HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-04 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting May 4, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................86-226 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................86-226 ADJOURNMENT:: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m............86-226 1. Architectural Review Board Design Awards..............86-227
2. City Manager=s Report re Flood ........................86-228 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................86-229 3. Ratification of Continuing Emergency "El Nino 98" Disaster86-229 4. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and D. W. Nicholson for Repair of the Exhaust Pipe on Incinerator #2 at the Water Quality Control Plant.......................86-229
5. Ordinance 4498 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Accept a $9,207 Grant from the California Arts Council and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $9,207" .......................86-229 6. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and United States Geological Survey (USGS) for Bay Monitoring...........86-229 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal by Janice Phebus of the Zoning Administrator=s denial of a Use Permit to convert an existing two-car garage into a second residential dwelling unit and a Variance to allow a second dwelling unit with a rear setback of 6 feet where 20 feet is required for property located at 1088 Maddux..86-229 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Development Project Preliminary Review Application (Prescreening) for a proposed zone change for property located
05/04/98 86-224
at 800 High Street from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) District to the Planned Commu-nity (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three-story mixed use building including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. (To be continued at the request of the applicant)........................................86-235 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $17,983 to Palo Alto Community Child Care in Support of a Pre-Kindergarten ProgramAmendment No. 4 to Contract No. C5053189 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Community Child Care for Support of a Pre-Kindergarten Program........86-236 10. Downtown Public Restrooms - Approval to Negotiate Agreement with JCDecaux for Installation and Maintenance of Automated Public Toilets........................................86-236 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........86-239 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.............86-239
05/04/98 86-225
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Susan Ryerson, Michael Jackson, Joe Saccio, Larry Starr, Paul Thiltgen, Richard James, and Tom Habashi) Represented Employee Organization: Service Employees Interna-tional Union, Local 715 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT:: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
05/04/98 86-226
Regular Meeting May 4, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:11 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Architectural Review Board Design Awards Mayor Rosenbaum presented a proclamation to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in recognition of its 25th anniversary. David Ross, former chairperson of the ARB, said the goals and purpose of the ARB as stated in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
were to Αpromote orderly and harmonious development of the city, to enhance the desirability of residence and investment in the city, to encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements, to enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas, and to promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and
which at the same time are considerate of each other.≅ Some said the goals left room for plenty of interpretation by the staff and the ARB; however, staff and the ARB members applied no fewer than 56 objective standards of review to each application in order to judge its worthiness. The purpose of the awards that evening was threefold: 1) to honor those who had collaborated to make extraor-
dinary contributions to the Αbuilt≅ environment; 2) to give examples that might serve the corporate, retail, and development communities as they worked toward the elusive approval of projects; and 3) to celebrate good design as an essential part of the quality of life in the community. The ARB decided upon three rules for the design awards: 1) designs had to be approved by the ARB between January 1, 1994, and June 1, 1997, and they had to be built; 2) designs would be judged on the merits of the applications them-selves; and 3) nominations could not include projects designed or built by current ARB members. Mayor Rosenbaum announced design award recipients which included the Bank of America at 375 Arboretum, ELS/Elbasani & Logan Architects, Stanford Management Company, Owner, and Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd., Contractor; Genencor at 925 Page Mill Road, MBT Associates, Architect, Stanford Management Company, Owner, and Rudolph & Sletten, Contractor; Palo Alto Avenue and Alma Street Bridge, ARCHON Architect and Planners, City of Palo Alto, Owner, and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., Contractor;
Children=s Health Council at 700 Sand Hill Road, Ehrlich-Rominger
architects, Inc., Children=s Health Council, Owner, and E.A.
05/04/98 86-227
Hathaway and Company, Inc., Contractor; ZAO Noodles at 261 University Avenue, Arcanum Architects, Adam Willner, Owner, and Swenson Construction, Contractor. 1A. Mayor Rosenbaum welcomed Boy Scout Troop 87 to the City Council Meeting.
2. City Manager=s Report re Flood City Manager June Fleming reported on the management of San Francisquito Creek. The Northwest District Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee met and $500,000 of its 1998-99 budget was set aside for preliminary studies of San Francisquito Creek flood and erosion control options. The Board would take action on the item in June. Staff had received calls regarding the disposal of sandbags. Sandbags could be returned to the Palo Alto Airport or the landfill. In answer to questions raised regarding how the sandbags could be used, she said the sand, which was river sand, could be used like clay soil around the home. For more informa-tion, people should call the City of Palo Alto Recycling Program. The City was trying to initiate a volunteer program to assist in the removal of sandbags. The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) station at Mitchell Park Community Center would close as of May 8. The Small Business Association (SBA) representatives would not be at Mitchell Park after that date except by appointment to give out checks for completed and approved loan applications. After May 8, 1998, the phone numbers for the various agencies would
be available in the City Manager=s Office. Dimensions Unlimited which gave general assistance to persons who were having difficulty with the forms from FEMA was discontinuing the service due to low usage. All help line calls were currently answered but would be discontinued after May 15. Staff had originally committed to return to the Council on Monday, May 11, 1998, with flood related items. Due to the pressure and magnitude of work, an adjustment to the schedule would be as follows: On May 11, 1998, staff recommen-dation re FEMA Flood Zone Maps, status report on flood protection activities for San Francisquito Creek, and the CRIMP report on flood protection alternatives. Two other items that would be
delayed until June 8 were staff=s response to the flood and the Emergency Management Plan. She noted the status on the use of approval for credits regarding utility bills. People were asked to pay bills when they were received and were given a number to call for customer service. A credit would appear on the next bill for flood related adjustments. As of noon that day, there had been 349 persons requesting assistance for approximately $26,000. The final item regarded potential trail damage. At Foothills Park, the backside of Los Trancos Trail was closed, and there were two trails closed at the Arastradero Preserve as well. No action required.
05/04/98 86-228
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, spoke regarding University Circle (submitted correspondence. Jared Bernstein, 1330 Tasso Avenue, spoke regarding historic study. Daniel Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding historic preservation ordinance. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good govern-ment. T. J. Watt, former resident, spoke regarding paramedics using involuntary institutionalization for addicts instead of Stanford emergency room. Ann Elise Emerson, 1849 Middlefield, spoke regarding Historic Resources Board study list. Jim Fruchterman, 1850 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding housing. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-6. 3. Ratification of Continuing Emergency "El Nino 98" Disaster 4. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and D. W. Nicholson for Repair of the Exhaust Pipe on Incinerator #2 at the Water Quality Control Plant
5. Ordinance 4498 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Accept a $9,207 Grant from the California Arts Council and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $9,207" 6. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and United States Geological Survey (USGS) for Bay Monitoring MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal by Janice Phebus of the Zoning Administrator=s denial of a Use Permit to convert an existing two-car garage into a second residential dwelling unit and a Variance to allow a
05/04/98 86-229
second dwelling unit with a rear setback of 6 feet where 20 feet is required for property located at 1088 Maddux. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the item before the Council was an appeal by the applicant of a Use Permit and Variance application for a second unit on a single-family lot where the rear setback would be 6 feet rather than the required 20 feet. The structure in question, the garage, was built around 1952. Sometime before 1997, the garage had been converted to a habitable unit with the addition of a kitchen within the existing structure and without benefit of building permits or planning approval. Staff was made aware of the situation through a complaint by a neighbor. All second units in single-family districts required use permits. Variances were only required for second units if there were a site development requirement that was not being met, i.e., a setback, a height limit, site coverage, or floor area ratios. Staff denied the variance due to an inability to make the three required findings. First, there were no exceptional circumstances on the site which was a flat, rectangular, 8500-square-foot parcel without distinguishing environmental or landscape features. In the
appellant=s argument, he believed unusual circumstances existed because when the garage was built, the definition of side and rear setbacks had been changed, which rendered the structure noncomply-ing. Staff found no concrete evidence that the definitions had ever been changed and considered the garage an existing nonconform-ing structure. Second, the enjoyment of a property right had not been reduced by denial of the variance. There were conforming locations on the site where the second unit could be placed and would not require a variance. The appellant believed the unusual circumstances outlined in the first finding warranted a reduction in property rights. Third, the granting of the application would not be detrimental to the neighbors. Staff found it had the potential to be detrimental to the neighbors in that the living unit was brought closer to a rear property line than would ordinarily be expected or desired in a single-family neighborhood. The appellant believed there was no detrimental impact in that the garage existed for many years and had not been considered a
detriment to the neighborhood. Staff=s position was that the garage was not the detriment, but the intensified use of a living unit that close to the property line that constituted the detri-ment. The item was heard by the Planning Commission who believed the three findings could be made. Staff recommended denial of the appeals, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the appeals. Planning Commission Chairperson Bern Beecham said the Planning Commission had a split approval to support the appellant. The situation was marginal and clouded by the fact the appellant had made some illegal improvements on the property in the past. However, the Planning Commission felt that using a zoning decision as either a reward or punishment for any previous actions was not appropriate. On the basis of the parcel, the Planning Commission was split on making the findings, the most difficult one being
05/04/98 86-230
whether or not there was in fact a hardship created by the situation. With respect to being a detriment to the neighborhood, the cottage would be next to the defacto side yard of the adjoining parcel where a garage also existed. The big issue on a zoning basis was what was the front yard and side yard. The zoning law said one thing, and both parcels were built according to a different set of rules.
Council Member Wheeler said the Planning Commission=s findings indicated it agreed with the appellant that there would be an unnecessary hardship on the applicant if the Council denied the variance. She recalled an old idiom that said an applicant could not create a legitimate hardship for oneself. In the current situation, the hardship seemed to be that improvements that had been made would need to be removed. She had been taught that if improvements were made without benefit of permits, in essence, one had created his/her own hardship.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne did not have an Αas-a-matter-of-law≅
kind of answer but agreed Council Member Wheeler=s point was well taken. The record could be construed in that manner but was not required to be. Both the staff and Planning Commission had a point of view and it would be best to hear the evidence. Mr. Beecham did not believe a severe hardship existed. The hardship was the requirement to build an additional structure for a new cottage versus building an additional structure for a carport and the dollar impact. He believed there was another impact on the neighbors separate from the hardship issue. Mayor Rosenbaum referred to the plans which depicted an interpreta-tion of front and side yard as it currently existed and another interpretation as it must have been if the City would not have allowed the construction if it were in violation of the zoning. He asked staff to comment on the claim of the appellant that most likely the rules must have been different or the City would not have allowed it to be done. Ms. Grote believed the appellant asserted that when the garage and house were built there were different definitions of side, rear, and front setbacks. She had not found concrete evidence of that in researching zoning ordinances back to 1946. The plans depicted what the appellant believed to be setbacks when the house and garage were constructed. Council Member Eakins had reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting which discussed the lot size for which a second unit could be considered appropriate and asked whether the site met that requirement.
05/04/98 86-231
Ms. Grote said the site was 8500 square feet and met the minimum lot size limit for a second unit, which was 8300 square feet for an R-1 lot. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. James Thorne, 370 El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, represented Janice Phebus, the owner of the property. When a complaint was filed by a neighbor, Ms. Phebus was told the improvements to the garage needed to be removed. During the Conditional Use Permit process, he discovered that the cottage did in fact sit in what currently was the rear yard setback. He was curious as to why every corner house in the subdivision was built in the same way, with the garage located in what appeared to be a side yard but was currently a rear yard. In looking at the tract map, he noticed the developer had made the corner lots 20 feet deeper than the other lots to accommodate a 20-foot front yard and 20-foot rear yard which faced onto the long street frontage. He researched the ordinances back to 1956; beyond 1956, he could not find any record. Subsequent to when the house was built in 1951, he believed the ordinance was changed and defined resulting in the short street frontage indeed becoming the front yard and the long street frontage becoming the side yard, which put all the corner lots throughout the subdivision as legal nonconforming lots. He did not believe it would be allowed had the ordinance been very well defined at that time and was the reason he took the argument the ordinance had been changed. Planning staff and the zoning administrator were going by the
Αbook≅; however, he did not believe it was the same book. With regard to the three findings for a variance, he believed the first finding, an unusual situation, did exist with a redefinition of the zoning ordinance and the setback rules and applied to all the houses in the same subdivision that were built on a corner lot. The Planning Commission agreed with that finding. He did not agree with the third finding, that of being detrimental to the neighbor-hood, since almost every internal lot had a house six feet from the property line on both sides. The cottage was probably within 42 feet of the other dwelling unit and 20 feet from the property line on the adjacent side. Planning staff indicated a location could be found on the property that would fulfill the current ordinance; however, the location would put the cottage back within six feet of the neighboring property line, which would be detrimental to that neighbor. The Planning Commission agreed with that finding. Finding two, was there a hardship to justify the finding, was in question. Setting aside the fact that a hardship existed for the building owner to take out the improvements, he believed at the time the building and garage were built, had someone wanted to convert the garage to a second unit, he/she could have done so without any problems with setbacks. When the ordinance was changed, that became impossible. By making the garage, and subsequently the cottage, a legal nonconforming structure was the hardship. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 in favor of the appellant. He urged the Council not to look at the issue from the
05/04/98 86-232
Αbook≅ because the book had changed, but from all the extenuating
circumstances and to confirm the Planning Commission=s recommenda-tion.
Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, currently lived in an Αin-law≅ unit and believed the Council had an obligation to increase the number of affordable housing units in the City as mandated by state law. The emphasis had been in the Downtown with Single Resident Occupancy (SRO) units and apartments. He believed single-family, residential areas had an obligation as well. The appellant was not making an improvement to the garage but was adding a unit, which would increase the density and was a social benefit that helped the City. He urged Council to consider the issue from that vantage point. There probably would be an impact on the neighbor; however, as a community, there was an obligation and sacrifice to be made. He urged Council to support the appellant Mr. Thorne said the original intended use of the cottage was for
the appellant=s aging parents. Due to the appellant=s own state of health, the unit was going to be used for a care giver. Mr. Calonne advised the Council that potential uses of the cottage were irrelevant. The property could be sold and some less laudable use could be made. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Wheeler clarified in terms of the variance that all three of the required findings needed to be made. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler asked whether that was also true of the use permit. Ms. Grote said two findings in the affirmative needed to be made. Council Member Wheeler was torn and agreed philosophically with
many of Mr. Dawid=s comments in terms of increasing the number of cottages in the community. She also knew all of the findings needed to be made in order to approve the variance. The first finding spoke to the uniqueness of the property, and there were enumerable lots throughout the City, within the neighborhood, and within the subdivision with the same circumstances. No matter how she twisted and turned in her emotional feelings, she was unable to come to the conclusion to make the first finding of extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property. The property was sufficiently large enough to accommodate a cottage in a manner and location that did not require a variance. There was an agreement within the community to increase the housing stock in that manner if it could be done in a way that did respect the setbacks and the
05/04/98 86-233
parking requirements in a neighborhood. She could not make the appropriate findings for the variance. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mosar, to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny the Variance and Use Permit applications for 1088 Maddux Drive subject to the findings and conditions: Variance Findings 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circum-stances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district in that the subject property is a corner lot that is substantially similar in terms of lot width, depth and area (80 feet by feet 120 feet and 8500 square feet, respectively), as other corner lots in the immediate vicinity and in the same zoning district. 2. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and does not consti-tute unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that a secondary residential unit could be located on the property in a manner that conforms to applicable zoning requirements. 3. The granting of the variance will be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal would locate the converted garage/second dwelling unit only six feet from the rear property line and, therefore, inappropriately close to the existing single family use on the adjacent parcel. Use Permit Findings 1. The proposed use will be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal would locate the converted garage/second dwelling unit only six feet from the rear property line and, therefore, inappropriately close to the existing single family use on the adjacent parcel. 2. The proposed use will not be located in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the second residential dwelling unit is proposed to be located in a required rear yard setback necessitat-
05/04/98 86-234
ing the granting of a Variance, the findings for which can not be made. Council Member Mossar said using the argument that a goal was set in the new Comprehensive Plan to provide additional housing in the community, it was inappropriate reasoning at the level of an individual application. Additional housing should not be done in an ad hoc manner but in a very carefully thought out manner using public process. Council Member Eakins leaned toward supporting the motion with reservations. Technically, a hardship existed when something was inflicted on the property owner by external circumstances. The front setback versus the side setback was also unclear as to what was right or wrong. She felt conflict regarding the philosophy. She believed in in-law cottages and second units where the community through its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance decided there was ample square footage to allow for such units. For the item under discussion, she was unsure that was the case or the right way to go about it. There were hard feelings about granting someone an exception when all the existing rules had been clearly violated. Mayor Rosenbaum was moved by the argument that when the house and garage were originally built, the setbacks must have been what the builder and the City agreed was proper. Clearly something illegal had been done; however, had that not been done, there would be a good argument to grant the variance. Assuming there were penalties for what had been done, those would be exacted if the construction were allowed to remain. He opposed the motion and supported the appellant. MOTION PASSED 5-1, Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Development Project Preliminary Review Application (Prescreening) for a proposed zone change for property located at 800 High Street from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) District to the Planned Commu-nity (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three-story mixed use building including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. (To be continued at the request of the applicant) Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open.
05/04/98 86-235
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to continue the Public Hearing to the Monday, May 26, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 5-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. ORDINANCES 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $17,983 to Palo Alto Community Child Care in Support of a Pre-Kindergarten Program Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. C5053189 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Community Child Care for Support of a Pre-Kindergarten Program MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Ojakian, to continue the item to the Monday, May 11, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 4-0, Wheeler Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 10. Downtown Public Restrooms - Approval to Negotiate Agreement with JCDecaux for Installation and Maintenance of Automated Public Toilets City Manager June Fleming said the issue of Downtown public restrooms had been discussed by the Council at various times. Staff had attempted to keep the Council informed on the status of the item among other Downtown maintenance issues. Staff was attempting to find facilities which would meet both the practical needs and would blend into what was being done in the Downtown area in terms of physical improvements. Staff determined two public restroom facilities could be accommodated in two locations. Staff
was asking Council=s permission to negotiate a contract with JCDecaux. Council Member Mossar said one of the proposed locations, Lot D, was not the most advantageous location and asked why the location had been selected. Acting Assistant Public Works Director John Carlsen said staff wanted to place a restroom in the eastern portion of the business district. The Downtown Master Plan indicated the parking lot behind Borders Book Store as a possible appropriate location. When looking at the site, staff felt the parking lot was not visible enough from the street for the initial positioning of a restroom
05/04/98 86-236
and a more visible location would be appropriate. After consider-ing various sites, staff believed Lot D had a better siting, and the restroom could be placed easier with a higher visibility. Council Member Mossar clarified long-range plans included the hope for locating public restrooms in to-be-built parking structures. Mr. Carlsen said staff was planning to put restrooms in both of the new parking structures. Council Member Mossar said one of the comments from the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce was that Lot D was not very visible and poorly lit. She asked to comment on lighting in that location. Mr. Carlsen said the plan was to put the restroom near the edge on Hamilton Avenue where there was lighting. The proposed location was not within the parking lot but adjacent to it close to the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. Ms. Fleming said foot traffic in that area was considerable. Staff was faced with trying to find a visible location, with appropriate lighting, sufficient space, and sufficient foot traffic. Addition-ally, the location needed to be desirable to the group designing the amenities for the Downtown and would not be a contradiction. The parking structures had not been eliminated; however, they would
not be ready for several years. Staff=s intent was to locate the restrooms close to both ends of the Downtown with sufficient lighting and traffic. Council Member Mossar wanted to be very clear that the purpose of the restrooms was to serve the public at large, i.e., Downtown customers, the homeless population, and residents. The locations needed to be serviceable for all members of the public. Ms. Fleming agreed with Council Member Mossar. Activity could be
intense in the proposed location became of the Farmer=s Market. Staff was conscious of the fact that the service was for everyone and not targeted for a certain population. Council Member Huber asked when the restrooms would become operative. Mr. Carlsen said the supplier indicated after the signing of the contract, the restrooms would take six months to order, deliver, and install. Council Member Huber clarified the City would be responsible for power, sewer, and water lines for installation so if the need arose to relocate one of the restrooms, it would not be that costly to do. Mr. Carlsen said yes.
05/04/98 86-237
Ms. Fleming said some cost would be involved if the restroom was moved to a location that necessitated plumbing, etc., but that it would not be significant. Council Member Huber had not read anything regarding the supplier. Mr. Carlson said JCDeaux had extensive facilities in Europe with approximately 4,000 units installed in approximately 550 cities throughout Europe. Council Member Huber anticipated there would be considerable service involved and wanted to ensure the stability of the supplier. Mr. Carlson was confident the supplier would be in business for a long time. Council Member Eakins asked how one of the restrooms could be installed in Parking Lot D without taking away any of the parking spaces. Mr. Carlsen said there was a possibility that parking spaces could be eliminated. The initial urban plan had indicated that approxi-mately 18 spaces might be removed as part of the total plan. It was anticipated that some spaces would be removed if units was placed in parking lots. Because of maintenance and access to the facility, two spaces would probably be eliminated in Lot D. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, was pleased to see the issue reach the current phase. As a Downtown merchant, she supported the proposed locations. She mentioned the controversial aspect of being a pay toilet but was happy to see the units being approved. She felt the location of the free standing units would eventually complement the future built-in units in the new parking structures. Irvin Dawid said he used the units in San Francisco and thought they were good. Mayor Willie Brown wanted additional units installed in the parks. The real controversy in San Francisco had to do with the size of the toilets and (American with Disabilities Act) ADA specificity. The cost of the units in San Francisco were excessive because the disabled community demanded access to all of them, raising the cost from a standard size unit. He agreed with Susan Frank and did not believe Parking Lot D was a suitable location. Lytton Plaza was preferable as it was an open, more welcoming site. The restrooms served people not automobiles, and he urged Council to keep that in mind. He suggested Cogswell Plaza and City Hall Plaza as more suitable locations for serving the people. The greatest cost was not the plumbing in the unit but the cost of the 18 lost parking places, which was another argument for locating them in pedestrian areas.
05/04/98 86-238
Council Member Ojakian asked whether any other location was considered near Borders Book Store. Mr. Carlsen said staff looked at the area around University Avenue and Cowper Street. It was difficult to find a place without putting the unit in the street. For the first two units, staff was trying to find areas of high use and visibility. Council Member Ojakian asked if the parking spaces that would be used were part of the assessment district. Ms. Fleming said the deficit for the parking spaces was included in the parking structure. Council Member Mossar asked whether the City would pay the assessment district for the use of the parking spaces. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said Lot D was a City lot; and to the extent that permit revenue was reduced as a result of the loss of the spaces, that would be factored into the assessment
district=s operating budget. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the staff recommendation to authorize staff to negotiate with JCDecaux for the installation of two Automatic Public Toilets (APT), based on information assembled by the City of San Jose in its Request for Proposal process, to be placed at Lytton Plaza and Parking Lot D. Council Member Huber said rather than debate the best location, people would be happy to have them installed. They could always be moved if the need arose; and in all probability, if they worked well, more would be installed. Council Member Ojakian was not so concerned about the locations. Because of the location of the potential parking structures, the arrangement worked well. The Planning Commission had also recommended the two locations mentioned by Mr. Dawid. In the case of City Hall, the building was unlocked during the day. The only deficit at some point would be a unit farther down on University Avenue. When the Planning Commission discussed the item, the units were as expensive as $80,000 a year. The good news was due to the collaborative effort with another governmental unit, the units were costing approximately $60,000. The two-year term of the contract was appropriate for determining future needs. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
05/04/98 86-239
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. in memory of Mildred Corcoran who served on the City Council from 1953 to 1965. 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.
05/04/98 86-240