HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-11 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting August 11, 1997
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................84-160 1. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval
of the City Auditor=s 1997-98 Audit Plan. .............84-160 2. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and United States Geological Survey for Summary and Data on Near Field Receiving Water Monitoring of Tissues and Sediment....84-160
3. Modification to Overtime Provisions--Service Employees= International Union (SEIU) Memorandum of Agreement 1996-9884-160
4. Ordinance 4441 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Increase Revenues and Expenditures in the Youth and Teen Programs Functional Area of the Community
Services Department≅ Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 0070861 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District for Community Sports Program at Stanford and Jordan Middle Schools...............84-161
5. Ordinance 4442 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Accept a Grant and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department to Receive Matching
Grant Funds from the National Endowment for the Arts≅ .84-161
6. Ordinance 4443 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Accept a Grant and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department to Receive Matching
Grant Funds from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County≅84-161 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Thomas S. Barron, Consulting Engineer for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Evaluation for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant84-161
08/11/97 84-157
9. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Computer Associates International, Inc. for a Personal Computer Network Management System.....................................84-161 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................84-161 9A. (Old Item No. 7) Policy and Services Committee Regarding Approaches to Improve the Quality of Life in the Downtown Area ......................................................84-161 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the comments of the Planning Commission relating to the Ordinance Establishing Procedures for Preparation of Coordinated Area Plans (continued from 8/4/97).........................84-162 11. PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan: Consideration and approval of tentative schedule and tasks, authorization for the Mayor to appoint a 12-member working group, and authorization for City Manager to negotiate consulting services agreement for coordination and oversight of preparation of the Plan (continued from 8/4/97)...............................84-167 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator=s decision of a conditional use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court and a park area, including restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District84-174 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider the Downtown Urban Design Improvements Master Plan, a schematic design and feasibility study for improvements to the public space in the University Avenue downtown area bounded by Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, Middlefield Road and Alma Street.............84-175 14. PUBLIC HEARING: City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to designate as Contributing Residences, two single family residences constructed prior to 1940 located at 4111 and 4117 Goebel..................84-189 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to designate as Contributing Residences, two single family residences constructed prior to 1940 located at 579 and 583 Vista84-189
08/11/97 84-158
16. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations] Shall be in Effect.....84-197 17. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dames & Moore to Revise the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Update the Historic Inventory................................84-197 18. Report on Property Line Dispute at 1201 Webster/618 Kingsley 84-208 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m............84-209
08/11/97 84-159
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:14 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Wheeler (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) ABSENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic
responsibility (letter on file in the Clerk=s Office). Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding police complaints: PC 148.6. Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, spoke regarding bicycle friendly
city (letter on file in the Clerk=s Office). CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-9, with Item No. 7 removed at the request of a member of the public. 1. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council
approvalof the City Auditor=s 1997-98 Audit Plan. 2. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and United States Geological Survey for Summary and Data on Near Field Receiving Water Monitoring of Tissues and Sediment
3. Modification to Overtime Provisions--Service Employees= International Union (SEIU) Memorandum of Agreement 1996-98
Resolution 7706 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations≅
4. Ordinance 4441 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Increase Revenues and Expenditures in the Youth and Teen
Programs Functional Area of the Community Services Department≅ Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 0070861 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District for Community Sports Program at Stanford and Jordan Middle Schools
08/11/97 84-160
5. Ordinance 4442 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Accept a Grant and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department to Receive Matching
Grant Funds from the National Endowment for the Arts≅
6. Ordinance 4443 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Accept a Grant and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department to Receive Matching
Grant Funds from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County≅ 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Thomas S. Barron, Consulting Engineer for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Evaluation for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 9. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Computer Associates International, Inc. for a Personal Computer Network Management System Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and IS Solutions, Inc. for a Personal Computer Network Management System MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item Nos. 1-6, 8, and 9, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 7 would become Item No. 9A. 9A. (Old Item No. 7) Policy and Services Committee Regarding Approaches to Improve the Quality of Life in the Downtown Area Council Member McCown expressed concern that although the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee had not made changes to the staff report (CMR:311:97), the minutes of the P&S Committee and the Committee's comments had not been included in Council's packet, and Council might wish to see the comments prior to moving the report forward. Council Member Wheeler thought it was unnecessary to see the minutes prior to approval if no motion had been made. The staff report (CMR:311:97) could be accepted as it was. However, seeing the minutes would be interesting at some point. Council Member McCown recalled that the minutes from the meeting discussing the staff report (CMR:311:97) had been included in Council's previous packet, and the P&S Committee had not made any changes to the substance of the staff report.
08/11/97 84-161
City Manager June Fleming said Council Member McCown was correct. Staff had not re-submitted the minutes for the packet because the minutes had been included in Council's packet in connection with the Ross Road item. Council Member McCown agreed to leave the item on the Consent Calendar for approval of the P&S Committee's action. Joe Baldwin, Urban Ministry Director, 280 Waverley Street, expressed concern about the staff report (CMR:311:97) which failed to provide any assurance that any single, unhoused Palo Alto resident would end up in either of the facilities mentioned in the report. The first of the Homelessness Task Force recommendations had been for the City to work with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to assure priority for currently unhoused Palo Alto residents in Alma Place. The issue of employment opportunities in the staff report was praised. Council was encouraged to take up the issue of restrooms when it returned from its vacation. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to accept the staff report (CMR:311:97) including: 1) providing restroom facilities in the downtown area; 2) providing training and short-term, transitional employment opportunities to the homeless population; and 3) working with other agencies to provide additional housing and shelter opportunities for the homeless. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the comments of the Planning Commission relating to the Ordinance Establishing Procedures for Preparation of Coordinated Area Plans (continued from 8/4/97) Planning Commissioner Owen Byrd said the Planning Commission had reviewed the draft ordinance at an earlier meeting and had expressed great enthusiasm for the establishment of a process which would involve more of the Palo Alto community in City planning. The only suggestion had been to expand the ordinance slightly concerning the composition of the working group by supplementing involvement of local neighbors and property owners in the planning area, if possible, with representatives from organizations with a broader point of view, such as the Housing Action Coalition and Urban Ecology. Other views could come from representatives of other City boards and commissions and other public agencies such as the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the Transit Agency. Language had been included to avoid constraining Council in the composition of the group, but there were references within the ordinance of broader interests in order to remind Council that
08/11/97 84-162
usefulness of such perspectives would be beneficial. The vote had been unanimous in support of the modification. Council Member McCown said Vice Mayor Andersen had asked her to raise the issue of whether it would be appropriate at some point in the process, after the committees had worked at a relatively preliminary stage, to return an interim report to Council which would allow an opportunity to respond, comment, redirect, etc. The process appeared to involve Council at the very beginning to set parameters without any other contact until the product was returned. She queried whether such an interim step should be included in the ordinance. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said inclusion of such an interim step was possible. However, the down-side of doing so was the additional time; at least one to two months would be added to the process. Planning Commissioner Schink had already expressed concern about the length of time necessary for the process which he desired to shorten even further. The tradeoff was between additional Council input, which would be very valuable especially in light of the concern about proceeding too far into a process which was moving in the wrong direction, and the additional time required to do so. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the ordinance represented a great deal of thinking by staff on the dynamics of the process, i.e., the people-to-people interactions and what staff sought to accomplish. The ordinance had been created in a way which consciously asked Council to answer very specific parameter questions at the very start of the process and then to take a step back and let the process move forward. The process had been derived from the themes in the governance discussion in the draft Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Andersen's sense that there was a great deal of distance between Council's initial input and the end product was correct. Council could determine whether the distance was too much. Involving Council in a midpoint role, however, might tempt Council not to be as directory in the beginning, which was an important step. The problem was really one of people-to-people. Council Member Kniss questioned the additional time required in having a checkpoint with Council. Mr. Schreiber said given the goal of trying to complete the project within one year, the need for time at the end for the environmental review, Planning Commission review, and Council review meant the period for the working group would have to be compacted into seven or eight months of intensive effort. To make progress, each meeting had to lead into the next. If a Council review were added, the working group process would slow substantially as people waited for Council feedback.
08/11/97 84-163
City Manager June Fleming worked diligently with staff to examine workloads and assignments, and the addition of another staff report meant a delay. Council Member Kniss thought some mechanism could be implemented to work more expeditiously in a way which would avoid bringing the project to Council at the very end of the process. Council Member Wheeler expressed concern that without a loophole which brought a study session or a report to Council or without that process that allowed the committee to instigate checking in process with Council, Council would be very directory at the very
beginning of the process prior to the committee=s moving forward. Since Council knew it would appoint excellent, creative, bright people to the committee, the committee would proceed down a path that might look good in the beginning. However, if a problem arose because Council had given clear guidance in a direction other than what the committee found to be right, the committee should be allowed to return to Council with questions about the project. She queried whether the committee should be given the ability to present new ideas to Council. Mr. Schreiber said staff agreed that Council's issue was legitimate and understandable. Such a modification of the process made sense. The only problem staff had was the addition of time to the process. To the extent time was an issue, there was a tradeoff. Mr. Calonne said timing was the main concern, but it was a function of how people worked together and what would be accomplished. Council was asked to consider how changing the course midstream would affect the dynamics of the group, i.e., whether the effort would involve changing Council's mind or working together as diverse interests to come to an understanding within a fixed set of parameters. Too many moving targets would be difficult to direct. Mr. Schreiber had stated the concern as delay, which was true. Staff was hypersensitive about the timing of the process. The wear and tear factor on the public and staff in the processes was significant. The time tax developers spoke about could be applied to members of the public who had also mentioned dealing with City processes which were taxing. A shorter process would encourage public participants to be members of the working group. The ordinance called for integration of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with the outcome of the Area Plan which, in some ways, was staff's answer to statutory redevelopment. The planning process would have a mandatory component wherein Council would think about how it was spending its infrastructure dollars toward facilitating the desired change in the community for which the Area Plan aimed, which was very different. Council Member Eakins asked whether the development agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) contained a limit as to how long the process would take and whether it was a constraint.
08/11/97 84-164
Mr. Schreiber said the development agreement amendment with the PAMF indicated the Area Plan would take approximately 12 months from the time the PAMF triggered the process. The process was triggered at the end of May 1997, so City and PAMF staff agreed that approximately 12 months could stretch to September or October 1998, but PAMF had a strong interest in an expeditious process. Ms. Fleming said two people from the PAMF expressed concern about the timing. Council Member Kniss thought there had to be a mechanism for providing feedback to Council. If not, as mentioned previously, either opportunities would be lost or paths could be taken which were not appropriate. Nothing was worse for a citizens' committee than to return to Council with a great idea only to have Council convey that it was the wrong direction. Ms. Fleming said staff had learned that much time was saved by working jointly. The intent in the regular public meetings and community update forums could be worked into a way to meet the intent without creation of a staff report and placing it on the agenda. Staff could make one of the mechanisms work to address Council's valid concern. Mr. Calonne said utilization of the public meetings or community update forums would fit into the flow and provide the Council with the opportunity it desired. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet, representing the University South Neighborhood Group, spoke in support of the wording of the staff report (CMR:311:97), specifically regarding the composition which gave greater latitude to Council. A specific percentage-based composition of regional and subregional interests versus the community-based interest was more restrictive than necessary. One of the regular public meetings could be devoted to an opportunity for Council to provide feedback, rather than the community update which was designed as a broad half-day or all-day public meeting in which everyone was included in the process. Council feedback might be lost in the broader meeting. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Wheeler asked her colleagues about the wording of the composition of the committee, i.e., either staff's original more flexible recommendation or the Planning Commission's. Council Member Kniss was interested in the more flexible wording from the staff recommendation.
08/11/97 84-165
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to introduce the Ordinance, including the staff recommendation regarding the flexibility of the working group, and the interim reporting process to the City Council.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 19.10 to Title 19 [Master Plan] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Procedures for Preparation
of Coordinated Area Plans≅ Council Member Kniss thought it was important to stay on whatever track was defined and that Council have the ability to receive some type of report or feedback or have the opportunity to attend a meeting which would indicate what precisely was occurring. Mayor Huber said he and Vice Mayor Andersen discussed the issue raised by Council Member McCown. Council should re-involve itself officially in a process which could last as long as 12 to 15 months. It could be frustrating for a community member of the committee to attend for a long time and then have the responsible body drift off into left field when the committee wanted the direction into right field. Instead of narrowing at the beginning, which would be necessary if an interim look were not possible, returning to Council for direction, if necessary, was desired. He looked forward to several such plans. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. 11. PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan: Consideration and approval of tentative schedule and tasks, authorization for the Mayor to appoint a 12-member working group, and authorization for City Manager to negotiate consulting services agreement for coordination and oversight of preparation of the Plan
(continued from 8/4/97) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Fund a Coordinated Area Plan for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Sites and Portions of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Mayor Huber announced that he would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest resulting from the proximity of his residence to the area of the subject matter. MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to appoint Council Member Rosenbaum as Mayor Pro Tem for the purpose of chairing the meeting for Item No. 11. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent.
08/11/97 84-166
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said given the absence of sufficient Council Members, Recommendation 3 regarding the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) needed to be withdrawn until a meeting with more Council members. Council Member Wheeler questioned representation on the working group. The composition of the working group on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report (CMR:349:97) included housing under both Citywide Interests and Subregional/Regional Interests. The broader interest groups mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting, which were transit and transportation, had included no representation. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff had not included a subregional/regional transportation interest intentionally because the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Area Plan would not involve any regional or subregional key transportation issues. For example, a site on El Camino Real clearly involved a variety of transportation issues. Transportation issues for the SOFA area would be local in terms of parking, one-way streets, etc. One of the important issues with broader interests and groups was to attract interest with staying power in the process. From a transportation perspective, not enough was happening to warrant interest from a regional or subregional transportation agency. Even if an appointment had been given, after a number of nights the level of interest would be difficult to sustain. On the other hand, the housing issue was notable from a regional perspective with the potential for a notable amount of housing. From the standpoint of open space, parks, etc., it might be a more accessible regional community as an ongoing part of the process. Council Member Wheeler clarified staff still felt the same about transportation even though the area extended out to Alma Street. Mr. Schreiber said Alma Street was a City street. From the standpoint of the County Transportation Agency, for example, there was little interest in Alma issues. Alma was on the edge of an area with a greater degree of localized interest and issues. Council Member Wheeler asked whether proximity to the University Avenue Intermodal Transit Station had been significant enough to "ring bells." Mr. Schreiber said as the Area Plan developed, staff anticipated involving the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), for example, to obtain technical details for a particular bus stop or bus route. However, such issues were very focused and might involve only one meeting with the working group or a meeting with a committee from the working group, with insufficient interest to sustain eight to ten working group meetings over the course of eight to ten months.
08/11/97 84-167
Council Member Kniss asked who would be selected from the neighborhood groups as indicated on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report (CMR:349:97), i.e., business owners within SOFA and people with interests in the SOFA area. City Clerk Gloria Young said the City Clerk's Office would take responsibility for advertising and soliciting applications. Council Member Kniss asked about the politics of selection, such as how a SOFA business owner would be defined. Mr. Calonne said Council action would authorize appointment of the working group as described on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:349:97). The specific titles within were advisory, not mandatory, so he was unsure it mattered other than that Council should have a clear dialogue with whoever made the appointments. Mayor Huber would not make the appointments until it was determined whether a conflict of interest existed. Council's action would not pin down whoever made the appointments to the specific positions, but was staff's best recommendation to make it work. Council Member Kniss thought the precise way in which appointments were made should be very specific. She asked whether the Vice Mayor would make appointments if the Mayor did not. Ms. Young replied yes. Council Member Kniss asked how the choices would be made. City Manager June Fleming said staff recommended the selection be made by the Mayor. Procedurally, if the Mayor were unable to function for any reason, the Vice Mayor would make the decision. In terms of a SOFA business owner, staff had intended for an individual who was a business owner in the SOFA area. If not Council's choice, such should be articulated. Council Member Kniss said staff's suggestions were good. However, two Council Members should assist in the selection process along with the Mayor for a variety of reasons, such as the additional input and the large number of applicants for the positions. The document appeared more as a guide. Ms. Young agreed. Prior to Mayor Huber's realizing his conflict of interest, he had indicated a desire to appoint a committee of Council Members to work with him to make the appointments. Council Member Kniss anticipated the Vice Mayor would do the same. Mr. Calonne said Council Member Kniss touched on a point of Council authority. The ordinance called for Council to appoint the working group. The staff recommendation was for Council to authorize the Mayor to do so.
08/11/97 84-168
Mr. Schreiber said the other issue was the extent to which a working group should be composed of people directly involved in the area of the study, whether a residential property owner, a business property owner, a business operator, etc. On the other hand were people from the broader community. The effort was to balance people from the immediate geographic area with the broader community. Without both perspectives represented, the process might have a greater chance to become skewed and move off course. In terms of staff work in the past and the citizen process, having people from the neighborhood actively participate was a critical element. Mr. Calonne said staff hoped the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) would treat the working group as an advisory body not subject to Conflict of Interest laws. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff saw the working group as functioning somewhat in the same way the Terman working group had some time before. Ms. Fleming thought very few staff members remembered back that far. Mr. Schreiber said Terman had been a very rigid process of elected neighborhood representatives, clear designations, and a product which had been driven by consensus. After moving all the way through the process, nothing could be changed in the public review process. The process under consideration was not viewed the same way. The representatives would not be elected, and the process would not have to generate consensus. Terman had taken 48 night meetings in 54 weeks. Such a process would not be utilized in the current instance. The final product would contain disagreements but with general agreement. One of the issues, as well as one of the problems, with Terman had been the necessity for agreement on every line. Council Member Kniss said knowing what a working group looked like was difficult. Conflicts between the neighborhood organization that wanted a particular organization and others who did not belong to the group but were owners became somewhat troublesome and had to be kept in mind. Mr. Schreiber said staff hoped members of the working group would have a relationship with a broader community. For example, a neighborhood association from which a working group member came should communicate with its organization, explain what was going on, obtain feedback, and return to the process. The same applied to the commercial community or broader community representatives. The idea was to not have independent, isolated operatives but to have individuals who reflected interest in the community with ongoing dialogue as part of the process.
08/11/97 84-169
Mayor Pro Tem Rosenbaum asked whether the language in the staff recommendation should be changed if Council wanted a Council committee to make the appointment. Council Member Eakins asked whether a consultant or facilitator had been involved in the Terman working group. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. A facilitator had run the meetings and helped the group finish. Council Member Eakins asked whether Mr. Schreiber had attended all of the meetings. Mr. Schreiber replied no. Council Member Eakins clarified the role of the facilitator was to enhance the functioning of the group. Mr. Schreiber said the facilitator had been essential with Terman. Council Member Eakins asked whether the description in the staff report (CMR:349:97) involved two consultants. Acting Chief Planning Official James Gilliland said the staff recommendation was for a facilitator, a transportation consultant, and two other consultants, for a total of four. Council Member Eakins clarified the facilitator and consultant would assist in keeping the process focused and moving. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. The facilitator's role would occur primarily at the meetings to keep it moving as a nonpartisan member rather than using Ms. Kendall or someone on staff to keep that prejudice out of the process. Council Member Eakins asked why the term "working group" had been used rather than "committee." Ms. Fleming said staff became accustomed to using the term "working group." Mr. Calonne came up with the term primarily to ensure the FPPC's treatment of the group as advisory. The name of a group often indicated how much empowerment was being implied. The working group would not be a decision-making body but was designed to represent interests and facilitate staff and consultant preparation of responsive solutions. Mayor Pro Tem Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open.
08/11/97 84-170
Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet, representing University South Neighborhood Group (USNG), supported the staff report regarding selection of a coordinator and was comfortable with the selection of Alison Kendall. Regarding Council Member Wheeler's concerns about the transportation perspective, his neighborhood planned to address transportation and alternative transportation concerns both within any housing siting and creating a walkable community which facilitated alternative transportation. USNG bylaws and function included business interests and renters and encouraged public institutions. However, the composition of the proposed process was unequal. Of the 12 stakeholders only 5 would be from the greater study area: of that 5, 3 represented business interests. Only 2 members would represent the stakeholder group. One of the primary reasons the process had been developed was to provide the people living in the areas an active role in the process. Out of the 2, only 1 would be a homeowner. Council was encouraged to provide greater latitude in the subcommittee selection of the composition of the group by increasing the number of homeowners, if the subcommittee thought such an increase would broaden the interests. David Jury, Real Estate Manager, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 300 Homer Avenue, encouraging Council to keep the process brief by limiting the number of people in the group. Council and the subcommittee appointing the group should be given the latitude to appoint a smaller group, if best for the process. He also urged maintaining the group as advisory only. The PAMF was content with having only one member to represent its interests. Gerry Steinberg was a consultant from Enshalla Development who had been retained by the PAMF not as the developer but as a consultant to the PAMF to help package and market the property. Gerry Steinberg, 101 Alma Street, looked forward to working with the working group and Council and emphasized the need for a timely decision. The proposed process had been devised for one year, three months after the notice, for which no further delays would be beneficial. Concern was expressed that the PAMF had only one vote; however, it was willing to live with one vote in the hope the outcome would be practical and economically feasible for the PAMF. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding the Terman working group on which he had served. The group been comprised of people who lived in the neighborhood and people who were attending the meetings. The operation was more contentious than the current process. Instead of votes, adoption was done by consensus. Coming up with generic rather than detailed principles was encouraged. The system would undoubtedly work but would take time to become totally organized. Council, the Planning Commission, and staff were commended. Mayor Pro Tem Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed.
08/11/97 84-171
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, that the City Council: 1) Approve the tentative schedule and tasks for the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan; 2) Authorize the Mayor, with the advice and assistance of a less than a quorum City Council Subcommittee, to appoint a 13-member Working Group, with the proviso that the 13th member have subregional transportation
expertise; and 3) Approve staff=s recommendation to negotiate an employment agreement with Alison Kendall, AICP. Council Member Wheeler thought the recommendation was a very auspicious beginning into which much thought had gone. The issues Council had discussed in theory for a number of years were coming to pass, particularly in terms of the close connection desired along a portion of Alma Street between land use and transportation and to somehow take advantage of the proximity that portion of Alma Street, to the Intermodal facilities which existed one or two blocks away. If VTA were not interested in applying, there were other large community groups interested in the issue and could represent the interests as well as VTA. She urged her colleagues to support that portion of the motion. Council Member Kniss agreed with Council Member Wheeler. She supported the motion. The makeup was good, but once again, she was glad the decision makers had been designated because it could become difficult. Only one homeowner was present, which was a concern. The result would depend on the participants in the process and the degree of participation. Many groups began with great vigor but ended with only two or three members. It was a good start. Council Member McCown said 13 stakeholders would bring different perspectives to the group, and in response to Mr. Burt's comment about greater representation, each voice would be expected to articulate that perspective. Just as Mr. Jury had voiced his confidence about having PAMF represented and its perspectives articulated through one member, she was confident a homeowner and a renter who were residents in the Downtown area could articulate that perspective as well. Obviously, members of the public would follow the process and provide input to the representatives to give an even broader voice. The structure worked well. She looked forward to the rapid implementation to allow the process to begin. Council Member Eakins supported the motion, which was an outgrowth of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) workshops that began with one of the outreach programs CPAC conducted during its first "semester." The core of individuals backing the recommendation from the SOFA area had participated in one of the workshops. Some history would come together for the neighborhood. She was confident the group would work well. The excellent consultant who had already been chosen made her even more optimistic. Renters could be found who were very motivated, and Council should hold out for a renter on the committee.
08/11/97 84-172
MOTION PASSED 5-0, Huber Αnot participating,≅ Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. Ms. Fleming said unless Council objected, Item 3 would be brought back on the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator=s decision of a conditional use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court and a park area, including restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District (Item to be continued to September 15, 1997, at the request of staff) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to the Monday, September 15, 1997, City Council meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-0, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider the Downtown Urban Design Improvements Master Plan, a schematic design and feasibility study for improvements to the public space in the University Avenue downtown area bounded by Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, Middlefield Road and Alma Street Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the project before Council was the Downtown Urban Design Improvements Master Plan (Downtown Master Plan), and the Implementation of the Initial Set of Proposed Improvements to be carried out during 1997-98 was attached to the staff report (CMR:355:97). The project was developed with input from the public during three public workshops and was reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and the Public Art Commission (PAC). The main components of the project consisted of schematic designs for various improvements to the public pedestrian spaces in the Downtown/University Avenue core area, including sidewalks, parking lots, and plazas. The need for the improvements was identified in the Downtown Urban Design Guide which Council approved in 1994. The area of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, which began implementation of the improvements, was surrounded by Alma Street, Middlefield Road, Lytton Avenue, and Hamilton Avenue. The various elements in the Downtown Master Plan included: 1) repair and replacement of furnishings including replacement of existing benches and trash receptacles, new bicycle racks, tree grates, drinking fountains, and improved brick paving
08/11/97 84-173
at University Avenue Corners; 2) redesign of the concrete corner wall at the four main intersections on University Avenue including renovation of existing walls to replace the top 15 inches with a new artist-designed tile cap and handcrafted metal work; 3) removal of existing newspaper racks and replacement with newspaper boxes located on an ornamental framework designed with shelves to support the boxes; 4) installation of a unified system of directional and parking lot signs including street name signs, parking directional signs, alley name signs, and new parking lot information signs at the City parking lots; 5) installation of three types of sidewalk widening devices in selected locations; 6) simplification of street and parking lot lights as a design element using only three types of light poles, all of which were currently found in the Downtown area; 7) refurbishing of Cogswell Plaza with new furniture and improvements to landscaping; 8) a new and expanded care and maintenance program for street and parking lot trees; and 9) renovated landscaping along University Avenue and in the parking lots. The Master Plan also included renovation of Lytton Plaza and the provision of special paving along Hamilton Avenue at the Civic Center, the cost of which placed the items on a subsequent phase of implementation. Planning Commissioner Owen Byrd said the Planning Commission asked Council to consider two amendments to the staff recommendation: 1) inclusion of public toilets in the first phase of improvements, at least one of which would be sited in the Downtown public parks or plazas and 2) identification and implementation of more locations for newsracks in addition to the 132 shown on the Master Plan. Mayor Huber asked whether the Planning Commission wanted more than the 230 currently identified in the Master Plan. Mr. Byrd said at the time the Planning Commission recommended more than 132 and left the exact number to Council's discretion. Council Member Kniss asked whether the additional $17,000 expenditure was intended for the newsrack boxes. Ms. Warheit said the $17,000 represented the cost for the newsrack framework only, not the boxes. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Barbara Gross, President, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber supported the staff recommendations for the Downtown Master Plan. Council was asked to address concern about the newspaper racks and placement of some of the boxes. The volunteer committee and staff were thanked. The Chamber would focus on overall and long-term maintenance of Downtown. A survey of a number of California cities was conducted which staff could use in examining similarities and differences. Keeping Downtown clean needed to be a collaborative effort among City staff,
08/11/97 84-174
individual merchants, property owners, and the larger business district interests. Council was urged to approve the Downtown Master Plan. Kathleen Haney, Downtown Marketing Chairman, Steering Committee, 235 Hamilton Avenue, spoke in support of the staff recommendation except for the proposed number of newsracks. The Palo Alto Daily, a new newspaper which had brought vitality to the community, would not be adequately served by the proposed newsracks and locations. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) placed the responsibility of Downtown maintenance on business owners to clean sidewalks in front of businesses. The plaques within Lytton Plaza indicating "private property" should be removed. The crosswalk in front of the Civic Center should be installed immediately. The press should not have to negotiate the limits for distribution of newspapers. Tom Richman, 654 Gilman Street, served on the committee that represented the Downtown Marketing Committee. He said the Downtown Master Plan intentionally treated the area as a district rather than a corridor which had not reflected a nostalgia for a particular, perfect historic time but reflected a contribution to a continuum of City building based on timeless principles, e.g., craftsmanship, integrity of materials, and the human scale and human touch. Palo Alto's citizens preferred traditional building forms and materials, as reflected in the Downtown Master Plan. Palo Alto was emerging as an industrial and intellectual capital for which the Downtown Master Plan was appropriate. Dave Price, Palo Alto Daily, 329 Alma Street, spoke regarding the Daily's desire to maintain existing Downtown newsrack locations, since distribution was critical. The increased expense required to modify the racks was accepted as being in the interest of aesthetics. Council was asked to phase in the Downtown improvements, i.e., University Avenue as the first phase after which Hamilton and Lytton could be improved. Council was also asked to refrain from making a decision about the location of the newsracks until a detailed letter could be sent. Council Member Rosenbaum queried Mr. Prices' current thinking since a letter from Bill Johnson of the San Francisco Chronicle had been at Council's places indicating concurrence with the new newsrack recommendation. Letters had also previously been received from Mr. Price and Mr. Johnson regarding the vertical versus horizontal format of the newsracks. Mr. Price said a supplier had been found in New York which could supply the Daily with a rack that was the same size as the other modular racks with a vertical display window. The plan would not be affected in an overall sense.
08/11/97 84-175
Council Member McCown asked about the goal of the Daily to remain in its current locations. During the course of the projects moving forward, the Daily had evaluated every key intersection for which the staff recommendation had not differed in terms of how many racks would fit at key intersections. Mr. Price said the Daily had conducted a walk-through with staff to examine locations of which the current plan had appeared to represent a great deal of the conversation. A few other locations were desired, e.g., in front of Jim's Coffee Shop and the Peninsula Creamery. Such changes should be investigated further. There were many places on the map where racks were not located. The staff report (CMR:355:97) indicated a limitation to the number of racks, a policy decision with which the Daily disagreed. Also, no provision had been included to allow additional locations Downtown, i.e., no process would allow for modification in the event of the opening of a new business for which a newsrack would be appropriate. Council Member McCown understood the desire for Council to refrain from making a decision about newsracks until a detailed letter could be provided but queried whether a case could be made for determining whether more than 230 newsracks could work. Mr. Price said the number of newsracks, which might be sufficient, was not as critical as the placement or location, which was equally important. Having a bank of racks stuck on the wall next to Burger King would not be helpful if the racks had previously been located in a place which encountered more people. Council Member Kniss said Palo Alto had clearly been ready for a daily newspaper. She asked about the growth of the paper to determine the demand in the community. The issue of Downtown beautification was being balanced with Downtown edification. Mr. Price said his partner had been shocked at the growth of the Daily. On the first day of distribution, 1,000 8-page papers had been distributed. Since that time, the size had increased to 40 pages with a press run of 15,000. The paper, which had been in the black since August 1996, was faced with being regulated in a way which would have a great impact. Distribution was necessary to allow people to get their hands on the paper each day. If inaccessible, advertisements would not be seen, and the paper would not work. Solid distribution channels were necessary. The paper could probably print 20,000 papers, all of which would be gone by the end of the day. Distribution had increased by 1,000 papers daily during the past two weeks. Council Member Kniss understood the primary means of distribution of the Daily was through newsracks with only a few distributed through home delivery.
08/11/97 84-176
Mr. Price said the Daily had not pushed home distribution, although a great number of requests had been made. The desire had not been to make a profit but to distribute the paper for free to facilitate a more widely read paper and to be more economical to the environment. Mayor Huber asked whether the recent expansion of the Daily was primarily due to activity in Palo Alto or further afield. Mr. Price said the major expansion had been the result of activity in Palo Alto. Initially, the paper had been distributed in Menlo Park and recently had been distributed in Los Altos and Mountain View. However, approximately 70 percent of the distribution was in Palo Alto. Mayor Huber asked whether the Daily would always argue it needed more racks, short of being given unlimited ability. Mr. Price replied no. Racks were expensive. Freestanding racks cost $300, and the modular racks proposed in the staff report were at least $500. Therefore, just the purchase of the rack limited the number of people who could put up racks. Any location which did not work would be changed. Mayor Huber asked whether the objection, or suggestion, not to deal with the racks at the current evening was related to the number and/or the locations. Mr. Price said the Daily preferred not having a limit on the number of racks. The first page of the staff report (CMR:355:97) suggested no more than 230 racks, which was a concern. The Daily also wanted the ability to modify placement of racks in the Downtown area, i.e., locations not currently in the plan. Mayor Huber asked whether Mr. Price suggested the City should not limit the number of racks at all since, without limitations, conditions Downtown would not change. Mr. Price suggested passing an ordinance stating there would be modular racks. Not everyone would purchase a modular rack because of simple economics. The Daily had applied for nine locations in Los Altos, and eight had been approved. When regular freestanding racks had been placed, the Police Department called to say the racks had not fit the city's ordinance. A process of obtaining the approved racks had been done to fit Los Altos' specifications. The process worked because only a certain number of publishers was willing to go through such a process. Mayor Huber said if Palo Alto were unable to rely on the marketplace to control the number, some method of control would be necessary, i.e., either limiting the number or location. He asked Mr. Price what he would consider a solution.
08/11/97 84-177
Mr. Price said more available locations were desired. The second part of the process, i.e., the ordinance from the City Attorney's Office for allocating the racks Downtown, was the major question in everyone's mind. The Daily wanted more than 230 racks because it was unsure it would retain the current locations. If the allocation process were known, possibly the concern would disappear. Publishers of many free publications had been putting many racks onto the streets in an attempt to be included in the allocations. The greatest concern was on placement rather than on number. Michael Midolo, 362 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding Attachment 7 to the staff report (CMR:355:97), which was Virginia Warheit's report of May 14, 1997, to the Planning Commission and ARB. Item 6 on page 4 addressed the issue of widening sidewalks, which should primarily be done to provide greater pedestrian access rather than for newsracks and street furniture, which defeated the whole purpose. The Daily and the Palo Alto Weekly provided a great service to the community; however, enlarging sidewalks to accommodate publications would not assure the same quality of publication would be used in the future. Warren Thoits, 629 Emerson Street, member of the committee on the project, thanked staff and his colleagues for the time and effort which had gone into the project. Although an avid supporter of the Daily, Weekly and San Francisco Chronicle, he expressed concern over the attitude of the newspapers in creating a "supermarket" for newspapers. A major item in getting the project underway had been the concern about Downtown newspaper racks. Newspapers had an obligation to respect the decision and treat the rest of the program with respect to make it work. Council was urged to approve the staff recommendation as presented. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, spoke regarding the locations of the newspaper racks. Council was urged to keep the newspaper racks at Lytton and Waverley where many people drank coffee and read newspapers. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration with a finding of no significant environmental impact; 2. Approve the initial set of proposed improvements, including a maximum of 230 boxes for newsracks, based on the following findings and conditions except for Condition 3 regarding public toilets; and
08/11/97 84-178
3. Authorize staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for $17,000, at the time of award of construction contract, to increase the amount available to install newsracks. FINDINGS The Downtown Urban Design Improvements Master Plan furthers the design goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance by complying with the Standards for Architectural Review required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC, as described below. * The Master Plan will be compatible with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the Policy Section of this report (Standard #a1). * The design is compatible with the immediate environment and promotes harmonious transition in scale and character by using design elements that are classic and understated, forming a background for the adjacent storefronts, and that are consistent with the comfortable, informal character of the Downtown, which in addition to being the central business district is a local shopping area for two nearby residential neighborhoods (Standards #2, #5, and #6). * The Master Plan responds to the historical character of the Ramona Street Historic District by replacing several modern light poles on this block with replicas of existing historic light poles (Standard #4). * The Master Plan is appropriate to the function of the project, creates a sense of order, and provides appropriate open space and a desirable environment for visitors by carefully designing and locating all of the furnishings that need to be accommodated on the street in a way that maintains the popular and comfortable seating areas under the existing sycamore trees, adds additional seating in a variety of locations, and provides a more efficient arrangement for newspaper boxes, thus reducing clutter and impediments to pedestrian circulation on the sidewalks (Standards #3, #7, #8, and #9). * Access and circulation are improved for pedestrians and bicyclists by providing sufficient and convenient bicycle parking, by widening sidewalks at strategic locations, and by enhancing the pedestrian alley system to make it easier to move around on foot in the Downtown (Standard #10). * The Master Plan protects natural features in the Downtown by including a Street Tree Maintenance Plan that will improve the care of street and parking lot trees. (Standard #11).
08/11/97 84-179
* The materials, textures, colors and details of construction are an appropriate expression of the design in that light poles and other infrastructure will be a single dark color and types of light poles are limited to three similar designs, trash cans and benches are simple forms in natural wood or a matching dark color, directional and parking location signs are a single color and shape, and the redesign of the corner concrete walls will be accomplished as a single artistic composition designed to be compatible with the other improvements in the area (Standard #12). * All plant materials proposed for the planting areas in parking lots and along University Avenue will be selected for visual interest, to shape and define planting areas and screen cars, as well as for their low maintenance and drought-tolerant characteristics (Standards #13, #14 and #15). CONDITIONS General Conditions of project approval recommended to be added by the Planning Commission and/or the Architectural Review Board are in
italics. 1. Improvements in subsequent phases of the Downtown Improvements Master Plan shall be designed in coordination with all relevant City departments and shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board and the Architectural Review Board. 2. All art elements that are included in the improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Arts Commission prior to an artist being commissioned to design or install the work. An ARB member will be appointed by the Board as liaison to the Public Art Commission for the design development and
implementation of the modifications to the concrete corner walls. The liaison will have authority to represent the ARB in accepting the final design or in referring the final design back to the full ARB for review.
3. Include public toilets in the first phase of improvements planned for fiscal year 1997-98, with at least one toilet to be provided in one of the downtown public parks or plazas, the type and cost of the toilets to be determined; the design and location of the toilet(s) shall be approved by the ARB.
4. Pursue additional locations for newsboxes after a process of staff, newspaper representatives and other interested parties discussing the alternatives. Additional locations for newspaper racks shall be approved by the ARB. Preferred
locations are in association with other amenities, such as
08/11/97 84-180
benches, landscaping, entrances to pedestrian alleys, etc.,
not scattered along the street. 5. The background logo on the proposed directional and alley identification signs shall be replaced by plain background. The official City logo may be used on the parking lot signs.
An actual sample of the sign color and material shall return to the ARB for review under daylight conditions. 6. Benches shall be either all wood, or wood and metal with wood seats and the metal to have simple lines and not be Victorian
in character; the Smith and Hawkin teak Berkshire bench and the Timberform #2001 bench are approved, but another bench may be selected at the discretion of the design consultant, with participation of the artists in the selection of benches that are compatible with the wall/railing at seating areas.
7. Newspaper boxes shall be the signature color of the publication, with each vendor permitted to use a single solid identifying color for all their newspaper boxes located in the Downtown.
8. The proposed gateway structures should not be pursued in subsequent phases of the Master Plan, with resources used instead for other improvements that will strengthen the Downtown pedestrian environment. Transportation 9. Location and design of bicycle parking and bus/shuttle stops shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Division. The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be at least as great as currently provided. 10. The design of any changes to existing curbs, traffic lanes, or pedestrian crosswalks, displaced or relocated parking spaces, loading zones or red zones, and parking lot signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Division. Fire 11. Any changes to red zones shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. Police 12. Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements.
08/11/97 84-181
13. All nonresidential construction activities shall be subject to
the requirements of the City=s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday Utilities 14. During the design development phase of the improvements, plans shall be routed for review by the WGW Engineering Division to
evaluate impact on the City=s utilities infrastructure. 15. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 16. Design and location of all changes to existing lights or addition of new lights shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Utilities Division. Planning 17. All public trees within the area of work shall be protected during construction activities. A plan for protecting trees shall be prepared and the protection measures in place to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist prior to the beginning of work. Absolutely no construction materials or debris of any kind shall be stored or disposed of in planting areas. Public Works 18. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with
the City of Palo Alto=s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 19. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Publi
08/11/97 84-182
c Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 20. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from
the contractor=s operations, either inside or outside of the
right-of-way, shall be controlled at the contractor=s expense. 21. The contractor shall incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Public Works Department shall monitor BMPs with respect to the
contractor=s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) Council Member McCown said Mr. Price's points of concern were at a level of detail for which she would not substitute her own judgment for the work of the Downtown Master Plan. A limitation on the number of newsracks was the appropriate start for reasons stated by Mr. Thoits. Adjustments could be made as conditions and experience developed and opportunities for other locations or changes in the numbers were appropriate. A plan had to be the start point from which the City could move forward. Council Member Wheeler concurred with Council Member McCown. The speakers had reiterated an issue which was key to the Downtown Master Plan. The City was looking at the Downtown area in a different way. It was no longer solely considered in terms of University Avenue. The types of development which had taken place Downtown and the way it had evolved in terms of its private use and
08/11/97 84-183
development had been to enlarge the scope of usable buildings and activities, reaching from Hamilton Avenue to Lytton Avenue. The fact Palo Alto's Downtown area would be considered a district rather than a corridor was key. In the past, the Downtown area had been considered as a single corridor. The fact was overlooked that significant activities occurred on the two streets running parallel to University Avenue as well as the side streets. People would need to be retrained to seek favorite newspapers from any number of locations rather than simply walking down University Avenue and finding a red, white, or blue box. Some of the perceived problems with distribution would be self-correcting as box locations were broadened and made more attractive and visible through the use of the modular racks and decorative attachments. Council Member Kniss supported the motion but expressed concern about tracking. Some of the issues not mentioned during the evening included additional racks Downtown and other publications actually there. A number of publications, not mentioned and which took up rack room, had increased since July from 234 to up to 300, which was an alarming problem. Staff was urged to track the increase in the numbers of newsracks and make the distribution a fair one. The goal had been to remove some of the racks but not at the expense of making finding newspapers more difficult. Some of the newspapers could be eliminated since some might distribute only five to ten papers per week without the legal recourse of elimination. She hoped the topic was not at the finish and the City would continue to listen to various newspapers that were distributed Downtown. In addition to the news contained in the papers, there were advertisers. She asked when staff would return to Council with a report. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said staff did not schedule the newsrack ordinance since staff was still in the process of working with publishers on an allocation system. Council Member Kniss asked when staff anticipated returning to Council with the allocation system. Ms. Harrison said staff hoped to return to Council in early Fall 1997. Council Member Kniss clarified Council would have an opportunity to examine the issue even if it passed the motion. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Daily raised issues which Council could always address. The ordinance and draft currently with the publishers established priorities based on the frequency of the publications. Therefore, daily and weekly papers were on a first-tier priority for the racks, which should address some of the non-content type publications which were proliferating. The second concern was the expense of the racks. Distributors working on a more marginal basis would have a disincentive to buy into the system. The numbers would sort out if publishers were given a
08/11/97 84-184
chance to work on it. If not, Council would always be in the position to intervene. Council Member Kniss asked whether Mr. Calonne would inform Council of issues it would not otherwise know about. Mr. Calonne said when staff returned to Council with the newsrack ordinance, a report would be included. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether staff had anticipated some mixture of horizontal and vertical newsrack formats. Acting Chief Planning Official James Gilliland said the proposed design had anticipated all broad sheets. Mr. Price's news about finding a rack which fit into the module was very encouraging. Several people had been trying to find one. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the proposed rails could accommodate horizontal as well as vertical formats. Mr. Gilliland replied no. The only papers which could be accommodated in the racks were the "broad sheet" or horizontal format. Council Member Rosenbaum asked the difference among a module, a rack, and a rail. Mr. Gilliland said metal posts would hold up a shelf in a very simple format inserted into which would be two or four boxes. The module was the box itself which came in several different varieties. Shelves had been designed to hold modular boxes from several different manufacturers, all of which were of a horizontal format. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether a module with a vertical format could still fit on a shelf. Mr. Gilliland hoped so. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether staff thought about further regulations for Downtown restaurants with tables and chairs. Some cities had railings within which tables and chairs were enclosed. Mr. Gilliland said staff did not address the issue of tables and chairs. To a certain degree, staff attempted to change as few regulations as possible. Tables and chairs required a permit through the Public Works Department, and enforcement was possible if moved or in certain locations. Council Member Eakins said the staff report (CMR:355:97) was very comprehensive and contained details with excellent guidelines for what to do next. The contribution from the Downtown Urban Design
08/11/97 84-185
guide had been years in the making and in articulation. The "scheme" held everything together. Mr. Richmond's phrase about "timeless principles" which emphasized fine craft and integrity of materials and "human scale," and not just nostalgia, were appreciated. The changes would be something the community could live with, the results would be pleasing, and Palo Alto would be grateful. Although there were arguments and conflicts, all appeared to be resolved with something which was not complicated but doable. Mayor Huber was mindful of the needs of newspapers, but as the staff report indicated, the "balance of competing uses on the sidewalks" was the real issue. It was time to move on and put the plan in place. From that point, precisely what was being accomplished would be realized. Staff was encouraged to stay on top of the Downtown maintenance issue. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. RECESS: 9:40 P.M. - 10:05 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to combine Item Nos. 14 and 15 for the purposes of the Public Hearing. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to designate as Contributing Residences, two single family residences constructed prior to 1940 located at 4111 and 4117 Goebel 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to designate as Contributing Residences, two single family residences constructed prior to 1940 located at 579 and 583 Vista Acting Chief Planning Official James Gilliland said the item before Council appealed the historic designation of contributing residence given to four pre-1940 residences located on two adjacent properties in the Barron Park neighborhood at 579 and 583 Vista and 4111 and 4117 Goebel. The staff report (CMR:353:97) presented both appeals as a single appeal for convenience. Staff noted that a separate application for redevelopment of three parcels on Goebel Lane had been filed for preliminary Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. The application had not been part of the review information before the Historic Resources Board (HRB). The HRB charge was only to determine the historic status of the existing structures on the site. An appeal of the decision was before Council.
08/11/97 84-186
Historic Resources Board Member Montgomery Anderson said the HRB reviewed all of the items and, by a majority vote, found all had contributing status. All defined a particular style identifiable and recognizable, so the suggestions of the staff report (CMR:353:97) had been upheld. Council Member Wheeler clarified the application differed from most of the applications Council or the HRB had seen in the past in that the zoning was RM-15 rather than R-1. Preservation Architect Barbara Judy said Council Member Wheeler was correct. Council Member Wheeler asked how the imposition of the designation of contributing structures to one or more of the homes would impact the intent of the applicant to demolish the current structures and replace with a redesigned structure, i.e., how the applicant would be able to fit the new structures into the compatibility guidelines currently in place which primarily addressed single-family structures. Ms. Judy said the compatibility review standards focused on R-1 in a few key areas, such as site planning. For example, the compatibility review standards had certain specific garage placement strategies, one of which was the detached rear yard garage. However, there were other opportunities for garage placement. The site planning strategy was derived from the R-1 tradition. The compatibility review standards also contained a very key exception process based on unusual site conditions which allowed an applicant to present alternative solutions, that better satisfied the key goals of design quality and neighborhood compatibility. The basis for the exception process was unusual site conditions for which it was very likely the two properties under consideration would be applicable. The compatibility review standards contained many provisions applicable to any structure, not simply a residential structure. For example, some requirements addressed the use of quality materials, provided general relief on the façade at window openings and incorporated period architectural elements into the style in a rational and consistent fashion. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the replacement structure would be considered a multi-family structure. Mr. Gilliland said the applicant proposed a condominium project of small-lot, single-family, unattached houses. The project would be considered a multi-family project. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the project would be subject to review by the ARB. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. The project would first be subject to review for compatibility review standards as an administrative process and then subject to the ARB.
08/11/97 84-187
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the property would be subject to both. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the ARB could disagree with staff on the compatibility review guidelines. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. The ARB was advisory to the Director of Planning, who was the compatibility review standards decision maker. In the event of a major disagreement, the Director of Planning would more than likely refer the item to Council. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that regardless of whether the site was viewed as contributing or of no historic merit, it would be subject to review by at least one City organization. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. Council Member McCown asked about the difference between a normal ARB review for a multi-family project, regardless of contributing status, and the additional compatibility evaluation if contributing status were found. She asked whether the only distinction was the requirement to examine pursuant to the compatibility guidelines and the time issue of the process prior to putting plans to the ARB. Mr. Gilliland thought the concern was the extra burden of meeting the compatibility review standards, with its very specific design ramifications to any proposal for the site, which made a difference to the design of the project if the compatibility review standards were followed. A particular exception clause allowed staff to avoid having to follow the compatibility review standards to the "nth" degree. In the current case, the exception clause would probably be used, but staff was unsure. Council Member McCown asked how long the process would take if the applicant already had something ready to bring in the following day, went through the compatibility process first, and then went through the ARB process. Mr. Gilliland said because the site under question was the first to come through the process with every situation, staff spent time on the process already. Therefore, the time period to move the site through would probably not be great. As soon as the application was submitted, staff would conduct the compatibility review quickly. The greatest amount of time for the compatibility review would be an additional two to four weeks. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Jeffrey Levin, 350 Second Street, Suite 7, Los Altos, applicant, said a two- to four-week delay would significantly impact him
08/11/97 84-188
financially. The 650-square foot residences, which were falling down and rat-infested and had ceilings falling in, and bad plumbing, etc., failed to meet the contributing criteria. Criteria 4 required: "a) distinctive, characteristic of a type, period, region, or method of construction; b) particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to city, region, state, and nation; c) represents work of a master; d) possesses high artistic values; and e) contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design detail, materials, and craftsmanship." At best, the structures would meet only two of the five criteria under Criteria 4 and failed to meet any of the other criteria Council stated in the ordinance. At best, the ruling that the buildings were contributing was arbitrary and capricious. Of the last three residences under scrutiny, two were found to have no merit, and one was found to be contributing. He asked why of the sites in the same little enclave, one had no merit and five had contributing status. Trying to fit the contributing status into an RM-15 development was burdensome. A 15-unit condominium with subterranean parking would have difficulty complying with contributing guidelines written for R-1. The designs were submitted, and the ARB was not been able to listen to proposals. When a determination was made on a unique piece of property with unique zoning, which had failed to fit into the mold when the guidelines were written, it was important to determine what would be built on the property. Clarification was needed for the term "contributing," since to date the plans which had been submitted were for 12 homes, 5 of which were contributing and 2 no merit. He asked whether only 5 of the 12 being built had to be contributing while the other 7 could be anything desired without going through the contributing guidelines. The ordinance had been put into effect without anticipating the normal ARB process, and the contributing hearing had been considered the City's only protection. The extra layer of ARB was what ARB was for. He was more comfortable going through an ARB process with people who were educated and trained to look at the whole process rather than going through one person in a contributing guideline hearing with the ability to make an arbitrary decision. The ARB was the City's way of protecting itself by ensuring projects conformed with what the City sought, and the project did. Long before going through the hearing process with the HRB, a design had been submitted with 1930s style, cobblestone streets, shingle-style façades, bungalows, etc. The extra layer was burdensome. Council should find no merit for the properties based on the fact staff had not demonstrated that the properties met Criteria 4. In staff's judgment, both the main residence and rear cottage were not outstanding examples of Spanish eclectic and minimal traditional styles because, even though architectural features characteristic of period residences in Palo Alto were presented, all elements were common to residences of the period and were not exceptional. Staff admitted there was nothing exceptional, but there were details which every home during the period contained. Council was asked to find the homes had no
08/11/97 84-189
merit and allow the project to proceed through the normal ARB channels. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the Barron Park Association met with Mr. Levin several times to discuss the project. Although not in opposition with design review, he questioned what would be achieved through the review under question. Council Member Wheeler had previously stated that the problem was an attempt to solve two different problems with a single ordinance and a single approach. The current project represented a third problem staff attempted to solve with a single approach. Council Member Rosenbaum's question about a possible disagreement with the ARB and HRB was valid. In the staff report (CMR:353:97), staff indicated a desire to receive instruction from Council while such projects moved forward because of the "newness" of the problem. The project would have at least one good professional design review in the ARB, and staff and would not be ignored. The question of compatibility could be solved by looking at adjacent zoning with multi-family on three sides and R-1 along one side. A suggestion was made to have the ARB review the site with the HRB present as advisory. Since the site was zoned multi-family, it should be compatible with the surrounding multi-family residences, not R-1. The project was unusual and should be treated as such. Mr. Levin said staff indicated Goebel had homes which would be contributing. However, all of the homes would be torn down. The neighborhood was very eclectic. The desire was to create a unique community centered more as a typical 1930s style development with 1998 standards. The question was what the site contributed to. If a single-family home was being torn down and a single-family home remained, the situation would be different. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Rosenbaum said Mr. Moss mentioned staff's request in the staff report (CMR:353:97) for guidance on the policy implications. The style of the structures in question was very weak, and the houses were modest examples of the style, which would not justify the contributing designation. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to uphold the appeal and find all residences at 579-583 Vista, and 4111-4117 Goebel to be Without Historic Merit. Council Member Kniss agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum. The residences were weak examples of a style which had not been enormously attractive to begin with. Although the language presented by Ms. Judy was persuasive, it was difficult to look at the residences in light of the language; therefore, the staff recommendation could not be upheld.
08/11/97 84-190
Council Member Wheeler thought the staff report (CMR:353:97) had been very instructive. Along with the normal packet of materials, the report contained several pages from style books and style guides staff and the HRB used to help define the various styles. In examining the pictures of the various styles, she agreed the pictures in the style books were finer examples of each of the styles than the examples on Goebel and Vista. While not believing a house had to be grandiose and large and of significant proportions to be deemed contributing to its neighborhood, she found she agreed with comments made at the meeting by HRB Member Bernstein in relation to the structures under question, which were of a very weak style. She visited the site and realized that the character of the neighborhood was as Mr. Moss described it. There was a greater impression of entering a multi-family zone, traditional multi-family construction. Not until some properties away was the single-family residential development apparent. She had difficulty making a finding to uphold Criteria 4 because the structures failed to contribute to the neighborhood setting. Council Member McCown agreed with her colleagues in support of the motion. If the issue again arose with the multi-family element, it would be helpful for staff to refresh Council about whether properties would be eligible for both ARB and compatibility design review. The issue arose because of Council's desire to review houses which would not otherwise go through the design review at the ARB level. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber could not recall a similar situation. It was the first of its kind through the process. Council Member McCown said the issue would become a moot point if the motion passed. However, if the issue arose again, it might be useful to think about what was being accomplished. Confusion to an applicant was possible about which process to go through. Mr. Schreiber said Council Member McCown's point was a good one. The comment on the policy implications was included in the staff report (CMR:353:97) not only as direction to staff but also for Council consideration when permanent regulations were addressed. Each of the appeals which were brought before Council provided good information for Council in evaluating the permanent regulations and the extent to which regulations should or should not focus on different types of situations. The structures under question were unusual and would be kept in mind when Council returned to discuss policy directions for the permanent regulations. Council Member McCown said it was the second time on such a question when she voted in favor of the appellant's position, notwithstanding comments made which were not particularly helpful to the appellant's case, i.e., the arguments were not as effective
08/11/97 84-191
as possible, given the objective of the process. The appeal had merit and should be upheld. Council Member Eakins thought a distinction needed to be made between style and rendition of the style. Saying something was not contributing because a style was weak, when perhaps it meant modest, was wrong. As Council Member Wheeler stated, the style did not need to be grand with large proportions and great impressiveness and prominence to be a worthwhile style. She examined the little houses, read Ms. Judy's comments, and did not find the words particularly strange. The words had not been "romantic." They had been absolutely specific and accurate. If a decision were made to consider a building as non-contributing because it was modest, a mistake would be made about what Council was trying to do in maintaining a look and feel in Palo Alto. The staff report (CMR:353:97) persuaded her. She asked either as an
incorporation into Council Member Rosenbaum=s motion or as a separate motion a strong recommendation to the ARB. She expressed concern about the applicant's description of a 1930s style with cobblestone, which sounded charming, with 1997-98 standards. She asked what 1997-98 standards meant. Across the road, a totally auto-oriented complex stood in the multi-family development. Cobblestones with the same design, even a cozy style, would be an auto-oriented, non-1930s feel. Cosmetics could be used to make people think they were getting a historic style when they were not. An emphasis should be placed on exactly what contributing standards were, i.e., quality materials, integrity of style, and maintaining a look and feel. In Barron Park, the look and feel was very humane and refreshing. Walking up and down the street into Goebel Lane felt like going back in time. Maintaining such a look and feel should be congratulated. If, on the other hand, garages were in front, etc., no one would benefit. The motion was not supported. Mayor Huber supported the appeal. Simply because a building had been allowed to deteriorate should not affect the decision as to whether or not to save or cause a structure to fail to fit under historic ordinances. Also, a judgment should not be made based on new surrounding structures because the historic aspect would be ignored. The structures under question were zoned RM-15, which was an issue that had not been considered when the ordinance was drafted. Many such issues were not considered during creation of the ordinance, which had moved very quickly. The issue was a judgment call on which Council relied upon the HRB with its experience and background. The fact he might disagree with the HRB would not mean the HRB had not done its job or approach the issue correctly. He hoped the ARB would ensure the structures under question ended up with a good design. The same buildings elsewhere, particularly if in an R-1 zone, should be found compatible and saved in some fashion.
08/11/97 84-192
MOTION PASSED 5-1, Eakins Αno,≅ Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. Mr. Schreiber said the configuration of houses in question involved a third house about which the HRB had made a finding of contributing structure which would trigger the compatibility review. Given the actions of Council, he would return the application to the HRB for consideration. The alternative was to have the applicant appeal the decision back to Council, which seemed a waste of time for applicant, staff, and Council. Mayor Huber agreed. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct the Architectural Review Board to consider the quality of the materials used in replacement of the residences and that the design criteria be consistent with the surroundings. Council Member Rosenbaum was uncomfortable with giving direction to the ARB. In the motion about Miranda, the issue had been one of materials. Under the current process, Council would become more strongly involved in the design, which he was not up to and, therefore, opposed the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-2, Huber, Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to combine Item Nos. 16 and 17 for the purposes of discussion. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. 16. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations] Shall be in Effect 17. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dames & Moore to Revise the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Update the Historic Inventory Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Agenda Item Nos. 16 and 17 were linked by the fact the interim regulation extension time frame was tied to the work schedule in the Dames & Moore contract. If the work schedule were modified or retained intact by Council, it could have ramifications on the ordinance extending the interim regulations. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the extension of the interim regulations in reference to a story contained in the Palo Alto Weekly over the past week about a house in which three windows needed to be replaced. The story made the City appear foolish. He 08/11/97 84-193
asked whether staff could comment about the situation and whether possible revisions to the interim regulations should be considered, particularly if the interim regulations were to be in effect for some time. City Manager June Fleming said, if the location were 2351 Waverley Street, there were two sides to the story about which staff could comment. Mr. Schreiber said the article in the Weekly was marked by considerable wrong information. The application was for a great
deal more work than three windows and was marked by the architect=s inability to prepare a complete application package which substantially delayed his client. After the architect determined exactly what needed to be done, presented the correct information, and met with staff a number of times, the actual process moved forward swiftly. Staff was often unable to control the quality of work submitted for review, and at times, applicants found it difficult to meet application and information standards set out by the ordinance and other guidelines. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the requirements of the ordinance were justified or overly burdensome as suggested in the
Weekly for the type of work proposed. Mr. Schreiber said the structure was a contributing structure with notable historic merit. The effort was to retain and expand the structure, which involved significant work beyond three windows. The information he saw indicated the process proceeded quite quickly, after the needed information was obtained. The problem was the time taken by the architect to give staff the information in order to proceed on the project. Ms. Fleming said the issue was brought to her attention via telephone. The issue also was brought to Council's attention when the architect was in the audience on another project and referred to complications he experienced. At that time, she spoke with staff, and the issue was investigated. Based on the information from staff, the City did not receive good information with the application. After the information was clear, staff was able to proceed in its normal response time. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the problem centered around the City's definition of "demolition," an issue which had been debated among Council at the time the interim regulations were established, as consisting of "any change to the front façade," because the building was a contributing structure. Acting Chief Planning Official James Gilliland said Council Member Rosenbaum was correct.
08/11/97 84-194
Council Member Rosenbaum thought Council voted 5:4 not to include the front façade, at least initially. A secondary vote was probably taken, at which time Council changed its mind and decided changes to the front façade should be included in "demolition." He asked whether staff was comfortable maintaining the definition of "demolition" to include any changes to the front façade on a contributing structure. Mr. Gilliland said the front façade of houses was very germane to what houses in the neighborhood and residences looked like in the area. Any demolition to the front façade changed the character of the house and neighborhood. A review of the interim regulations and draft permanent regulations revealed the desirability of having the issue discussed. However, at the present time his opinion was to keep the front façades in "demolition." Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether changing out windows would be included in the regulation, if it were the only activity on the front façade. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. There would always be qualifications because there were windows available that met newer standards of energy efficiency. However, it was rare. Historic Resources Board Member Caroline Willis said Preservation Architect Barbara Judy, who was intimately involved in the project, compiled a chronological account of the process which would help Council understand what had gone on. A garage door was also affected in the application. The article in the Weekly disturbed Ms. Judy because of its reflection on the City and resulted in a report Ms. Judy would probably want to share with Council. Council Member Rosenbaum said Council would appreciate receiving the information if the report had already been prepared. Council Member McCown asked staff to reconfirm the process. After final adoption of the ordinance, she asked Nancy Lytle whether a kitchen remodel project which might affect a side yard window or a rear area would be pulled into the process. Ms. Lytle indicated any house older than 1940 would still have to go through the screening process, even if the anticipated remodeling project would not affect the front façade. However, she thought such houses would not have to go through the screening. If a house went through the screening and was found to be a contributing structure, then the determination of whether the house had to go through the design review process would be based on the degree of change to the property. Hence, the demolition definition, i.e., an entire tear- down would involve having the whole new house go through the process. Other types of changes not affecting the front façade were based on a percentage of alteration whereby the compatibility design review was avoided and the regular process was used.
08/11/97 84-195
Mr. Gilliland said Council Member McCown was correct. However, in going through the process, staff was faced with the question of the definition of "demolition," an issue which required further insight as the permanent regulations were shaped. Council Member McCown asked how many of the houses screened by the HRB and found to be contributing proceeded with home remodel projects without going through compatibility design review. Mr. Gilliland was unable to provide an exact answer. Council Member McCown asked how many of the houses staff screened and determined to be contributing went through the compatibility design review process. Mr. Gilliland was unable to provide an exact answer. Council Member McCown said handling projects, such as the example referred to by Council Member Rosenbaum in the Weekly which put Palo Alto in a bad light, was difficult unless a comparison could be made between houses which had not had to go through design review at all and how many had gone through design review without such controversy. Mr. Gilliland said staff would return with an exact number after Council's vacation. Because his job was to personally deal with the problems, he could attest that fact the number had been very few and could be counted on one hand and a much larger number had successfully gone through the process. Council Member McCown said having access to the data to allow the public to understand the process would be important as the consultant moved forward. Mr. Schreiber said the statistics could be pulled together, which would also be relevant to the anticipated Council discussion in October regarding the permanent regulations. Ms. Fleming said the statistics would be returned to Council without a great deal of narrative. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council needed to keep in mind that the original ordinances were adopted as an urgency measure to protect the health and safety of the community, which was a grave finding similar to that used to deal with a house being torn down or a calamitous fire. Although staff was sensitive to individual property owners, the City could not be all things to all people. As long as there was political sensitivity to the isolated impacts on individuals, staff would be targeted, and individual cases would be used to highlight problems. The City was faced with an initial frivolous lawsuit from a group of unlicensed developers who were particularly impacted. That lawsuit had gone away. A second
08/11/97 84-196
lawsuit resulted from a vocal property owner who might not have been impacted. The City's current system was fundamentally functioning, although it could be improved, a realism needed to be accepted. The City could not do everything at the same time. While not an answer or something Council should ignore, the City was dealing with an interim process. Feedback from the community and Council's deliberation were helpful in teaching staff how to clean up the permanent ordinance. In the interim, the community should consider the values Council sought to protect and ask whether the work accomplished had been good. Council Member Kniss said Council Member Rosenbaum's question regarding the newspaper article was anecdotal in nature for which a clear answer was impossible. The issue was puzzling. She queried how the process had been working, especially since consideration was for an extension of many months. Council should be made aware of the statistics. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not prepared the information. Staff had not had the opportunity to collect information because there were many applications and a heavy workload as reflected in the large HRB agendas. Staff had not wanted to wait until September to return with the agenda item, since it would require a longer extension of the interim regulations in order to make permanent regulations available. Staff would provide the information when Council examined the policy issues. Council Member Kniss clarified staff was unable to tell how the process was working to date. Ms. Fleming said staff was unable to provide specific numbers as to how many applications, how many had been difficult. However, Mr. Gilliland stated that the majority of the applications moved through the process smoothly with only a few problems. Some problems made better news while satisfied customers would not be heard from in the paper. If staff thought there were grave problems, an extension would not have been requested. Council Member Kniss said a decision was being made to move ahead without a great deal of information. Parts of the recommendation were discomforting. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, agreed with Council Member Kniss. The interim regulations were created as a temporary measure but might last for over a year, which was too long. The merit screening process were effective. The goal should be to heighten community awareness without an autocratic system. The regulations went too far and should be changed to voluntary compliance. Council was cautioned against becoming too involved in personal property rights. The City should not be a planned community but a diverse city which met contemporary needs.
08/11/97 84-197
Alice Mansell, 550 Santa Rita Avenue, said Council specified that any contract should have public participation and workshops. Realtors were delegated to two positions on the Historic Ordinance Advisory Group (HOAG) as indicated on pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit A, Scope of Project and Time Schedule, of Attachment 1, the contract between the City and Dames & Moore, Inc., of the staff report (CMR:354:97). They were professionals who should be included to a greater degree. She urged Council to find out whether people were happy with the process procedurally, and how many sales or deals had been lost because of associated delays as well as fears and uncertainties, and whether appeals to designations had affected other properties. Howard Churcher, 1205 Fulton Street, said as of July 24, 1997, according to the City printout 128 applications went through the new process which, Of the 128, 23 were found without merit with the remainder receiving either contributing or landmark status. In the average case, 38 days had been necessary for the HRB process, with some taking as long as 48 days or four months if an appeal to Council were filed. Of the 128, 22 went through the compatibility study at an average of 65 days, after plans were submitted. He phoned some people on the list and each indicated the process was terrible but dared not to do anything about it. Having gone through the system himself, he considered it very tedious, costly, etc. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said many in the community rejoiced at the passage of the interim regulations in an attempt to prevent the loss of the fabric of neighborhood which was composed of individual homes that made up the history of a neighborhood. Even smaller homes contributed to neighborhoods. The HRB was professional in its approach to the reviews. The City should strive to ensure homes of architectural importance were not lost and that changes were compatible with the character of neighborhoods. The overheated market and possible profits resulted in very little respect to neighborhood character or neighbors. The City's zoning ordinance assisted in arbitrating between neighbors which, although inadequate, was in existence. The compatibility review was very important in neighborhoods where rapid change was taking place. The new ordinance was preferable to a moratorium and allowed people movement while protecting the interests of historic structures and the historic fabric of neighborhoods. Scott Wilson, 509 Hale Street, spoke regarding property owners caught in the middle of the struggle between interim regulations and the need to proceed. Council was urged to consider making compliance with the ordinance voluntary until the interim process was completed.
08/11/97 84-198
Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue, spoke regarding implementation of the interim regulations. While the real estate community appreciated the initial intent of the ordinance to increase the inventory of historical properties, issues were raised concerning whether or not to conduct design review, eliminate poorly constructed buildings of the past few years, and set standards. Council was asked, over the following months, to secure more information about the process to assist in moving ahead with developing permanent regulations. The real estate community wanted to assist the City in gathering materials with which to design permanent regulations. Moving ahead to institutionalize the interim regulations was questioned. A survey of individuals who went through the process was suggested. Council was urged to postpone signing of the contract until September at which time more information could be gathered by which to make a decision.
Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, questioned Council=s making a decision based on an article filled with misconceptions which had appeared in the newspaper. He went through the process as an architect. Although the process was difficult, the next time through would be easier. Part of the learning curve involved knowing what to provide staff in order to get the project through. The list was very clear which, if followed, allowed going through the process more quickly. The community would benefit by the ordinance, and it should not be allowed to fall away because of an incorrect article in the newspaper. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding the importance of maintaining the interim ordinance and possibly speeding up the process. Consideration of the interim ordinance failed to recognize that the process was new and only took three weeks. The screening process should be considered in the same light as the time necessary to put a house on the market. A great deal of misinformation had been disseminated to the public about the interim ordinance, which caused many to make decisions and opinions based on wrong information. Council was asked to extend the interim ordinance while publishing an accurate account of the interim ordinance. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, said the goal was laudable. However, the process placed everyone involved in a straightjacket. Architects and designers on the HRB were to be respected, but the lay members became too emotionally involved and desired to create history whether or not history existed. Providing a biography of people alive in 1900-1950 failed to automatically make a structure historical. Council was urged to establish a committee of professionals to conduct the historical review with an architectural review of new plans. Funneling everything through Barbara Judy resulted in a timelag and created difficulties. The issue of windows had become difficult. Wooden windows were no longer available, and steel windows were not considered historical. The interim definitions were also criticized. The regulations
infringed on people=s rights.
08/11/97 84-199
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Wheeler said the Council Chambers was filled with people passionately demanding that something be done differently from the way it had been done in the past only a short time before. Council and staff made decisions based on the suggestions which were made. She was horrified at the possibility of returning to status quo prior to adoption of the interim regulations. Difficulties appeared along the way but were one of the reasons to move ahead with full participation of various segments of the community to design a permanent ordinance with as much combination of due consideration and due speed to come up with the best solution possible. The scope of the consultant services was seen before. The best way to smooth the difficulties was to approve the contract with the consultant and move forward with the process of designing the permanent regulations. During the interim period, information would be gathered from community participants. One round of "tweaks" to the interim regulations had been conducted. As staff identified minor but highly annoying aspects of the process which could and should be addressed within the interim regulations, they should be brought forward to Council. One of the ways to move the process along was to involve the public more in the planning process and to get good and reliable information within the context of moving ahead. Staff was urged to clean up the language identified by Ms. Mansell on page 7 during the workshops. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the City Council: 1) approve the consultant contract with Dames & Moore for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updating the Historic Inventory for a total maximum amount of $219,500; 2) authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to negotiate and execute change orders for services that occur during the project related to, or incidental to, the scope of work; the total value of these amendments shall not exceed $12,500; and 3) introduce the Ordinance extending the Interim Historic Regulations for six months to May 31, 1998.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations] Shall
be in Effect≅ Council Member McCown supported the motion. Ironically, the item recommended: 1) moving forward with the process of developing and adopting the permanent regulations, which should not have come as any surprise to anyone since it had been the intent from the very beginning but had been delayed; and 2) extending the interim regulation to May 1998, which made logical sense. For individuals concerned about the interim rules, extending the interim regulations even to May 1998 was a problem. The interim
08/11/97 84-200
regulations had already been tweaked once. Concrete proposals, not running counter to the policy goals, for improving the process were worth examining. At the current time, the top priority was to stay with the process to obtain the expertise the Dames & Moore consultants would bring to write a new historic preservation ordinance for the City. The content, whether employing the techniques the interim rules had to employ because of the emergency
situation, was what the process would be all about. ΑCarrots≅ were
preferred to Αsticks≅ in the permanent set of rules as a much more effective process and limited way to use the ultimate power to prevent the demolition of key landmark structures, which should be used sparingly and with an incentive process more heavily, all of which was part of what the process over the following months would illuminate. The offer from the real estate community was important and was the area in which participation should focus, i.e., the knowledge brought into the drafting of the permanent rules for historic preservation in the City. The City's action in Fall 1996 to clearly and intentionally slow the pace of demolition and loss of older structures had an impact on people's plans. It was always
difficult to hear how such decisions impacted individuals= situations. However, the long-range community goals needed to be kept in mind. The City experienced similar problems when handling the R-1 regulations. It was unavoidable and made Council unhappy when people in the community were unhappy. Moving the consultant agreement along was the way to proceed. Council Member Eakins said South Palo Alto was drastically affected by the influx of builders who had been driven out of the north by interim regulations, were demolishing post-1940 houses at a rapid rate, and replacing them with the kind of houses that complaints had been waged against just a year before. Nevertheless, she supported the motion to extend the interim regulations and the contract for the consultant to complete the inventory and develop permanent regulations. The historic replacement regulations had been targeted at the kind of replacement house she had just described. Perhaps the net's mesh had been slightly too fine, especially in some people's experience. It had caught many well-intentioned but untrained homeowners who had ideas which had run up against the compatibility standards. The City experienced much tension from the emotion, which, although unfortunate, was the price for corrective change. Using the historic merit and age of buildings as a device for design standards was not enough. The standards were insufficient. Design standards were necessary for houses all over town which were not tied solely to historic designations. The interim regulations should be supported. Council Member Kniss said Council began the process in Fall 1996 after two years of worrying about what had been happening in the community. She received many telephone calls about houses being destroyed and replaced by a particular type of house. The regulations would allow control of what went back up in a neighborhood far more than what had gone down. Support was given
08/11/97 84-201
to the motion along with suggestions. Figures from staff were requested. Mr. Churcher was able to provide Council with figures staff was not able to provide. The interim regulations were not designed with a view to punish but to protect the community. She questioned whether the City conveyed a message in a way that made it very hard for the public. The process should be positive. Finding a house to be contributing should be positive. In addition to providing actual figure reports, staff was asked to provide anecdotal evidence to provide Council with both sides of the issue. The City had two choices: 1) let the interim regulations run out, which would not resolve the situation, or 2) start down a path to finding a permanent solution with which all could work. The process needed to be altered to the point that dissatisfaction would not be heard loudly from individuals desirous of remodeling. Council Member Rosenbaum said the interim regulations would probably be in force for a longer period than anticipated, particularly as people became aware of what the City attempted to accomplish. Finding some reasonable consensus for a satisfactory solution would be more difficult to obtain. The simple process of the R-1 change in the floor area ratio had taken considerable time. He joined in Council Member Wheeler's desire for staff to find ways of simplifying the interim regulations, and staff was urged to bring revisions to Council as necessary. Council had no option but to take the actions delineated in the staff report (CMR:354:97). Council Member McCown said the historic preservation and design review issues had become combined. However, design review was a much broader question for single-family neighborhoods than historic preservation. She wanted to see the two separated. The goal for the consultant contract was to work out the new historic preservation ordinance, which was a separate issue from the question of whether design reviews should be conducted for all single-family neighborhoods in Palo Alto. Council Member Rosenbaum alluded to a major issue which was not the issue for Dames & Moore. Although Council mixed the two issues because of the emergency nature of the situation, the Dames & Moore process should extract only the historic preservation aspect as a model for the City. Then a future Council could take on single-family design review. Mayor Huber said Council knowingly cast a wide net when the emergency ordinance was passed, and many things were included that should not have been. However, the net was wide enough to ensure nothing had been lost. Once lost, a historic site could not be replaced. He preferred erring on the side of being over-broad rather than losing something which could be a classic. However, it was important to move along to a final ordinance, whatever it turned out to be. He believed the City would receive good and helpful input from all elements of the community, because the community was behind the ordinance. Anecdotal problems would not help solve the problem or write a good ordinance They would only indicate the problem. People who were most interested should
08/11/97 84-202
provide the City with important, clean, clear suggestions as to how to make the ordinance workable. He appreciated the fact that staff was busy and understaffed; however, the ordinance needed to be completed. The City needed preservation, but it also needed something upon which people could rely and would not change. Council Member Wheeler asked for clarification on the contract language related to the workshops. Mr. Schreiber said two workshops would be held in October and two in January. One of the October workshops would be with the realtors and the other with the general public. One January workshop would be with the architectural design professionals and the other with the general public. Staff had not specified the workshops in the scope of work, but as noted in the staff report (CMR:354:97), one would be for the real estate professionals in October. Council Member Wheeler said the concept, if not the precise words, was contained in the staff report (CMR:354:97). Mr. Schreiber replied yes. The work program had been put together to provide flexibility in case a different direction was desired. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 18. Report on Property Line Dispute at 1201 Webster/618 Kingsley Mayor Huber opened the public hearing. Carol Lamont, 618 Kingsley Avenue, spoke regarding the builder responsible for violation of building codes, City ordinances, and established laws and failing to utilize due process for the property. Council was asked to challenge the practices and take preventative actions to preclude unscrupulous business practices in the future. Police and Building Department staff had been aware of prior problems with the builder. Examples of false reports filed by the builder and attempts to violate City codes and ordinances were given. Daniel Meyers, 316 Escuela Avenue, Mountain View, spoke regarding the builder's failure to pay contractors, deviation from plans, problems with neighbors over property lines, and trampling of fences, vegetable gardens, etc. On 50 occasions, the builder was found in violation but failed to pay even after monies had been awarded. Support was given to Ms. Lamont's comments. Rob Hoffman, 618 Kingsley Avenue, said Council should not become involved with a property line dispute. The issue was not a property line dispute, but about the pressure on Palo Alto that builders who built in bad faith were bringing problems to Palo
08/11/97 84-203
Alto. Council was asked to find ways to toughen its rules for dealing with such builders, especially builders who had a long history of problems. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, agreed with the previous speakers. The builder built a few houses in Barron Park, threatened elderly women, tore down fences, built houses above the heigh limit, built up the surrounding land, etc. The next time the builder came in for a building permit, staff could require a $2 million bond because of all the problems in the past. Then when the builder violated a City ordinance, monies could be taken from the bond. Mayor Huber closed the public hearing. Council Member McCown asked whether action was necessary regarding the conflict of interest issue. Mayor Huber understood if Council requested nothing, it would simply proceed. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Mayor Huber was correct. No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
08/11/97 84-204