Eakins asked which elements of the structure were "Moderne." Ms. Judy said the Moderne elements had a horizontal emphasis, i.e., casement sashes, bay window with horizontal stripes on the casing, etc. Council Member Eakins clarified "Traditional" meant gables, massing, pitched roof, etc. Ms. Judy replied yes. Council Member Eakins asked whether the structure would be considered a "plain house." Ms. Judy replied yes. The house represented the warp and woof of the particular neighborhood in which it was found. Council Member Eakins asked whether the owners would be able to design a replacement house which met a modern family's needs while staying within the Minimal Traditional style and the flavor of the street. Ms. Judy replied yes. Under the Contributing Residence designation, the owners would have to comply with the compatibility review standards for replacement or substantial alteration. In that context, the owners would not be limited to matching the Minimal Traditional style, but could expand to the entire array of styles which predated 1940 or a modern style. The site development and design quality features would have to be maintained, which was the essence of the pre-1940 neighborhoods as expressed in the compati- bility review standards. On the site in question, the owners would be required to build a rear yard garage as part of the compatibil- ity review standards, which had been identified by Mr. Knight as problematic. However, the typical development pattern in Palo Alto re-1940 residences and neighborhoods would be a mandate of the Compatibility Standards. 04/22/97 −53 Council Member Eakins asked whether it would be possible for the owners to have the kind of space in a house a modern family would like to have. Ms. Judy replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum thought to some degree the decision appeared to hinge on grammar. The applicant had indicated Criterion 4 had to be considered as a whole, to which staff had responded on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:206:97) that an "or" had been used. If it had to be considered as a whole, staff would agree with the appellant. He asked whether the first sentence under item 5 on page 6 should have had an "or" between the words "state or nation," and "represents the work." Ms. Lytle replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether grammarians would agree with Ms. Lytle. City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied yes. The "or" appearing at the end of the clause of the sentence indicated the comma clauses were setting off disjunctives with the "or." The "or" before "contains elements demonstrating" indicated that "represents the work of a master" was also an "or" phrase. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the five criteria contained in the list on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:206:97) which indicated the five criteria required to deem a property historically significant existed in the City's existing Historic Preservation Ordinance or whether it was new wording in the Interim Regulations. Ms. Lytle said the list on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:206:97) represented wording from the Interim Regulations. The wording on the existing ordinance differed. Council Member Rosenbaum thought he might have misread the words under Criterion 4 on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:206:97), "high artistic value and representing the work of a master," which in later discussions could be clarified. Council Member McCown said the block on which the subject property sat contained enormous structure variabilities, i.e., the houses immediately adjacent to 1171 Fife Avenue were not Minimal Traditional style. He asked how the Compatibility Standards had been applied, i.e., how a structure would be evaluated considering the already fully eclectically evolved styles which had appeared over time. 04/22/97 −54 Ms. Judy said staff had examined a grouping of Minimal Traditional houses clustered toward the end of the block of 1171 Fife, two of which were on the same side of the street as 1171 Fife and one across the street toward the corner, the specific localized context to which staff had responded in suggesting the house made a contribution warranting the Contributing Residence designation. Council Member McCown asked about the comment regarding what could be built if in theory the structure was entirely replaced, if the structure was designated as a Contributing Residence, and a compatibility analysis was conducted. One of the compatibility criteria was the need to locate garages all the way to the rear of the property because it was a pattern; however, such was not the case on the street in question because of the wide variety. If Contributing Residence designation was found, which triggered a compatibility review, she questioned what aspects of the neighbor- hood would be considered for compatibility. The lot was 200 feet deep. Staff would require placing the garage 200 feet deep in the lot which failed to make sense in light of the pattern of develop- ment. The goal for pushing garages back could be accomplished without placeing the garage all the way back. Ms. Lytle said the garage would have to remain 60 feet to the rear. Once compatibility guidelines were triggered, they were triggered, so reference would no longer be made to the rest of the street except as it related to prevailing set back lines, which staff had made variable to what else existed on the street. Staff recognized changes had already occurred in the neighborhood which were not completely consistent. The designation had been based on the grouping which had remained intact. Staff still recommended the neighborhood would be better served by retaining as much of the traditional character as possible. The replacement structure would fit in better overall with the broader neighborhood and certainly with its smaller grouping, although it would not relate to some of the newer homes built on the street, of which many in the community had objected to. Council Member McCown thought a homeowner would still be unclear about what could be done if the structure was contributing and a compatibility evaluation was conducted in terms of the architectural focus of the new design, i.e., whether a Tudor house could be built even though what was being replaced was a 1930s style. Ms. Lytle said the structure could be replaced with any style, i.e., the Compatibility Standards would not restrict style. A style would have to be designated at the time of designing and the owner would have to remain within the elements of that style rather than mixing and matching features of a variety of styles. The applicant had 04/22/97 −55 indicated a desire to build a Tudor home, an acceptable style either through modification of the structure or through replacement. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Tim Knight, 1171 Fife Avenue, said 1171 Fife Avenue had been purchased in September 1991 and, despite the terrible condition of the house and weak real estate market, he and his wife had invested time, effort, and money, as a result of which neighbors and friends had been pleased. The structure had not been changed, but the interior and exterior appeared dramatically better, all of which had improved the overall appearance of the neighborhood. The intent was to build a house both attractive and complimentary to the neighborhood. Agreement was given to the spirit of the HRB and the Interim Regulations and the intent to preserve Palo Alto's architectural heritage. Unfortunately, the effort had been painted with such a broad brush that it covered many more residences than it should. The vast majority of houses reviewed including 1171 Fife had received Contributing Residence status; however, the relatively few structures which had been deemed as having no merit seemed little different than 1171 Fife. The house apart from the neighborhood was not particularly special. One member of the HRB made it clear not question the validity of the house's supposed significance, describing the board's distinguished background in architecture. However, he was unable to stand by the decision. The things about the house which were worth preserving, e.g., crown moldings, beautiful hand-carved mantlepiece, intricate hardwood floor patterns, would be nurtured and protected as long as the house was his. However, such aspects of the house were not the aspects being preserved, but the hideous façade where not even the entry to the house was visible. City staff had contacted him in an effort to be informative and helpful, which was appreciated. The question most often asked of him by staff was, "What's the problem. All it means to be a contributing structure is to go through design review." He would not have spent many hours dealing with the issue if it had not been important. The reasons for not wanting the house deemed of historical merit included: 1) the time it would take to go through yet another process, 2) the money over and above the thousands already invested in the architect who had already designed the English cottage common to the surrounding area, 3) the desire to make the most of the lot as opposed to being forced to comply with the design review to place a long ugly driveway through the lot to a garage hidden in the back, wasting thousands of square feet of land rather than having green usable lawn, and 4) friends and neighbors all agreed the house was nothing precious to protect. The plans for renovation would not destroy the existing structure and only enhanced and caused the structure to fit in well as a component of the neighborhood. He should not be forced to jump through more hoops based on a 04/22/97 −56 misguided conclusion. The City Manager had laid out a number of points. The statement: "If contributing structures were substantially altered, they are to be replaced with residences that contribute equivalently to the character and quality of traditional neighborhoods," was a bit amorphous. The concern both he and the architect shared was whether a small nondescript house could be replaced with a large nondescript house, which was not desired. The styles of the houses along Fife Avenue represented a hodge-podge and could not be defined by a particular style, so nothing would be taken away from the neighborhood by removing the particularly common style of house found at 1171 Fife Avenue. He said the idea of the statement "Historically meritorious residences are potentially at risk of being lost in the community," was that the Minimal Traditional style was at risk, while it was plain that the name itself was hardly a style acclaimed for its attractiveness. If he argued there were hundreds of such residences in the City, as he believed there were, then the argument would be use that the house represented a style important to Palo Alto and must be preserved. On the other hand, if he argued that most of the houses in the neighborhood tended to have a different, more attractive style, he would be advised that it was more important to preserve the unusual example which helped maintain the interesting variety of the neighborhood by stating, "Historically meritorious residences are potentially at risk of being lost in the community." Even a cursory look at Palo Alto would reveal the particular Minimal Traditional style was a well-represented, common, ordinary style which, according to HRB Commissioner Montgomery Anderson was a style "the City was in no danger of losing." The compatibility standards had been revised to include additional style manuals, of which Minimal Traditional style would become one referenced. But Minimal Traditional had not been mentioned once in the many styles deemed important to Palo Alto in his perusal of City documents. The modification to include Minimal Traditional, although unaware of the exact date of the change, had in fact changed the rules and was unfair, especially if the change had occurred recently. The desire was not to address the process or the HRB as a whole, but a request was being made that Council remove the financial burden, the damaging requirements particularly the long driveway, and the simple fact the house failed to deserve the designation. Lucinda Abbott, 646 Lincoln Avenue, spoke about historical preservation and the appearance of a weakening in the City's resolve to preserve its historic housing stock. Council was especially encouraged not to remove the category of Contributor status from the regulations. Historically significant blocks and units, rather than individual homes, should be designated for preservation, i.e., if more than half of the structures on a particular block were pre-1940, the section could be assigned an historic value and any demolition would trigger the compatibility standards. 04/22/97 −57 Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, suggested changing the date for historical dwellings to 1930. Very few houses had been built in Palo Alto during the Depression and even fewer architectural gems had appeared during the same period. The Depression had seen no great surge of economic development and there was no great merit of the era's architecture. Council was encouraged to deem 1171 Fife Avenue a noncontributing structure. Mel Harrison, 27744 Lupinie Road, Los Altos Hills, had owned the house next door to 1171 Fife Avenue since 1923 and recalled the construction of the house. Fife Avenue was a hodge-podge of housing styles. The elongated lot required an elongated house. Council was encouraged to allow the owner to add on to the structure. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, reminded Council about the purpose of a contributing structure and not to address the specific architectural merit of an individual building. The concept of a contributing structure was not as clear as designating a house, like the Squire House, a landmark but addressed houses which added to the feel of a neighborhood regardless of the individual outstanding architectural characteristics. The compatibility guidelines were unclear and would not require the owner to remain with the existing footprint, but required living in something more suitable for a family in the 1940s than a family in the 1990s. Meeting specific architectural requirements was necessary, i.e., choosing a style consistent with the neighbors without a façade dominated by a garage. Council was asked to recall the real goal and not dilute the Interim Regulations. Ms. Abbott's suggestion to designate neighborhoods or blocks as historic was a valuable tool and a suggestion with which many residents in College Terrace and other Palo Alto neighborhoods would probably agree. Mr. Knight said the garage requirement was very stringent and not as simple as requiring placement 60 feet back. Other requirements included a 12-foot clearance from the house which, because of the narrowness of the lot, would result in a "San Jose strip" along the side of the house. Council Member Eakins asked Mr. Knight whether his problems with the garage requirements were mainly because the design of the house had already been completed. Mr. Knight had not desired a large garage at the front of the house but the design of the house had placed the garage at the front and would not occupy the majority of the front. The problem was with the narrowness of the lot. Council Member Eakins asked about the width of the driveway. 04/22/97 −58 Mr. Knight said minimum requirements would be utilized if he was forced to place the garage at the back. Council Member Eakins asked whether the regulations contained a maximum driveway width. Ms. Lytle said the Compatibilty Standards contained a maximum driveway width, but under the Zoning Ordinance no such maximum existed. Council Member Eakins asked about the width under the Compatibilty Standards. Ms. Lytle said the maximum width for a driveway was nine feet. Mr. Knight thought the size would be 140 feet, which was almost the size of the current house. Council Member Eakins asked how much larger Mr. Knight had desired for the new structure. Mr. Knight said the plans were for a two-story house with the majority of growth appearing in the back of the house. Council Member Eakins asked whether the addition had already been designed. Mr. Knight said the majority of work had been completed. The architect who had designed the house on Boyce had been working on the house for quite a few months. Council Member Eakins understood Mr. Knight had made a considerable investment for the change. Mr. Knight replied yes, since he had assumed the house would never be given a meritorious status. Council Member Eakins appreciated Mr. Knight's civility. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to uphold the appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and to not designate the residence at 1171 Fife a Contributing Residence, based upon the finding that the residence in the context of the Fife/Lincoln neighborhood was not particularly representative of an architectural style important to the City. 04/22/97 −59 Council Member Schneider thought the present situation was the result of too much city government tinkering. Although previously desirous of removing the "contributing structures" aspect entirely from the ordinance, she had since come to find out that in many situations it had proven to be of benefit, both to individual homeowners and surrounding neighborhoods, but not in the 1171 Fife Avenue situation. Homes like 1171 Fife Avenue and others might tug at one's heart strings because of the reminder of homes in which one grew up. However, the cost of nostalgia was far too expensive and intrusive both economically and personally. The category of Contributing Structures put the City over the top in historic merit evaluations and agreement was given with the applicant and thus, objection to the staff recommendations. However, she disagreed with the applicant regarding the issue of historic significance in terms of the neighborhood. The 1100 block of Fife Avenue should be recognized as important to the history of Palo Alto because of its significance as an enclave of African Americans, which could best be accomplished by the erection of an historic marker on the street which included historical data of Palo Alto. Individuals should not be punished in an attempt to memorialize two city blocks. Regarding the issue of the Interim Regulations, she feared the City was getting into the area of single-family residential design review which might have merit but should not be confused with historic preservation. The proverbial pendulum had swung too far and should once again be centered. Council Member Rosenbaum had visited the site at 1171 Fife Avenue. When he had voted for the Interim Regulations six months prior, he had understood Criterion 4 to speak to examining structures as a whole, therefore, agreement with the applicant was given. The City's attempts at historic preservation involved continually attempting to balance the interest of the community and preserving its heritage with the burden it placed on the individual property owner. The structure at 1171 Fife was so modest, there was virtually no community interest in the preservation or designation as an historic structure. The appeal was supported. Council Member McCown had also visited the site at 1171 Fife Avenue and had spoken briefly with Mr. Knight. When Council had adopted the Interim Regulations, she had fully expected to find pre-1940 structures which, after evaluation, would be considered ordinary, average, and not particularly distinctive or having any architectural or historic character. Age alone was not the criteria. The house at 1171 Fife was average, not distinctive, and not unique in its architectural or historic character. The intriguing issue and problem was the way it illustrated the tension in terms of what the City was trying to accomplish. The premise of the relationship between Contributing Status and Compatibility 04/22/97 −60 Review was if the structure was of Contributing Status, it was of significant importance, above average, somewhat distinctive, and needed to be evaluated in the event of a replacement. The house at 1171 Fife Avenue illustrated a noncontributing structure which was still an issue for the neighborhood, which was an issue with which Council had not directly grappled in the development of permanent regulations. Whether or not a neighborhood needed new structures to be evaluated for compatibility had very little to do with the historic character or uniqueness of what might be replaced, but with many other issues. In fairness to the applicant, 1171 Fife failed to meet the criteria, and the appeal should be granted. However, the ultimate question about compatibility of new structures had not been answered. Given the Interim Regulations, it was not right to hold Mr. Knight to standards which had not been imposed the previous Fall. He should be granted the appeal and not required to go through a compatibility review. Council Member Eakins had also visited the site at 1171 Fife Avenue. The designation was less about the individual house than about the contribution the house made. Many comments had been made about how the structure was not a grand style and, because it was not grand, had no merit. Derisive remarks had been made about the name of the style. As a veteran of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), everything said had been derided. However, the derisive remarks had not been taken seriously because the community would learn. The structure at 1171 Fife Avenue fit into Contributing Status with the ordinance to the letter. A replacement structure with a garage too close to the street would further disrupt the look and feel and community value of the street. The Contributing Status followed the spirit of the ordinance. Pepper Street had diminished because, prior to the ordinance, two pink houses had replaced the simple traditional houses and clashed with the neighborhood. The issue was not one of style. The applicant was free to chose a style. The design standards, form and shape, were the issue. She would not support the motion but would support Contributing Status. Vice Mayor Andersen was not persuaded the house was particularly unique. He was appreciative of staff and the HRB's consideration of the neighborhood and the effect of making the house a Contribut- ing Status might have in controlling some of the impacts it had on some of the previous remodels on the street, and to draw a line to ensure some kind of protection for the neighborhoods was established. However, he was inclined to agree Council should not put the applicant in the position of being unable to proceed. Support for the motion was not due to the findings and the limited range of legalese in which Council had to deal, but because he was persuaded the applicant would not do something detrimental to the community or neighborhood. He hoped he would feel the same way when he saw the structure at 1171 Fife Avenue six months down the road. He 04/22/97 −61 expressed concern for placing a single garage in the back of such a narrow lot without creating a situation which would not work. He disagreed with many of the concerns some had expressed regarding taking property rights away from individuals. He supported the ordinance and was concerned about seeing a double loss with 1171 Fife Avenue; however, Mr. Knight should not be caught in the dilemma with which everyone was struggling. Mayor Huber supported the motion because Council would continue to struggle through the interim and final ordinance for some time. The HRB, the experts with whom Council relied, had struggled with the issue with a vote of 4 to 3. Clearly a dispute as to the nature of the structure existed. Council was involved in two different aspects of what was being considered. After going through the consultant process, Council should have a better handle on what should be done. An historic structure did not have to be a gingerbread Victorian structure, but could be something very simple. The 1171 Fife Avenue structure could be historic, however, 1171 Fife was probably not worth keeping. He anticipated the City would finally reach the last structure of its kind and it should be kept. Such structures would go rapidly because of being small and the price of housing in the community made such structures most at risk and were, in some instances, worth saving. Support was given to the ordinance because he wanted a wide net and wanted to stop the destruction of historic structures. Through its support, things would be "dragged in" which most would consider not worth saving. The ordinance would not be a burden for long. Mr. Knight had been trapped, but no one should be trapped any longer. People knew about the ordinance and no one could be surprised after going through the planning process. Mr. Knight's structure need not be protected under the ordinance but he hoped, along with Vice Mayor Andersen, that in six months, the structure at 1171 Fife Avenue would be compatible with the neighborhood. MOTION PASSED 5-1, Eakins “no,” Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. ORDINANCES 10. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 13.12.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Deleting Territory From Parking Assessment District Boundaries” Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest due to the location of her business. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. 04/22/97 −62 MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to introduce for first reading the ordinance authorizing a change (reduction) to the boundaries of the Parking Assessment Districts. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Schneider “not participating,” Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. 11. Ordinance 4412 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 the Interim Regulations for Demolition of Residential Structures Con- structed Prior to 1940 and for the Permanent Historic Preser- vation Ordinance and Historic Inventory” Vice Mayor Andersen asked how much the entire effort would cost the City. City Manager June Fleming said the total expenditures for 1996-98 would be $489,000; however, the Council had wanted the item to be 50 percent cost recovered. Staff projected $37,500 in revenue in 1996-97 and $78,000 in 1997-98, totaling $115,500 in revenue against the $489,000 expense for the program. Council Member McCown asked whether the workshops were intended as not only explanation to the public of the goals and interim rules, but to also solicit input to be used in the development of the concepts for the permanent regulations. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle replied yes. Council Member McCown clarified the Chamber of Commerce as well as a group of individuals which had worked in an ad hoc manner to develop suggestions should be directed to providing information through the workshop. Ms. Lytle replied yes. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $201,000.00. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. 12. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 by Adding Section 16.50.085" 04/22/97 −63 City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the proposed ordinance responded to Council's direction regarding fire damage to houses. Mayor Huber asked whether the ordinance would become effective 30 days after the second reading. Mr. Calonne replied yes. The second reading would not be held any sooner than 10 days following the current meeting and would become effective on the 31st day following the second reading. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce for first reading the ordinance amending provisions of the Interim Historic Regulations (Chapter 16.50, Palo Alto Municipal Code). MOTION PASSED 5-1, Andersen ”no,” Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 13. Policy Direction on Mixed Paper Recycling Interim Expansion Deputy Director of Operations Mike Miller said the staff report (CMR:157:97) followed up a pilot mixed-paper program held in March 1996. Based on the pilot program, staff made a determination about the tonnages which could be collected and five scenarios had been developed. The cost of various programs had been outlined in the staff report (CMR:157:7). Staff recommended moving forward with an interim program, placing the City in a delay position for about one year until the outcome of Proposition 218 was better understood. Staff would return after one year with more information. Council Member McCown had lived in the neighborhood involved in the pilot program, of which she had become a huge fan. The 16.7 percent estimated diversion of the residential waste stream seemed low and could be closer to 50 percent since any piece of paper in the household except white paper was eligible for the program. She asked whether staff would have recommended implementation of a curbside program if it had not been for Proposition 218 and, if so, what changes in rates would be necessary for implementation. Mr. Miller said staff would have recommended a curbside program which was the preferred program by responses from residents, if not for Proposition 218. Staff estimated the costs based on information received from the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) which would range from $1.36 to $2.36 per household. The costs had been calculated on the residential rate base and not on the entire rate base. The issue with Proposition 218 was whether services could be spread over an entire rate base or only over the group of rate payers receiving the benefit. 04/22/97 −64 Council Member McCown asked whether staff had also evaluated the impact of the program on the number of cans. If the program had been in place for an extended period of time, she would have been able to reduce the size of the single can to the smallest possible can which would have affected rates, i.e., whether staff had taken into account the shift in paying for the regular garbage pickup. Mr. Miller replied yes. In the survey, a number of respondents had anticipated reducing service by half with implementation of the program. Page 11 of the full report, not the executive summary, contained a prediction of revenue loss if 55 percent of the rate base moved from one can to mini-can, at an estimated loss of $165,000 per year. Council Member McCown asked whether the City planned to do anything actively about Proposition 218 or whether it would simply watch what developed with legal challenges or other community experiences. How would staff determine in a year what the effect of Proposition 218 had had on the program. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said staff would be taking cost of service studies in each of the affected utilities, including Water, Wastewater, Stormdrain, and Refuse Utilities, to provide the basis for any change in the rate structure, if a change was necessary. Much would still be done at the legislative level to clarify the impacts of Proposition 218 and staff hoped, in some cases, some cities would move out in front of Palo Alto in terms of actions brought against what was done to clarify the direction the City should take. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said having a good cost of service study was the first step and would very significantly influence the outcome of any litigation. Not to say staff had no real position or decision to avoid litigation at all cost, but there was some opportunity to dictate the playing field of the litigation which opportunity would be used in the City's interest. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether the staff report (CMR:157:97) had really indicated that on Earth Day, Palo Alto had reduced its recycling efforts. Mr. Miller said staff would not consider the recommendation a reduction. The pilot program had been established for a specified period of time and staff would continue to provide a drop-off program at the recycling center. The service had not been offered prior to that. Vice Mayor Andersen said the program would disappear in the pilot neighborhoods. 04/22/97 −65 Mr. Miller said the pilot had been for six months only. Vice Mayor Andersen asked about the kind of paper which could be placed into the bins should Council approve the recommendation. Mr. Miller said everything but newsprint could be recycled in the bins, e.g., colored, paper circulars, third-class or junk mail, magazines, etc. Vice Mayor Andersen asked why the City would not want to take the lead in implementing a program and raising rates, understanding Proposition 218 might challenge the program, or whether staff had a better strategy in mind to address Proposition 218. Proposition 218 was a preposterous piece of legislation which should be challenged and he questioned why Palo Alto was not taking a lead. Mr. Calonne appreciated the sentiment. However, Council needed to be given a confidential analysis which captured the work Ms. Harrison and Senior City Attorney Susan Case had been doing since November to get some direction from Council. Council would have to make the decision as to whether or not the City should take a leadership role in doing something provocative. The best course of action was for Council to ask staff to provide a confidential report which could be followed with Council discussion. City Manager June Fleming said the morning after Proposition 218 passed, she had called a staff meeting and staff had immediately begun work on Proposition 218. The City Attorney's Office had cancelled its business for the entire day and provided much understanding and interpretation of the new law. Mr. Calonne's advice was sound. Regarding Earth Day, the pilot program had not just ended, so there was no symbolism in ending it on Earth Day. No one had been more disappointed than staff when, after having done all the work on the pilot program not being able to move forward because of Proposition 218. Individually, some staff members thought such a program highlighted the impact of Proposition 218. Staff was disappointed in not being able to recommend continuation of the program and had struggled to find a way to increase the availability of drop off spots for the paper. Many residents had indicated disappointment in having to go all the way to Stanford for dropping off. However, a great deal of separation occurred at the Sunnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) station. Staff had conducted much work and analysis and more could be possible if a proposition had been provided which recommended continuation of the program. Vice Mayor Andersen said the price of paper products had been much higher when the pilot program first began but had been reduced to 04/22/97 −66 virtually $0. He asked whether the price of paper would remain $0 for any length of time. A decision to finance the full program out of the General Fund might be palatable if there was the possibility the prices would shift. Mr. Miller said as indicated in a weekly report entitled "Waste News," April 21, 1997 edition, the trend indicated commodity prices for recycled products in the United States in eight major markets would continue to decrease. The prices to dispose of mixed residential paper per ton ranged as follows: Seattle $25 to $65, Los Angeles $20, Chicago $25, Houston $0, Atlanta $20, Miami $40, and New York $45. The prices were not improving. White ledger, the mainstay of the paper program, also continued to decrease. The week of March 14 had represented a high point from which prices had descended at a rate of almost $10 per week. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether the declining prices had been the result of decreased usage of recyclable materials or greater supplies as a result of legislation. Mr. Miller said the reduction had resulted from a combination of factors. The many programs throughout the country, the State of California, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, and the limited capacity of mills to take the product and reuse it simply because of the water requirements, meant mills were being very selective. Council Member Rosenbaum asked where cities disposed of materials for which payment for disposal was required. Mr. Miller said paper mills charged cities to take the product, process and sort out the materials, and cull the better product. If insufficient material was available to reprocess, the bulk of the product would be disposed of. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the material disposed of by the mill ended up in a landfill. Mr. Miller replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the statement suggested the City was "spinning its wheels" when it picked up all the mixed paper. Mr. Miller said the situation was only temporary. At some point in the future, facilities would be available, the market would find a balance, the economy would continue to improve, and paper products would become needed once again. The swings were common and had occurred four times over the past ten years. The current downswing just happened to be one of the longest. 04/22/97 −67 Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether white paper still had a positive value. Mr. Miller replied yes. White paper still sold at $75 per ton. Council Member Rosenbaum thought segregation of white paper from colored paper was still wise. Mr. Miller agreed. A large number of people had home computer systems generating white paper which was brought to Stanford and other places of employment in Palo Alto where white paper programs were available. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether people mixed white with colored paper if a pick up system similar to the pilot program was instituted. Mr. Miller replied yes. Staff would not encourage mixing white paper with the colored paper. Part of the marketing strategy would include information about the higher value of white paper if separate which could continue to be recycled at the same locations as used in the past. It was possible, however, for white paper to appear in the bins with colored paper. Council Member Rosenbaum understood people would not gain that much in terms of convenience, since the City would still ask people to recycle white paper with pickup provided for colored paper only, at a loss of revenue to the City. Mr. Miller replied yes. Better than 75 percent of the City's white paper came out of business recycling programs, the balance of which came through facilities receiving residentially recycled paper. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the scenario which involved continuing the SMaRT station recovery, having "mixed paper recovered from the waste stream at the SMaRT station as is currently done,"and whether someone went through every bit of paper. Mr. Miller replied yes. All of the refuse which went through the SMaRT station went to a sorting floor. Large objects were removed and the balance of the refuse placed on a conveyor system, transported by approximately 16 people on a sorting line who pulled materials off, i.e., cans, bottles, mixed paper, cardboard, and plastics, which would be sent through for recycling processing. Currently, around 2,000 tons of recycling was recovered. 04/22/97 −68 Council Member Rosenbaum said although the material might be collected, it could end up in the landfill because of the current price of mixed paper. Mr. Miller said one or two companies currently handled mixed paper in the Bay Area at a cost of between $0 and $20 per ton depending on the bulk, volume, and quality. The SMaRT station had been able to sell mixed paper at almost a break-even cost or $1 or $2 per ton to the processor. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the percentage of Palo Alto's refuse which went to the SMaRT station. Mr. Miller said about two-thirds of all Palo Alto's refuse went to the SMaRT station, i.e., all commercial, industrial, and residential garbage, and compactors from businesses. The remaining one-third was common construction debris, debris boxes, remodels, and other materials not easily salvaged. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether it would make more sense to continue letting the SMaRT station sort the City's refuse, if it was able to recover a large percentage of mixed paper and pick up white paper from people's homes which clearly had greater value. Mr. Miller said a primary emphasis of the pilot program since its inception was source reduction which involved encouraging a change in behavior or keeping something out of the waste stream prior to disposal, which kept the value and quality higher. Everything could be placed in a bin and delivered to the SMaRT station, however, the quality of the material would not be as high if handled separately. Residents over the many years and various programs had preferred source-separated refuse collection. Council Member Rosenbaum thought residents would prefer white paper collection if informed of the rate increase of $1 per month for mixed paper collection which had perhaps no value and might well wind up in the landfill. The issue was not as "open and shut" as some viewed it. He queried the ability to recycle magazines, which he thought were treated separately. Mr. Miller said magazines could be included with mixed paper. In prior years, magazine recycling had been a problem. However, inks had been changed, metals removed from inks, and the clay material used in the glossy materials was of an insufficient quality to dilute the balance of the waste stream. Regarding payment for the program, residents had been asked in the pilot program if they would be willing to pay an additional amount for the curbside program: 22 percent would be willing to pay as long as the increase was less than 50 percent, 30 percent would be willing to pay $1 or less, and 22 percent would be willing to pay $2 or less. When asked whether the resident 04/22/97 −69 would continue to sort mixed paper if the program stopped, 30 percent of the respondents indicated a willingness to take the paper to the recycling center. The response had motivated staff to consider the interim program to make it more convenient. Council Member Rosenbaum thought people might feel differently if there was an awareness the materials would end up in a landfill regardless of the pick up from homes, which was a critical factor. Council Member Schneider currently mixed newsprint with colored papers, asking whether such a mixture caused problems. Mr. Miller said currently newsprint had a value if clean and uncontaminated. Council Member Eakins suggested a method of reducing junk mail as a means of reducing waste. Mr. Miller said the Peninsula Conservation Center provided a clinic on junk mail. The last time staff had advertised the "Junk Mail Kit," probably 500 to 600 requests had been received. The problem occurred when a local radio station made the information public and requests from surrounding cities were received since the kits required some staff time. The kit had been revised and could be provided to Council. Vice Mayor Andersen asked if the Council approved the staff recommendation whether only one bin would be provided for all paper, including white or whether a separate bin would be provided for individuals wanting to sort the more valuable white paper.* Mr. Miller said the interim program involved providing a specially marked and labeled bin for mixed paper with no attempt to sort. Signs would ask people not to dispose of newsprint or white paper in the bins but to place newsprint at the curb as currently done and white paper to bins specified for white paper. The mixed paper would not be sorted. Vice Mayor Andersen thought having a bin available for white paper would be of benefit to the City to offset some of the cost of the program. Mr. Miller said space on an interim basis was the concern. A three-yard bin at a library or fire station would take up the space of a car and had to be accessible by a large, three-axle truck with forks for pickup. Placing multiple bins at a location might involve the loss of parking spaces, particularly at libraries. 04/22/97 −70 Vice Mayor Andersen said high schools had small, garbage can-type containers for recycling various materials, querying the use of a smaller container for white paper given the economic value. Mr. Miller said the containers at the high schools were called "toters" and were also located at a number of businesses. Staff thought, because of the potential response of the pilot program, a larger capacity container would be necessary to avoid a daily or every-other-day pickup. Initial estimates anticipated emptying containers once per week, with a maximum of twice per week if every bit of mixed paper was removed from the waste stream. One reason for the interim program was to determine how much would be removed from the waste stream and the amount of participation. Ms. Fleming said everything possible would be done to maximize the ability of people to use the containers. Staff would exercise administrative discretion as to how many containers were placed and how easy and practical they could be picked up if Council approved the interim program. Staff understood Council's desires and was on the same page. Many details would need to be worked out if Council endorsed the concept. Staff had worked through the various scenarios about drop off locations, numbers of locations, numbers of bins, number of pickups, etc., and would continue to refine the process. Vice Mayor Andersen thought the City should make white paper collection as easy as possible if it was the only one with value to offset some costs. He never understood why white paper was not being curbside recycled. Many people had the paper in the community. He queried not having a white paper bin curbside. Mr. Miller said the current residential waste stream composition contained only 3 percent white paper. Vice Mayor Andersen asked how staff knew 3 percent of the residen- tial waste stream composition was white paper. Mr. Miller said staff had conducted a waste composition study in January 1991 and another was currently in progress. The residential waste stream composition was categorized separately from industrial to help determine what materials could be targeted. Of the entire residential waste stream, 42 percent was paper-related: cardboard 6 percent, magazines 5 percent, newspaper 5 percent, white paper 3 percent, mixed paper 17 percent, and the balance miscellaneous. Vice Mayor Andersen thought there was almost as much white stock as newspapers. Newspapers were being collected without much value. 04/22/97 −71 Mr. Miller said the newspaper was an historical program with large participation. Vice Mayor Andersen had not suggested removing the newspaper program but adding in the recycling program, at little or no cost given Proposition 218 which had value. Mr. Miller said currently the City received $10 per ton for newspaper which would drop to $0. Year-to-date figures indicated a collection of 3,300 tons, so revenues would decrease by $33,000. The white stock was approximately $70 per ton, but the amount of white paper in the residential waste stream made the collection exceed the revenue. It would probably work out to only one or two tons and one week off the routes. Setting up a program to generate $140 in revenue while keeping it separate on the trucks with special racks would not be financially feasible. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding curbside recycling which she had stopped using since she went to Stanford every two weeks to recycle her largest component, mixed paper, because it was just as easy to take cans and bottles with her at the same time. She asked whether people would really be willing to haul refuse to a collection site with the interim solution. Many residents already lived within distance of the Stanford recycling center. She encouraged the Council to proceed with a curbside mixed paper collection as well as colored No. 2 bottles, e.g., liquid detergent bottles, etc. She also encouraged the Council to place pressure on merchants to use recyclable forms of plastic whenever possible. People should be encouraged to use materials made from recycled goods, with the City taking a leadership role. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve an interim expanded mixed paper drop-off program, and direct staff to return in one year with an evaluation of the program, including recommendations for change. Council Member McCown hoped the recommendation was only the first of many and that the City would continue to move toward curbside collection. Cost consideration concerns were appreciated, but Mr. Miller's calculations were correct. The volume of mixed paper was extraordinary. Solutions to Proposition 218 would be appreciated so the next step could be taken. Vice Mayor Andersen said some of his passion should not be taken personally. Staff's efforts on the program were appreciated. He 04/22/97 −72 looked forward to receiving a confidential memo on Proposition 218, querying whether the City should place itself at the front of the line or at the rear. Council Member McCown was correct in her desire to take the first step in the process. Issues existed about whether or not enough was being accomplished with recycling. An evaluation of the items being recycled should be made, with a consideration about other plastics and items which should be examined to determine whether pulled from the SMaRT station, where a great deal of recyclable waste was being pulled. He asked whether the recycling program should be reexamined in terms of what could be pulled from the SMaRT station. In order to educate the community, people needed to have the spirit of recycling which was what the curbside recycling accomplished and should be taken into account as well as the economics. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Council Members McCown and Wheeler re University Avenue Depot Rehabilitation Council Member McCown said the memorandum had come out of the efforts which had begun during Summer 1996 with the "Try Transit" group that had met and was involved in the successful Downtown shuttle. As part of the discussions, various transportation agencies involved in finding ways in which to cross over at the University Avenue train station had been together at various meetings which in turn lead to the question of who was responsible for what, i.e., when a light bulb burned out in a tunnel and had to be replaced, who was responsible. The memo addressed the issue of simple maintenance jobs, signage, landscaping, etc., to determine who among the different players, e.g., Palo Alto, Stanford University, Santa Clara Valley Transit, SamTrans, and CalTrain, should take the lead on particular issues and figure out a more rational way to spend the money. The goal was not to spend new money or add to any budget but to find a more logical assignment of responsibilities. A tour of the train station revealed how totally neglected and out-of-date simple things like signs which gave directions, etc. For example, the map behind the glass cabinet in the train station was probably 15 years old. When someone at Stanford University asked to place a new map in the glass case, it had taken some time to determine who controlled the key to the glass case. When it had been finally determined that Santa Clara Valley Transit held the key, the individual had been told they could not have the key nor place a new map in the case. The memo was an attempt to coordinate, at no cost, the train station to make it much easier for users. Santa Clara Valley Transit, which ran buses into the train station, had designated almost $2 million for a capital project to redesign the 04/22/97 −73 bus space in the immediate future. Although not specifically mentioned, it was another item which had caused she and Council Member Wheeler to move forward. Such a great amount of money for the bus access to allow for buses should include better signage, etc. Council Member Eakins asked that information from staff on the memo be related to the status of the Dream Team project. T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding the relation of the memo by Council Members McCown and Wheeler to the Sand Hill project and the Stanford Shopping Center and transporting people to open spaces. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to direct staff to: 1) Pursue ways in which Palo Alto and the other agencies involved at the Depot - principally Stanford University, the Joint Powers Board and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation - can make the Depot a more welcoming place. These include enhanced tunnel maintenance, secured bicycle storage, improved signage and general improvements to landscaping and cleanliness, and potential use of the station building for compatible uses; 2) Return during the budget process with a recommendation on funding to be included in the 1997-98 Budget which would represent the City of Palo Alto’s share of a joint maintenance and improvement effort for the Depot; and 3) Direct staff to provide the Council after six months with a report on progress and making recommendations on future actions to be taken at the Depot. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler absent. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 9:25 p.m. The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 8. Mayor Huber announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 8. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. in memory of Lou Goldsmith, a long-time Palo Alto resident who gave selflessly of his time to the community. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor 04/22/97 −74 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.